1

Messages posted during the e-conference on “Successes and failures with animal nutrition practices and

technologies in developing countries (1–30 September 2010)”

The Moderator of the E conference from FAO, Rome, Italy Dear Colleagues,

Welcome to the FAO e-mail conference entitled ‘Successes and failures with animal nutrition practices and technologies in developing countries’. Today – on the opening day – three contributions will be sent for discussion through the FAO-AnimalFeeding-L Mail Server. All are on urea-ammoniation of straw and present different perspectives. You may now send your views and comments on these contributions or your experiences with this technology to: Harinder.Makkar@fao.org. Your contributions on the technologies and practices listed in the Background Document (sent earlier; can be downloaded from http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/documents/2010_sept_E-conference.pdf) can also be sent to the above given e-mail. Each contribution or a message from participants will be given a number in the sequence they will be sent to participants (message from the Moderator will not have a number). While giving comments and views on a contribution or message, please state last name of the contributor and serial number of the message to which your comments/views are addressed. This may be given at the beginning of your message. At the end of the message, please provide your name, affiliation and country. You are also requested to capitalise last name while sending a message, so that your name is properly quoted. It may please be noted that participants are assumed to be speaking on their own behalf, unless they state otherwise. Let us together make this conference a unique experience by actively participating, by giving descriptions and analyses of the experiences of using animal nutrition technologies and practices in our respective regions and countries, and by sharing thoughts and views. Let us participate with the spirit that ‘Knowledge sharing is powerful’. The moderator of the E conference Livestock Production Systems Branch

AGA, FAO, Rome

Note: The messages do not contain the pictures that were attached in some messages.

2

This is Bob ORSKOV (1) from the United Kingdom. I am sure everybody participating in the “e” conference will agree that while scientific

knowledge is transferable but how it is used to solve agricultural problems is often not. You can use the same science to develop different technologies; however the

way you use the knowledge has to match the specific situation. Technology transfer has to be viewed very critically. Transfer of technology is often used by Western

agribusinesses to promote products used in “so called” developed countries to “so called” developing countries as the philosophy: “You want to be developed so use

our technologies!” Often the technologies are labour saving technologies but if labour is not a problem. Labour saving devices are not an appropriate solution.

Use of urea for ammoniation of straw in China Urea at a level of about 5% sprayed on straw as a water solution, followed by storage for some days can have several attributes. 1. If straw is harvested in a wet form, urea solution, due to alkaline conditions resulting from ammonia formation from urea, can preserve straw. 2. Due to the alkaline condition created it can make straw about 10% more digestible than untreated straw. 3. Ruminants fed such straw ad lib can eat about 50% more than they could consume the untreated form. In 1986 FAO had a message from China that they have an excess of straw but not enough meat. Can we be better at converting excess straw to beef? I was one of the team members to be sent out to China and while the Chinese wanted more sophisticated technology e.g. gaseous ammonia. It was evident that this was not a suitable technology since infrastructure for the use of gaseous ammonia was not available. Urea was available and could easily be used by small farmers with small amounts of straw e.g. ½ tone. On the insistence of Chinese authorities on the use of gaseous ammonia, a compromise was arrived. The so called advanced method of ammoniation using ammonia was introduced in Hebei province and urea-ammoniation in Henan province. In both the provinces the ammoniated straw was fed to yellow cattle. After 2 years all farmers in Hebei province shifted to urea-ammoniation technology. The attributes 2 and 3 mentioned above made the urea-ammonization technology economical. The cattle could eat 50% more of a surplus product which after treatment was 10% more digestible and could, for the Chinese yellow cattle, provide 90% of the diet for fattening, with about 10% supplement of wheat bran. In addition to demonstrations by extension workers, farmers taught each other. In 1994, I was told that more than 9 million farmers were using the technology and making a good profit from doing so. At that time FAO of course was proud of the success the technology achieved in poverty alleviation for small farmers and wanted to promote the technology to other

3

areas. On this front, however, was often a problem. Firstly, high cost of urea and its unavailability prevented its wide scale application in some countries, and the full benefits of the ammoniation technology could not be realized due to unavailability of surplus straw in others. In North Africa e.g. Tunisia, there was no surplus of straw which meant that the only benefit was the increase in digestibility which most often made it unprofitable to use, and in dry areas preservation of straw (another advantage of ammoniation technology) was not a problem. Some farmers tested the technology, but it was most often given up. The lessons learned were that in China where there was a surplus of straw and urea was cheap, the attributes 2 and 3 mentioned above were fulfilled and in addition ammoniation also increased N content of the feed. So technology was economical under these situations. But it could be that for one farmer who has no surplus of straw and his neighbour with a surplus of straw, ammoniation may be not be economical for the former farmer to use it. More positive and beneficial aspects a technology can provide, the more economical it is likely to be. Other attribute which also determines success or failure of this technology is the type and breed of animals. Chinese yellow cattle have a high rumen volume relative to body weight, and hence could consume a large amount of straws. In addition, the Chinese extension services are well organised and people (farmers) listen to the official authorities. Both these non-technological attributes also helped in wide adoption of the technology in China. In some countries straws are used for other purposes such as a fuel or as mulch in the field, these uses could also come in the way of wider application of the ammoniation technology. Prof E R ORSKOV IFRU Macaulay Institute Craigiebuckler Aberdeen AB15 8QH Tel 44 (0)1224 395286 (direct) Tel:44 (0) 1224 395000 (main) Fax 44 (0) 1224 395035 Email: b.orskov@macaulay.ac.uk boborskov@hotmail.com http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/IFRU <http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/IFRU>

4

I am Dr Mahesh CHANDER (2) from India

Urea Treatment of Straw- hugely extolled rarely used Green fodder is one of the best options for feeding livestock but availability of green fodder is very limited in most of the rainfed/dry regions especially during summer. Therefore, most of the livestock in rainfed subsistence systems are raised on crop residues including rice and wheat straws, in India, for instance. These residues and straws are of poor quality, deficient in nutritive values and of poor digestibility. Urea treatment is reported to improve the nutritive value of cereal straws by increasing digestibility, palatability and crude protein content. Urea treatment of poor quality roughage, thus, is considered a proven technology to improve the nutritive value of roughages. Opinion on its utility and application in the field, however, is varied among animal nutrition scientists/experts, farmers, extension workers. Questions to be answered If the technology is so good, why farmers don’t adopt it? What makes farmers adopt certain technologies and ignore many of these potential technologies? How extension systems should convince the farmers that they respond to these proven technologies? What is the future of such technologies? What is an appropriate or inappropriate technology; urea treatment may be a very good technology but is it an appropriate one for the small scale farming situations? In final analysis, where does urea treatment of straw stand as far as adoption by small scale farmers is concerned? What is scientifically correct may not be feasible under field conditions. Can we learn lessons from success stories from some parts for replication elsewhere? Are these success stories result of a deliberate effort by some development agencies through monetary incentives and the technology was disowned once the outside support was withdrawn? Often it is the case – so long support mechanism is in place farmers follow the practice and return to the original state once support is withdrawn. This may be true for the success stories, if any, concerning urea treatment too? We need to know experiences of others from different livestock extension systems and regions about the urea treatment technology. Do they see any hope in it, if yes, how? And if not, why? We need to document the experiences, good or bad, of others so that we learn lessons and move on. Urea treatment is perhaps a classic case of mismatch between the perceived usability and appropriateness at the level of scientists; while farmers and extension agencies find it difficult to convince either of these as both find themselves correct. If the technology is really good as most of the scientist consider, the farmers in tropical countries should adopt it on a large scale and extension agencies should use all of their skills in motivating and convincing farmers for its adoption, but is it going to happen? If not, WHY?? If yes, HOW?

5

May be all are right in their own way! Animal Nutritionists: An excellent technology worth large scale adoption by farmers especially in subsistence rainfed situation. The extension workers are responsible for its poor adoption by farmers as they are not aware about its proper use, so they find difficult to convince farmers about the benefits of the technology. For instance, the moisture level (amount of water) of straw during treatment and duration of the treatment need to be understood by the extension workers. Initially suggested duration of the treatment was three weeks but later with experience and refinement of the technology, it was observed that in Indian conditions seven days of the treatment time is sufficient for the treatment and thereafter the treated straw could be fed to animals. Earlier, the farmers used to find the period (three weeks) long and regular supply of treated straw for the animal was one of the important issues. The extension workers or all those responsible for dissemination of this technology need to be properly trained before they approach farmers for demonstration. The farmers need to be convinced that when they don’t have green fodder, feeding of the treated straws is the only option. This requires a good understanding of the treatment process and location specific indicators. The extension system is the main culprit for not being able to disseminate this technology to a large number of farmers. Wherever, sincere efforts have been made, its success is clearly seen (http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/8/roy18118.htm <http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/8/roy18118.htm>). Extension workers: Urea treatment is considered a risky technology by majority of the farmers, chances of toxicity discourage farmers. In case of any mishap, who is going to take the blame? Animal nutrition scientists/experts will not be there to save us! Resource poor farmers have a very low risk bearing ability so they get scared with this type of technology. Instances of its use in organized farms, especially in research institutes are also rare. Also, some farmers feel that animals consume more straws when fed the treated one so their stock is finished quickly and they are left with no more feeding stuff. Besides, the resource persons for demonstration of this technology are limited. In research institutions scientists who are not directly involved in this project, don’t want to explain this technology. So, proper guidance is not available on its use. Whenever, we want to demonstrate this technology to farmers, they show reluctance with so many excuses like logistic problems. Even if they allow us to do on-farm demonstrations, later they don’t follow it on their own. This is really very puzzling that farmers even when they agree that it is a very good technology don’t practice it. Farmers: Generally farmers have not heard about this technology - no one informed them about this technology. Secondly, farmers do not feel comfortable in feeding urea to animals, which they believe is like a poison. Thirdly, the farmers have not seen any farmer large or small anywhere using this technology, “seeing is believing” shows us where it is successfully being done, we will think over it in our situation. Lastly, availability of straws with farmers is limited.

6

Independent observations: Some independent professionals visited the villages in the vicinity of a national institute where this technology was being demonstrated and promoted for over 10 years by the scientists involved in developing the technology. This practice was not popular in the village though the farmers knew about it. It was not diffused among non contact farmers despite the efforts for over 10 years. Also, the extension personnel of the institute such as Krishi Vigyan Kendra (an extension body in India) demonstrated it in different villages but later farmers were found not using it on their own. May be the impact of the technology is not visible and so apparent that farmers readily adopt it. Moreover, the farmers were found to be interested more on associated benefits of the experts’ visits to their village than on the actual practice. They were expecting free distribution of mineral mixture, veterinary medicines etc. Ironically, the non-animal nutrition scientists were not only ignorant about it but also found having negative attitude towards this technology including their belief that it is a harmful practice. When the highly educated and trained scientists hold a negative feeling about a technology, it becomes even more difficult to convince farming community. Possible solution: participatory technology development, refinement & dissemination No technology is worthwhile if it is not adopted by intended users. Urea treatment is not used on a wide scale by the farmers because of inadequate extension efforts to popularize the technology, myths associated with it, non-availability of sufficient straw and the limited availability of liquid cash with farmers for purchasing urea, as reported by many workers. Moreover, various components: the research system, the extension system and the client/user system work in isolation – independent of each other, without getting to know each others opinions on the technology. A technology and its dissemination need to be better understood through farmer-scientist-extension worker interactions and participatory technology appraisals methods. If all sit together, listen to each other, clarify doubts and confusions and work out a strategy for dissemination, the technology will be better adopted. Dr Mahesh CHANDER Principal Scientist & Head Div. of Extension Education Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatangar-243 122 (UP) India Mob: +919411087833 Email: drmahesh.chander@gmail.com

7

I am Dr. T.K. WALLI (3) from India, Sharing my experiences of using the urea-ammoniation technology Urea Treatment of Straw Background “Urea Treatment of Straw” was developed in the eighties for use in tropical countries, especially, the Afro-Asia region, to bring about some improvement in the palatability, digestibility and the nutritive value of fibrous crop residues from cereal grains (straws and stovers), which are generally of poor quality and are the major roughage source for feeding ruminants. Based on the large number of on-farm trials, done in several countries under rural conditions, feeding of urea treated straw (as against untreated straw) enhanced feed intake of animals by 10-15 percent and the growth rate of calves by 100-150 g/day. In milk animals, the increase in milk yield was seen to be varying from 0.5 – 1.5 liters/day. The technology appeared to be very attractive from the farmer’s point of view, as evident from their very positive response (feed back) during the on-farm trials conducted at their fields. The additional cost of the technology, including urea and labour comes to around 20 percent of the cost of the straw. Reasons for its success and failure Since the technology of “Urea Treatment of Straw” offers so many benefits to the farmer under tropical situations, in terms of improving the productive performance of the animals at a cheaper cost, it has become a kind of success story in many south east Asian countries, especially, China, Vietnam and Thialand, where a large number of livestock farmers are using this technology today. In China and Vietnam, the technology was done on a larger scale as community projects. In other countries also, the success for the technology came as a result of the cooperative efforts of the farmers. However, in spite of the very good response obtained by the farmers during on-farm trials, as personally experienced by the author, the technology could not become a popular feeding technology among the Indian farmers, unlike in South–East Asian countries, where it is being practiced by farmers. The Indian farmers have failed to adopt this technology because of the following reasons: a) The farmers are short of space and they have to clear the field for the next crop and hence prefer to burn the straw, especially in Northern states of India. b) It requires substantial quantities of clean and fresh water @ 50 liters/100 kg of straw, which could be constraint at times. If the water from a pond is used, it could result in spoilage of straw due to fungal infestation.

8

c) The stack has to be properly covered with polythene sheet to avoid spoilage by rain, and many farmers may not be able to afford purchasing it. d) For preparation of the urea solution, which involves dissolving 4 kg of urea in 50 liters of fresh water, a drum of 100 liter capacity is required, which may not be available with the poor farmer. e) Preparing a stack of 2500 kg of straw, apart from requiring 100 kg of urea and 1250 liters of water, also needs at least 3 men for at least 3 hours to complete the process. All this appears to be a cumbersome and time consuming exercise and is a costly affair for the poor farmer. e) The technology has failed to be adopted by the farmers in India, as it was never tried under cooperative efforts, which appears to be an important factor for its adoption under tropical situation. Future of this technology in India In its present form, it is difficult for an individual farmer to adopt this technology. Either the technology needs to be operated on collective or cooperative basis, or alternatively, it needs to be upgraded and further refined so that the treatment by urea solution becomes a mechanical process. Dr. T.K. WALLI Former Off. Head Dairy Cattle Nutrition Division National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, India. Currently working as Chief Technical Advisor, Poshak Agrivet, 71/3 Milestone, G. T. Road, Karnal-132001, Haryana, India e-mail: tejwalli@yahoo.co.in

I am Dr. Cyprian EBONG (4) from Rwanda.

Apart from isolated research results, Sub-Saharan Africa has very limited experience with straw treatment for quality improvement (digestibility and intake). The reasons of costs in an environment of limited economy of scale for smallholder farmers are pertinent to Africa. However limited awareness among farmers and extension service providers cannot be ignored. The above notwithstanding, I personally believe that market opportunities for most livestock technologies are often too low to provide incentive to adopt technologies even it is proven. A recent experience in Rwanda proved that ammoniated straw based rations for feedlot beef production is economically feasible even by using indigenous Ankole yearling bulls. The potential benefits go beyond this for pastoral cattle keepers who suffer from severe seasonal feed and water shortage. Using this material would certainly minimise the need to

9

move stock long distances in search for pastures and in the process get exposed to diseases. However the pastoralists are not convinced. One way that has not been explored is the technology incubation platforms that should nurture technologies innovative enterprises. I believe this approach cultivates entrepreneurship in science, and establish economically viable value chains as incentives for technology uptake. Cyprian EBONG Senior Scientist, Institute des Science Agronomique des Rwanda (ISAR) PB 105 Huye Rwanda cyprianebong@gmail.com <mailto:cyprianebong@gmail.com>

I am Sofjan ISKANDAR (5) from Indonesia I like to comment to Dr. Chander 's comment on the failure of the technology adoption by farmers I think one of the factors that farmers do not adopt that kind of promoted technology is the available time with the small farmers in their daily activity. Sofjan IISKANDAR Indonesia Research Institute for Animal Production At Ciawi, Bogor Indonesia sofjaniskandar@yahoo.com

I am ANANDAN (6) from India With regard to urea ammoniation of straws in Indian context, it has been a failure. This is evident from the fact that in spite of lot of efforts (extending over a long period) by the Government/Developmental agencies and research organizations it has not been adopted by the farmers.The probable reasons could be as follows: Quantum of benefits vis-a-vis the inputs - The benefits of urea ammoniation is very marginal vis-a- vis the inputs (material and labour) and not substantial enough to motivate the farmers to continue with the technology. Is the technology really good enough? - Generally progressive farmers (at least in few parts of the country) are highly innovative, well informed and are keen at trying new technologies and if a technology is really good enough it will be easily adopted by the farmers. As urea ammoniation has not been adopted inspite of all the efforts,

10

this leads us to rethink -whether the technology (in the present form) is really good enough to be adopted? S.A NANDAN Senior scientist, National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology Bangalore India

I am GRIGERA NAÓN (7) from Argentina The use of treated straw in Argentina has not been successful. Possible causes are:

1. difficulties in cooperative organization for straw treatment

2. increased farming area under no till practices, thus reducing the amount of straw removed from the fields

3. availability of alternative forages of higher quality

4. comparatively expensive chemicals

5. freight costs when the roughage is not used on the same farm that is produced Dr. Juan José Grigera Naón Professor Beef Cattle Production Faculty of Agronomy Universidad de Buenos Aires grigeran@agro.uba.ar

I am S.B.N. RAO (8) from India I fully agree with comments of Dr. Anandan (message 6) One of the reason for the failure, may be farmers in our country, keep livestock as secondary activity as a means to utilize their agricultural farm by-products in more efficient manner. It involves family labour. Even though, the technology is good enough to be adopted, due to the above reasons it is not being adopted.

11

One more thing, I suggest to industrialists to think of using urea ammoniated straw as a component of feed block. Dr. S. B. Nageswara Rao Principal Scientist, Animal Nutrition Division, National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Adugodi, Bangalore 560 030. I am Murat GORGULU (9) from Turkey. Practical application of chemical treatment for straw is not reasonable in the present economic and technological status. 1. straw is still expensive especially for subtropical zone (developing country) due to scarcity of roughage. 2. high water requirement is other limitation 3. hazardous material (such ammonia, NaOH) is not practical uneducated farmers 4. improvement with chemical treatment in straw is maximum 10% and it has not got capable to cover labor and cost. If the application is reasonable economically in the future, sector will use this technology but the present situation is not promising. Prof.Dr. Murat GORGULU Cukurova University Agricultural Faculty Animal Science 01330 Adana-TURKEY gorgulu@cu.edu.tr

I am Noble JAYASURIYA (10) from Sri Lanka The discussion that is now going on in relation to urea ammonia treatment is very interesting.

12

In my opinion there are very good reasons for Bob’s success story from China (and also from Vietnam?). The farming conditions are relatively large scale (as compared to 3-5 cow farmer set up in many south Asian countries) and ‘the extension service’ is well organized. Straw is available in adequate quantities at the time they require because cereal cultivation is relatively on large scale too. The situations in South Asia including India, Indonesia, Thailand and Sri Lanka are very different. Paddy farming as well as livestock farming are relatively small scale (0.2-0.5 ha in many instances). The harvest of straw from one farmer is relatively too small for a small scale dairy farmer to go through a complete dry period. The dairy farmer needs to ‘buy’ from someone else and this means transport, which is difficult and also expensive. The straw also has a market value by this time. So it becomes very uneconomical for the small holder dairy farmer (3-5 cows) to carry out urea ammonia treatment and through this survive the dry season. Then the production per cow is too low (3-5 liters of milk/day) and the price of the end product (farm gate price of milk) is also very unrealistic and often lower than the cost of production of milk. All these added together makes it very uneconomical (as well as a tedious job for nothing?) for the farmer to invest on urea treatment (as we scientists have developed and introduced it). Our efforts in the early eighties to introduce urea ammonia treatment at farmers level in Sri Lanka ‘appeared’ to be successful initially. Our demonstrations at farm level (government owned) were very successful with various levels of increases in milk production for different breeds (Indian type) of cattle. But when it was taken up at the small holder level they ‘worked hard’ because we were there to supervise and support them. But given the opportunity for them to do the treatment by themselves, they became ‘too lazy’ to do it. They gave various reasons for this: main ones being, lack of adequate quantities of straw, the need for buying straw from outside at a price and transporting it, the availability of ‘some’ grass on the paddy field bunds and water ways, cost of urea (urea is subsidized for paddy farmers but if one is to buy it from outside them it is quite expensive) and the relatively low farm gate price of milk compared to the ‘effort put in’ for treatment (spreading, spraying, gathering, covering etc.). Once the grass was up following a few unusual showers the farmers would not want to get back to straw treatment even if the dry season continued and the animals were short of fodder. So all in all I believe that urea ammonia treatment was not a success at small holder level in many South Asian countries. It is definitely so in Sri Lanka. I would not be wrong to say that it is now forgotten. The same could be true for Sub-Saharan Africa because I have some experience in trying to introduce urea ammonia treatment. The conditions were quite similar to the Asian situation in relation to constraints perhaps one may have to also consider the difficulty in obtaining water for treatment. Dr. Noble JAYASURIYA retired Dr. M.C.N. Jayasuriya 98/M/47, Scenic View Kahantota Road, Pittugala

13

Malabe Tel. 0094 11 2413335 Mob: 0714272996 nj8583@gmail.com

I am from Dugasa DIRBABA (11) from Ethiopia, My academic background is not from animal science or animal nutrition. BUT I would like to raise one point for the discussion. Is feeding urea treated straw or any feed type has impact on quality meat (beef) special for those animals produced in commercial feedlots? Dugasa Dirbaba, From Livestock Marketing Team, SPS-LMM Program, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Dugasa@siga.org.et I am Rogerio M. MAURICIO (12) from Brazil Brazil has the biggest commercial cattle heard in the world and also it is one of the biggest grain producers -- two important ingredients for using urea for straw treatment. However in my whole life I have never seen one farmer that adopted the urea treatment of straw. Why? I do not have a unique answer. Probably due to favorable weather conditions in most parts of the country, availability of forage is not a problem during rainy season, and following the technological agriculture/livestock practices (e.g. silage production) the low forage production during dry season could be alleviated by using silage. However, for most small farms, silage is not available (high cost, tractor availability, labor etc.) and urea treatment could be used. In my opinion the reason for their not using this technology could be related to high costs (e.g. they need machinery to cut), lack of technological diffusion by extension services and fear of urea intoxication. In addition, the no till practices, which is a well used in Brazil, could contribute to NOT using this technology.

14

Future? The climate change is transforming the livestock and agriculture scenario and straw could be one option to maximize production in the near future. Therefore straw treatment could be implemented by farms. Rogerio M. MAURICIO Federal University of Sao Joao, bio-system engineer department, Brazil rogeriomauricio@ufsj.edu.br

I am Dr El Hadji TRAORE (13) from Senegal (West Africa) Urea treatment has no impact on meat quality; this treatment is just to improve straw intake and digestibility. Dr El Hadji TRAORE, DVM, Dr es Sc. Dakar Senegal mailto:eltraore@coraf.org

I am Aimable UWIZEYE (14) from Rwanda I want to give you my view on use of urea treated straw in animal feeding. In Rwanda we don't use urea treated straw in cattle feeding. In our experimental centre the results were very encouraging but the implementation of this technique on farm level is still a problem. The reasons are the cost of the technique and the farmers’ attitude towards improvement of the cattle feeding. They find it very expensive and the livestock activities are still conducted using traditional techniques. Dr Aimable UWIZEYE MUCYO Phone + 39 38 80 54 18 53 Università degli studi da Catania Agris Mundus student Sustainable development in Agriculture Master of science Viale Odorico Pordenone 35E 95128, CATANIA ITALY uaim@hotmail.com

15

I am Farhad MIRZAEI (15) from Iran We are also using urea in Iran either for straw treatment or in feed block and we had success and failure also. I think, we can continue to use urea treated straw in animal feeding. However the main issues are to consider extension aspects of urea treatment by the keeping knowledge base of our farmers in mind, and also there is a need to make the process economical. Farhad MIRZAEI, Ph.D Research from Iran, Dept. of Livestock production & Management, National Dairy Research Institute (N.D.R.I.) Deemed University, Karnal,132001 India http://www.ndri.res.in <http://www.ndri.res.in/> Member of Department of Animal Production Management Animal Science Research Institute of Iran http://www.expertist.net/foto/3695-1.pdf <http://www.expertist.net/foto/3695-1.pdf>

I am Tej WALLI (16) from India

Dr. Mahesh Chandra has mad a brilliant analysis for the failure of Urea treatment technology in India. I fully agree with his views on this subject and support his participatory approach for technology refinement and its dissipation. Tej WALLI, India

I am Carlos DOMINGUES (17) from Venezuela: The experience in Venezuela with the use of ammoniated straw was taken during the last drought period of 2010. More than a million head of cattle in the state of Guarico (major producer of cereals, maize and sorghum, with a total area of 65,000 square km) belonging to the central plains of Venezuela were severely affected in this drought. Scientists and universities suggested several alternatives to minimize the devastating effects of low forage and feed availability: 1) Ammonification of significant amounts of crop residues of maize and sorghum (farm level) using the standard formulations.

16

2) Direct grazing of deciduous forest (to take advantage of the fruits of trees and shrubs, farm-level) 3) Preparation of liquid diets based on molasses, minerals, trees fruits, leaf etc. 4) Preparation and use of multinutritional blocks (MNB) Results: 1) The producers said that the ammonification process was very cumbersome and showed their concerns on the use of urea as ammonium source. 2) They preferred the direct use of crop residue as a source of fiber, despite its low digestibility and nutritional value, preferring the traditional mode of use. 3) Others decided grazing pasture in deciduous forest. 4) Few chose to feed liquid diets and blocks, arguing that during the emergencies these options were not feasible on a large scale. Conclusions: We agree with other colleagues from Asia that, we are also facing problem of transfer of urea-ammoniation technology to the livestock producers. Carlos DOMINGUES

Here is D.N. KAMRA (18) from IVRI, Bareilly, India The non-adoption of urea ammoniation technology in Indian conditions is due to high cost of treatment (primarily the labour cost, which is increasing day by day). Once the farmer stacks his straw in the godown, cost of urea treatment increases tremendously as also indicated by Dr. T.K. Walli from Karnal, India. Therefore, if the treatment process (spraying of urea solution on the newly harvested wheat straw) is linked with wheat crop harvest and the treated straw is stored in the farmers' godown instead of untreated straw, the cost of treatment can be reduced significantly. Then the only investment will be the cost of urea, which can be economically compensated with the benefits of straw treatment (increase in digestibility and higher intake by the animals). I fully agree with Prof. Orskov that increased intake of treated straw is equally important as the improvement in digestibility of straw for the better livestock productivity. Such an attachment with the harvester (which is not very expensive) has

17

been demonstrated by the Feed Technology Laboratory of IVRI and is under the process of patenting. Dr. D. N. KAMRA Director, Centre of Advanced Faculty Training in Animal Nutrition and Head, Division of Animal Nutrition Indian Veterinary Research Institute Izatnagar - 243 122, India Contact Nos. 0091-581-2585313(R) 0091-581-2301318(O) 0091-94110-08904(M) 0091-581-2301318(F) I am Dr. SUHUBDY (19) from Indonesia The use of ammonia treated straw for ruminant feed in Indonesia In Indonesia, treating rice straw with urea has a long history. It was initially introduced in 1987 mostly to academia at Faculties of Animal Science/Husbandry. After that, this technology became popular both in government agencies (Animal Service Officers, Department of Agriculture) and research institutions (e.g. BATAN), and then farmers. Many government projects were established related to this technology, ranging from making ammonia treated straw to applying it to the farmers' place. In addition, in universities (Faculties of Animal Science), under- and graduate students conducted research on the technology, and a variety of research results were obtained on the treatment and use of the treated straw. Besides, livestock extension officers also intensively promote this technology (from the in-country research results and/or following the established technology, introduced and suggested by Dr ORSKOV) to the farmers by means of “extension Projects”. However, till now, this technology has not been accepted and applied by farmers. In the case of Indonesia, the success and failure of applying this technology are probably due to the following: 1. The farmers rely very much on “the project” conducted by the government officers. During the period of the project, farmers do use it as suggested by the extension officers or by university people. As soon as the project stopped, they do not use it anymore even though they understand very much about the usefulness of this technology. 2. The farmers think this technology is costly and laborious. This means that farmers do not have enough time and labor to do so because they want to use the paddy field for the next plantation. 3. Collection of the straw is another problem. Since the farmers have limited area of paddy field they own and at the same time too many jobs that must be done.

18

4. Farmers who intensively raise livestock in communal house as in Lombok Island have a “belief” that cattle must eat “green” forages or powder. Therefore, they tend to looking for green grass for their cattle or buffalo even though they have plenty of straw. 5. In islands (e.g. Sumbawa and Flores) where ruminants are raised extensively and freely on grassland/rangeland, farmers do not want to use the treated straw. They believe that making ammonia treated straw is too much of a job to be done since they also believe that much green grass is available in natural pasture. 6. Other reason is the use of rice straw as fuel by industries that make roof (genteng, Indonesian), pottery and briquets. Also straw is used as a mulch in tobacco plantation and it is also burnt for use as a fertilizer. Keeping in view the identified problems, the following is suggested for enhancing the use of ammonia treated straw: 1. There is a need to establish commercial industries that make ammonia treated straw. The farmers, livestock traders etc. can buy it any time from the shop. 2. Farmers may establish a “farmer cooperation, Inc.” that produces ammonia treated straw. So the member of Coop can buy it. 3. Extension must be intensively promoted regarding to the usefulness of ammonia treated straw (ARS) as ruminant feed, in particularly to overcome the scarcity of green grass during the dry season. 4. For the university, it is time to stop research but replace this activity by “writing practical manual on making, using, and advantages of ARS” and then spread them through CD, Video, TV, etc. to farmers and related government officers and members of political parties. In my opinion ARS is a useful technology to be applied in particularly for overcoming the scarcity of forage in the dry season. Also this technology can overcome air pollution caused by burning of rice straw. Extension must be intensively conducted by using effective media. Prof. Ir. SUHUBDY, Ph.D Research Centre for Tropical Rangeland and Grazing Animal Production Systems Faculty of Animal Science, University of Mataram Mataram-INDONESIA Email: suhubdi@gmail.com <mailto:suhubdi@gmail.com> and suhubdy1960@gmail.com

19

I am Hendrawan SOETANTO (20) from Indonesia. I would like to congratulate Prof. ORSKOV on his success in introducing urea treatment technology for straw in China. Nevertheless, the comments of friends from India and Dr. JAYASURIA from Sri Lanka on the failure of adoption of the technology must be considered seriously because it is also true under the condition of Indonesia and other developing countries. Back dating to the early 80s urea treatment of rice straw was introduced for beef cattle and later for dairy cattle in Indonesia but at that time the most activities were carried out under laboratory conditions. Most results indicated the benefits of urea treatment on enhancing feed intake, digestibility and animal performance such as faster growth rate and higher milk yield. Nevertheless, the project failed to demonstrate significant adoption of the technology due to several reasons: 1. Lack of sufficient land size per farmer (as stated by Dr. JAYASURIA) and therefore relatively small amount of straw available per harvest. 2. As urea treatment increases digestibility and hence feed intake, the amount of straw available to feed two to three cattle from a harvest becomes insufficient (this phenomenon was also reported by scientist from Nepal in 1991). 3. Currently the price of urea is more expensive than a kilogram of concentrate 4. The treatment of straw is considered laborious and expensive due to scarcity of labors in the village (most youngsters prefer to work in factories than on farms) 5. My experience on feeding urea-treated rice straw to dairy calves produced pot belly appearance as a result of increased straw intake which is not preferred by the farmers. For this reason there is not a single smallholder farmer that adopted this technology. However, some commercial farms are still practicing urea treated straw feeding to beef cattle for both meat and manure production. The latter is associated with the increased demand of organic fertilizer in Indonesia. Prof. Dr. Hendrawan SOETANTO Head, Ruminant Nutrition Laboratory Department of Animal Nutrition Faculty of Animal Husbandry Brawijaya University, Malang - INDONESIA Phone: +62 341 553 513 Fax : +62 341 584 727 Email: hendra_ub@yahoo.com or hendrawan07@ub.ac.id

20

I am Jian-Xin LIU (21) from Zhejiang, China

There has already been a lot of discussion on the success and failure of urea ammoniation of straw in this e-conference. I have been involved in demonstration and extension of the urea treatment techniques in China. In fact, it is successful in some areas but failed in others even in China. However, generally we succeed in extension of this technology. One of the main reasons is that the government /extension service made great efforts. After the FAO input in the late 1980s, we organized two consecutive international conferences during the 1990s to propagate and extend the utilization of the feed resources available locally (especially ammonification of cereal residues such as wheat/rice straw and corn stovers). Each year, Ministry of Agriculture gave funds to set up demonstration regions (city or county scale). These efforts resulted in successful extension. Actually, we treat the cereal residues by not only urea but also by ammonium bicarbonate (AB), especially in southern China where urea is mainly used as nitrogenous fertiliser in agriculture, and is expensive unless its cost is subsidised by the government. Thus, urea is mainly used in Northern China to treat wheat straw and corn stover. However, AB is much cheaper than anhydrous ammonia or urea. The AB has been demonstrated to be a feasible source of ammonia for processing rice straw. Furthermore, AB is even superior to urea in preventing mould in South China, because, especially in warm seasons with high humidity, ammonia is released faster from AB than from urea. Dr. Jian-Xin LIU, Professor Director, Institute of Dairy Science College of Animal Sciences Zhejiang University Hangzhou 310029, P. R. China Tel: (+86-571) 8697 1097, Fax: (+86-571) 8697 1930 Email: liujx@zju.edu.cn <mailto:liujx@zju.edu.cn>

My name is Cyprian EBONG (22) from Rwanda To say that ammoniated straw has no impact on meat quality is slightly simplistic. There is considerable scientific evidence that grazing cattle produce better quality meat from green fresh grass in terms of conjugated fatty acids (CFA) especially conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) which renders a number of beneficial health attributes to meat. This attribute is missing in straws, and silages.

21

The above notwithstanding, no harmful effects in meat quality has been demonstrated resulting from feeding on ammoniated straw". Cyprian EBONG Senior Scientist ISAR Rubona Rwanda cyprianebong@gmail.com

I am Dr Seraphin NIYONSENGA (23) from Rwanda My country is engaged in Crop Intensification Program and crop residues are byproducts of food crops and their availability is linked to the production of food crops. Unfornatutely, the large quantity of crop residues is burnt by farmers or left in field.They lack knowledge on its possible utilisation in Ruminant Feeding.Treatment of straws with urea appears to be the most promising way to enhance straw utilisation by ruminants in Rwanda, where land is a major constraint for fodder production. Dr Seraphin NIYONSENGA (BSc, DVM) EISMV –Dakar, MVSc (National Dairy Research Institute) INDIA niseraphin@yahoo.fr This is Jude CAPPER (24) from USA.

In reply to Dr EBONG Message: 22 Grazing cattle on pasture has certainly been shown to increase the concentration of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in both dairy and beef products. However it should be noted that the amount of CLA in meat (particularly lean beef) is relatively low and therefore the health benefits derived from consuming meat from grazed vs. feedlot-type cattle may be debatable. Dr Jude CAPPER Assistant Professor of Dairy Science Department of Animal Sciences 137 Clark Hall Washington State University PO Box 646310 Pullman, WA 99164-6310 capper@wsu.edu <mailto:capper@wsu.edu>

22

I am Brian BEDARD (25) from the World Bank Can any of contributors provide specific examples/locations (i.e where in Northern China) where farmers are currently buying the urea themselves and treating the straw as recommended and feeding it to their cattle as a routine practice with good results but without government, research/pilot or project interventions? We have had more than 20 years of promoting this technology but overwhelming experience seems to be that it is impracticable and farmers, in general, don't seem to like it. Brian G. Bedard Sr. Livestock Specialist, ECSSD, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW (Mail: H5-503) Washington DC, 20433 Office tel: 1-202-458-5301 Fax: 1-202-614-5301 Mobile: 1-301-640-6863

I am Mahesh CHANDER (26) from India again, Bob ORSKOV's observations are very pertinent that two non-technological attributes responsible for wide adoption of treated straw technology in China are: 1. Chinese extension services are well organized and 2. People (farmers) listen to the official authorities Out of these two observations, can we draw lessons for improving the situation in other countries? Things which work in one country may or may not work in other countries yet we have to work out the possibilities by listing the reasons for success as also for failures! Mahesh CHANDER Principal Scientisat & Head Div of Extension Education Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar-243 122 (UP) India

23

I am Tej WALLI (27) from India. I do agree with Dr. Ebong that for any developed technology to be transfered to the field or industry, it is essential to establish economically viable value chain system. Before thinking of transferring urea treatment of straw technology to pastoralists of Rwanda, one needs to ensure that the people are receptive to newer ideas. One should learn from the contrasting responses to this technology from India and China -- in India it failed to lure the farmers to adopt this technology-- while in China a large number of farmers have adopted it. Tej WALLI

I am Hichem BEN SALEM (28) from Tunisia In Tunisia, urea treatment of cereal straws at the farm level is supervised since the eighties mainly by a Development Organisation (Pasture & Livestock Agency). Many national scientists proved the efficiency of the urea treatment: it enhanced the nutritive value of cereal straws and sorghum stover and increased livestock performances under Tunisian conditions. Big efforts have been made to transfer this technology to farmers. However, the adoption of this technology is still low, because: 1. Farmers prefer subsidised alfalfa pellets compared to the treated straw. The cost/benefit ratio is higher with the treated straw than with alfalfa pellets. 2. Smallholders consider that urea treatment is labour demanding and time consuming operation. 3. Urea handling is considered risky. 4. Since urea is imported, straw treatment is considered expensive. The plastic sheets prices also complicate the situation. 5. Due to the low fodder potential of central and mainly southern Tunisia about two-thirds of the national sheep/goat flocks are raised by feeding high amounts of hay and cereal straws transported from northern part of Tunisia. The transportation cost increases the selling price of these feeds. In this case, the farmer won't add additional cost for urea treatment. Since about 80% of farmers are smallholders, encouraging and facilitating the establishment of farmers' associations would help farmers adopt some simple and cost-effective technologies like feed blocks and straw treatment. Anyway, adoption of urea treatment technology like other technologies would depend on its cost and farmer's facilities. The question is: should we invest in appropriate supplementation

24

of straw-based diets with alternative feed supplements (e.g. cactus, feed blocks, etc.) or on straw treatment? I think that farmer's participatory approach should be considered while developing, transferring and evaluating the impact of any technology at the farm level and increase in farmer's income should be an important criterion. A technology could give good results in one farm and not in the neighbouring farm. Dr. Hichem BEN SALEM Coordinator of the FAO-CIHEAM Sub-Network on Sheep & Goat Nutrition Head of the Laboratory of Animal & Forage Productions - INRAT

INRAT Laboratoire des Productions Animales et Fourragères Rue Hédi Karray, 2049 Ariana, Tunisie

Tel. 216 71 230 024 - Mobile 216 98 208 565 Fax (Lab.): 216 71 231 592 Fax (Institute): 216 71 716 537 - 216 71 752 897 Email: bensalem.hichem@iresa.agrinet.tn

This is Tej WALLI again (29) from India

While I agree with the views expressed by Dr. Anandan and Dr. S.B. N. Rao about the reasons for the failure of technology of the urea treatment of straw in India, I don't think that treated straw should be used in the densified complete feed block. That adds one more process to the feed block technology and may further escalate the cost of the technology. Tej WALLI, India

I am Tanveer AHMAD (30) from Pakistan I agree with the Sofjan IISKANDAR comments, which indicated that time factor is the main issue. Treatment requires some time and space to keep that stuff there. In Pakistan, the majority, (more than 70%) of the farmers are generally landless or have small piece of land where they grow some cash crops for family use. They have 2-5 animals and are reluctant to spend more time for animal care and feeding. The application of technology on small scale farmer is not possible all the time and every where.

Tanveer Ahmad, Ph.D. Assistant Professor (Animal Sciences) Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, PMAS Arid Agriculture University, Murree Road, 46300, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Tel. +92-333-510-3351, Fax. +92-51-929-0160

25

I am Dr. N K S Gowda, NIANP (31) Bangalore, India My views about urea - ammoniation of straw not being so - successfully adopted at field level are: 1. Farmers are very clever in choosing what is required and not what is not required. If there is a real need, then automatically they will take up such technologies. My experience with farmers is that they want ready made feeds or ready to eat feed / fodder items. They do not want to put extra efforts in urea ammoniation of straws. If you give the inputs free, they will use and stop soon after you withdraw the inputs. Their mind set should change. Some progressive farmers must be model for others. There is a need of land-land transfer of knowledge. 2. If there is a greater need, at least some farmers will start adopting such technologies. For example: Silage making was a well known technology and it was not adopted widely. Now due to decline in the land for grazing and due to unpredictable rain fall pattern, farmers have themselves reinvented the technology of silage making. Some are using microbial cultures to hasten the silaging. Silage is being fed to stall fed sheep in intensive farming. 3. For silage making some private agencies are providing the inputs like mobile chaff cutters, microbial cultures on credit basis at the door step of farmers. I think such intervention is required to promote urea ammoniation of straws. 4. Another reason is less-availability of water for ammoniation in some regions. Water is regarded more valuable than the straw in some situations. 5. The experience of some farmers who used urea ammoniation is: urea is corrosive, bleaches the skin, and irritates the eye and nose. But on the contrary, they extensively use urea for fertilising their crops. Sometime urea availability in the market will become a political issue and there are violent incidences in the past. N.K.S. Gowda, India

I'm Dr El Hadji TRAORE (32) from Senegal (West Africa) In Senegal in the dry season when the availability of the feed is very low, urea treatment of cereal crops like rice straw and other straws is the best way to improve animal nutrition. We (in ISRA) have technical way of urea treatment, we did some demonstration and training in the field, but this technology is not used by famers. In my opinion they didn't adopt this technology because: (i) lack of information mostly in rural area, Extention service must do this extention;

26

(ii) lack of water for treatment, water in some areas is a scarce commodity; (iii) size of flock because farmer have several animals to take care of and it is difficult to feed them; (iv) traditional rearing system which is in extensive and not by feedlot. I think we must bring this technology to periurban farmer who usually are educated, who rear in feedlot and can be receptive to this technology. Dr El Hadji TRAORE, DMV, Dr es Sc. Maître de Recherches, Alimentation Directeur Unité ISRA-Productions Tel:+221 77 6448107; 70 2028711 Fax: +221 33 8323679; BP 2057 DAKAR, Sénégal eltraore@coraf.org

I am Ranjan MOHANTA (33) from India It is really a good discussion with some excellent inputs from Dr Orskov and Dr Chander apart from others. However, I felt like Dr Jayasuriya and Dr Subhubdy that the main reason for failure of this technology is the high cost of urea and lack of proper convinced trained manpower for dissemination of this technology, in addition to other problems. I have listed some problems which are hindering its implementation in India: 1. Lack of any visible profit even after investing much energy in learning the technology, running after so many people for acquiring necessary materials, and investment in materials and the technology. 2. Getting small loan is a hard task for them as their income level and resource generation power is low. 3. In China the success comes as the farmers get necessary help from trained manpower with well planned efforts from all the sectors 4. Usually farmers keep animals mostly to supplement their income and treat them not just animals but are attached to them. So, feeding urea does not sound good to them. 5. It is a fact as described by Dr Chander and Dr Walli that trained and convinced manpower in not available in India. As I have observed most of the things including trainings are on pen and paper only. Farmer-oriented approach is very less followed

27

keeping farmers view and feasibility. Thus, well coordinated efforts may bring some desirable adoption in some parts of India where straw is available in excess quantity (though it’s success among small farmers is highly doubtful) if proper manpower is developed in addition to stepping into farmers shoes by the extension workers and nutritionists. Dr Ranjan Kumar MOHANTA PhD Scholar, Animal Nutrition Division

This is Cyprian EBONG again (34) from Rwanda Noble Jayasuriya has unpacked what I meant insufficient incentives from the returns on investment in straw treatment. If the market for livestock products is attractive, farmers would invest in the technology. The core issues that most contributors have been advancing and one that can be singled out among others is the organization capacity of small-scale farmers to handle and treat a large volumes of input (straw) and generate sufficient volumes of quality output to compete favorably in the market. I believe the China success that my former professor Bob Orskov is talking about was based, at least in part to the communal land use system as opposed to small settlements as entities for production for the market. Among the key questions we could consider: Can small-scale farmers be effectively organized into viable corporate entities to effectively and efficiently mobilize resources (including straws) and market livestock products? I believe it is wrong to assume that farmers are lazy and so avoid arduous technologies. Cyprian Ebong Senior Scientist-ISAR Rwanda Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly, Uttarpradesh-243122, India E-mail: mohanta.ranjan@gmail.com Mob: 09634019940

This is Brian BEDARD again (35) from the World Bank Somebody please confirm that, in fact, a "large number" of farmers in China have adopted this technology as a routine practice.....just so we are all very clear on scale of adoption. I lived in China for 12 years and worked on smallholder livestock development projects and did not see it widely used as an adopted routine practice amongst smallholders for the reasons already explained by others, although sporadic examples were available. Is this a recent development?

28

What did seem to work reasonably well was targeted mineral supplements/blocks for small ruminants (being routinely fed straw/stubble) in late pregnancy which visibly demonstrated larger, healthier lambs with minimal effort and immediate benefits to herders/farmers in Inner Mongolia (Hailar/Ulunbair) and which they were then prepared to buy from commercial feed mills. Not sure if this has been sustained, however. Brian G. Bedard Sr. Livestock Specialist, ECSSD, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW (Mail: H5-503) Washington DC, 20433 Office tel: 1-202-458-5301 Fax: 1-202-614-5301 Mobile: 1-301-640-6863

This is A. B. M. KHALEDUZZAMAN (36) from Bangladesh In Bangladesh, the small holder farmers are aware of the technology of straw treatment with urea since last 2 decades. Scientists have good understanding about the technology and tried to disseminate the knowledge to the farmers but the technology is not widely adopted. In my experience at field level, the reasons would be: 1. Skewed landownership with many farmers having less than half an acre or no land, so the majority of the farmers in Bangladesh have a very little or no straw. Most of the time farmers get access to more land through share cropping. 2. There are some comparatively large farms in Bangladesh, but the farm owner would not like to intensify animal production through the use of animal nutrition technologies; because it requires day-to-day management. 3. Lack of visible results: The intake and digestibility of urea treated straw increased 10 to 15% but the milk production was not significantly improved at the farmers’ level. a.b.m. KHALEDUZZAMAN Upazila Livestock Officer Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock Farmgate, Dhaka-1215 Email: abmkhaled@yahoo.com

29

My name is Ali AGUS (37) from Indonesia I would like to add some comments about failure of urea treated rice straw technology adoption by the farmers in Indonesia. As far as my knowledge goes, practically since early 1990s this technology is not popular and not practiced anymore by farmers except some pilot project held by government's officer. The reasons are well described by my colleagues Prof Hendrawan Soetanto and Prof. Suhubdy in previous messages. For small scale farmers having less than 3 heads of cattle, even during the dry season where grass is scare, doing urea treatment is laborious, expensive, and impractical. In some regions water is difficult to get, there is limit access to urea and rice straw. For these reasons the farmers have not adopted the technology voluntarily. The commercial farms, beef cattle or dairy cattle have also not adopted this technology for the same reasons. Since the early 1990s some Indonesian researchers tried to develop other method to improve nutritive value of rice straw by using microbial treatment. Up to now this approach has been relatively more popular and adopted especially by commercial farm (beef cattle). This method is less expensive, practical and improve the rice straw (increase in crude protein, digestibility, feed intake). I could probably share this point next time. Dr. Ali AGUS Profesor of Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology, Dept of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, Faculty of Animal Science, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta Indonesia Email: ali_agus@yahoo.com Ali Agus Faculty of Animal Science Universitas Gadjah Mada Jl Fauna 3, Bulaksumur Yogyakarta - Indonesia Http://www.aliagus.com HP : +628164265120

Dr K.S.PRASAD (38) from India Under Institute village linked program we tried urea treatment of straw in villages farmers well received the technology till we helped technically and supplied urea free of cost. Moreover we treated the straw at the time when the farmer is stacking the straw after harvesting of crop, (in some parts of India it is a general practice of tight

30

stacking of straw after harvesting the crop for feeding to livestock) so that the labour cost can be reduced. The farmer feed back was that with the treated straw animal's intake is more and overall animal health is improved. But when we withdrew the help, the farmers have not shown the interest to continue further with the urea treatment. Reasons: Farmers want to see immediate benefit out of this feeding. The urea treatment may not show a visible benefit in terms of milk yield, body weight etc. Farmer’s mindset for this activity as labour oriented and cost of urea is more. Solution: If we try it as a community activity pooling small quantities of straw from small farmers through the help of dairy cooperatives, it may achieve some success. Dr K.S.Prasad Principal Scientist & Incharge Animal Nutrition Division National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology Adugodi Bangalore - 30 INDIA

I am J.C. CABARLES Jr (39) from Philippines Dr. IISKANDAR comment's on time utilization of small-farmers (not including the medium and large farmers) on performing his farm duties is true also in Philippine setting. The use of Urea on straw for feeding the livestock was tried here in the country before. Presently, seldom you can see farmers doing it. Dr. SUHUBDY is correct in saying that adoption of technology was time-bound. As long as, the project exists, farmers perform it but when it terminates, adoption is also gone. This is also true in some other technologies disseminated in the field. Urea today is processed into Urea-Molasses-Mineral-Blocks (UMMB) and offered to ruminants to lick but not mixed with straw. Observation for the failure and success: Some farmers who tried to adopt it experience failure since they were not able to apply the appropriate amount of urea which could not cause poisoning. Those who experience the poisoning disseminated it to their fellow farmers. The words of mouth are a powerful tool in disseminating information. Urea is expensive. I will agree with the comments of Hendrawan SOETANTO related to the cost of Urea in the country. It is expensive and sometimes it is more practical to buy concentrate instead.

31

Presence of alternative green forage: Farmer will not use straw as long as there is available green forage in the place. This is in respect to our own local condition which may not be true in other country. Limited number of ruminants: In the Philippine, small farmers commonly have 1-3 buffaloes (Carabao) and cattle. They have goats of the same number or even a few numbers higher. The integrated farming system of the country helps to provide various alternative resources for animal feeds. Again, this can only applicable to areas having same conditions as ours. Farmer's attitude toward the technologies: This is very critical in the technology dissemination. Scientists think that the technology they develop is appropriate in addressing the problem of farmers; however, the latter sees it differently. The farmers look deeply in the technology and select only those segments (or part) of technology which is of greater use to him while disregarding others. I read related report about technology dissemination and even myself conducted it, Dr. Suhubdy is correct in saying that technology adoption is good only when the project is still there. This will lead to successful reports whereas after few years farmers still practice their own way. Why does this happen? Following are some reason based on my own observations: Practicality of the technology: Researcher thinks that his protocol is the easiest way while the farmer is unable to do it on his own. Profitability: Technologies aiming for greater production is not enough. Farmers always have high consideration for the profit they make in using such a technology. For as long as the technology is gaining enough profit, there's no need for the extension worker to visit places and disseminate information since the farmer themselves will search for the extension worker. Availability of materials to use and its alternatives: How can the farmers perform it if the resources to be used could not found locally? This is true in some countries where supply of straw is limited. Jaime C. CABARLES Jr. Animal Science Professor Central Philippine University Jaro, Iloilo City, Philippines Email: jamescabarlesjr@yahoo.com & jamescabarlesjr@gmail.com Mobile phone: +63-9202174979

32

I am Raf SOMERS (40) from Belgium I worked as the Chief Technical Advisor of a Belgian funded dairy project in the North of Vietnam (2005 - 2010). I am currently the managing director of SOMERS Livestock Solutions. The story from Bob Orskov about China is impressive. I also read in some other message that Vietnam is considered as a success for the urea treatment. Well, I only speak for the dairy farmers, but they are not using it. Indeed often recommended, but not widely used in Vietnam. In our project area, there was a clear lack of forage in the winter. We offered them several solutions: 1. Silage of corn stover, whole corn or grass (1 ton silage bags) 2. Special forages that grow well in the winter (Avena spp) 3. Sprinkler irrigation that allows to grow better high quality grass species (signal, setaria, mulato II), which continue to produce in the winter 4. Urea treatment and silage of fresh rice straw (1 ton bag). The adaptation rate showed the clear preference of the farmers. A total of 450 farmers were involved: 90% use corn silage bags 63% use high quality forages, and these days Mulato II is very popular 41% have installed a sprinkler irrigation system Practically none of the farmers is using urea treated rice straw or is growing Avena Furthermore, a lot of the straw is still being burned after rice harvest. In the South of Vietnam, dairy farmers have a constant lack of forages. They use a lot of rice straw but none of them is using urea. One cooperative made commercial urea treated rice straw in 30 kg bales and tried to sell it at the same price as of the normal untreated rice straw. He failed. Even when he gave it for free, farmers were not interested. The main reason here was that cows don't like the smell. Reasons for limited use I agree with most of the reasons I read in other reactions. Briefly - Farmers do not clearly understand how urea works - Farmers consider that urea is poison! - The smell is not nice - Farmers do not see a clear benefit of using it.

33

Alternative ways to supply UREA Another approach which is promoted in many countries is the urea molasses block. Maybe we should also discuss about that. In our project, we trained the farmers, but nobody is using them. Too much work to make them. Maybe there are still other interesting experiences of alternative ways to supply a limited amount of urea to cattle? Some commercial feed companies also put urea in their feed. This is good, but they don’t mention it on the bag. If they would mention it, farmers might not buy their feed! Looking forward to your replies Bob, I know you did a lot of work in Vietnam as well. Are you aware of areas in Vietnam where urea treated rice straw is still widely used? Raf SOMERS Managing Director Somers Livestock Solutions Tel:++84912017660 somers.raf@gmail.com

I am Dr. Jolly KABIRIZI (41) from Uganda Reference is made to Dr. Tanveer Ahmad (Pakistan) comment "The application of Urea-straw technology on small scale farmer is not possible all the time and every where". The method used to disseminate information to small scale farmers will affect adoption of that particular technology. My question: "Are we using the right method to disseminate the technology? Dr. (Ms) Jolly Kabirizi (PhD) National Livestock Resources Research Institute P.O. Box 96, Tororo, Uganda

I am A V ELANGOVAN (42) from India Once the ammoniated straw is exposed to air, the loss of free ammonia is gradual and is almost complete in one week and the retention of added nitrogen in the form of urea may be as low as 20% on post exposure (this has been indicated from studies under laboratory conditions) if the treated straw is not utilized immediately.

34

This loss is also a concern for the environmentalist as well as nutritionists. Efforts should be made to trap this free ammonia. Dr A. V. Elangovan Principal Scientist National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Adugodi, Bangalore - 560 030 India Ph: 91-80-25711304, 25711164 (o) Ext 233 91-80-25724927 (R) Mobile 09341380858, 08105285126; Fax 91-80-25711420 Website: www.nianp.res.in E mail: avelango@yahoo.co.in

This is Dr Abubeker HASSEN (43) from South Africa I would like to give a comment in relation to peri-urban farmers indicated in message 32. Did you test this technology for per-urban farmers in Senegal? Is there any difference in adoption rate between rural farmers and those from peri-urban and urban area in China and India. I am also of the opinion that urea treatment of straw could be targeted to urban and peri-urban farmers who might be interested in such technology because not only they are educated but also they do have better access to market for their products. I have seen eight year before peri-urban and urban farmers (engaged in fattening activities) willing to buy crop residues in mid rift valley of Ethiopia and able to prepare molasses-urea block to supplement their animals. Can it be possible to target such farmers? A. Hassen, PhD Ruminant Nutrition and Pasture Science Depart. Of Animal and Wildlife Sciences, University of Pretoria. Pretoria 0002, Pretoria Republic of South Africa Office: Agriculture Bulding 10-32 Tel: +27(0)4203273 Cell: +27(0)722684758 Fax: +27(0)4203290

I am Dr SS KUNDU (44) from India Straw treatment with urea is beneficial as it increases straw intake and nitrogen intake for ruminants. Process with farmer could not be used as it involves lot of

35

labour. Process should possibly be mechanised and completed right at the time of harvesting. Moreover farmers who need it most also lack resources. Dr SS Kundu Head DCN& Chief Editor Indian J. Anim. Nutrition National Dairy Research Institute Karnal 132001 Haryana India Again Raf SOMERS (45) from Belgium

This message is in continuation to my earlier message (No. 40). Urea treated rice straw is still lower quality than some forages that can grow well in tropical regions. I refer again to species like Signal grass (Brachiaria decumbens), Seteria sphacelate, Mulato II (a hybrid of 3 Brachiarias). These grasses have 13 to 15 % protein and very palatable. But they require proper management to do well! Cows just love them! So cows will certainly produce more being fed on these excellent green forages than on treated or untreated straw. I believe the key point here is feed intake. If you have an unlimited supply of good quality forages, one cow can easily eat 60 kg fresh grass (or 9 kg DM). I haven't seen any cow eating such an amount of straw. So my point is that urea treated rice straw is still a relatively low quality forage. It is obviously better than no forage, but it cannot be considered as the key technology to drive production and profitability of livestock production. In the dairy sector, my advice is simple: Feed fewer animals better. And do everything to increase feed intake per animal. If feed supply is limited and it needs to be divided over more animals, we are feeding for maintenance, not for production. Therefore, it is not economic. It would be better to sell some animals and get more out of the rest! Therefore, rather than focusing too much on the straw treatment, much more should be done on growing better forages, irrigation, fertilization. We have wonderful results by using biogas effluent as organic fertilizer. The grass really grows before your eyes! The classical comment is that farmers use Elephant grass because they need a lot of it. Well, we managed to beat that production with the species mentioned above. We can reach 250 to 300 ton fresh grass per hectare per year! And as mentioned in my previous message, these innovations were truly taken up by farmers!

36

I understand that in many regions in the world this might not be an option, but I just want to say that urea treatment is certainly not the key point to improve production! Feel free to contact me for more info about anything mentioned above. We have manuals and articles which I am happy to share with all of you. Raf Somers Managing Director Somers Livestock Solutions Tel:++84912017660 somers.raf@gmail.com

This message is from N.Togtokhbayar, A.Otgonjargal, S. Myagmarsuren (46) from Mongolia Urea treated straw in Mongolia Background 200 thousand tons of straw is available in Mongolia every year after harvesting. However its palatability and nutritive value is very low. Urea treatment of straw was tried. Reasons for failures are the following: - availability of straw is limited; some farms cut and spray it after harvesting as mulch in the field. - urea is imported either from Russia or China and it is not available every where and is expensive. Cattle urine is one of solution, but herders do not collect it. - very cold temperature in winter and the treated straw in trench are frozen. - pasture animals could not take treated straw because of odor, even if it is aerated by air. Norovsambuugiin Togtokhbayar Mongolian State University of Agriculture, Department of Animal nutrition and pasture management Ayushjaviin Otgonjargal - Mongolian State University of Agriculture, Department of Animal nutrition and pasture management Soronzonjaviin Myagmarsuren- Mongolian State University of Agriculture, Department of Animal production

37

I am Tej K. Walli (47) from India

The experiences of Dr. Carlos Domingues from Venezula also explain the similar reasons for the failure of urea/ammoniation technology in Latin America, as are the reasons in India. However, for saving bovines during natural calamities, feeding of densified straw blocks is really effective, which are much easier to store and transport than the straw itself. We have rather fully developed the technology of straw base densified complete feed blocks in India. Tej WALLI

This is Budi HARYANTO (48) from Indonesia I wonder if the use of urea will result in a higher ammonia concentration in the treated straw. Is there any evidence on the effect of this to the possible irritation in the animals' breathing tract? If so, there should be a method to reduce the ammonia concentration. My experience in using straw is by treating it with urea but at the same time a mixture of microbes is also provided, so that the treated straw has no smell of ammonia, while the straw intake and its digestibility is better than the untreated straw. Budi HARYANTO PhD Indonesian Research Institute for Animal Production PO Box 221, Bogor 16002 Indonesia Phone 62-0251-8240753 Mobile ph. 08170598671 E-mail: budiharyanto_51@yahho.com

This is Tej WALLI again (49) from India Finally it appears that the mechanised process for the urea treatment of straws is on the cards and that too from my own country, as we are informed by my friend and colleague, Dr. D.N. Kamra, from IVRI, India. It is quite heartening and we shall be looking forward to this refinement in urea treatment technology. Tej WALLI, India tejwalli@yahoo.co.in

38

I am once again Noble JAYASURIYA (50) from Sri Lanka Good work all of you. Very interesting and stimulating discussion Basically we all are saying that in general urea ammonia treatment was not successful at smallholder level. We have seen the reasons for this from Asia, Latin America, Africa, etc. BUT what can we do to make use of the enormous amounts of residues available in our countries? My experience in Malawi with Maize stover was that - allow the animal to select. It will eat all 'most digestible' parts of the residue. Say around 30-40% of the residue. The remaining stalk can be added to the soil as mulch or an organic matter enhancer. Limited experience has also shown that the same works with rice straw. Some food for thought. Dr. M.C.N. Jayasuriya 98/M/47, Scenic View Kahantota Road, Pittugala Malabe

This is Raf SOMERS again (51) from Belgium In reply to message 50 about what we can do with maize stover. In Vietnam, all parts of the Maize are used for cattle feed. CHOPPING UP and mixing is an easy solution to avoid that cows select. Cows will eat more of chopped forages compared to un-chopped and they can no longer select! This is also perfect material to make silage. You can also add some molasses to improve palatability. Hope this helps, Raf Belgium Tel. 0094 11 2413335; Mob: 0714272996

39

This is Cyprian EBONG again (52) from Rwanda I was expecting someone from Kenya or Ethiopia to tell us how important straws (tef and maize respectively) are to smallholder farmers in their respective countries. A lot of feedbacks confirm that farmers on smallholding cannot produce enough straw for their animals. But I have seen truckloads of tef straw in Ethiopia and maize in Kenya for sale to smallholder farmers. What compels these farmers, who cannot produce enough straw themselves; to spend the little money they earn to buy straw from the market? Certainly they realize some valuable benefits (cash or kind). The fact is that in almost all countries, straws are abundant. The problem is the skewed distribution that is not favorable to the "landless" livestock farmers. In Ethiopia and Kenya, the market is taking care of the inequitable distribution of the straws as a marketable commodity. I am therefore inclined to agree with Jolly Kabirizi, that the right method of transferring the technology is desired. There has been a lot of "pushing" of the technology. Perhaps the technology needs "pool" concept for effective transfer. I would like to believe that there is a positive correlation between market for livestock products and rate of adoption of the technology for production. But I have no empirical data to support this. Cyprian Ebong (PhD) Senior Scientist (Animal Nutrition) ISAR cyprianebong@gmail.com

I am Abdul Shakoor CHAUDHRY (53) from UK Very interesting discussion indeed about the urea/ammonia treatments of crop residues Despite some limited success stories, I wonder if the adoption of this technology by the farming community was constrained by its non-standardisation (e.g. chopped v un-chopped straw, water level, storage type and duration etc). Otherwise, if the farmers were benefiting from its use, they would have adopted it on a much wider scale without an intervention from the Government and NGO. However, with special safety precautions for a farmer and the environment, the urea treatment technology may well be integrated with other feed resources in order to optimise animal production in various situations. Dr.Abdul Shakoor Chaudhry (PhD Cambridge) School of Agriculture, Food & Rural Development (SAFRD) Agriculture Building Newcastle University United Kingdom NE1 7RU Tel: +44 191 222 8499; Fax: +44 191 222 6720 E-mail:a.s.chaudhry@ncl.ac.uk; http://www.ncl.ac.uk/afrd/staff/profile/a.s.chaudhry

40

This is F. FERNANDEZ (54) from Chile I would wish to get more information on the use of microbes in the urea treatment of straws as stated by AGUS in his message (No. 37). Very interesting. Could you please share the microbial treatment in the production of urea-ammoniated straw? Fernando Fernández INIA - Chile ffernandez@inia.cl

I am Dr.Vishnu SHARMA (55) from India I would like to share my views on the urea treatment technology. In my view apart from other reasons shared, two important aspects are: farmers are not convinced to spare REQUIRED TIME in the process since the gained benefits from the technology insignificantly affect their economics in the practical life. The only answer to overcome all the constraints is that this technology should be taken up on a cooperative or cluster mode for a defined catchment area. In this way livestock can take advantage of this precious technique. Dr.Vishnu SHARMA Sr. Asstt. Professor Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, Jaipur, India drvishnus@yahoo.com

Brian BEDARD again (56) from the World Bank

Very interesting dialogue but are we not now at the stage to move on and consider the old "lead a horse to water" adage in that you can pull, push, prod and nudge a farmer to introduce a new technology but you can't force him/her to adopt it if it does not make rational economic (financial and labour) sense to him/her. Is it perhaps time (after 20 years) that we stop playing with urea treatment, got the farmers more involved in what is practicable for them and move on to other approaches that they might actually consider useful. Perhaps simple straw or chopped straw regardless of crop source which seems to be current preference with reasonably priced vitamin/mineral supplements that visibly demonstrate short-term value-added benefit

41

to farmers (growth rates, milk yield, lambing rates/size?) and with minimal labour inputs or negligible nuisance factor. Brian G. Bedard Sr. Livestock Specialist, ECSSD, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW (Mail: H5-503) Washington DC, 20433 Office tel: 1-202-458-5301 Fax: 1-202-614-5301 Mobile: 1-301-640-6863

Again Tej WALLI (57) from India I read with interest the message sent by Dr. Hichem Ben Salem from Tunisia. The cost/benefit ratio on feeding alfa-alfa pellets is lower than that on feeding the treated straw, mainly because the former is sold at subsidized rates to the farmers. In situations where straw has to be transported to long distance places, my suggestion is that it may be first converted into straw based feed blocks containing other nutrients such as oilseed cake, minerals etc, as the transportation cost is reduced by one third. In addition, it is a well balanced feed and can take care of all the nutrient requirements of animals, with respect to both productive and reproductive purposes. In emergency situations, straw blocks with a little of molasses (10%) urea, mineral mixture and salt (1 % each) can be dispatched to places facing disaster. Dr. Tej K. Walli Chief Technical Advisor Poshak Agrivet 71/3, Milestone, G.T.Road Karnal, Haryana -132001, India 9896338478

My name is Swaraj SENANI (58) from India

I find the discussion on the success/ failure of urea/ammonia treatment to be very interesting. As a student of Animal Nutrition and as a researcher I had used this technology. Urea/ammonia treatment of straw is a technology of academic interest and is suited to only research and experimentation purposes. Had the technology been easier, economic, practical it would have been a great success during its initial years of trial.

42

The technology failed 30 years ago for the reasons that it is cost in-effective, labour intensive, hazardous and has an incubation period and hence not ready to use by a resource poor farmer. We have utterly failed in convincing the farmer about its benefits, if any, and practicability. The poor farmer does not need this kind of technology. When he has a severe resource crunch, any technology that requires land, labor, input costs and feed resource would be difficult to adopt. For the sustenance of his livestock he needs simple solutions. It would be more appropriate to give him know how and resources for supplementing straw based diets for dairy animals. I think as researcher / academician we advocated this technology as the only viable option available to the poor farmer for last 30 years with no success. A farmer has many more choices available and of these one being not to use this technology. We are in the habit of looking at the farmer’s reality through a colored glass of our wisdom. I fully agree with the views of Raf SOMERS and Prof Visnu Sharma. We need to focus on the issues of forage resource augmentation rather than fitting a technology which has lost its relevance for a resource poor farmer. Dr. S.Senani Sr. Scientist Animal Nutrition Division, NIANP, Bangalore-560030 Phone: 91-80-25711304 ext 307 Fax: 080-25711420 Mobile: +91-9449028694

Carlos E. LASCANO (59) from Colombia I fully agree with the comment of Brian G. Bedard (Message 56) of the World Bank that given the very low rate of adoption of the urea treated straw in Asia, Africa and LAC for the many reasons given in this e- conference, researchers should move forward and look for alternatives suitable to farmers to improve the quality of roughages used in small cattle systems. One alternative is breeding crops to obtain high quality crop residues. Thus I would be interested in learning if the genetic/breeding approach of improving intake/digestibility of crop residues pursed by CGIAR centers (IITA in Nigeria and ILRI in Kenya) has continued and if so what results have been achieved. Carlos E. Lascano, PhD Adjunct Professor, National University-Sede Bogota, Colombia c.lascano@cgiar.org

43

This is Tej K. WALLI again (60) from India

In message no. 37, Dr. Ali AGUS mentions about the microbial treatment of straw. Under a Dutch collaborative project, India and Indonesia both worked on 'Bioconversion of crop residues". I don't know about Indonesian results, but the biological treatment of straw, using lignolytic fungi, was a complete failure in India, due to heavy organic matter loss during fermentation, apart from the fact that the treated straw was unpalatable to the animals in both wet as well as in sun-dried forms. The unpalatability of the treated straw was because of the accumulation of lignin derivatives after its degradation, which could have been toxic to the rumen microbes. I would like to know whether Dr Ali AGUS refers to some other microbial treatment. If so, what are the kind of microbes used for this biological treatment ? Tej K. WALLI Ph. D Chief Technical Advisor Poshak Agrivet 71/3, Milestone, G. T. Road Karnal, Haryana -132001, India tejwalli@yahoo.co.in 9896338478

I am Eugenie NYIRANSENGIMANA (61) from ISAR Rwanda The shortage of feeds and fodder in Rwanda is well known. In order to mitigate the shortage of feeds and fodder and to make animal production viable and profitable the utilization of and improvement of various poor quality crop residues (maize, rice, wheat straw) using urea treatment is a good way but this technology is very expensive and generally farmers have not heard about this technology. Eugenie NYIRANSENGIMANA MSC Student SHIATS Allahabad India nyiransengimana@yahoo.fr

44

I am F. FERNANDEZ (62) from Chile In message 37, AGUS mentions an interesting point: the use of microbial treatment. Can more information be provided on this treatment! Fernando Fernández INIA – Chile

I am Hnin THIDARMYINT (63) from Myanmar I do agree with Dr. JAYASURIYA on application of urea treated rice straw as animal feeds in South East Asian countries. In Myanmar, similar with other SEA countries, high price of straw and chemicals (urea) and comparatively low price of milk are major constraints for the practical application of urea ammonia treatment in small holder farmers. Dr. Hnin Thidar Myint B.V.Sc, M.Sc, Ph.D (Obihiro) Research Officer Planning Section Livestock Breeding and Veterinary Department Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries The Union of Myanmar Phone: 95 1 643127, 95 9 50 94 701 Fax: 95 1 642927

Ian ROBINSON (64) from UK 45 years in the business, 70 countries, mostly with small farmers, apart from Rumevite blocks used on the privately managed (not the common land!) hill pastures of Wales in the mid to late sixties, which we used every winter, I have never come across commercial use of urea used as a feed additive/treatment of straw or high fiber forages on farms. I have come across at least 3 cycles of "introductions" through projects and programmes, but then I have never been to China. Ian Robinson (Ex CAZS Bangor, now AAInternational Ltd, Aberystwyth, Wales) Email: ian@aainternational.co.uk

45

I am N.TOGTOKHBAYAR (65) from Mongolia I also would like to know more on microbial treatment of straw (Message 37) Norovsambuugiin Togtokhbayar Mongolian State University of Agriculture

This is Sergio GOMEZ (66) from Mexico Opportunities for urea/ammonia treatment of straw In Mexico urea/ammonia treatment of straw is not a common technology used by producers. The reasons are the same as those already discussed by other participants in this Conference from all around the word. However, there are 2 opportunities foreseen that may induce producers to adopt this technology: 1) In Mexico the costs of energy sources such as cereals are high and constantly increasing. Barely half of the total amount of cereals use for feeding livestock is locally produced with high cost inputs and low yields/ha, the other half is imported from other countries. Two years ago the prices of imported corn increased 3 times due to the use of corn for ethanol production. If this trend keeps on, the use of urea/ammonia treatment of straw (as other feeding strategies) will become an option to substitute high cost grains by lower cost feedstuffs even if this involves more time and effort to apply the technology. The message here is that producers will choose those strategies that are technical, productive and economically feasible under local market circumstances; 2) It seems that for individual producers urea/ammonia treatment of straw is not feasible, but it may be a better option for a group of producers. In countries where animal production causes problems of environmental pollution, the relocation of farms and the establishment of parks for livestock production have been recommended to facilitate the manure management. In developing countries this is not possible, but in Mexico there are several examples in which producers organize in partnership to treat manure and sell it as organic fertilizer. There is one manure treatment facility in which all the partners take their own manure and drop it to be handled by labor workers hired for that purpose. This also can be done to facilitate the adoption of other technologies such as urea/ammonia treatment of straw. Dr. Sergio Gómez Researcher, CENIDFyMA-INIFAP Querétaro, México. Phone: 419 2920036 E-mail: gomez.sergio@inifap.gob.mx

46

I am KUSMARTONO (67) from Indonesia I have been following the discussion on Urea Treated Rice Straw for ruminants in this media for the last three days and I found it so interesting since so many different experiences were clearly elaborated. I have the impression that urea treatment has successfully improved quality of rice straw everywhere in the developing countries, no doubt about it. The success story of using urea treated rice straw for beef cattle, once I involved in a fattening trial, was found only when the farm size is large (more than 100 heads) and it is really a matter of efficiencies both in time consumed and profit achieved. Under smallholder conditions as I observed in Indonesia, the farmers are reluctant to spend time treating their rice straws with urea prior to feeding them to animals as livestock production activity is not their main source of income. This maybe one of the reasons why this technology has a low level of adoption for smallholder farmers. Prof.Kusmartono Department of Animal Nutrition Faculty of Animal Husbandry Brawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia

I am KHANUM (68) from Pakistan While going through details of Urea treatment technology at this forum I am learning a lot about international experiences. Like comments from some other workers worldwide, I want to share some ground realities for this technology in Pakistan. First, that wheat straw and rice straw are two different straws since wheat straw contains comparatively lower antinutritional factors than Rice straw. Second wheat straw in its threshed form is easier to store and offer for feeding in a number of mix rations. Often it is roughage of the choice especially in periurban and urban production systems. As for as urea treatment of the straw is concerned the technology is of course helpful but the problems arising due to dispersed production systems that interfere with its application in Pakistan and Pakistan like countries. Farmers think wheat straw should be whiter and fresh when purchase for feeding and since the urea treatment changes the color/appearance of the straw, and hence not preferred by common farmers, which might be a factor for low application rates in Pakistan. Another factor is that extension facilities are not at a high level to demonstrate the urea treatment technology to the farmers and follow it up. In tropics where sufficient irrigation water is available for fodder cultivation, the scope of the technology is further shortened. One can never convince a farmer to feed treated straw to his

47

livestock in place of fresh cut and chopped fodder like Sorghum, Maize and Millet in summer. The farmers in these places keep heap of wheat straw stored for winter and offer the same mixed with Berseem fodder which is high in protein. I think the urea treatment of straw is helpful in specific situations and in the specific time of the year and therefore, should be promoted in the same perspectives. Dr. Shahnaz A. Khanum DCS, Head Animal Sciences Division Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology, Faisalabad Pakistan

The moderator of the E conference from FAO, Rome, Italy Dear Colleagues, Last two days have been very informative and educative for all of us. We thank you for actively participating in the e-conference. Today, we present to you two other main contributions for discussion. These deal with practices for enhancing the quality of pastures in grassland and rangelands with the aim to enhance livestock productivity, reclaim degarded land and prevent deforestration. Aspects related to forage production can also be included in the discussion. Posting of these two contributions does not preclude you from giving comments and views on the three main contributions posted earlier on urea-ammoniation of straw (Messages 1, 2 and 3) or on other aspects of this technology discussed by participants so far. From the discussion so far, participants have shown desire to obtain more information on: i) use of microbes during urea-ammoniation of straw, and ii) use and impact of breeding strategies for improving digestibility and intake of crop residues. We would also appreciate if you could send us the main contributions presenting analyses and descriptions of using other animal nutition technologies and practices in ‘farmers fields’. These main contributions should follow the format given in the Section 3 of the Background Document (http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/documents/2010_sept_E-conference.pdf). As stated earlier the main contributions will be published. We look forward to further interesting discussion. The moderator of the E conference Livetsock Production Systems Branch AGA, FAO, Rome, Italy.

48

This is Carlos E. LASCANO (69) from Colombia Utility of Arachis pintoi to renovate degraded pastures in a cattle producing region of the Amazon of Colombia: Lessons Learned

Summary A case study involving a public- private alliance to promote the diffusion and adoption of legumes to renovate degraded pastures in dual cattle production system in an Amazon region of Colombia is described in this contribution. The initial strategy of having demonstration plots in pilot farms coupled with field days did not promote adoption of the legume Arachis pintoi. An alternative diffusion strategy involving credit, seed supply and machinery resulted in over 100 farmers planting 3000 ha of legumes in a two year period. Introduction In the Amazon region grass alone pastures degrade over time and as a result milk and beef production decline and there is more deforestation. In the piedmont region of the Amazon basin in Caquetá, Colombia researchers from CIAT and CORPOICA identified Arachis pintoi (Arachis) as one of the best legume options to recover degraded Brachiaria- based pastures. However, adoption of Arachis was disappointing. An inter-institutional project involving public and private organizations was launched to promote the adoption of Arachis through field demonstrations in selected pilot farms and through field days. Methods Initial strategy to promote Arachis

o Establishment of legume-based pastures in degraded grazing areas in15 pilot farms to demonstrate benefit of the technology and to serve as promoters to surrounding farms

o Training of extensionists in pasture establishment and management of legume –based pastures The initial strategy carried out for a two year period did not promote adoption of Arachis given that results from surveys indicated that farmers lacked capital, there was limited seed supply and there was lack of machinery in the region to carry out land preparation and planting. Alternative strategy to promote Arachis

o Survey among farmers to define interest in planting Arachis to renovate degraded pastures

49

o Creation of a technology transfer fund managed by a milk processing plant

(NESTLE) in the region. Funds were provided to adopters who paid the credit with milk

o Contracting multiplication of Arachis seed based on demand

o Contracting tractors and implements for timely land preparation and planting Results The following Tables show a) that grass –legume pasture after the first year produce more biomass than grass alone pastures and b) that despite higher cost of establishment, grass-legume pastures were more profitable than grass alone pasture as a result of more milk per cow and higher stocking rate.

Table 1. Productivity of pastures with and without Arachis pintoi in a representative farm of the Amazon region Description Years after establishment

1 2 3

Grass/legume pasture

Days of rest 39 43 38

Brachiaria kg DM/ha 1.719 3.328 2.714

Arachis kg DM/ha 315 1.443 1.247

Total kg DM/ha 2.034 4.771 3.961

Grass pasture

Days of rest

42 43 37

Brachiaria kg DM/h 1.769 3.593 2.348

50

Table 2. Cost, production parameters and economic returns associated with renovation of pastures with and without Arachis in farms in the Amazon region of Colombia Pastures Cost of

establishment Milk yield Stockin

g Rate IRR1

(US $/ha) (l/cow/d) (AU/ha) (%) B. decumbens 68 3.0 1 12.0 B. decumbens + Arachis

95 3.5 1.5 19.3

B. humidicola + Arachis

146 3.5 2.0 21.8

1 Internal Rate of Return

The higher productivity of Arachis-based pastures relative to grass alone pastures coupled with higher economical returns were key in the decision of NESTLE to promote and facilitate the adoption of Arachis pintoi to renovate degraded pastures in the Amazon region of Colombia. With the promotion strategy put in place by NESTLE over 100 farmers established 3000 ha of Arachis-based pastures in a two- year period. Lesson learned Through a public-private sector alliance it was possible to: a) develop alternative techniques to introduce legumes in degraded pastures, b) carry out in situ demonstrations on how to establish and manage Arachis based pastures, and c) determine profitability of legume based pastures in the system. This information together with credit, seed and machinery promoted adoption of Arachis pintoi by farmers. The traditional method of having demonstration farms and field days as an only strategy proved to be inadequate to promote the adoption of Arachis to renovate degraded pastures in the Amazon region of Colombia. Carlos E. Lascano, PhD

Universidad Nacional de Colombia- Sede Bogotá (c.lascano@cgiar.org) Colombia

51

This contribution is from Rogério MARTINS MAURICIO and Luciano FERNANDES SOUSA (70) from Brazil Silvipastoral and agroforestry practices for animal feeding: Silvopastoral system, Cerrado Bioma – Brazil Introduction: Deforestation has occurred in large areas of Brazil for establishing forage monocultures for cattle production. This practice is causing negative impact on the environment (biodiversity, CO2, water) and on animal production (pasture degradation, low stocking rate). Silvopastoral Systems (SPS), a combination of trees, forages and animals, has been adopted as a sustainable alternative for animal production, consequently reducing the deforestation in the Brazilian Cerrado (Savanna). Field Results –I Overall assessment: A milk farmer (80 ha) in Lagoa Santa city, Minas Gerais State, Brazil decided to change the traditional system used in the area – the yearly systematic elimination of the natural vegetation, including trees and fodders - and kept only native grass (Hyparrhenia ruffa) through the implementation of the selective cutting of natural tree species (obtained from seeds spread by old trees). The objectives were: price reduction for no longer cleaning the area every year, increase in forage quality/production and wood production. In addition, Brachiaria brizantha cv. Marandu was also seeded in the area. Results: In terms of soil fertility (K 180 and 80 ppm; SSP and monoculture respectively), grass quality (CP - Crude protein 8.5 and 6.2%; 101 and 69 kg CP/ha/cutting; SSP and monoculture respectively) and milk production (8.2 and 7.4 litre/animal unit/day; SSP and monoculture respectively), the results from SPS are better compared to those of monoculture. However, the Brazilian forest legislation does not allow the cutting of the Cerrado native trees. Therefore, the income from wood production has not yet been obtained. From this case study, a few key points worthy of consideration are: The contact with farm’s owner and farm workers is important to learn about different tree species that need to be selected during the cutting process. It is important to select tree species (especially legumes) with “open canopy” that allows enough light for grass (C4) development and also a vertical log adaptable for the wood industry. Forest policies should be changed or adapted for farms who are working with SPS, and therefore, policy makers should be involved. Field Results-II Overall assessment: A beef farmer (3000 ha) in Maranhao state (Tropical forest bioma) has been trying to recover native trees species in pasture land using the

52

same technology described above (SPS by natural regeneration) since 2000. In addition, ground native legume forages (native name: mulungu; botanically name not yet identified) were selected and maintained; electric fence (powered by solar energy) instead of barbed wire fence to divide paddocks; clean water availability near animals; and no fire practice for pasture cleaning were used. Results: The results demonstrated an increase of 20% in beef production per year and also reduction of spittlebug Deois incompleta and Deois flavopicta (Hemiptera Cercopidae) which usually devastate most of the pasture lands. Therefore, after a lot of discussion on the benefits and constraints (e.g. high price for the selective cleaning of the area due to labour cost) of this system as well as on the restrictions in terms of deforestation imposed by the environmental legislation, which is pressing farmers to recover the degraded areas and to stop deforestation, other farmers are starting to adopt this system on large areas. From this case study, a few key points worthy of consideration are: as mentioned before, it is important to know which tree species are “friendly” to the SPS using the criteria same as in case study 1. Electric fencing reduces investment compared to barbed wire fencing. Farmers’ behaviour regarding not using fire for pasture cleaning and the acceptance of trees on pastures was a difficult task for the adoption of SPS, but after a visit to the neighbour SPS farm, they changed their minds. The policies for “payment for environmental services” do not include SPS, which is contributing to the continuous process of land degradation. Conclusions: The conflict between increasing production and environmental conservation could be minimized by SPS implementation through natural regeneration. Several farms (12 including medium and large farms) are applying this technology. However, governmental policies are necessary to promote this practice, including payment for environmental services. Unfortunately, the fire practice is still applied for pasture cleaning, which could be minimized with education and a very punitive legislation. Rogério Martins Maurício1 and Luciano Fernandes Sousa2 Prof° Biosystem Department, Federal University of São João Del-Rei, Brazil Prof° Zootecnia Department, Federal University of Tocantins, Brazil Corresponding author: rogeriomauricio@ufsj.edu.br

I am Surendra SANKHYAN (71) from India I think I do not have much expertise to comment on establishment of silvopastoral system for economic animal production system.

53

It is true that by adopting silivopastoral system Overall biomass production increases Overall nutrient availability increases Overall soil fertility related issues are taken care very well Socio-economic status improves However I would like to point out that such practices may be good for Brazil but for country like India where animals are mainly grazed on common properties resources (CPR) the concept of silvopastoral agroforestry system do not carry any meaning because the population density or precisely the stocking density of these resources are far exceeds the carrying capacity of pasture or rangelands and due to indiscriminate / over grazing such feed resources get deplete in one single season only. The poor farmers do not have enough land to convert it to silvopastoral system for animal rearing. He has got to meet his primary requirement and that is food grain requirement for him and his family members. Here traditional feeding practices work well rather then going for silvopastoral system. This can be practiced in areas where sufficient land is available. Instead of this, for country like India to overcome the heavy grazing stress on land we should advocate stall feeding and use of strategic feed supplementation technologies, harvesting optimum production without putting much load on land Dr. S.K. Sankhyan Principal Scientist Division of Animal Nutrition CSWRI, Avikanagar 304 501 Via: Jaipur Rajasthan +919414311437 (M) 01437 220174 (R) 01437 220143 (O)

Martin MAURICO and FERNANDES SOUSA (72) from Brazil Response to message 71 Thanks for your comments and clear explanation of the situation in India. However we would like to say that this silvopastoral (SPS) system was done without high investment on seeds or soil preparation (tilling). The main point is that you need to control entry of the animals in the area and identify trees that have potential for SPS and then spread seeds for forages other bushes could be eliminated if it is the case. After one or two years the animals can return to the area and the system will work for

54

a long time. I know that land is a problem in India but after the establishment period the high production will compensate the waiting time. Rogerio & Luciano Rogério Martins Maurício1 and Luciano Fernandes Sousa2 Prof° Biosystem Department, Federal University of São João Del-Rei, Brazil Prof° Zootecnia Department, Federal University of Tocantins, Brazil Corresponding author: rogeriomauricio@ufsj.edu.br

I am A.K. SHINDE (73) from India Silvipasture plays an important role in increasing biomass availability particularly during the month when ground vegetation is completely withered off in arid and semiarid tropics during summer months. Three strata forage system known as silvipasture in the drier and low rainfall areas in combination with arable cropping can sustain sheep production system with requirement of food for human consumption. Silvipasture can meet feed requirement of sheep and goats, with improvement of healthy environment. The crops (cowpea, groundnut and moth) with shrubs and trees can meet the need of food for human and feed for animals. Silvipasture comprising of grasses, shrubs and tree leaves can serve the purpose of forage and wood supply with environmental conservation for poor soil and water conditions. A hectare plot of three-tier silvipasture of Ailanthus excelsa trees and Dicrostachys nutans and Cenchrus ciliaris provided 3.1 tons fodder on DM basis and Weaner lambs and kids attained body weight of 22- 24 kg at 6 month of age in silvipastoral system . Hoggets gained body weight of 30 kg at 1 year of age on silvipasture and 5 kg more than those maintained on cenchrus pasture. Avivastra sheep yielded 0.970 and 1.430 kg wool during autumn and spring clips under silvipastoral grazing system. It was found that feeding of Ailanthus excelsa leaves in silvipasture improved the milk yield in lactating sheep and goats. Other beneficial effect of pod bearing trees in silvipasture has been demonstrated by several workers. Prosopis cineraria and Acacia tortolis shrubs supplied good quality pods rich in protein, which plays an important role in flushing of sheep and goats during summer months in dry zones of country. The supplementation of tree leaves grown in silvipasture at stall in addition to grazing and ad lib.concentrate mixture feeding appears to be most desirable combination for intensive lamb production program. The silvipasture may be propagated in dry region of the country for sustaining and improving sheep and goat production. A.K. Shinde Principal Scientist CSWRI, Avikanagar Rajasthan India

55

I am Padma KUMAR (74) from ILRI, India I really wish to appreciate the contribution of BEDARD (message 56) and am in full agreement with his views: stop playing with a technology, which could not make a dent even after 20 years. In 1986, I was instrumental in introducing the straw treatment technology in South India (initially pit method and later bulk treatment). I would say from the lessons learnt that before popularisation of any technology (is it forage production /urea treatment /UMB /Silage /Bypass protein feed /any other), one should evaluate it for its appropriateness in the smallholder context as equal as its technical feasibility. In India, the contribution of livestock to household income is estimated to be around 25% (in terms of cash income). Livestock rearing is not the mainstay of the so called livestock "keepers". A very recent study conducted by ILRI indicates that nearly 80% of such farmers' income comes from wages (off-farm income). Still they keep 1-2 animals mainly because it can convert fibrous waste into milk /meat, can be maintained with surplus family labour and provide manure for agriculture. In the developing country context one should look at livestock farmer as subsistence farmer who has many other jobs of priority. The same study indicated above shows that women who does >70% of livestock based activities are already over-burdened and have little time to spare for extra work. So it is not only the technical feasibility but the social context, institutional mechanisms in position (for delivery of technology inputs) and quick economic incentive on the investment that are important in deciding "adoption". We should neither blame the farmers nor the technology. In the case of compounded cattle feed, the uptake was much faster (around dairy coops) as (1) no additional labour was involved (2) delivery mechanism was in position (co-ops) (3) the feed was available on credit (co-ops) and (4) there was quick economic return on the investment (additional qty of milk and assured market by co-ops). As straw is the base diet of ruminants and is available in plenty as a byproduct, we should promote more practical and farmer friendly ways of supplementing it using vit/min supplements (as suggested by BEDARD) or other methods that involve less labour. One another technique, which the present author is conversant with, is making feed pellets (in situ) using straw as the raw material and convert it to TMR (Total Mixed ration). This can be supplied to farmers as ready made complete feed as is done in the case of compounded feed. This was done in Gujarat with wheat straw and supplied to farmers in Kerala through a dairy Federation. The pelleted feed containing all nutrients increases digestibility of straw, increases palatability and intake, and at the same time decreases feed wastage and reduce methane

56

production in the rumen. This was done on a pilot basis and there was great demand from farmers. The only constraint was the high cost of transportation. But I am sure this can be explored further to reduce the cost factor through innovative and cheaper methods. This intervention can also create a great impact from the environmental dimension, if introduced in areas where straw is being burnt (it is reported that over 70% of rice straw and 50% of wheat straw produced in the Ind-Gangetic Plains of India are being burnt by farmers as an easy removal mechanism). Padmakumar Senior Manager (ELKS), International Livestock Research Institute CG Centres' Block B, National Agricultural Science Centre, Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, New Delhi 110012, India Phone: +91 (0)11 2560 9844, Fax: +91-(0)11 2560 9814 Website: www.ilri.org

I am Dr. Manju WADHWA (75) from India Maize stover like any other straw can be used after fermenting it with 3.5% urea solution and stacking it for 9 days. This natural fermentation process improves the nutritive value of maize stovers. I hope this would help in solving the problem. Manju Wadhwa

I am Dr Mahesh CHANDER (76) from India Silvipastoral and agroforestry practices for animal feeding as described by MARTINS MAURICIO and Luciano FERNANDES SOUSA, from Brazil, may not be as effective in Indian situation as in South and Central American countries due to drastic differences in the way animals are raised. Yet, lessons can be drawn for the forest based animal producion systems prevalent in parts of India as by Van Gujjars/Backarwals in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir, who prefer to raise buffaloes, cattle, sheep and goats totally on forest resources ( a littel different from cattle ranching in South American countries), while inhibiting in forest areas. Though their system is in contradiction with the forest policies, they produce substatial quantity of milk and meat and it is going on since many years. These people simply exploit the forest resources like grasses, lopped tree fodder without contributing anyway towards seeding or planting of any of the feeding material-nil investment, total exploitation. Such communities can be made aware of responsible planting and harvesting of fodder through Silvipastoral and agroforestry practices

57

suitable to the local conditions. If at all, such production systems are acceptable, we have to maximise their efficiency while minimizing adverse effect of such production systems through suitable interventions as we realized while studying one such case in Uttarkahnad state during 1999-2000. Dr Mahesh Chander Principal Scientist & Head Div. of Extension Education Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar-243 122 (UP) India +91581 2302391 +919411087833 Mail : drmahesh.chander@gmail.com

I Farhad MIRZAEI (77) from Iran Once again I would like to share with my dear colleagues around the globe in this debate. I also agree with my colleague about using straw as the raw material and convert it to TMR (Total Mixed ration). This can be supplied to farmers as ready made complete feed as is done in the case of compounded feed. The pelleted feed containing all nutrients increases digestibility of straw, increases palatability and intake, and at the same time decreases feed wastage and reduce methane production in the rumen. Farhad Mirzaei, Ph.D Research from Iran, Dept. of Livestock production & Management, National Dairy Research Institute(N.D.R.I.) Deemed University, Karnal,132001,India. Member of Department of Animal Production Management, Animal Science Research Institute of Iran fmirzaei@gmail.com

This is Shirley TARAWALI (78) from ILRI, Ethiopia I would like to make a few comments on the on going discussion regarding in particular urea treatment, and more generally the approach to considering feed technologies. I will also respond to Carlos Lascano’s request for more information (message 59) on work on food-feed crops.

1. Issues of feed technologies, especially as portrayed in the on going discussion on urea treatment.

58

One of the aspects that strikes me from the considerable number of messages on this topic is that much of what is reported is largely anecdotal, relating to specific countries/systems/situations, and often in the context of particular feed technology focused project work. This leads me to touch a number of issues:

- There is a challenge regarding a systematic and empirical approach to feed resources, in several dimensions. This covers the use of existing information about what does and does not work and in what situations, as well as approaches that allow farmers to fully utilize the resources available as feeds, together with other inputs where appropriate and in relation to the demand for specific livestock commodities.

- This in turn highlights the need to link feed resources research and development

to markets for livestock commodities that provides the context. Here it is important to note that there cannot be “one size fits all” approaches, and that feed based solutions need to be considered in relation to other technology aspects (such as breed and health) as well as the policy, institutional and social dimensions required to facilitate smallholder market participation. Innovation approach that encompasses farmers with service providers, input and output markets etc and empowers all actors to be able to engage and respond may be part of the solution, which is different than addressing feed technology solutions only. See for example www.fodderinnovation.org and http://fodder-adoption-project.wikispaces.com

- Its important to recognize diversity of farming/livestock systems, especially given

the significant changes anticipated for many who are today smallholder crop livestock farmers over the coming decades. The place of animal feed in this bigger context is important.

- Part of the wider context also relates to trade offs in crop residue (and other

biomass) use, as well as the land, water used to produce such biomass. The System-wide Livestock Programme (www.vslp.org) together with partners in four regions of developing country crop livestock systems has recently initiated a series of regional studies to investigate such issues in relation to crop livestock systems at various levels of intensification and in different market settings.

2. Work on food-feed crops

One aspect on the technology front that we (ILRI) have pursued with national and international partners in West and East Africa and South Asia crop-livestock systems is to investigate “multi dimensional crop improvement”. This arose out of the recognition that for many farmers in these systems, choices of crop varieties are not only based on grain (or sometimes tuber) yields, but on the quantity and quality of crop residues that are used to feed animals. Bringing together animal nutritionists to look at the quality/quantity of residues with crop plant breeders had in the initial stages a couple of key dimensions:

59

- Identification of significant variation in key quality parameters that relate to animal productivity, but without compromising grain yield. This means there is something to breed for!

- Ability to develop NIRS (Near Infra Red Spectroscopy) equations for these

parameters that enable significant numbers of samples to be quickly and simply analysed. Something again that facilitates the breeding and selection process (animal feeding trials with huge numbers of test varieties would be unfeasible!) More recently, some other aspects that emphasise the non technical issues have come to the fore:

- We see increasingly that crop residues are traded and transported, and that

prices are related to quality (as perceived visually and/or after feeding – eg in milk production). There may be major implications here in terms of nutrient movement with the challenge of spatial separation of livestock and crop production and what that means for soil fertility – which is a complex mix of none and technical issues…..

- Taking this work further requires participation of diverse actors involved in the

seed sector, feed processing and local entrepreneurs - Improved crop residues alone can improve animal productivity, but will not raise

such to the levels required to address future demand. Combining feeds (including crop residues, local by products, strategic supplementation) and processing feeds (chopping etc) can increase productivity further, but raises considerable challenges in terms of feed input delivery systems, information and the like. See more references available at:

- SLP research web page (for several issues that have been discussed so far)

(http://www.vslp.org/vslp/front_content.php?idcat=21). - See also the 2003 Special Issue of Field Crop Research on Food-feed crops:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235034%232003%23999159998%23467286%23FLA%23&_cdi=5034&_pubType=J&view=c&_auth=y&_acct=C000001618&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=995675&md5=ef7d3e4adbcd67cd6ef69907fc43b593

- There is also a forthcoming issue of Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology that

addresses issues of food-feed crops Shirley Tarawali | Theme Director, People, Livestock and the Environment |International Livestock Research Institute | www.ilri.org P.O. Box 5689 Addis Ababa Ethiopia | Tel: +251 11 617 2221 | via USA Tel +1 650 833 6696 | Fax: +254 11 617 2001 Email: s.tarawali@cgiar.org | Skype: shirley.tarawali | Mobile: +251 911 645738 (Ethiopia) or +254 735 275251 (Kenya and elsewhere)

60

I am Mamadou SANGARE (79) from CIRDES, Burkina-Faso In "Office du Niger" the more important irrigated rice production zone of Mali (±80 000 ha), the farms size vary from 0.5 to more than 50 ha (3.7 ha on average), and the number of draft oxen vary from about 2 to more than 25 pairs. The high quantity of rice straw left after the harvest is exploited exclusively by free pasture, and hence subject to a lot of loss. Otherwise, draft oxen are separated from the main flock, 1-2 months before the ploughing period and stall fed with various roughages and supplement, often unavailable and expensive. We thought that this was a good opportunity to adopt some proven feeding technologies as chemical treatment of roughage and/or molasses-urea block. Thus during the 1980s, we tried to introduce urea-treatment as quality improvement technique of rice straw to enhance the basal diet of draft oxen and other stall fed or valued animals during the period of forage scarcity. After many tests of adaptation on station of several formulas (3, 4, 5% of urea with or without molasses), we carried out on-farm experiments with 3-4 % of urea treated rice straw (without molasses). During the period of initiation to the technique, farmers seemed to be absolutely receptive and ready to adopt it. But 2-3 seasons after, the technology has not been adopted nor by the small size-farmers nor by the large ones that owned lot of draft oxen or other stall fed animal. The main constraints evoked by the farmers were: - The labor demanding (in term of manpower requirements) for transportation of water and straw, the piling of straw, etc. - Availability / use of clean water, - The cost and availability of urea when needed, - The difficulty in managing the regular (repeated) treatment of straw with the calendar of rice production and other agricultural activities (rainy and dry season rice growing, dry season gardening, other income generating activities) - And likely the more economic profitability of in-situ grazing of rice straw as compared to urea-ammoniation. We attempted to overcome these difficulties by proposing in small scale farming situations a small size silos for every 15 or 21 days urea straw treatment. For farms with important number of oxen we propose the treatment of large quantity of straw

61

which should be sun-dried (2-3 days) and stored in bulk or in sisal bags. None of these propositions were successful. Finally, we proposed urea-molasses’ blocks associated with in-situ rice straw grazing or stall-fed. The blocks were given in a package including vaccination, deworming etc., through a project of microfinance which gave credit to farmers in the form of draft oxen and equipment needed during the campaign. This urea-molasses’ programme also didn't continue after the withdrawal of the project, although farmers always recognize as well the effects of treated straw as well those of urea-molasses’ block on stall fed and free ranging animals. In my opinion, in addition to the reasons pointed out by Orskov, Dr M. CHANDER and many other participants, the state of extreme poverty, low investment capacity of most of the farmers in my zone of reference, and the lack of an adequate investment policies adapted to their production environment specificity may be taken into account. The seasonal investment credit programme practiced in crop production is not well adapted to the livestock investment return cycle. Finally, as mentioned by a participant, periurban farmers could be goods vectors to make lucrative and hence to boost the widespread adoption of these "may be advanced or expensive" but proven technologies. M Sangaré Animal Scientist CIRDES 01 BP 454 N°559, rue 5-31 X Av. Gvnr Louveau Bobo-Dioulasso 01 Burkina Faso Tél; (B) +(226) 20 97 20 53 / 20 97 26 38 Tél; (P) +(226) 76 62 68 09 Fax. +(226) 20 97 23 20 E-mail: mamadousangare@hotmail.com ou sangare_mamadou2003@yahoo.fr

This is U. KRISHNAMOORTHY (80) from India Urea-ammoniation of straw - Success and failure The technology is not successful in any of the southern states of India. The reasons are the following: 1. Additional labour involved in treatment, storage and handling.

62

2. Handling of urea-ammoniated straw- Farmers are concerned that the pungent smell of ammonia may be harmful to the eyes and health in general. 3. The waiting time is too long (15 to 21 days) and is not compatible with the patience of the farmers. Any technology to be convincing to the farmers, should be simple, easy to adopt (i.e., without additional labour), and be able to demonstrate the beneficial effect in the shortest time, preferably in the next two or three days. 4. In many areas where urea-ammoniation was demonstrated, the lactating animals were already fed with concentrates containing adequate protein in the concentrates and so the farmers were not able to appreciate the beneficial effect. If this was done on heifers and calves, the impact could have been better because the heifers and calves, especially in small holdings, are generally not fed with concentrates and protein supplements. 5. So the remedy is to think of a simple technology, something that may not be the best, but something to bring about an improvement - Give up on ammoniation and go-in for urea supplementation of straw. This technology, which is much older and much simpler than urea-ammoniation, is not popular even now in this region. Farmers are afraid that urea may be toxic to their animals. However when urea is delivered as a component in a supplement, farmers would accept such products with much less inhibition, as is the case with urea containing concentrates, urea licks (except for the cost constraint), or a liquid supplement containing slow release urea. The target group should be heifers, calves, and small ruminants in small holdings because the impact is much more visible than in lactating animals. U. Krishnamoorthy Head, Division of Animal Science Veterinary College, Bangalore 560 024 Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Science University

Tej K. WALLI (81) from India Like Carlos E. LASCANO from Colombia, I too feel that the emphasis should now shift from urea treatment of straw (which has failed to attract the livestock farmers in as far as the adoption of this technology goes) to the Food/Feed crops, to improve the nutritional quality of straw. At ILRI, Hyderabad, India, Dr. Micheal Blumel has been focusing his attention on improving the nutritional quality of sorghum/ pear millet stovers in collaboration with plant breeders located at the institute. However, I wish such collaborations are also undertaken between animal nutrionalists and plant breeders at other research centres, especially in rice and wheat cultivars.

63

Tej K. Walli, India tejwalli@yahoo.co.in 9896338478

This is Ben LUKUYU (82) from ILRI, Kenya In East Africa, maize stovers, straws and unimproved pasture formed the bulk of livestock feed during the dry season. As expected mechanical chopping can considerably reduce the intake constraint for animals fed large amounts of crop residues. Surveys resulted conducted in the region revealed that the major limitation in utilization the abundant crop residues on farms as (i) being unable to store the crop resides after harvest (inadequate storage) and (ii) being unable to process the stover to enhance intake (time and labour issues). As a result maize stovers are often fed whole limiting intake. Further many extensionists and farmers lack awareness of ways of improving crop residues for stall-feeding. Interactions with farmers at farm level revealed need for introducing small scale pulverisers to alleviate constraints faced by farmers. Pulverising crop residues at farm level could reduce wastage by 30- 60%, eases packaging, storage, transportation and feeding by farmers. It could also aid in ensiling and on-farm mixing with other locally available feed resources. At the animal level it could result in reduction in particle size which could enhance feed intake by 30- 60% (depending on supplementation level) I share a recent successful experience of adoption of pulveriser technology on smallholder farms to enhance use of crop residues in the region. Pulverising feed is not a new technology in fact it has existed for long but with limited use on small scale farms. What is new is the process and methodology of enhancing the technology use. The pulveriser technology is being promoted by the East African Dairy Development project (EADD) as part of strategies to improve utilisation of abundant crop residues and roughages on smallholder farms in Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda. Promotion involves assisting service providers to procure pulverisers via project loan schemes; setting up business development service (BDS) through hubs and providing technical back up. The hubs are owned by Dairy Farmer Business Associations (DFBAs) – a legally registered or recognised organisation, formed for the purpose of building and operating a chilling plan, and or developing the associated hub services. A DFBA has 1,000-5000 farmers and may include small farmer groups. Pulveriser services started with about 20 operators in Kenya in 2009 in one hub and have now mushroomed to several hundred operators (>800) in 7 other hubs in Kenya alone in less than a year. The technology is being replicated to 2 and 3 hubs in

64

Uganda and Rwanda respectively. Competition due to the rapidly increasing number of pulveriser service providers has enabled development of innovate ways of taking services closer to farmers by making the service mobile e.g. fabricating wheels on pulverisers, mounting them on donkeys, tractors and tracks etc. In our experience the EADD project hub approach has helped in the successful promotion and adoption of the technology i.e.: 1. Access to credit by prospecting service providers which turned up to be a key factor as business providers initially required lending to purchase pulverisers 2. Development of markets both at farm and community levels for livestock products and farmers being able to obtain credit facilities against milk sales to invest in feed processing services. 3. Clustering of input services through hubs enhanced access to technical knowledge, markets, BDS and information useful to agribusiness entrepreneurs (creates market pull that enhances technology uptake). Lesson learned: Technical solutions often fail to deal with the on-the-ground realities that farmers face. Technical interventions therefore need to be developed along with farmers and other stakeholders within the system to make them relevant and sustainable. Ben Lukuyu | Improving Market Opportunities | International Livestock Research Institute | www.ilri.org <http://www.ilri.org/> P.O. Box 30709 Nairobi Kenya | Tel: +254 20 422 3000 | via USA Tel +1 650 833 6660 | Fax: +254 20 422 3001 Email: <add email address> | Skype: <optional add Skype address | Mobile: <optional add mobile phone number>

I am Tej WALLI (83) from India. As mentioned by Dr. A.V. ELANGOVAN from India (message 42), we too found that when the stack of urea treated straw is opened, there is a substantial loss of ammonia (not adsorbed to the fiber), which gets evaporated into the atmosphere and thus polluting the environment. The N loss could be more than 50 %, depending upon the situation. I would like to share my own experience which I had during the on-farm trials conducted in villages in Karnal, Haryana, India. A farmer preferred to make a stack of treated straw under a tree. After three weeks when we visited the farmer, he almost abused us, for the ammonia leaked from the

65

stack had made the lush green tree into a dry trunck and branches only. Tej K. WALLI Ph.D Chief Technical Advisor Poshak Agrivet 71/3 Milestone, G.T. Road Karnal, Haryana -132001, india tejwalli@yahoo.co.in 9896338478

Jorge AVILA (84a) from Chile Animals (beef cows) can perform well (average daily gain of 0.3-0.5 kg) with some untreated straws (from oats, beans, lentils, corn stovers) or at least cover maintenance or low weight gain (WG) requirements with others (wheat) on very poor grazing areas for limited periods of time (hard winters, summer droughts). Urea treatment of straws will not be an option with the current prices of urea. Livestock producers in Chile will at the most mix urea with molasses (1:8) and use it as a top dressing on a straw based diet. This boosts intake and WG. I think if the treatments are cost effective farmers WILL use them. To my best knowledge, the poor increments in quality (with any kind of treatment) do not pay the capital, labour and facilities required for most straw treatments at a FARM SCALE. It's as simple as that. Farmers would rather invest in urea for new crops and use straw as the high fiber component of a diet. The feed industry or farmer cooperatives should be encouraged to use straws in commercial mixes if we are interested in giving the straws any use. Jorge Avila Faculty of Veterinary Science Universidad de Concepcion, Chile

This is Manju WADHWA (84b) again from India. In Panjab, India many progressive farmers treat straw at the time of harvesting of straws (wheat/paddy) and store it as they store the untreated straws. They have the means and resources to carry out the urea treatment.

66

Farmers accepted this treatment because of the benefits demonstrated by scientists of Animal Nutrition Depart of this University. However, small and medium farmers have not accepted it. The cause of failure is the attitude of small and medium farmers, if they get the readymade treated bales, they will buy it and use. Lesson learnt is, there is a need for adoption of technology by some industry or a group of farmers, to make this technology a success. Manju Wadhwa

My name is Rogerio M MAURICIO, (85) Brazil Regarding Contribution 69, from my experience, the biggest problem related to the grass (C4) & legume (C3) pasture is the relatively short period for which the legumes (not tree legume) will be present on the pastures. In Brazil it is hard to find a pasture (C4 & C3) where legume can survive for more than 3 to 5 years. I would wish to know from Dr. Lascano the period for which Arachis can survive together with Brachiaria? Rogerio MAURICIO

Carlos E. LASCANO (86) from Colombia As indicated by Rogerio from Brazil, one of the many causes for the low rate of adoption of forage legumes in association with grasses is lack of persistence under grazing. One exception is Arachis pintoi (forage peanut). This legume, well adapted to acid- low fertility soils in high rainfall areas, is compatible with very aggressive grasses (i.e. Brachiaria species) and is tolerant to heavy grazing. The decumbent growth habit and underground seed production of forage Arachis contribute to its persistence under grazing. In my experience, well established and managed Arachis- based pastures can persist for 10 or more years. However, I should indicate that the adoption rate of forage Arachis in LAC has been low due to lack of tradition of farmers in the use of legumes in pasture- based systems, to inadequate seed supply systems and to limited promotion by extension agencies. Carlos E. Lascano Ph.D National University - Bogotá c.lascano@cgiar.org

67

I am Fawzy Abo-Donia (87) from Egypt The use of urea in the treatment of rice straw in Egypt has not attained the great success despite the efforts made to disseminate this technology. Factors for the failure of this treatment are many, among them:

- Rise in urea price

- Animal Raiser do not see the returns or increase in productivity Although in experimental stations the treatment was successful because of other factors such as availability of minerals and other dietary components. Fawzy M. Abo-Donia, Ph.D (Animal Nutrition) Senior Researcher Scientist, By-product Utilization Res. Dept., Animal Prod. Res. Institute (APRI), Ministry of Agric. & Land Reclamation Wab:-http://abou-donia.forumeast.com <http://abou-donia.forumeast.com/> Nadi El-Said St., Dokki, Giza (EGYPT) Post Code. 11622 Tel:-202-101 23 5195 & Fax: 202-333 72 934 E. mail: framsis2nd@gmail.com

I am Professor Ghulam Habib (88a) from Pakistan I joined this forum quite late and was unable to read comments of all learned participants. I would like to explain my perceptions and experience with urea treatment of straw (UTS) both on station and on farm. From nutrition point of view, urea-ammoniation of cereal straw is a relevant technology for crop-livestock mixed farming system in developing countries. It increases voluntary intake of animals due to improved digestibility that result from combined effect of changes in lingo-cellulose bond and increased N contents. The ultimate response is improved animal performance (growth rate and milk production). However when applied under field condition in private farms both success and failures were experienced. For the last several decades urea treatment of straw is applied in rural areas of Pakistan by several agencies but local farmers did not adopt it fully. Some of the attributes of mixed experience of success and failure are described below: 1. Relevant target farmers need to be selected for implementing UTS. There is no point in introducing the UTS technology in irrigated areas where green fodder is continuously available (may be in limited quantity) throughout the year. When animals receive green fodder along with wheat straw, response to UTS may not be

68

apparent because of favorable rumen environment supported by green fodder for fiber digestion. Response to UTS is also minimized when fed along with concentrate mixture because concentrate mixture often composed of cereal bran and oil cakes supply essential nutrients for microbial activity in the rumen to enhance digestibility of straw. We have found that in vivo digestibility of untreated maize stovers in sheep increased with supplementation of molasses urea block lick. But when untreated stovers were replaced by urea treated stovers and fed along the feed blocks, digestibility did not further improve. This suggests that in the presence of supplements that supply critical microbial nutrients, response to urea treated straw may be suboptimum or absent. The point I want to make is that UTS may not be very much relevant to farmers who are feeding green fodder and or concentrate mixtures to their animals and this may attribute to large variation in animal performance in response to UTS feeding reported by farmers. 2. UTS are highly relevant to arid regions where green fodder is often seasonally short of supply and farmers can not afford feeding large amount of concentrates to their animals. However in such cases, the quantity of straw stocked by farmers is often limited and hardly enough for long feed scarcity period of about 3-4 months. Under this situation stock of straw if treated with urea exhaust quickly due to high consumption by animals. We introduced UTS in D.I.Khan, one of the super arid areas in Pakistan. Milk yield in cows increased by 0.5-0.75 liters/day but the farmers complained that the limited stock of straw got exhausted quickly leaving animals hungry for most of the dry period. Farmers were advised to feed UTS mixed with untreated straw but it did not work all the times. 3. UTS appear to be relevant to farmers who sell milk so they can make money from investment on treating straw. It helps reduce purchase of costly green fodder from market. In a village among 5 farmers only one farmer who was selling milk adopted UTS. A subsistence farmer sees the process of UTS cumbersome and costly for inputs needed (urea & polythene). 4. UTS require space and in commercial urban and peri urban farms that normally face fodder shortage, farm space is always limited. An average commercial urban dairy farm with 30 buffaloes would require to treat about 27 tons wheat straw for 3 dry months which even if done in batches will need quite big space. Once urban dairy farmers in Peshawar showed interest for urea treatment of straw but after showing them the whole procedure they did not opt for it because of limited space and instead preferred urea supplementation through sprinkling of urea solution on wheat straw before feeding during fodder scarcity period. 5. The agencies who implement UTS in rural farms always provide urea and polythene. Farmers would practice UTS as long they receive these two inputs and then give up when left on their own. What is needed is that the technology shall be made simple and less input oriented. For example polythene can be replaced by

69

treating straw in an enclosure made of mud walls and covered on top with used plastic bags/sheets and ultimately plastered with mud. We have successfully demonstrated UTS this way. Efforts should be made to use farm structure/inputs for treating straw with little dependence for inputs from outside. Also while demonstrating the technique; it should be made as simple as possible and less labour intensive. 6. Proper education of farmers on UTS technology with a strong follow up is important. Farmers shall be guided both at the time of treatment and at the time when the stack is opened and fed for the fist time to animals. A farmer who treated wheat straw on his own and used inadequate water for urea solution killed his animals when fed because urea 4% was lying un-decomposed in the stack that caused poisoning. 7. Not all types of crop residues are equally suitable for urea treatment. The technique does not work for some plants, especially those rich in tannins or other compounds such as rapeseed stalks and require a source of urease. Most of the common cereal straws/stovers have enough urease activity and do not need exogenous source. When wheat straw at the time of urea treatment was added with fresh cow dung (as source of urease & nutrients), farmers did not like it and objected to feeding of dung to animals. In cases where urease source is needed, alternate such as legumes may be tried. GHULAM HABIB Faculty of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Sciences KP Agricultural University, Peshawar, PAKISTAN habinnutr@gmail.com

This is Sofjan ISKANDAR (89b) from Indonsia I would like to comment on M 84. I wonder if there is treated ammonia rice straw shop close to the farmers in any part of the world. In Central Jawa, a lot of farmers sell fresh and dried rice straw for cattle that can be obtained with ease by cattle farmers. Concerning the time that has to be spent by small farmers, the shop might help a bit, I guess. Sofjan ISKANDAR Indonesia Research Institute for Animal Production Ciawi, Bogor Indonesia sofjaniskandar@yahoo.com

70

This is again Tej K. Walli (89b) from India Commenting on the observations made by Prof. Gulam Habib of Pakistan (message 88) Yes I do agree that while with small holder farmers, the process of treating straw with urea is cumbersome and a costly exercise, with farmers having enough green fodder, the technology is not that effective in increasing the productivity. In fact if the animals receive both green fodder and urea treated straw, it can lead to excess N intake, leading to N wastage. I further agree with Prof. Habib that the small holder farmers having limited stocks of straw reported that their stock got quickly exhausted after treating the straw with urea, as the intake of Urea Treated Straw is always higher than the untreated straw. Tej K. Walli Chief Technical Advisor Poshak Agrivet 71/3 Milestone, G.T. Road Karnal -132001, Haryan, India tejwalli@yahoo.co.in

I am Carlos E. LASCANO (90) from Colombia Following my previous message (86) I would like to invite participants in the E-conference to comment on the following points: 1. Experience/results with the use of legumes (herbaceous and woody) as a feed resource 2. Adoption rate of legumes: successes and failures 3. Private- Public alliances in Asia and Africa as a means of promoting adoption of different livestock/ feed technologies Carlos E. Lascano, National University- Bogota c.lascano@cgiar.org <mailto:c.lascano@cgiar.org

71

Again I am Dr.Vishnu SHARMA (91) from Jaipur, India We need to focus precise issues for small holders and large holders separately for this urea treatment of straw. Relative time spent by small holders for this technique vs. benefits earned, do not convince them. However, large farmers are taking advantage of this technique through hired labour, and if continuous demonstrations given then more gamuts of big farmers will definitely start this technique. However, for better coverage of small farmers, urea treatment needs to start in clusters of farmers/villages/community on cooperative basis as the case may be collectively so that individual farmers get treated straw by paying nominal money. Vishnu SHARMA

I am Dr. Sanjita SHARMA (92) from Jaipur, India. I agree with other participants. For small farmers urea treatment technique is labour and time consuming, requires additional space and there is fear of toxicity -- and poor farmer which needs this technique most, benefited least. We have to think for better possible solutions for large coverage of small farmer community. If Govt. or cooperatives should take initiative, treated straw can be converted into total mixed ration incorporating non conventional feed resources, local by products, weeds and some crop waste available in the area and sell at economic price, I think small farmers will appreciate this kind of ready to use feed and get benefitted from these technologies. With this, on one hand we can use the technology in a proper way, and on the other we can bridge the gap between demand and supply of feed resources and ultimately enhance animal production Dr. Sanjita SHARMA

72

Ayao MISSOHOU (93) from Senegal (West Africa) In Senegal we do have some successes as well as failures. In milk farms in peri-urban areas, farmers have started producing more and more forage to feed lactating cows. Even in rural areas, some small holders raising crossbred cattle for milk started forage production/storage. Failures experienced are: Collection, storage, production of forage and urea treatment of straw. These technologies were promoted in production systems that were not market oriented. Although the technical efficiency of these technologies is not questionable, the return on investment generated by these technologies for farmers is not enough to allow a high adoption rate. We suggest to target market oriented animal production systems for transfer of technologies with proven economic efficiency. Ayao MISSOHOU DMV, MSC, Professeur Titulaire Service de Zootechnie-Alimentation Ecole Inter-Etats des Sciences et Médecine Vétérinaires (EISMV) BP 5077 Dakar, Sénégal Tel: 00221338651022, fax : 00221338254283 Courriel: missohou@refer.sn, ayao_missohou@yahoo.fr

This is Sergio GOMEZ (94) from Mexico. I just what to point out that from messages 66, 84, 89, 91 and 92 it can be concluded that for successful adoption of urea/ammonia treatment of straw it is important to apply the technology in farmers association, communities or cooperatives so that the treated straw is sold in "shops" and the producers can get the readymade product. Dr. Sergio Gómez Researcher CENIDFyMA-INIFAP Querétaro, México. Phone: 419 2920036 E-mail: gomez.sergio@inifap.gob.mx

73

I am Datta Rangnekar (95) from Ahmedabad, India. Response to messages nos. 1, 2, 3 & others on Urea treatment of Cereal Straws This is in response to messages related to Urea treatment of Cereal Straws (UTS) - this topic seems to have attracted maximum attention. I also wish to convey my views and observations on comments in message no. 1 of Bob Orskov, no. 2 of Mahesh Chander and no. 3 of T.K. Walli on issues related to generation and adoption of technologies. My responses will be biased towards ‘resource poor / underprivileged livestock producers’ in view of long term involvement in integrated livestock development focused on them - the major contributors to livestock production in a country like India and in whose livelihood livestock have multiple roles. Let me put across some positive observations – there are several farmers in pockets of different regions of the country who have adopted treatment of cereal straws with urea – doing it on their own (the number is very small considering farmer population of the country). Two districts in Bihar (working area of Mithila Dairy Union) attracted attention as a pocket where a good number of farmers adopted UTS. Studies wee carried out to understand why the technology was chosen and got adopted in this pocket and draw lessons (studies were initiated while I got associated with the National Dairy Development Board (refer Roy and Rangnekar, 2006 for initial results) and followed it up to get additional information (Triangulation was attempted to confirm observations) and recently got feed back on current status (for which I delayed mailing this note). According to the feed back I got more than 3,000 farmers carried out UTS last summer without any financial support, except for advice from the dairy union. The salient findings/lessons of the studies are:

· UTS were chosen to overcome the constraint of shortage of greens/ legumes in summer and need to provide supplement to check drop in milk production.

· A team of Para-extension workers (PEWs) was developed, involving young

farmers who were trained (and adopted UTS on their own farm), to arrange demonstrations and discussions with farmers – over an extended period of time and subsidy was provided for a 3 to 4 year and tapered off. Demonstrations were voluntary and left to PEWs.

· UTS is adopted mostly by farmers having good crossbreds (producing >10ltr/day),

sufficient cereal straw and water. It is done at the time of storing the straw in the bins (so packing was not a problem). Farmers knew capacity of bins and worked out ways of making urea solution, ensuring uniform spraying and pressing the material.

· It is reported that the Dairy Union is not providing any monitory support since

last few years and even if they do it is farmer’s money. The number of farmers adopting UTS is increasing (expected to be 4,000 next year).

74

· The 4 main benefits of UTS as stated by farmers are: 1. spoilage of straw due to unseasonal rain is checked; 2. more straw can be stored in bins after treatment; 3. drop in milk yield in summer checked without supplementary feeding (gain of

0.5ltrs); 4. some reported increase in fat% of milk · Additional observations:

Only a few marginal farmers adopted UTS and alternate ways of checking summer drop are to be found (the dairy union could help purchase straw seasonally). The dairy Union is discussing organizing UTS on a large scale and make treated straw available to marginal farmers and landless producers and there is a possibility to initiate it as a small enterprise. Some comments on observations in messages 1, 2 and 3 on generation and adoption of technologies):

· ‘Livestock owner’s decision making for adoption of a technology or recommendation is a complex process’ since Livestock production is a part of Livelihood/Farming System and many decisions on livestock management/feeding may not be related to livestock per-se. For better understanding of decision making process there is need to ‘adopt holistic approach and drop the reductionist /commodity approach’.

· Transfer of Technology (TOT) approach was adopted from Green Revolution

experience and it is high time we change. The conventional TOT approach is like ‘picking a horse shoe and then looking for a horse to fit it’. Why not do it the other way and reverse the process?

· An approach of understanding Livestock Production systems and identifying

constraints (situation analysis) and then selecting technology or recommendations would get better results.

· From a development perspective the Technology or Scientific

Recommendation should “not only be technically sound and economically beneficial but also socially acceptable and niche well with the system”. The last two crucial steps are rarely taken and economic benefit is assessed using conventional economic approach there to consider farmer perception.

· Research system should define conditions in which a technology or

recommendation is likely to be beneficial and this is possible in case On Farm Research with truly participatory approach is carried out before making recommendations.

75

· There is need for change in research and extension paradigm to extend benefit to the underprivileged. There is hardly any research programme ‘planned with a Pro-Poor Approach’ (ref. Rangnekar 2006).

· Can FAO consider bringing some change in generation / planning of research?

Research without linkage with development remains academic and development looses its edge without linkage with research. Treatment of cereal straws is a good example for some introspection – I joined a scheme called ’Paddy Straw scheme’ in 1958-59 and observing that work on treatment continues with hardly any application or benefit to the farmer. References: Roy S. and D.V. Rangnekar (2006): Farmer adoption of urea treatment of cereal straws for feeding of dairy animals: a success in Mithila milk shed in India. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 18(8), article 118 Rangnekar, D.V. (2006). Agricultural extension and the underprivileged farmers: a case for change in extension paradigm in changing roles of Agricultural extension in Asian nations. Ed. A.W.van Den Ban and R.K. Samanta, Pub.- B.R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi, India. Pp. 273 – 289. Datta Rangnekar

My name is John MORAN (96) from Australia.

I am a dairy adviser who undertakes training programs throughout South and East Asia in dairy production technology and farm business management. CSIRO Publications have published 2 of my books on tropical dairy farming. I wish to comment on the potential for field wilting of freshly harvested forages prior to feeding them to livestock. Several years back while in Indonesia, we monitored the improved performance of milking cows fed wilted Napier grass. 1. A 24 hour wilt can increase the dry matter (DM) content of Napier grass tops from 11 to 25% thus stimulating grass intakes of both fresh and DM. 2. In a feeding trial, we wilted Napier grass for 8 hour in the sun (and compared it with to unwilted Napier grass) prior to feeding it to milking cows in early lactation, together with 6 kg/cow of formulated concentrates. 3. We found that wilting fresh grass for 8 hour leads to cows eating more fresh

76

grass (50 v 40 kg fresh/cow/day) and also more total DM, including the concentrate (15.4 v 12.2 kg DM/cow/day) and milk yield increased from 14.2 to 15.7 L/cow/day. 4. This very simple way to improve cow performance has been adopted by progressive dairy farmers in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, following many of our training programs. 5. This has been discussed more in one of my books (Chapter 8 Section 8.2.5) http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/197/issue/3363.htm From my contacts with actual small holder dairy farmers who have attended my workshops, there would only be 5 to 10% that have tried (and continue with) wilting fresh grass. I am surprised that it has not been more readily adopted because all it requires is building a bamboo wilting rack outside the cow shed, to which can be added a plastic cover which can be quickly spread over the wilting grass for in times of rain during the day. Any thick stems can be squashed with a piece of wood, to condition them by breaking the cuticle and aid transpiration of the grass juice during the wilting process. All very simple practical technology that can be readily applied anywhere where the sun shines. Have other advisers suggested this to livestock farmers in other countries and demonstrated the benefits? John Moran 24 Wilson St Kyabram, Vic 3620 Australia. Ph +61418379652; email: jbm95@hotmail.com

This Ben LUKUYU again (97) from ILRI, Kenya I would like to contribute to questions posed by Carlos Lascano (Message 90). There are on going efforts to promote use of herbaceous legumes as a feed resource in East Africa over the last two years. The adoption rate still remains low due to some of the following reason amongst others: 1. Competiveness of planted fodder with other uses of land: In intensifying systems, there is evidence that areas planted to fodder are reducing as demand for food increases. There is real need for farmers to make trade offs between food and feed. In most cases farmers opt for high yielding fodders e.g. Napier grass (elephant grass). On the other hand in extensive systems where pressure on land is less, farmers do not produce fodder legumes as might expected. The reason appears to be that they have access to other cheaper alternatives of feed resources such as grazing and crop residues 2. Input issues: The two main input constraints farmers usually report in the region are unavailability and high cost of forage seed/ planting materials and

77

inadequate labour for on farm production. Vegetative planting materials are usually bulky to transport hence limits distribution while most forage seed is imported and subject to governments seed handling regulations which are lengthy, laborious and often delay seed reaching the market. 3. Knowledge gaps: Farmers acknowledge the need for more feed availability on farms however lack of technical knowledge in production, management and utilization of forages in general seems to be a major hindrance in adoption at farm level. 4. Economic viability constraints: Due to high cost of inputs/labour farmers often lack capital to invest in forage production due to low returns to investment because of low milk production levels on most farms and sometimes marketing problems Experiences/result in promoting forage legumes a. The East African Dairy Development project (EADD) is identifying and supporting fodder farmers with technical knowledge and linking them to markets. With a reduced extension work force farmer trainers are used to support groups of farmers. b. Through EADD’s intervention at stakeholder meetings, seed companies have started micro sizing seed (usually packed in 1 kg sizes) into 100, 200 and 500 gms packets to enable farmers afford to buy seed. c. Seed marketing in Kenya through the Kenya Tree Seed and Nursery Operators Association (KATRESNO) formed in 2005 has proved successful and sustainable. KATRESNO identifies local seed vendors and provides them with training and support sourced from various areas e.g. project, Government extension etc. They are trained in seed collection, storage, packaging, and business skills and help them link to buyers. They receive orders for seed throughout the country and dispatch seed through courier services. Ben Lukuyu | Improving Market Opportunities | International Livestock Research Institute | www.ilri.org <http://www.ilri.org/> P.O. Box 30709 Nairobi Kenya | Tel: +254 20 422 3000 | via USA Tel +1 650 833 6660 | Fax: +254 20 422 3001 Email: <add email address> | Skype: <optional add Skype address | Mobile: <optional add mobile phone number>

I am Frands DOLBERG (98) from Denmark Excellent contribution from Datta Ragnakar, which sets a model for points to consider in the conference

78

Many elaborate on technology, some economics, but little the social acceptability and how we begin with the farmer’s perspective, i.e. how we do that. 1978 I began involvement in Urea/ammoniation straw treatment in Noakhali District, Bangladesh. At the same time, I had responsibility for fresh water fish culture. Fish culture was adopted on a large scale. Private hatcheries were built without subsidies or any other support. Straw treatment was not. Subsequently, I have been involved with poultry projects for poor and landless women and they have taken the technology up, including the sophisticated Chinese rice husk hatching technology. Adding substance to Datta Ragnekar’s argument that technologies also have to suit the farmer’s niche well. The big challenge is to begin and build up from the farmer’s perspective and to get that methodology right. Technologies will then follow. Frands Dolberg

Sergio MORGULIS (99) from Brazil In Brazil, Embrapa (Brazilian Enterprise for Agricultural Research) recommends using a mixture of urea and ammonium sulfate diluted in water to be sprinkled on chopped sugar cane as a way to compensate for the deficiency of protein. The recommended mixture is 90% of urea and 10% of ammonium sulfate, applied on the basis of 1 kg for 100 kg of fresh minced sugar cane. Please note that an adaptation phase of one week is recommended, using only 0.5 kg of the mixture for the same 100 kg of sugar cane stalks. The urea + ammonium sulfate can be prepared and stored. The distribution of this mixture should be as uniform as possible. The most serious limitations to the use of cane are its low protein content and the degradability of its fiber, resulting in low consumption. Consequently, the isolated use of sugar cane is not able to meet even the animal’s maintenance needs. However, the use of sugar cane, associated with a nitrogen source such as urea + ammonium sulfate, may result in gains of up to 300 g / animal / day. We estimate that around 13 million heads are fed with sugarcane during the dry season in Brazil. The use of sugar cane with urea is widespread in Brazil, mainly by small farmers, and I think that the successful diffusion of this technology is based on the good work done by Embrapa (Brazilian Enterprise for Agricultural Research), who has demonstrated the technology to the farmers and taught them (specially the small farmers) how to use it. In my opinion, the success of the technology is due to the ease of application

79

of the method, its low risk of intoxication and the good response in terms of animal growth. The deficiency of phosphorus can also limit the animal performance, depending on how the diet is composed. An option to overcome the deficiency of phosphorus would be the addition of monoammonium phosphate in the mixture. It would be interesting to know whether the use of these strategies would improve the nutritive value of the straws.

Sergio Carlo Franco Morgulis sergio@minerthal.com.br

Dr Y. Ramana Reddy (100) from India This is in response to E-Conference message 99. Re. Urea treatment of straw The technology used in Brazil for feeding sugarcane with urea and ammonium sulfate may not be used incase of straws. The technology may be suitable with sugarcane since sugarcane is an immediate good source of fermentable carbohydrates. So both energy and nitrogen will be available simultaneously for rumen microbes to synthesize microbial protein. But it is not the case with straws. Intense rumen fermentation is required to ferment straw for release of energy. Hence, it may be appropriate to treat the straw with urea with remmonded standard procedure before feeding to the ruminant livestock. Y. Ramana Reddy College of Veterinary Science Rajendranagar, Hyderabad India - 500 030 e-mail:ramanayr19@yahoo.co.in

U. KRISHNAMOORTHY (101) from India This is with reference to Message 99 from Sergio Morgulis from Brazil. Thanks to Dr. Morgulis for sharing this success story. We have been doing this in the last two years but not with sugarcane, instead with low quality green grasses with a protein content of 5 to 6%. The response is really good with growing heifers and calves, with a body weight gain of 200 – 300 g/day. However, we have been using urea at the rate of 500 g per 100 kg of chaffed green grass. The advantage of this

80

method, unlike in urea ammoniation is that it does not require water, no waiting time, no pungent smell of ammonia in the surroundings. Further, the farmers are able to appreciate changes in physical appearance of animals in a short time of 3 to 4 days (which may simply be due to higher intake), especially in calves and heifers that are normally not fed with any concentrate supplements. If needed additional nutrients such as sodium sulfate, phosphorus etc., can also be incorporated along with urea as a supplement either in liquid, powder or solid form. Why not this technology is popularized over the more complicated ones? U. Krishnamoorthy Professor and Head, Division of Animal Sciences Veterinary College, Bangalore Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University India

The moderator of the E conference, FAO, Rome, Italy Dear Colleagues, Today we will post two main contributions focusing on forage production in unique environmental settings and their adoption by farmers. We look forward to discussion on these two discussion papers. Discussion on agroforestry/silvopastoral practices is also welcome. We request you not to send comments/contributions on urea-ammoniation of straws. If you want to put forward your views on urea-ammoniation of straws that have not yet been covered, you will get an opportunity during the last week of the e-conference. We look forward to your continued active participation, The moderator of the E conference Livestock Production Systems Branch AGA, FAO, Rome, Italy

This is Alejandro Ceballos-Márquez (102), from Colombia (now from United States) I have been following your discussion about the use of alternatives such as ammonification and the use of urea for the hydrolysis of complex carbohydrates. I think that there have been a lot of good comments on this topic, but I would like to see (and thank) if we move onto another topic.

81

The message from Dr. U. Krishnamoorthy from India, and those from Drs. Fernandes Sousa and Martins Mauricio from Brazil, and Dr. Lascano from Colombia are catching all my attention, as we have a lot of experience with agroforestry and use of urea as supplement in Colombia. The use of urea is a cheap way to provide or supplement protein to cattle when protein is a limiting factor in the diet. However, a number of considerations arise when this is the case: 1. A unit of urea gives, roughly, 2.9 units of protein. 2. A source of fermentable carbohydrates should be used in order to avoid any waste of nitrogen within the animal. This means that CHOs are needed to maximize the synthesis of protein from ruminal bacteria. 3. The excess of nitrogen can cause a sudden increase in blood and milk urea. We have been using milk urea concentration as a way to monitor the intake of non-protein nitrogen, soluble protein, and degradable protein in the diet. In particular, milk urea levels can be high when the fermentation pattern of urea and CHOs is not well synchronized. Of course, milk protein may appear high, but the quality of this milk protein is low. 4. Molasses from sugarcane have been successfully used to achieve an adequate synthesis of microbial protein. We have used up to 80 g urea/day plus 500 g of molasses. However, the price of molasses rocketed in Colombia in the last few years due to the use of this by-product for ethanol. Not sure if other CHOs sources can be used obtaining same results. 5. Some problems have been seen after using urea in dairy cattle grazing well-fertilized pastures, or when organic matter is applied to pastures (i.e. reproductive failure, less rumination, a higher risk of metabolic diseases). 6. Urea has been used as a source of nitrogen for dairy and beef cattle. 7. Urea has a potential risk to cause intoxication when is not well managed. On the other hand, it would be interesting to have in the discussion about agroforestry people from CIPAV (Colombia) and from Reserva Natural El Hatico (Colombia), probably they can make a significant contribution to this discussion. There are also people from Universidad Nacional (Medellin, Colombia) who can make a contribution about agroforestry in temperate regions. Alejandro Ceballos-Marquez, DVM, MSc, PhD Universidad de Caldas Cornell University

82

Dr Mahesh CHANDER (103) from India Main Contribution on Azolla: can it succeed as a sustainable animal feed alternative? Azolla- waterborne blue green algae or fern is mainly used as organic fertilizer or biofertilizer in rice fields in many parts of the world as important component of integrated nutrient management in crops. It is also being promoted as a sustainable feed substitute for livestock in many countries including India. Available reports indicate that Azolla is the most economic and efficient feed substitute for livestock, having abundant amount of proteins and vitamins, with increased content of minerals than that in other fodder grasses. Its use in feed of milk cattle results in increase in milk production by 15 to 20%. Azolla (1.5 to 2 kg on fresh weight basis) can be fed in the proportion 1:1 with cattle feed. Per kg production cost of Azolla is 60-65 Indian paise (.015 $) as per the trials conducted in year 2008-09 at a Krishi Vikas Kendra, KVK (an extension agency in India). Up to 5% Azolla meal in a broiler ration help improve performance. This inclusion level in a broiler diet is also determined as safe. Azolla meal had no deleterious effect on the palatability of broiler diets (International Journal of Poultry Science 1: 29-34, 2002), improved the weight of the broiler chicken and increased the egg production of layers. Azolla was used as a feed for pigs and ducks in S E Asia; for cattle, fish and poultry in Vietnam; and for pigs in Singapore and Taiwan. It is described as an excellent substitute for green forage for cattle in Vietnam and may replace up to 50% of the rice bran used as feed for pigs in that country. Although very low in DM, it contains a high level of protein (24% CP). The amino acid composition of Azolla compares well with the reference protein sources. Methionine is low, as with many leaf proteins, but the value for lysine is more than twice that of corn. As a supplement for growing pigs, performance was reduced compared to controls in the growing phase but the animals compensated and grew faster in the period from 24-89 kg. It has been used as a sole feed for lactating sows which have a higher intake to deal with the low DM content. Ducks (650-1800g LW) consumed 350 g Azolla when given free-choice with sugarcane juice and soya (about 5% of the diet). It is also used for grazing ducks and geese in paddy fields where the Azolla is used as a fertilizer (FAO documents). In Philippines, Azolla was propagated for fertilizing rice and for feed to animals, but it has not become a very popular source of protein feed for animals (FAO documents). In spite of favorable experimental findings, concrete evidences regarding the success of Azolla as animal feed at the level of farmers are lacking. In India, on-station research evidences/ trials including by some KVKs and Universities have shown Azolla as a very promising feed option. But, again the evidence of its successful use by farmers is lacking. Some NGOs have reported that Azolla as cattle feed is receiving very good response from farmers in some parts of India. Dairy cooperatives too have shown interest in providing financial support to farmers for constructing Azolla pits. Some Agricultural Universities and KVKs have

83

been trying to popularize it but no success story worth mentioning. These KVKs have developed demonstration units in their campuses to show its benefits. It is only recently (April 2010), the Govt of India has come out with a nationwide programme (Assistance for Demonstration of Azolla Cultivation and Production Units) to popularize it. Under the Government sponsored Fodder and Feed Development Scheme in India, assistance for demonstration of Azolla cultivation and production units is being provided to encourage production of Azolla as an alternate source of green fodder by training the farmers for production of Azolla and providing necessary materials to establish Azolla production units on subsidy basis. Farmers, members of milk cooperatives, KVKs, Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA) are the implementing agencies for this government scheme, to popularize Azolla as a potential cattle feed. This technology as of today has not spread even among farmers those who are usually quick in accepting any technology, if it suits to them (so called -progressive farmers- innovators or early adopters in extension education terminology). The possible reasons for poor adoption of this technology could be: 1. Scarcity of water especially in dryland regions 2. High temperatures 3. It is still in its infancy, and 4. Inadequate extension efforts. The practical experiences of farmers’ from other countries can be shared for mutual benefits. The technology as such may be good, with demonstrated potential on-station/research stations, but inappropriate in the farmers’ situation hindering its large scale adoption by the farmers. Questions raised: 1. Are there enough practical experiences where it has been successfully or unsuccessfully tried as animal feed source at the farmers’ level? 2. Under what circumstances it is going to work and wouldn’t work? 3. Is it going to be a viable technology? Answers to these questions would help in making right choices for animal feeding and reduce the cost and time in promoting unsustainable practices. Dr Mahesh CHANDER Principal Scientist & Head Div of Extension Education, Indian Veterinary Research Institute Izatnagar-243 122 (UP) India. +91 581 2302391

84

A.B.M. KHALEDUZZAMAN, M.A. AKBAR and M. SHAMSUDDIN (104) from Bangladesh Main contribution on: Integrated HYV rice/forage production techniques for small holder dairy farmers in Bangladesh Sustainable agriculture seeks, at least in principle, using nature as the model for designing agricultural systems. By understanding these principles we can diversify the agricultural systems and use them to reduce costs and increase profitability, while at the same time sustain our land resources. Intercropping offers farmers the opportunity to engage nature’s principle of diversity on their farms. One of the most important reasons to grow two or more crops together is the increase in productivity per unit land. The integration of rice/forage production techniques for small holder dairy farmers was studied by Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU). On-farm and on-station trials over a periods of 1996-2000 concluded that the cultivation of protein rich fodder African Dhaincha (Sesbania rostrata) as intercrop with Boro rice and Khesari (Lathyrus sativus) as relay crop with Aman rice increase the supply of high quality fodder for livestock, increase milk production and soil fertility. This technology has been validated and disseminated over other 4 districts of Bangladesh. The on-farm fodder production and animal feeding trial showed that the technology increased milk yield up to 25% by feeding produced fodder to cows and increased rice yield up to 13% by improving soil fertility. Socio-economic benefits of growing Lathyrus and Sesbania were large. The extra yield of rice, allowing for higher labor costs, increased the gross margin/ha of the rice crop by 34%. The higher milk yield would potentially increased household income. With better year-round nutrition, age at first calving of heifers and calving interval of cows would also improve. The integrated high yielding variety (HYV) rice/forage production technique is widely practiced by the farmers throughout the country particularly in milk pockets since 1995. At that time, Bangladesh Milk Producers Co-operative Union Ltd. (BMPCUL) in Baghabarighut, Sirajgonj district started integrated rice/forage production techniques with registered farmers. After harvesting HYV rice (Transplant Aman) at the end of November, BMPCUL distributed Napier (Pennisetum purpureum) cuttings as well as Khesari (Lathyrus sativus) seeds to the farmers for forage production. Recently, a total 10 small holder farmers of North and Northwest part of the country started the integrated HYV rice/forage production techniques as well as mixed forage cropping without hampering existing rice cropping systems with the help of Community-based Dairy Veterinary Foundation (CDVF). The highest net economic return (BDT 58,280.0) was found by mixed cropping of maize and napier fodder (Table 1) as intercrop between HYV Aman and Boro rice. At the same time, the net economic return (NER) of Khesari fodder as relay crop with HYV Aman rice was BDT 38,750.0. The NER was also increased by different forage-based cropping systems (Table 2).

85

Table 1 Cost of forage production and net economic return (NER)

Fodder Productio

n

Cost of fodder production

Net economic

return

Cropping systems

MT/ha BDT/kg BDT/ha (BDT/ha)

Single cropping (Khesari) 27.30 0.65 17745.00 36855.0 Relay cropping (Khesari) 25.00 0.45 11250.00 38750.0 Mixed cropping (Maize+Cowpea)

27.00 0.75 20250.00 20250.0

Mixed cropping (Maize+Napier)

62.00 0.56 34720.00 58280.0

Mixed cropping (Maize+Cowpea+Napier)

65.00 0.68 44200.00 53300.0

Source: CDVF (unpublished), 2009 1US$ = 69.5 BDT (Bangladesh Taka)

86

Table 2 Net economic return from different forage-based cropping systems Districts Forage-based

cropping systems Net Economic Return ( BDT/ha)

T. Aman (BR-11)+ Khesari (relay) + Boro (Hybrid -Hira/Sonarbangla)

52500.0+38750.0+66000.0 = 157,250.0

T. Aman (BR-11) + Maize & Napier + Boro

52500.0+58280.0+66000.0 = 176,780.0

T. Aman (BR-11) + Maize & Napier (3 harvests)

52500.0+58280.0+29000.0+29000.0 = 168,780.0

T. Aman (BR-11) + Khesari (relay) + Maize & Napier (2 harvests)

52500.0+38750.0+58280.0+29000.0= 178,530.0

Bogra

T. Aman + Maize & Cowpea + Boro

52500.0+20250.0+66000.0 = 138,750.0

Khesari (relay) + T. Aman (BR-11/BR-28) + Boro (Aman)

38750.0+60500.0+27800.0 = 127,050.0

Khesari (relay) + Maize & Napier (2 harvests) + Boro (Aman)

38750.0+58280.0+29000.0+27800.0 = 153,830.0

Khesari (relay) + Maize & Napier (4 harvests)

38750.0+58280.0+29000.0+29000.0+29000.0= 184,030.0

Khesari (relay) + T. Aman (BR-11/BR-28) + Maize & Napier (2 harvests)

38750.0+60500.0+58280.0+29000.0= 186,530.0

Sirajgonj

Khesari (relay) + T. Aman (BR-11/BR-28) + Maize & Cowpea (2 harvests)

38750.0+60500.0+20250.0+10500.0 = 130,000.0

Source: CDVF (unpublished), 2009 Reasons for growing interest in producing integrated rice/forage production are: i) Potential for increased farm profitability; ii) Lower fixed costs for land and machinery as a result of the production of a second crop at the same time; iii) Better utilization of farm management labor, time and equipment; iv) Hedge production risk (two crops in one growing season); v) Secure fodder crops for livestock feeding and vi) Preserved excess fodder for animal feeding for the periods of scarcity.

87

The integrated forage-based cropping systems are becoming increasingly widespread, especially in densely populated area like Bangladesh where the land is scarce. Combination of food crop, cash crop and fodder crop production aimed at meeting both livestock and human needs. Such systems have proved to be an effective way to encourage rural farmers to grow animal feed. A.B.M. KHALEDUZZAMAN Upazila Livestock Officer Department of Livestock Services, Dhaka, Bangladesh Ph.D. Fellow Department of Animal Nutrition Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh Phone: +88 02 9138903, Cell Phone: +88 01716 001137 Email: abmkhaled@yahoo.com M. A. AKBAR Professor Department of Animal Nutrition Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202 Bangladesh Phone: +88 091 55695-7, Cell Phone: +88 01715 004752 Fax: +88 091 55810 Email: maakbar52@yahoo.com M. SHAMSUDDIN Chair Community-based Dairy Veterinary Foundation (CDVF) and Professor Department of Surgery and Obstetrics Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202 Bangladesh Phone: +88 091 55695-7, Cell phone: +88 01713 013530 Fax: +88 091 55810 Email: m.shamsuddin@gmail.com

A.K. MISHRA (105) from India Response to messages no. 103 regarding Azolla: as a sustainable animal feed for livestock I do agree with Dr M Chander (Message 103) that Azolla production as feed for livestock is in its inception stage in India. Technology of Azolla production and utilization as a feed supplement was demonstrated to farmers and women self help

88

groups (WSHGs) at Directorate of Research on Women in Agriculture (DRWA), Bhubaneswar, India. Azolla supplementation improved the livestock productivity (egg, growth rate, milk yield) and did not have any adverse effect on health. Fresh Azolla supplementation in ducks @ 100-200 g/duck/day could replace 25-35% concentrated feed. The technology of Azolla feeding was successfully transferred to the farmers’ fields in Puri Distrct of Orissa (more than 200 farmers/farm women) and they have started supplementing Azolla in the livestock feed along with other feed ingredients and kitchen waste. In Puri district, Krishi Vikas Kendras (KVK, and extension agency) also promoted Azolla among crossbred cattle owners (almost in every village we have seen the azolla units in Kakatpur block of Puri distrct in India) and it is becoming very popular as a substitute of groundnut cake, because the cost of groundnut cake is going very high. Women self help groups in Puri district involved in rearing of improved piggery (crossbred pigs), duck rearing and aquaculture have integrated Azolla production to minimize the cost of feeding. Daily supplementation of Azolla checked the faded colouration of ornamental fishes maintained under artificial conditions (DRWA observation). Similarly in Chittor district of Andhra Pradesh, India, Azolla feeding is becoming popular among milk producers. But still for quick up-scaling, extension and policy support is very crucial. Azolla production can successfully be taken up round the year. Only precaution that needs to be taken is its regular maintenance. In summer, green net needs to be provided to reduce the temperature. The viability of Azolla feeding depends on several factors. At presents the cost of oilcakes is going up, so farmers started adopting it. Women self help groups (with whom DRWA is working) have observed that by supplementing fresh Azolla @ 5-8 kg /day to each pig, the body condition of the animals improved and they are able to reduce the cost of oilcakes by 50 percent. Similar observation was recorded with farmwomen involved in rearing of crossbred dairy animals. They even reported that by feeding Azolla daily to lactating cows, milk yield can be maintained for a longer period. Dr A K Misra Principal Scientist Livestock Production and Management Directorate of Research on Women in Agriculture Bhubneswar 751 003, India Phone: +91 672 2386220(O); +919938424708(M), Fax: +91 674 2386242 Website: www.drwa.org.in

89

I am Dr André Jonas DJENONTIN (106) from Benin My and my team's experiences on promotion of forage production in North Benin showed a partial success. The main problem in promoting forage production is in the management practices. In fact, it is necessary to make choice between bovine herding and sheeps and goat herding. This choice is not easy because farmers or herders have both these groups of animals. This complexity influences many successful approaches of research system team and extension services for promoting forage production (forage garden, forage land, anti-erosive barrier and delimitation parcel line or band). With these forms of forage production, herders pointed out new constraints they faced. These constraints are related to their capacity to produce forage for the herd or for any partitioned herd like "nucleous milk cows" (quantity of product vs. demand or need for herds) and for the critical period when forages are not available (stocked forage and fresh forage). The promotional objectives did not focus on these constraints. The forage production forms are not accompanied by adequate policies like land and financial access. We think that it will be necessary to define appropriate and differential promotional approaches for forage production for rural and for peri-urban zones because land availability and its management are different in these two zones. DJENONTIN André Jonas Animal Scientist INRAB/CRA NORD INA BP 789 Parakou, BENIN E-mail: djenjoan@yahoo.fr

I am Dr. N K S Gowda (107) from INDIA Opinion about Azolla feeding: Message No (103) Cultivation and feeding of Azolla to dairy animals is fast becoming popular in and around Bangalore, India. It contains about 25-30 % CP (DM basis) and 90-93 % moisture. Ten kg of wet Azolla is almost equivalent to 550 gram of groundnut cake and farmers usually mix the wet Azolla with wheat bran and gram husk and sometimes with maize grain and feed to dairy animals. Improvement in milk yield (10-15%) has been reported due to inclusion of Azolla. Apart from good quality protein, Azolla also supplements minerals, vitamins and pigments. Hence there is a complimentary and supplementary effect on rumen fermentation and nutrient utilization.

90

I think we should not call Azolla as a green fodder. It is a green supplement. N K S Gowda Principal Scientist (Animal Nutrition) NIANP Adugodi, Bangalore India 560030 Cell : 9980827868 Office : 080- 25711304, 25711164

Dr NIYONSENGA Seraphin (108) from Senegal (West Africa) The strategy to increase feed availability with in small farm systems should have the final objectives of developing sustainable all year round feeding systems, appropriate to the prevailing situation and the availability of feeds. Horti-pasture system seems to be feasible for obtaining maximum production from minimum land. The major objective of this system is to yield fruits, however tree leaves are obtained as by –product to feed the animals. In Rwanda, the total area devoted to fruit and vegetable production is 58,225 hectares. This technique involves the introduction of grasses and legumes in association with fruit plants. Dr NIYONSENGA Seraphin BSc, DVM (Cheikh Anta Diop University-Dakar/SENEGAL) MVSc (National Dairy Research Institute, INDIA) E-mail: niseraphin@yahoo.fr

This is Aichi KITALYI, (109) from Tanzania I am animal Scientist, currently working with the World Agroforestry Centre based in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. I would like to share some experiences from East Africa on use of tree forages in response to request from Carlos Lascano Message no 90. Through livestock development projects use Leucaena and Calliandra spp. Leaf meal in smallholder dairy has been adopted by a substantial number of farmers in East Africa’s smallholder (< 5 milking cows) dairy production systems. In case of leucaena farmers in Tanga region in Tanzania commercialised use of wild leucaena leaf meal sources (attached photo of the ingredient in a feed store). The leaf meal is

91

used as one of the ingredients for homemade concentrates, where levels of up to 10 – 15 % are used in a mixture of maize bran, cotton or sunflower cake and a mineral mix. A publication: (http://www.worldagroforestry.org/downloads/publications/PDFs/BR09326.PDF) gives a recent assessment of the technology in the region. Use of fodder trees leaf meals in the region is growing among smallholder farmers who either cannot afford or access commercial dairy concentrates. In Tanzania homemade rations for livestock is quite common and here farmers use fodder trees leaf meal to substitute for the conventional protein concentrates such as oil seed cakes or animal protein sources for monogastrics. May be one of the key message I can share here is the fact that, there are low cost feeding technologies, with good prospects, but again there is limited support for rigorous research to develop appropriate packages or to improve on the technology. Aichi Kitalyi PhD Scientist – Livestock and Farming Systems PO Box 6226 Dar es Salaam Telephone/Fax: 255222700660 Mobile: 255784542616 Email: A.Kitalyi@cgiar.org and Web: www.worldagroforestry.org/

B.K. MATHUR (110) from India Agroforestry/Silvopastoral practices are the best way to increase the biomass availability and rangelands Adult Cattle Unit (ACU) holding capacity. This is of higher significance for degraded pasturelands/Wastelands of Arid region of Rajasthan, India. However, the question is: it is not being adopted by arid zone farmers, inspite of many successful on field and at institute demonstration and that it increases ACU capacity from 0.5 to 1.5. Dr.B.K.Mathur Principal Scientist (Animal Nutrition) MVSc., PhD Central Arid Zone Research Institute, JODHPUR-342 003, Rajasthan, India

92

From the Moderator of the E conference [We would appreciate receiving comments/views and contributions on the production and use of cactus as livestock feed. Discussion on silvopastoral/agroforestry systems, forage production and use is also open. So keep sending your views/thoughts/comments; Moderator]

Dr. Hichem BENSALEM (111) from Tunisia A success story on cactus technology in dry areas Cactus (Opuntia spp.) holds promises as a tool to improve smallholders’ income and to combat desertification in dry areas Any technology, not requiring high inputs and labour, is not time-consuming and adapted to the harsh conditions prevailing in arid regions is often welcomed by farmers. Cactus plantation and use in livestock feeding fits well with these conditions. 1. Main characteristics of cactus Described as “a dromedary of the plant kingdom” and “bank of life”, cactus is able to grow in areas with low rainfall where most common plants can not grow, it is drought tolerant, and can be used to mitigate long-term degradation of ecologically fragile environments. It is characterised by high water use efficiency, rapid dissemination and growth, and a high biomass yield (5 to 26 tons dry matter /ha depending on density). Adaptation mechanisms of this plant include the asynchronous reproduction and its crassulacean acid metabolism, and succulence allowing cactus to continue assimilating carbon dioxide during long periods of drought. Cactus has strong root system which avoids wind and rain erosion. These characteristics justify the importance of cactus as a tool to combat desertification and to restore the vegetative cover in marginal lands in arid and semiarid areas. The popularity of cactus lies also on its low water needs, tolerance to high temperatures, and to its multipurpose use including production of high consumable biomass for livestock, fruit production for human consumption, its use in pharmaceutical, cosmetic and food industries. 2. Cactus as an alternative feed resource in dry areas Smallholders’ incomes could be increased by using cactus cladodes as an alternative feed supplement, selling cladodes and or fruits. Cactus cladodes had high contents of soluble carbohydrates, calcium and β-carotene. But they are low in fiber and crude protein (CP). Therefore, provision of a fiber (i.e. straw, hay, etc.) and protein sources

93

is recommended when feeding cactus to ruminants. Nitrogen-rich clones of spineless cactus have been selected. Moreover, solid state fermentation (SSS) seems a promising microbial process to produce protein from cactus. It embraces the growth of microorganisms on water-insoluble substrate in the absence of free water. Some Brazilian studies showed a remarkable increase (up to 400%) of the proportion of protein (260 g/kg DM) in cactus cladodes fermented with yeast (Saccharomyces cervisiae). Cactus is also efficient in reducing considerably livestock watering. Indeed, ruminants do not need to drink water when receiving cactus cladodes (ca. 35 g dry matter/kg metabolic weight). Replacing concentrate feeds (i.e. corn or barley) with cactus cladodes had no effect on digestion, lamb growth and cattle milk production and quality. Provided that energy from concentrate feeds is replaced by its equivalent in terms of cactus cladodes, animal response to cactus and concentrate supplemented diets were similar. In Tunisia, it was shown that total replacement of barley grains with cactus cladodes (equivalent energy level) had no effect on productive and reproductive performances of sheep and did not affect meat quality. The incorporation of cactus in sheep and goat diets increased conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) level in meat. 3. Successful adoption of cactus plantation and use Cactus plantation and use is among the successful technologies which were easily and highly adopted in Tunisia. For smallholders cactus is an important emergency feed and security tool to adapt to and militate against drought conditions. Spineless cactus plantations are expending at high speed in North Africa (Morocco and Libya) and in many African (Ethiopia, Mauritania, South Africa, etc.), Asia (India, Iran, Jordan, Pakistan, etc.) and American (Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, etc.). In Tunisia, spiny cactus used to be fed to livestock after singing out the spines. Rapid exposure of spiny cladodes to fire (traditional oven used for bread making) is a time consuming and labour demanding operation. Since the introduction of spineless cactus in the thirties cactus is the preferred range species for smallholders. A participatory approach is adopted to ensure wide cactus plantation mainly in arid and semi arid areas of Tunisia. The farmers’ contribution consists of ploughing the soil, planting cladodes and maintaining cactus plantations for three years (resting period), while the government provides cactus cladodes (about 0.03 U$ per double cladode), reimburses part of the farmers’ contribution (soil preparation, about 8 U$/ha), planting (about 34 U$/ha)) and provides subsidies (about 38 U$/ha/year during the first three years). This subsidy is given in kind, as concentrate feed or contribution to purchasing improved rams, and corresponds to the three-year rest period during which animals must not graze in cactus plantation. A contract is established between the farmer and the government. 4. My opinion In 2007 and 2008, it was a good opportunity for me to visit farmers in Northern Brazil (Pernumbucco and Paraiba states) and to note the big efforts made by scientists and

94

extension people to transfer cactus technology. All farmers were happy with this technology since, according to them, it decreases feeding cost, reduces livestock watering and improves milk and meat production. A diet composed of 60% ground spineless cactus cladodes, 20% fibrous source (hay) and 20% protein rich concentrate dairy cattle produce about 25 liters milk/day and dairy goats about 5-8 liters milk/day. These milk yields couldn’t often be achieved under the harsh conditions prevailing in many arid areas. In brief, cactus holds promises as a tool to improve the performances and sustainability of livestock-based production systems, to combat desertification and to improve small farmer’s livelihoods in the dry areas. Dr. Hichem BEN SALEM Coordinator of the FAO-CIHEAM Sub-Network on Sheep & Goat Nutrition Head of the Laboratory of Animal & Forage Productions - INRAT INRAT Laboratoire des Productions Animales et Fourragères Rue Hédi Karray, 2049 Ariana, Tunisie Tel. 216 71 230 024 - Mobile 216 98 208 565 Fax (Lab.): 216 71 231 592 Fax (Institute): 216 71 716 537 - 216 71 752 897 E-mail: bensalem.hichem@iresa.agrinet.tn <mailto:bensalem.hichem@iresa.agrinet.tn> I am Tej K. WALLI (112) from India Dr. Hichem BEN SALEM's report on the successful plantation and use of spineless Cactus cladodes as a livestock feed by the smallholder farmers of Tunisia is indeed very interesting as well as informative message. The plantation of this type of cactus can prove a big boon for raising livestock in most of the arid zones of the tropical world. Its multitude benefits like high biomass production even under water stress conditions, high protein and high calcium content, low fiber content makes it an excellent forage feed. Moreover, its feeding also results in better quality milk and meat production, being richer in CLA content. Apart from being a good feed resource, it also offers another big advantage of improving the sustainability of livestock-based production systems, to combat desertification and to improve small farmer’s livelihoods in arid and semi-arid zones. I hope this noval technology finds a wide application and is taken up in other countries having arid and semi arid regions. Tej k. WALLI, India

95

This is Dr. Andrew HARBERD (113) Working as Regional Technical Adviser VSF-Belgium in Kenya An extremely valuable e-conference and I am sure there are many silent participants out there like me gaining a great deal from reading the contributions being submitted. I was very interested to read the informative contribution from Dr. Hichem Bensalem from Tunisia: “Cactus (Opuntia spp.) holds promises as a tool to improve smallholders’ income and to combat desertification in dry areas”. I am an entomologist and agricultural scientist with a 3 decades long association with Somalia, most recently as FAO’s Emergency Coordinator. I have long been interested in the potential for introducing plantation cropping of spineless Opuntia, in particular as a food source for the millions of sheep and goats that are maintained in holding grounds, immediately prior to export from the northern Somalia ports of Bosasso and Berbera. I would be grateful to know how we get started and from where would be the best location to import spineless Opuntia planting material into Somalia? Dr. Andrew HARBERD Regional Technical Adviser VSF-Belgium 3rd Floor, Titan Complex, Chaka rd., Nairobi, Kenya. Tel: +254-20-2734518/19/20/24/27 Fax: +254-20-2734533 Cell: +254-722-488748

This is Cyprian EBONG (114) from ISAR, Rwanda It is encouraging that leafmeals from multipurpose tree species are penetrating the smallhoder farming systems in East Africa, thanks to a number of agencies. The gestation period has been rather long but rewarding, noting the experiences documentated by Le Houerou's on potential values of these species in Sub-Saharan Africa. However one known attribute of a number of browse species in tropical areas is high contents of value tannins and related polyphenols; which have the potential to reduce enteric methane emission. In this way they contribute (albeit passively) to climate change mitigation efforts. I have often nurtured the idea that systematic and strategic promotion of potent browses in ruminant livestock production would open a window of opportunity for access to Carbon Credit Markets under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol. This opportunity provides the incentive for increased adoption of potent browse species for ruminant livestock production among smallholder farming communities. I have also come across

96

research efforts of introgressing tannins genes in productive and nutritious forages in order to derive these benefits. Yet in the tropics we have this materials naturally growing as a public good. I know alternative arguments could be: how much benefits can accrue using this approach, and the availability of credible audit protocols compliance? But I think these are researchable questions for "Green Livestock Production". Cyprian Ebong Senior Scientist -Animal Nutrition ISAR-Rwanda

I am Professor Ghulam HABIB (115) from Pakistan Re: Message 90 and 109; Tree Forage Fodder trees are popular source of forage for ruminant livestock in arid and hilly regions of Pakistan There are more than 18 native species of multipurpose fodder trees. These are both browsed and stall fed under cut and carry system. These are rich source of protein varying from 12 to 22% in dry matter (DM). In sacco protein degradability in tree leaves is directly related to acid detergent fiber linked nitrogen (ADF-N) and tannin contents. Tannin rich tree leaves are relished by goats and to lesser extent by grazing sheep. Local tree leaves were found to be rich in most of the essential macro and micro minerals. The feed value of some tree leaves such as Grewia oppositfolia for cattle and buffaloes and Ziziphus mauritiana for goats was found equal to expensive oil cakes (cottonseed cake) through feeding trials. Fodder trees in the mixed crop-livestock farming system in hilly and arid region of Pakistan are so important that these are integrated with the agricultural crops and grown on boundaries of agricultural crops. Grewia oppositifolia tree leaves in hilly region are highly valued as a supplement for milking cows and buffaloes. Daily a bunch of tree leaves is harvested and used as supplement at the time of milking during winter season when fodder is in short supply. Grewia trees are also traded and an average size fodder tree would cost Rupee 300 to 500 (US $ 3.5 to 6.0) for supply of leaves only (not the whole tree). It withstands cold weather, and advancement of cold in winter season does not affect its nutrient composition and digestibility, thus continuously supply fresh forage throughout winter season. . Hilly regions face severe fodder shortage during winter (November to February). Tree foliage is helpful in filling the gap and fed mixed with wheat straw, chopped range grass hay and maize stovers.

97

Some local fodder trees particularly acacia species have been successfully replaced by exotic species in arid regions of Pakistan that yield more biomass and remain green for longer time with good adaptability. Pods of acacia species are also collected by goat and sheep herders and fed as supplement during winter season and claimed as excellent feed. For some trees bark of young branches are valued more than their leaves as feed supplement. Medicinal value of several native fodder trees for treatment of livestock is well recognized under traditional farming system in Pakistan. GHULAM HABIB Faculty of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Sci, KPK Agricultural University, Peshawar habibnutr@gmail.com

Carlos E. Lascano (116) from Colombia Silvopastoral systems in tropical regions have a low rate of adoption in spite being promoted by many research and development organizations, funding agencies and NGO's as a means of having sustainable and environmentally friendly cattle productions systems in tropical dry and humid regions. I have no doubts that silvopastoral systems have many advantages on animal production and on the environment (i.e. C sequestration), but I put forward the idea that some advantages that been associated with silvopastoral systems have limited experimental support, which is a must to promote in a sound manner the adoption of silvopastoral systems among farmers in tropical regions. I will focus my comments to shade and forage production and animal comfort. It is argued that shade projected by trees in silvopastoral (trees + grasses) systems is accompanied by many benefits in grass production/quality in the lower strata of the system and in animal comfort (less heat stress, increased voluntary intake and higher live weight gain (LWG) and milk yield). However, there is limited experimental evidence to support some of these claims and as a result I suggest that there is a need to carry out research to better understands how shade in different silvopastoral systems affects forage production and animal performance. In what follows I briefly discuss some results on shade and forage production/quality and animal comfort in silvoapstoral systems with the objective of promoting discussion in the on-going e- conference. - The results of controlled experiments indicate that there are grass species with tolerance to shade and therefore recommended to be include in silvopastoral

98

systems in which light transmission is moderate (25-50%). However, for silvopastoral systems with high levels of shade (< of 25% of light transmission) there are no grass options that are productive and persistent and this has implications in the design of the so called "intensive silvopastoral systems" that are being promoted by NGO's. · Forage production of grasses under moderate shade (50% of light transmission) depends on the level of N in the soil. With grasses not deficient in N the effect of reducing light is greater than with N deficient grasses. The greater mineralization in soils under pastures with shade as compared to pastures without shade seems to explain the greater production of biomass that has been observed with certain species of grasses in silvopastoral systems. However, more studies are required to better understand the interaction of N level in grasses X shade level and to define to what extent is soil mineralization greater with N fixing trees and non N fixing trees than in systems with no trees. · The shade in silvopastoral systems increases the level of CP (N x 6.25) in grasses, but it does not affect the composition of the cell wall and digestibility. On the other hand, shade per se does not appear to have an effect on grass morphology (leaf: stem ratio) or on chemical composition that would result in greater voluntary intake. The claim of greater voluntary intake in silvopastoral systems (has to be demonstrated experimentally) could be associated to the effect of shade on " animal comfort", which determines more grazing activity during the day, as has been documented in some studies. More studies of animal behavior are required animal in systems with and without trees in order to verify this hypothesis. · One argument used to promote the use of silvopastoral systems is that shade projected by trees exerts a positive effect in "animal comfort" which results in greater production of meat and milk. However, one needs to recognize that there are breed differences in the manifestation of caloric stress, which can result in different effects of shade on animal production. For example, rectal average temperature (an indicator of heat stress) is greater in Bos taurus than in Bos indicus and as a result B. taurus breeds are more sensible to heat stress that B. indicus. The color of the animals also has a significant effect in how animals cope with heat stress. A black animal absorbs 1 of the direct radiation, while one with white skin absorbs 0.37 and one of red skin of 0.65. · Heat stress in animals can be measured by an Index of humidity and temperature (IHT= 0.72 (T Co measured with a humid bulb thermometer + T Co measured with a dry bulb thermometer) + 40.6) There is limited information reported in the literature on how rectal temperature and IHT vary in different silvopastoral systems in the tropic. In fact one could ask the question if the benefit of different levels shade in IHT is the same for animals with different proportions European blood. Thus it is suggested that in experiments in which different silvopastoral systems are being evaluated researcher measure with appropriate thermometers the IHT and that this index then be correlated with rectal temperatures, animal production

99

(milk and LWG) and animal behavior (activities of the animals) like indicators of "animal comfort". Carlos E. Lascano, PhD Universidad Nacional de Colombia- Sede Bogotá

Cyprian EBONG (117) from ISAR Rwanda Let me add my experiences on opportunities of silvopastoralism. I agree entirely with Carlos on potential benefits of this system of production which have not been adequately researched upon. My personal experience as a consultant in the miombo woodlands of Tanzania confirmed that trees and quality herbage can co-exist. The limited research in the "cattle corridor" of Uganda has provided anecdotal pieces of evidence that upperstorey canopies in agro-pastoral systems tend to limit growth of a potent invasive weed species (Cymbopogon afronardus). Using remote sensing technology, there is scientific evidence due to be published indicating that for the last 2-3 decades the weed has been expanding the major rangelands of Uganda, threatening biodiversity of the rangeland ecosystems and animal production potential of the areas affected. Concurrently the forests, woodlands, wetlands, and grazing areas have been declining. Paradoxically favorable understorey growth may not be of the best advantage for herbivores ungulates in wildlife ecosystems, one of which is found in south-western Uganda (Lake Mburo National Park). This is attributed to the fact that the upper storey canopy provides cover for predators. Therefore the herbivores tend to graze in open weed infested areas for safety reasons. This consideration is important in areas where domestic livestock and widelife either co-exists or neighbor each other. Cyprian Ebong ISAR-Rwanda D. RANGNEKAR (118) from India Placing before the learned participants my experiences, observations, learning and suggestions on Green Fodder Production and Utilization and would appreciate responses. 1. There is no change in % of cultivated area under fodder crops; it has remained between 3 to 5% since the first time I read about in 1955. It is unlikely that the situation would change-nay-it may worsen. Rate of adoption of new varieties of fodder crops is very low (varieties introduced 3 to 4 decades back are still in vogue.

100

2. Fodder production by farmers is an age old practice and so was the preference for dual purpose (for food and fodder) varieties of crops. It is neither a new approach nor a new technology as sometimes referred. Report of a British Agriculture Officer in 1880 (deputed by the Queen to study agriculture practices in Western and Southern India) mentions about practice of green fodder production in Kheda region of Gujarat state and the variety of Sorghum referred by him was popular in the state till recently. 3. My main interest is to exchange views on ways to extend benefit of research and technology development to small- holder producers and the underprivileged and explore possibilities of a change in conventional approach to fodder development and research. I wish the learned participants to consider options indicated below: 3.1 A close look and study of innovative systems developed by the farmers for fodder production would reveal innovations by the farmers to produce green fodder within their limited resources (particularly the land) and it could be used as base for research or for planning interventions for improvement – some examples are given below: · Maize grain and fodder production system in Tribal pockets. During farming systems studies in the tribal pockets (in Western and Central India) it was observed that high seed rate is used for sowing maize and thinning is done after a certain stage of growth. The plants removed are used for feeding productive animals. This thinning operation is done in two or three stages so that they get fodder for an extended period and the plot is subsequently left for grain production. Thus within the limited land available they try to get green fodder for the producing animals and food for the family (maize is staple food for most tribal families). · Integration of Sugar and Milk production through integration of sugarcane, leguminous fodder crops and use of animal waste. Study of farming systems in South Gujarat and Western Maharashtra (two areas in Western India) provided opportunity to understand farmer innovations to integrate production of Sugar and milk production (each sub-systems complimenting the other ref Rangnekar, 1988 for initial report). (a) Greens are obtained in 4 ways from the system growing maize as catch crop between two rows while sugar cane is planted. It is harvested before sugar cane plant grows. (b) Sesbania is grown around the plots of sugar cane as wind break and it is cut a few times for use as fodder and provides fuel on maturity; (c) Lucerne is cultivated as a rotational crop for sugarcane. Farmers prefer Lucerne for its fodder value as well as for soil improvement; (d) Sugarcane tops are a major source of fodder during the sugarcane season (of 7 months) and farmers being aware of the limitations of sugarcane use oil cakes, rice polish or bran as supplements. [Dairy animals are kept by sugarcane farmers to get milk as well as dung which is valuable for maintaining soil quality/productivity]

101

· Use of cover crops as green fodder. In parts of the state of Andhra Pradesh it is a traditional practice to sow cover crops soon after harvest of rainy season crop with purposes of conserving moisture, providing fodder and enriching soil. These cover crops are legumes and hence serve all the three purposes (unfortunately these are neglected). · Weeds for big farmers – fodder resource for the Landless labor. Studies on women in livestock production showed that those working as labor for weeding of crops meticulously collect weeds and these range from common grass species to Triplex species in saline areas (in wheat crop). The women know weeds having fodder value and their characteristics – they were seen water washing Triplex to remove salt. 3.2 Commercial production of green fodder – Study of Urban Livestock Production carried out a few years back (by my late wife) revealed existence of an excellent system of production and supply of green fodder for commercial producers in urban/per urban areas around big cities. There are agents (parts of cities are divided between agents) who gather demands for green fodder (type/quantity), in advance, and arrange production through farmers and supply to the producers (in a well regulated manner). Emergence of such a system has resulted in adoption of fodder crops as cash crop by farmers around the cities. A similar system exists for supply of dry fodder (dry grass/ cereal straws) and supplies are arranged according to the quantity and type of material needed (copped or long form), however, the system is not concerned with production. 4. Research and development efforts be made to = understand famer innovations and use these as base for improvement; explore use of Xerophytic and Halophytic plants, those that can withstand sodic / acidic soil conditions with fodder value. 5. I wish some one from Central Asia writes about Opuntia ficus indica as fodder plant (suited for arid areas). References: Rangnekar, D.V., (1988). Integration of sugar and milk production in India. F.A.O., Animal Production and Health paper no. 72 (pp. 176-187) F.A.O., Rome. Rangnekar, S.D., (1992). Women in livestock production in rural India. Proc. Sixth AAAP Animal Science congress held at Bangkok, Vol 1, and pp 271-285

D. RANGNEKAR from India

102

Enrique MURGUEITIO (119) from Colombia CIPAV's Experiences with Intensive Silvopastoral System GEF Integrated Silvopastoral Approaches to Ecosystem project.

Between 2002 and 2008 we executed, simultaneously in Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Colombia, a project on Intensive silvopastoral approaches to ecosystem management, a unique initiative in which for the first time the livestock and small and medium livestock producers became beneficiaries of the payment for environmental services (PES) for biodiversity conservation and carbon capture. The project was established to encourage change in land use in farming areas in decline, at the same time to make livestock production efficient in terms of meat and milk production and income generation. Also it generated additional environmental benefits through the establishment of different silvopstoral forms of arrangements. The project, described as very successful in all evaluations, received funding from the Global Environment Fund (GEF) and the World Bank's involvement & FAO. CATIE, Costa Rica; NITLAPAN, Nicaragua and CIPAV Foundation in Colombia were responsible for the implementation. The results were very positive, proving the original hypothesis raised: livestock producers were able to make changes in their production systems, and economic stimulus was achieved with technical assistance. In addition, it was found that this process of adoption of silvopastoral forms and protection of forests is increasing biodiversity and carbon sequestration in agricultural land in the short term. The transformation of farms with SSP generated increased income of producers, changing initial gain of $ 162 hectare / year to $ 252 hectare/year in Costa Rica and $ 111 to $180 in Nicaragua. In the case of Colombia, the properties that set up the intensive silvopastoral system (ISS) with a density of trees and shrubs above 10,000 / hectare, (2008), characterizing improved pastures fertilized with nitrogen (urea), received additional income of $ 1.157 hectare / year (from $ 440 at baseline to 1.597 hectare / year). The employment generated rose by 30% and on farms that were monitored, it was found that higher stocking rates changed on average of nearly 300 lots from 1.8 to 2.5 hectare / year large animals (450 kg body weight), implying increased production of milk (5.0 to 6.1 liters / cow / day) and meat (450-800 kg / hectare / year). Environmental services were significantly generated through the efforts of all producers. Between 2002 and 2007, a reduction in erosion was achieved by nearly 50% (80.9 tons hectare / year to 44.1 tons / hectare / year). Also it reduced the use of agrochemicals, especially herbicides, 13 913 liters / year to 7899 liters / year as the sum of consumption of all farms. The effects on biodiversity are evident in the increasing number of species of special indicator groups, such as birds went from 140 to 197 species (2002-2007), the diurnal Lepidoptera (from 67 to 130 species) and terrestrial mollusks (35 to 81 species.) Additionally, there were significant contributions to the preservation of bird species and flora of the global conservation concern. On the issue of greenhouse gases 1.5 tons of carbon was sequestered per year in each seeding hectare (12 000 hectares established). In the case of ISS, reductions of methane emissions were by 21% and of nitrous oxide by 36%. Although in Colombia the payment schedule did not include water services, evidence for

103

improved quality in micro-watershed were obtained. In just three years, reduction in pollution and sediment was significant. Thus the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) decreased from 11 parts ppm to <1.2, showing a reduction in water pollutant organic load (reference value is 5 ppm) and various other parameters of water quality measured showed improvement in water quality. PSA covered only part of the investment required for change of use. In Colombia it ranged between 15% and 28%, in Nicaragua between 50% and 70% and in Costa Rica between 30% and 40%, so that in no case the producer should be devoted exclusively to conservation, because to date guarantee long-term payments can not be assured. The SSP and good practices should maintain the profitability of the producers. At present, the lessons from the project have promoted other ideas in different countries around the world and have speeded up the environmental conversion of livestock and other unsustainable forms of land use. Natural Reserve “El Hatico” It is a family business that has maintained a sustainable production model for nine generations of the family Molina Durán. It is located in the valley of the Cauca River, Colombia, 1000 meters above sea level, an average annual temperature of 24 º C in a region of fertile soils, flat and in a life zone of tropical dry forest (df-T) L.R Holdridge classification. It currently has an area of 288 ha of flat topography, clay loam soils. It is governed by a bimodal rainfall and rainfall averages of 800 mm per year. In the past 20 years the reserve has researched and developed production systems oriented not only to conservation but also to the improvement of natural resources through the strategic use of capital, represented in the diversity of trees, and has reached the agroforestry implementation of different arrangements. In this site, the intensive SPS play a vital role on the improvement of technical, economic, environmental and social parameters. The nature reserve “El Hatico” was certified as organic production of sugar (cane sugar) and milk since 1996. “El Hatico” produces daily about 2,350 liters of milk, representing USD 1,000 a day and a production cost of USD 0.35 / liter. The average volume of cow milk during lactation of 305 days is 3030 liters. The highest milk productions per hectare, were obtained in the period 2002 to 2004, averaging close to 18,000 liters, however, during the years 2005 and 2006 production fell to 16,000 and 14,000 l / hectare / year, reflecting total suspension of irrigation on the prairies. In the past two years, production has rebounded and now it is close to 16,000 liters / hectare / year. The entire area is under silvopastoral systems especially high density silvopastoral bush (10 000 or more individuals of Leucaena leucocephala per hectare) and timber, fruit and forage trees, about 50 individuals per hectare and more than 60 different species. Furthermore, the milk produced under these systems is of better quality, it also has bromatological and healthy quality indicators that are required by industry for products with long life. The daily gain is 700 g for males, 400 g for females, while weaning weight at 210 days is 210 and 180 kg for males and females, respectively. The mortality rate is 5% for calves, the calving interval of 12.8 months and age at first calving of 30 months. “El Hatico” has programs of artificial insemination and bulls are used when there are problems for the pregnancy. Birth weight fluctuates between 36 and 40 kg.

104

Dry Colombian Caribbean In response to analysis and goals of the Colombian Federation of Livestock and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Strategic Plan of the Colombian Livestock (PEGA "by its Spanish acronym) for the year 2019; FUNDALIANZA, together with CIPAV and technical support from National Government through FINAGRO, the Agrarian Bank financed and supported Colombia FEDEGAN in the departments of Cesar and La Guajira, launched in early 2009 a new productive land rehabilitation project with the participation of seven partnership nuclei with small and medium producers, which focused on the establishment of 2500 hectares of intensive SS (ISS) associated with different timber species and in different arrangements. The departments of Cesar and Guajira located in the Colombian Caribbean region, has more than half the territory as drylands. Livestock production is highly vulnerable; reduced supply of fodder and the animals are exposed to adverse climatic factors. Livestock farming is practiced in the region is the dominant form of extensive management and subject to seasonality (dry and rainy). Production levels are directly related to the seasonality decreases dramatically in the dry season by the lack of fodder and arid conditions generated. The livestock sector plays a key role in the economy of the region. However, under current conditions many lands that are already under pressure due to cattle ranching, have serious environmental problems in addition to those inherited by severe degradative processes of soil and vegetation cover left by the cultivation of agriculture tech cotton. The initiative driven by FUNDALIANZA and CIPAV supported by FEDEGAN is based on the ISS implementation adaptable to the conditions of these dry areas in comprehensive arrangements between selected trees by the forest industry as Eucalyptus tereticornis and E. camaldulensis, which are adapted to dry zones, and the selection of Acacia mangium to the wet lands of acid soils. They are accompanied by shrub species for grazing such as Leucaena leucocephala, "boton de oro" Tithonia diversifolia ( to acid soils) and the presence of grass in a layer closest to the ground as guineas (Tanzania and Mombasa) Panicum maximum and Cynodon plectostachyus; for acid soils uses of Brachiaria spp species , and the herbaceous legume Stylosanthes, varietal mix of Stylosanthes capitata, S. macrocephala, in addition to the emergence of another variety of weed themselves for direct consumption of animals in these arrangements. Enrique Murgueitio CIPAV Cali Colombia

105

Carlos E. LASACANO (120) from Colombia The contribution of Enrique Murgeitio from CIPAV of Colombia to the discussion on silvopastoral systems indicates that in a GEF a funded project it was proven that silvopastoral systems had multiple economical and environmental benefits and that small and medium livestock producers became beneficiaries of the payment for environmental services (PES) for biodiversity conservation and carbon capture. I understand this to mean that linking silvopastoral systems to payment for environmental services could be a way to promote adoption of different types of silvopastoral arrangements and if this is the case I am in full agreement. However, I will come back to a point I tried to convey in my previous message (116) and that is that many production advantages associated with silvopastoral systems have very limited experimental support and that because of this promoting silvopastoral systems is in many case is based on anecdotal evidence. My plea is for more emphasis on rigorous research to better understand the many interactions that must occur in silvopastoral systems and by doing this develop principles with wide application in tropical regions. Carlos E. Lascano, Ph.D Universidad Nacional- Sede Bogotá c.lascano@cgiar.org

Jolly KABIRIZI (121) from Uganda In Uganda, dairy farmers have adopted the use of fodder trees mainly Calliandra calothyrsus and Gliricidia sepium as a cheap source of protein for cattle. Use of fodder leaf hay as an ingredient in homemade concentrates (dairy meal) and nutrient feed blocks has a positive effect on milk yield. In some parts of central Uganda, farmers without animals are specializing in producing calliandra leaf hay for sale to dairy farmers. I have been making nutrient feed blocks using calliandra leaf hay (5%); dry grass, molasses, mineral powder, cassava flour (as a binder), cotton seedcake, maize bran etc.). The demand for the blocks is very high. Milk yield increases by over 15% when cows are supplemented with nutrient feed blocks. However, I need advice on how I can acquire simple molding equipment. The major constraint to use of calliandra fodder trees is the “die-back disease” which threatens the productivity of calliandra fodder trees. Dr. (Ms) Jolly Kabirizi (PhD)

106

National Agricultural Research organization (NARO) National Livestock Resources Research Institute P.O. Box 96, Tororo, Uganda Tel: + 256-777912716

Dr. N.K.S. Gowda (122) from India Success story of area specific mineral mixture Technology of Area-Specific Mineral Mixture for Dairy Animals

Low reproductive efficiency in cattle and buffaloes is one of the major problems in livestock production in India, resulting in poor economic returns to the livestock farmers. The deficiency and/or imbalance of micro and macro nutrients are one of the important factors responsible for the low reproductive efficiency. As micronutrients are required in small quantities as compared to macronutrients they can be supplemented more easily without affecting the existing feeding practices in the villages. The practice of mineral supplementation to animals is not common in most parts of India. Wherever it is practiced the mineral mixture is added to the compound feed without taking into account the mineral status of the area, leading to imbalances of minerals. Supplementation of area-specific minerals most deficient in that area avoids antagonistic effects of excess levels of other minerals, thereby improving the bioavailability of micronutrients and could be a more practical and cost effective approach. A detailed study on the micronutrient status of soil, water, feed fodder and blood of crossbred dairy animals maintained mostly under stall feeding with seasonal grazing was carried out in ten agro-climatic zones of Karnataka in India by a team of scientists (Dr. C S Prasad, Dr. N K S Gowda and Dr. J V Ramana). The study on the mineral mapping of the state has revealed that the major deficiency is of calcium, phosphorus, copper and zinc in the different zones surveyed. Based on this information area-specific mineral mixture comprising of the most deficient minerals with common salt as base was prepared for different agro-climatic zones. The technology was field tested in two adopted villages under Institute village linkage programme (IVLP). After detailed assessment of the mineral status in these two villages area-specific mineral mixture were prepared and distributed to farmers having animals with reproductive problems like repeat breeding and anoestrus condition. The animals were supplemented with 35–40 g of mineral mixture per day mixed in either concentrate feed or home made concentrate mixture (bran, oilseed cake, gram husk). Approximately 150 animals with reproductive problems were provided with area-specific mineral mixtures. About 80–90 percent of the animals started cycling within 70 days of the supplementation and about 55 percent of

107

animals became pregnant. All the animals supplemented showed improvement in general health and shine on the hair coat. Impact • All the animals which were fed the mineral mixture in both the villages showed improvement in health condition as perceived by the farmers and observed by the scientists in the form of body score and shine on the hair coat within 15 days of starting the supplementary feeding of mineral mixture. • In anoestrus category 87.5 percent of animals started cycling within 40 days of feeding the mineral mixture in one of the villages. Some of the animals showed the symptoms of estrus within 15 days of feeding and 100 percent cycled after 70 days of the feeding. • Similarly in post-partum anoestrus category 90 per cent of the animal stated cycling within 40 days of supplementation with the minerals mixture and rest of the animals cycled after 70 days of the supplementation. • Fifty five percent of the cattle having reproductive problem became pregnant within 70 days of the mineral mixture supplementation. • The results clearly showed that if only the mineral deficiency in animals is taken care of by supplementing mineral mixture and/or feeds rich in the deficient minerals almost 80–90 percent of the reproductive problems in animals can be corrected and the reproductive efficiency enhanced. • The response of the farmers was overwhelming for the use of the mineral mixture. But this technology needs to be taken up by an agency that can manufacture and sell the product at an accepted price. Technology dissemination by the Institute was carried out: • by providing area-specific mineral mixture to farmers of the adopted villages • through farmers day programs • through distribution of pamphlets in local language • by holding district level seminars for field veterinarians and extension workers Cost-economics The cost of feeding area-specific mineral mixture is Rs. 230/- per year @ 0.65 Rs. per animal per day and for productive life of 10 years is Rs. 2300/- (1 US$ = approx. 46 Rs.). The value of saving on maintenance cost of animals by reduction in age at first calving through reduced post-partum breeding period, improvement in general health and better reproductive efficiency in terms of additional calves, all put together gives an approximate cost : benefit ratio of 1: 8.

108

Key characteristics of the technology • Technology developed aims at correcting mineral imbalance in the animal body thereby improving reproductive efficiency and production. • As this technology aims at providing only most deficient micronutrients, it avoids antagonistic effects of excess levels of other minerals thereby improving the bioavailability of micro/macronutrients. • Technology is simple and cost effective for adoption at field level. • Technology does not have any adverse or side effects either on animals or on humans using animal products. Potential transferable to • Both intensive and semi intensive livestock production systems. • All livestock farmers. • Animals with reproductive problems and growing heifers. • Animals that are predominantly fed on straws/poor quality roughages. Status of commercialisation This technology has been commercialised and adopted by Karnataka Milk Federation and zone wise area specific mineral mixtures is being prepared and sold to members of the milk cooperative societies. The mineral mixture is available in all the cooperative societies in district milk unions of Karnataka Milk Federation. There has been a significant improvement in the health and reproductive efficiency of dairy animals after supplementing the area-specific mineral mixture. The net sale of mineral mixture has been increased by 3-4 folds, since adoption of this technology in the year April, 2007. Dr. N.K.S. Gowda Principal Scientist (Animal Nutrition) National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Adugodi Bangalore, India 560030 E mail : nksgowda@rediffmail.com

109

I am Professor Missohou, (123) from Senegal (West Africa)

I highly appreciate the contribution of Dr Bensalem and would also like to know as how to get started. Concerning Azolla, bibliographic data available showed that it was tested for rice and fish production in Senegal in the 80s but as far as I know, its use as feedstuff is not common. On the contrary moringa, commonly called 'neverdie' by farmers is used in rural poultry to feed the birds. We investigate the nutritive value of this plant and other legumes (Leucephana leucocepha, Cassia tora) and found that they have quite good nutritive value (proteins and digestibility). Trials are under step to evaluate performance of local chicks fed these legumes. I think they could be alternative protein source in rural poultry where, when available, supplementation is mainly cereal based. Professeur Ayao MISSOHOU DMV, MSC, Professeur Titulaire Service de Zootechnie-Alimentation Ecole Inter-Etats des Sciences et Médecine Vétérinaires (EISMV) BP 5077 Dakar, Sénégal Tel: 00221338651022, Fax: 00221338254283 missohou@refer.sn, ayao_missohou@yahoo.fr www.eismv.org From the Moderator of the E conference [Today we post another discussion paper entitled " Cost: benefit analyses of inorganic fertilizers for small holder livestock farmers in the tropics". Discussion on all topics except urea treatment of straw is open - Moderator]

I am again John MORAN (124) from Australia. Cost: benefit analyses of inorganic fertilisers for small holder livestock farmers in the tropics In this e-conference, we have had much discussion on the role of urea to improve the nutritive value of livestock forages. Urea has a more important role as a supplier of nutrients (N) for forages to grow and supply nutrients for livestock. I wish to comment on the cost: benefit ratio of improving the yields and quality of home grown forages on tropical livestock farms.

110

My team has conducted many workshops on forage production throughout Asia. The majority of small holder dairy farmers I meet throughout Asia depend entirely on shed manure for fertilising their forage crops. Very few consider inorganic fertilisers as a good investment. See attached discussion paper "InorganicFert.doc" What have been the experiences of other livestock advisers when they discuss the cost: benefits of using inorganic fertilizers to improve forage supplies and quality on small holder livestock farms? John Moran 24 Wilson St Kyabram, Vic 3620 Australia. Ph +61418379652; email jbm95@hotmail.com

I am Prashant SHINDE (125) from India My personal views on the E-Conference, message 122. Re. Area-specific mineral mixture and its use are as below: I think that the issue of mineral deficiency is the most over hyped in India. There are a number of causes for reduced reproductive efficiency: nutritional imbalances, trace minerals, body condition, disease, etc. From what I have observed, most of the cases (over 70%) are due to disease (bacterial, viral), & their improper diagnosis & treatment. With regards to the Area-specific mineral mixture: Now days there is inter-state transport of raw materials (eg, maize from Bihar is available throughout North India). Due to this I think the concept of the Area specific mineral mixture cannot work. Prashant SHINDE PhD, Animal Nutrition, currently working with Cargill Animal Nutrition, Cargill India Pvt. Ltd.

Rogerio M MAURICIO (126) from Brazil I would like to comment on the message 116 from Carlos LASCANO. In Brazil context I would like to say that since the “Green Revolution” most of the research on forages for livestock nutrition was based on monoculture (most of the forages were collected in Africa) and chemical fertilizers (N P K) were used as

111

nutrients for plants. This approach dominated at the universities and research centres for several decades. In addition, funding was received from several governmental research agencies. During this time the environment was not part of the concerns and sources of N P K were considered forever. Nowadays the world is claiming for sustainable alternatives for animal production due to the negative impacts on the environment caused by the “traditional livestock production”. However research on silvopastoral systems takes time, support from policies and also needs funding. Given and said this I consider that there are several results from rigorous research that could explain some queries raised by LASCANO which are listed below. Hopefully, in near future, more research scientists will be involved on this subject to produce more results that can help extension workers and farmers to consolidate livestock production and environment conservation. Shadow effects: Paciullo DSC, Carvalho CAB, Aroeira LJM et al (2007). Morfofisiologia e valor nutritivo do capim-braquiaria sob sombreamento natural e a sol pleno. Pesq Agropec Bras 42:573–579 Nutritional evaluation of ‘‘Braquiarao’’ grass in association with ‘‘Aroeira’’ trees in a silvopastoral system. Agroforest Syst (2010) 79:189–199 Gobbi KF, Garcia R, Garcez Neto AF et al (2009) Caracterısticas morfologicas, estruturais e produtividade do capim-braquiaria e do amendoim forrageiro submetidos ao sombreamento. Rev Bras Zootec 38:1645–1654 Soil: Reis GL, Lana A, Maurıcio RM et al (2009) Influence of trees on soil nutrient pools in a silvopastoral system in the Brazilian Savanna. Plant Soil 323:11–16 Viana VM, Maurıcio RM, Matta-Machado R et al (2002) Manejo de la regeneracion natural de especies nativas para la formacion de sistemas silvopastoriles en zonas de bosques secos del sureste de Brasil 79:189–199 Forage production: Sousa LF, Maurıcio RM, Goncalves LC et al (2007b) Produtividade e valor nutritivo da Brachiaria brizantha cv. Marandu em um sistema silvipastoril. Arq Bras Med Vet Zootec 59:1029–103

112

Carvalho MM, Silva JLO, Campos Junior BA (1997) Producao de materia seca e composicao mineral da forragem de seis gramıneas tropicais estabelecidas em um sub-bosque de angico vermelho. Rev Bras Zoot 26:213–218 Rogerio M MAURICIO Brazil

Carlos LASCANO (127) from Colombia Given that Calliandra is a tropical shrub legume that has been adopted by many farmers in countries of Southeast Asia and Eastern Africa, it would be of interest to participants of the e-conference if Jolly Kabirizi (message 121) indicates if the pathogen that causes «die- back" in Calliandra has been identified and if accessions of Calliandra have been screened for resistance to the disease. In addition, I would be of interest to obtain research results on the effects of supplementing Calliandra leaf meal on milk yield and compositional quality. It is well documented that the quality (intake and digestibility) of Calliandra is very low due to high concentrations of condensed tannins. Carlos E. Lascano PhD Universidad Nacional de Colombia- Sede Bogotá, c.lascano@cgiar.org

NKS GOWDA (128) from India It is reply to the personal opinion of Dr. Shinde about ASMM While assessing the mineral status, besides soil and plant, the mineral level of animals in blood and sub clinical / clinical signs are also to be documented and correlated. Existing feeding practices in that area (amount of concentrate fed, green fodder fed, dry fodder fed) are to be accounted. The type of raw materials (locally generated or imported from other states), are also to be analysed for their mineral content and level of feeding by the farmers. A balance sheet of intake, requirement and the deficit / excess is to be made and accordingly prioritise the limiting minerals. Taking into all these aspects, the most deficient minerals are arrived. According to the deficiency pattern, area specific mineral mixture is formulated and best measure of our judgment about the most limiting minerals is the response that we get after supplementing the ASMM to animals in that area. The results of feeding ASMM have been documented and demonstrated in several states in India and the

113

results are overwhelming (Karnataka, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Andhara Pradesh, West Bengal, U P., Rajasthan). In my personal opinion and also as per the various reports, mineral deficiency is one of the most important factors in reproduction of animals in the tropics. Our field veterinarians should equally focus on production aspects like feeding of mineral mixture, better quality feeds and feeding along with health aspects, which generally they give more emphasis. The best example of supplementing the most critical mineral in humans is the iodination of common salt. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICAR) and National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) report says, tremendous decline in the incidences of goiter in India. Sporadic reports where goiter is still a major problem may exist but by and large, it is a huge success. The concept of ASMM is also similar to iodine supplementation of humans. It is nothing but fortification of feed with most limiting minerals. NKS Gowda NIAP Bangalore

I am Naaminong KARBO (129) from Ghana Reference the discussion on tree forages (90, 109, 115) I wish to add that in the interior savanna of Ghana, tree forages are very important as management tool during the cropping season lasting about 5 months when sheep and goats are confined and fed "cut and carry" in order to protect food crops on the compound farms. However, feeding preferred browse alone daily as practiced by farmers appears not adequate for maintenance and production. Animals have been observed to loose weight, abortion is high in pregnant animals and kid mortality is also high during this period. Tree forages may have to be fed in addition to other feed sources in the system. Indigenous tree forages such as Securinega virosa, Afzelia africana and Pterocarpus erinaceus are becoming scarce and farmers travel about 4 km from the village settlement to harvest for home feeding to animals. The biggest challenge is how to propagate these indigenous tree species. Economic trees such as Butyrospermum parkii and Mangifera indica are now appearing on the menu for sheep and goats during the confinement. Naaminong KARBO CSIR-Animal Research Institute, Ghana

114

I am again Dr.Vishnu SHARMA (130) from India I agree with the over hyped issue raised by Mr.Shinde regarding mineral research in India. Actually for the last 10 years all journals are flooded with area specific mineral mixture work. However due to import of feed ingredients and rapidly changing climate conditions, how many of those research has been translated into practical formulations. It is a question that needs to be answered. Emerging intervention of nutraceuticals into clinical aspect of veterinary science has gained attention and through my working in clinical nutrition aspects I have realized that paradigm shift is really required in addressing various clinical aspects thought nutritionist view point. Dr.Vishnu Sharma, M.V.Sc; Ph.D Sr. Asstt. Professor Rajasthan University of veterinary & Animal Sciences Jaipur campus -India

Dr. Jolly KABIRZI (131) from Uganda No studies have been conducted in Uganda on causes and control of Calliandra die-back disease. Unfortunately the disease is spreading very fast. We need to find ways and means of controlling the disease because Calliandra is a major protein supplement in smallholder dairy systems. Dry matter intake is improved if Calliandra is fed as leaf hay and mixed with maize bran. The level of tannins is reduced through drying. For more details on use of Calliandra leaf hay as a protein supplement, please refer to: http://www.naro.go.ug/UJAS/Papers/vol.12,no1-1.pdf Dr. (Ms) Jolly Kabirizi (PhD) National Livestock Resources Research Institute P.O. Box 96, Tororo, Uganda Tel: +256-777912716 Email: jmkabirizi@gmail.com

This is Raghavendra BHATTA (132) from India Success of feeding tree leaves containing tannins on sheep and goat nutrition It includes the findings of a series of evaluations carried out to determine the utilization of tree leaves containing tannin in the ration of sheep and goat in the semi-

115

arid region of India, efficiency of polyethylene glycol as a tannin binder under extensive, semi-intensive and intensive system of small ruminant production, relative efficiency of utilization of tannin-containing leaves in sheep and goat, utilization of tree leaves as supplements and finally the use of leaves containing tannins as methane suppressants. The co-workers are Dr. AK Shinde, Dr. S Vaithiyanathan and Dr. SK Sankhyan from CSWRI and Dr. O Enishi and M Kurihara from NILGS, Japan Semi-arid region of India and tree leaves The productivity of small ruminant livestock in arid and semi-arid regions of India is constrained by the low quality of native grasses and straws as well as the shortage of good quality feed, especially during the long dry season. Protein supplements from plant and non-protein nitrogen sources are often used to improve the animal performance. Semi-arid region of Rajasthan in India is inhabited by various fodder trees like Prosopis cineraria, Acacia nilotica, Albezia lebbek, Ailanthes excelsa, Azardirachta indica and Bauhinia racemosa. Leaves of Prosopis cineraria tree are most important feeding resource in this region, especially during dry season, since the leaves remain green during summer. The leaves are highly nutritious (contain 165 g/kg dry matter (DM) crude protein), and palatable despite containing about 90 g/kg DM condensed tannin and 3.5 g/kg DM hydrolysable tannin with a protein precipitating factor of 112 g/kg DM. Use of tree leaves containing tannin with PEG under extensive system of rearing Most sheep and goats in semi-arid region of India are reared under extensive systems where they primarily depend on native browse for their forage requirement. Browse species constitute >60% of the intake of range goats. However, the use of browse sources by them is restricted in many cases, by defending mechanism related to high tannin contents in tree foliage. Tannins restrict the feed protein utilization in animals, due to their property of binding to exogenous as well as endogenous proteins. We can increase the amount of protein in the feed by way of supplementing compounded feed mixture (CFM) to offset the effect of diminished protein utilization. However, this also does not help to optimize the protein utilization as tannins can bind with the supplementary feed proteins. Moreover, in India protein supplements like ground nut cake and soybean cakes have become very expensive. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) a non-nutritive synthetic polymer having high affinity for tannins makes them inert by forming PEG–tannin complex. It has been suggested that treatment of tannin rich trees/shrub leaves with binders (like PEG) offers a means to enhance their nutritive value and animal productivity. However, in majority of the cases cost of PEG is the limiting factor.

116

Use of tree leaves under intensive system of rearing / complete feed block The prime objective of economic mutton/chevron production is to reduce the cost of feed input without compromising growth. Under an intensive system of small ruminant production in India, the weaners (usually after 3 months of age) are housed indoors and offered ad libitum concentrate mixture and roughage diet. The animals tend to consume more concentrate, leaving the roughage portion. This often defeats the concept of economy of meat production. One way of overcoming this problem is by feeding the animals with complete feed block (CFB). In CFB, the roughage portion can be straw or tree leaves. We have demonstrated the effective utilization of tree leaves containing tannins in CFB with PEG. [A contribution on CFB by Dr. T. K. WALLI of India will post in the coming days... Moderator] Success of feeding tree leaves to sheep and goat under extensive, semi-intensive and intensive system of management Nutritional composition of major tree leaves and their tannin concentration

(g/kg DM)

P. cineraria

A. nilotica A. lebbek Ailanthes excelsa

Azardirachta indica

Bauhinia racemosa

CP 118.6 139.6 194.1 197.1 128.0 132.0 NDF 519.0 262.8 369.8 240.9 363.4 477.6 ADF 404.2 126.7 250.4 181.9 265.5 327.8 CT 90 - -- - 123.2 211.2 HT 3.5 18.9 - - -

CT As leucocyanidine equivalent. HT As gallic acid. 1. By feeding ruminants with tree leaves containing tannins, there will be shift in the nitrogen excretion from urine to faeces that is beneficial in terms of preventing the atmospheric contamination of N and better utilization of N through application of dung as manure. 2. Feeding of as minimum as 5 g per day PEG-6000 alleviates negative effects of Prosopis tannin on protein digestion in kids. It also improved voluntary intake of Prosopis foliage and their growth performance. 3. Instead of supplementing high protein concentrate feed mixture CFM (210 g/kg CP) to kids browsing on tannin rich foliage, we can supplement a low protein (140 g /kg DM) CFM incorporated with a very small quantity of PEG (5 %). The conventional protein source (say groundnut protein) can be utilized for human consumption and the Prosopis leaf protein can be utilized efficiently. 4. Although Albezia lebbek appears to be nutritionally better compared to Prosopis cineraria and Acacia nilotica, however, supplementation of Prosopis has an edge over the other two, because of the better fermentation pattern resulting in

117

minimum loss of N. It is proved, that while fodder trees are often valuable sources of dietary protein and energy for livestock in semi-arid regions of India, maximum nutritional and economic benefits could be harvested, if used as supplement rather than as a sole feed. For adult sheep grazing on a semi-arid range of India, a. Supplementation of concentrate mixture (containing about 130 g/kg CP) could safely be replaced with tree leaves like A. excelsa, B. racemosa and A. indica during lean seasons to maintain their body weight (BW). b. Supplementation with tree leaves containing low levels of CT has additional advantage in terms of N utilization compared to tree leaves devoid of CT. 5. The performance of lambs and kids fed on total mixed ration containing 50% Prosopis leaves was the best in terms of feed efficiency ratio. The effect of Prosopis tannin was variable in lambs and kids. Higher intake of Prosopis tannins had detrimental effect on the digestibility of nutrients and growth performance in both the species. However, performance of kids was better as compared to that of lambs, indicating better tolerance of goats to Prosopis tannins. 6. When kids are reared under intensive system on complete feed blocks (CFB) containing Prosopis leaves, instead of high protein concentrate (210 g/kg CP), a low protein concentrate mixture (140 g/kg CP) containing PEG can be fed. This not only alleviates the negative effects of tannins present in Prosopis leaves, but also spares expensive protein. If PEG is commercially available at a low cost, then these findings could have great impact in the use of PEG to eliminate the effect of tannin and to improve the production performance of grazing small ruminants. Tannins as methane suppressants Studies carried out at NILGS, Japan in vitro and in vivo in goats have confirmed that tannins suppress methanogenesis directly through their antimethanogenic activity and indirectly through their antiprotozoal activity. Samples containing both HT + CT were more potent in reducing methanogenesis than those containing HT only. Tannins at low level suppress CH4 emission without adversely affecting the digestibility of nutrients. However, at higher level of tannin intake, CH4 suppression was also attributed to reduced OM fermentation. These results suggest the potential for tannins (or tannin-containing tree leaves) to minimize CH4 emission by ruminants and to develop practical means to exploit the use of tree leaves containing appreciable amount of tannins.

118

We (and other participants as well) would be interested to know on the successful (unsuccessful) use of strategies for enhancing utilization of tannin-containing tree leaves in other parts of the world Raghavendra Bhatta National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology (ICAR) Bangalore, India E-mail: ragha0209@yahoo.com

I am Prof. Ghulam HABIB (133) from Pakistan Re: Message 132 Feeding tree leaves containing tannins Tree leaves such as *Ziziphus mauritiana* with high tannin contents (condensed tannin 37.4 g/kg DM) are not efficiently utilized by sheep. We conducted an experiment which showed that supplementation of these leaves with high level of urea 10 g/d significantly increased voluntary feed intake and N retention in sheep ( N retention was increased almost two folds). Low level of urea 5 g/d was not effective. Details are reported in the paper "Animal Feed Sci & Technology 144 (2008)335-343" It would be interesting to know that supplementary feeding of tannin containing tree leaves may react with dietary protein and improve its bypass quality? GHULAM HABIB Agric. Univ. Peshawar, Pakistan habibnutr@gmail.com I am Sergio MORGULIS (134) from Brazil, I am a member of the board of directors of Animal Feed Union (Sindirações) and of the Brazilian Association of Mineral Supplement Industries (ASBRAM), and I have been working with mineral supplements for the last 20 years. Brazilian beef and dairy herds consume around 1.8 million tons of mineral supplements per year, mainly free choice supplements to use in pasture management.

119

The Association, research institutions (Embrapa & universities, among others) and the Agriculture Ministry have been working to improve the use of mineral supplements in Brazil. We have an official legislation with a classification of different products to attend to different animal categories, regions, seasons of the year, and systems of production. The production is made by some 400 companies and Coops which all need to be registered and to comply with the Goof Manufacturing Practices legislation of the Agriculture Ministry. Phosphorus is the main nutrient in the composition, and represents +- 75% of the cost of mineral supplements. The most frequent free choice mineral supplement has a composition with dicalcium phosphate, salt, and trace elements, and a consumption of +- 80 g per adult animal (450 kg). To adjust and control animal consumption is an important issue in free choice supplements, and unfortunately a huge variation is observed without correlations with animal requirements. For example, in Brazil we are now in the dry season, and the animals consume much more free choice mineral supplements than they need. However, the farmers like it because they think they are giving some feed to their cattle. It is difficult for the farmers to evaluate what, and the amount of minerals that their animals need, and, therefore, we need to improve on the knowledge, and training of technical people, and of farmers about the correct composition, and consumption of free choice mineral supplements. We have good knowledge about the animal requirements of minerals. Nevertheless, we need to improve the right use of minerals supplements on Brazilian farms. Sergio Carlo Franco Morgulis <mailto:sergio@minerthal.com.br> sergio@minerthal.com.br

I am Dr. Hichem BEN SALEM (135) from INRA Tunisia Re. Message 133 by Prof. Ghulam Habib As a reply to Prof. Ghulam Habib and to other colleagues interested in beneficial uses of tanniniferous fodder shrub/tree in livestock feeding, it is well established that

120

tannins could have positive as well as negative effects on digestion and productive & reproductive performances of ruminants. This would depend mainly on the ratio of tannins to proteins in the diet. In our lab we showed that the association of 100 g air dried leaves of Acacia saligna (a tanninifrous legume shrub) with 200 g of soybean meal increased significantly the growth rate of lambs. But it is worth noting that this result was obtained when acacia leaves were distributed to animals one hour before the distribution of the protein source (see our paper in Animal Feed Science & Technology 2005 volume 122 issues 1-2 pages 173-186). This duration would be necessary to synchronise tannins and protein availability in the rumen and to increase bypass proteins. In brief, in my opinion, we should define this ratio (tannins/proteins) and the appropriate sequential distribution of tannins and dietary proteins for the different sources of tannins and proteins available at the farm level. Dr. Hichem BEN SALEM Coordinator of the FAO-CIHEAM Sub-Network on Sheep & Goat Nutrition Head of the Laboratory of Animal & Forage Productions - INRAT INRAT Laboratoire des Productions Animales et Fourragères Rue Hédi Karray, 2049 Ariana, Tunisie Tel. 216 71 230 024 - Mobile 216 98 208 565 Fax (Lab.): 216 71 231 592 Fax (Institute): 216 71 716 537 - 216 71 752 897 E-mail: bensalem.hichem@iresa.agrinet.tn Rogerio M MAURICIO (136) from Brazil As asked by HARBERD I would like to post the web page of EMBRAPA Semi arido Centre where they have an enormous experience on Opuntia in terms of agriculture requirements and nutritional value. The web page is in Portuguese. http://www.cpatsa.embrapa.br/imprensa/noticias/comeca-a-producao-de-mudas-de- palma-resistente-a-cochonilha-do-carmim-pela-embrapa-semiarido/ Roger Maurico Carlos E. LASCANO (137) from Colombia In response to Dr. Bhatta from India (message 132) asking participants in the e-conference to provide examples on enhancement in the utilization of tannin-containing tree leaves of fodder from trees in animal production, I would like to share the following experience:

121

Milk production of dual purpose cows in livestock systems operated by smallholders in the tropics is affected by the low availability and quality of the traditional forage resources during the dry season. One alternative to minimize the decrease in milk production during the dry season is to supplement livestock with legume foliage. Previous studies carried out by CIAT in Colombia had shown that supplementation with hay of Calliandra calothyrsus (Calliandra) did not increase milk production of dual purpose cows grazing low quality pastures during the dry season. This lack of response to supplementation with Calliandra was associated to its high level of tannins, which results in low levels of ammonia production in the rumen and as a result bacterial protein synthesis is reduced. It was hypothesized that mixing legumes with and without tannins could contribute to maximize the effects of legume supplementation on milk production due to increased production of rumen ammonia and flow of total nitrogen to the lower digestive tract. A feeding trial with lactating dual purpose cows was carried out in Colombia by CIAT researchers to test the effect of mixtures of legumes with and without tannins as supplements for milking cows grazing a pasture with low forage on offer. The four supplements fed consisted either of the tanniniferous Calliandra calothyrsus or the tannin free Vigna unguiculata alone or mixtures of these 2 legumes in proportions of 1:2 or 2:1. Legume foliage supplements sun dried for 3 days were offered at a level of 1% of the cows’ bodyweight in two meals per day (at 05:00 and 13:00) during milking. To improve palatability of the legume foliages, the individual portions of the supplements were mixed with 100 g of molasses and 50 g of a mineralized salt for dairy cattle. The remaining time of the day, cows were grazing a pasture based on Paspalum notatum with an average dry matter availability of 1000 kg/ha. Results showed that he lowest amount of fat corrected milk was produced with the supplement of C. calothyrsus alone (3.6 kg/d). When legume mixtures were supplemented, milk production was intermediate (4.4 to 4.7 kg/d) and highest (5.3 kg/d) when V. unguiculata was supplemented alone. It was concluded that milk yield of cows supplemented with Calliandra high in tannins could be significantly improved by including a small proportion (e.g. 1/3) of V. unguiculata in the legume mixture supplement. Carlos E. Lascano PhD Universidad Nacional de Colombia- Bogota c.lascano@cgiar.org I am Prof. Ghulam HABIB (138) from Pakistan Re: Message 135 by Dr. Hichem BEN SALEM from INRA Tunisia. The findings of Dr. Hichem BEN SALEM are very interesting and need further investigation.

122

In Pakistan and also in India Berseem (Egytian clover) is a popular and extensively cultivated legume winter fodder. Its nitrogen is highly degradable. As a traditional feeding practice farmers feed Berseem ad libitum together with home made concentrate mixture mainly composed of oil cakes and wheat bran that is also highly degradable. These results in overloading of buffaloes and cows with protein, adversely affecting animal performance in addition to releasing excessive nitrogen into the urine and faces and causing environmental pollution. In urban and peri-urban dairy farms of Peshawar (Pakistan) we have found that this practice results in three to four time’s higher protein intake than requirement with problems recorded in reproduction and milk yield. I wonder if we could reduce the nitrogen fermentation of Berseem through tannins association. Results of Dr. Hichem BEN SALEM are relevant to this issue. GHULAM HABIB Agricultural University Peshawar, Pakistan habibnutr@gmail.com

NKS GOWRA (139) from India One of the disadvantages of free choice mineral feeding is over feeding of some minerals leading to antagonistic effects. Like excess sulfur leads to copper deficiency, excess iron intake leads to copper and zinc deficiency. It is always advisable to estimate the mineral content of feeds and fodders consumed by the animals, calculate the mineral intake, and accordingly formulate the mineral mixture. Certain minerals are adequately supplemented through feeds and fodders and hence they may not be required in the mineral mixture, unless there are some interfering factors in their utilisation. NKS GOWRA, NIANP, Bangalore,

Ramana REDDY (140) from India In free choice system the animal will take only mineral/minerals which are deficit in their diets. The physiological system of animal regulates the intake of mineral. So there may not be excess intake of mineral by the animal. Y. Ramana Reddy Veterinary College, Hyderabad

123

From the Moderator of the E conference [Today we are posting here another Discussion Paper. Discussion on all the animal nutrition technologies/practices mentioned in Section 2 of the Background Document except 'Urea treatment of straw' is open. In the next two to three days we shall post a Discussion Paper on silage making and its adoption by farmers. If you have a success (or a failure) story on silage making or another forage conservation strategies and their adoption by farmers/farmer organizations/producer organizations, please send that to us.....Moderator]

This is again Mahesh CHANDER (141) from India Making a contribution on a physical method: CHAFFING OF FODDER/CHAFF CUTTERS: A simple technology with excellent benefits but huge regional variations in its adoption Fodder if chaffed to small pieces and then fed to animals improves the digestibility and conserves energy that animal uses in chewing and bringing fodder into smaller pieces. So it is recommended that farmers should feed the chaffed fodder to animals. Both manual and electricity operated chaff cutters are used for the purpose. However, the practice of cutting fodder has not been followed widely. In Southern states of India, we don’t see many chaff cutters with the farmers. In Northern states, for example Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh we see farmers keeping these chaff cutters. What could be the reasons that a simple technology like chaff cutter has not spread widely within a country despite it being very good and simple? Is it just because appropriate and adequate extension efforts have not been made to popularize it or there are other reasons? Primarily the reason for chaff cutter not being popular in Southern states could be the non-availability of chaff cutters for easy purchase, since they are not available even at district headquarters. The shops and manufacturer of chaff cutters are rarely seen in any of the Southern India states. Out of the 45 chaff cutter manufacturers cited in the Directory of Indian Industry and suppliers of agricultural machinery, 21 (42%) were concentrated in the North Indian states, whereas, only five (10%) chaff cutter manufacturers were found to be existing in the South Indian states. Goraya and Jalandhar in Punjab were the major centres of chaff cutter manufacturers accounting for 20% of the total manufacturers and suppliers in India, followed by Ludhiana in the same state. Coimbatore, Hyderabad and Trivendrum were the major centres of production of Chaff cutters in South India. The maximum concentration of chaff cutter manufacturers in North India may be due to higher demand in this region compared to that in other parts. So, enhancing awareness of the benefits of this technology and demonstrating the use of chaff cutters and making them available at least at District level town market are necessary to popularize it. It appears extension efforts to

124

highlight its importance have not been made in Southern part of India. When the issue was discussed with some farmers in North India, they told that any farmer who is serious for dairying and wants to maintain high yielding milk cattle would consider keeping chaff cutter at home on priority. It might be that the South Indian farmers don’t consider dairying as important compared to their North Indian counterparts. May be also, the green fodder cultivation is not a common practice in South India as it is in the irrigated areas in UP, Punjab & Haryana in the North. What can be done? If the dairying is promoted, it will lead to demand for inputs including green fodder required for dairy animals. Consequently, people may think of cultivating fodder and improving the efficiency of feed by cutting into small pieces leading to the increased demand for chaff cutters. Assuming dairying is equally important to the farmers in South India, the governmental intervention is needed, firstly in the form of incentives to promote the manufacture of chaff cutters locally, followed by their subsidized distribution to farmers through livestock development departments and dairy cooperatives that have resources for providing trainings and inputs. Farmer to farmer extension is often quite effective, so exposure visits of farmers from Southern part of India to Northern states like Punjab and Haryana may help greatly. Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVKs; centres responsible for technology transfer in India) and Agricultural Technology Information Centres (ATICs) may also consider arranging demonstrations and supplies of chaff cutters. The promotion of chaff cutters need to be taken up in a campaign mode so that in a short period, this simple technology becomes popular everywhere irrespective of the region. On realizing the importance of chaff cutters for better utilization of fodder, the Government of India, in its current plan period (2007-12) has introduced a scheme by the name “Assistance for introduction of Hand and power driven chaff cutters”, on 75% subsidy basis with preference to marginalized groups including farm women, to be implemented with effect from April, 2010. This scheme can be availed by farmers and members of Milk Cooperatives/ Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA)/ KVKs and the implementing agencies are milk federations, State Departments of Animal Husbandry, KVKs and ATMA, across whole of India. Will it change the dynamics of chaff cutter use in South India? Remains to be seen! Are there experiences to be shared from other parts of the world, so that this technology is wisely adopted? Dr. Mahesh Chander IVRI India

125

This is again Tej K. WALLI (142) from India Commenting on message number 138 by Dr. NKS Gowda, NIANP, Bangalore, India. In India, surveys on minerals status in soils, local available feeds and fodders and their status in animals have been conducted in several states and regions by national research institutes and state agricultural universities. On the basis of these surveys, area specific mineral mixtures (ASMM) have been formulated by the researchers. Where ever, these specific mineral mixtures have been used, there has been a substantial improvement in the reproductive efficiencies of the animals, resulting in over all enhancements in animal productivity. On the countrywide basis it has now been decided to complete these mineral surveys in the remaining areas as well, so that animals get optimum quantities of the required minerals, through feeds, fodders and the new area specific mineral supplements. Tej K. Walli Chief Technical Advisor Poshak Agrivet Karnal, Haryana, India tejwall@yahoo.co.in

This is Raghavendra BHATTA (143) from NIANP, Bangalore. This is our experience with chaffing of dry forages -- in supplementation to Dr. Mahesh Chander's paper (Message 141) on chaffing. Time that cattle spend for eating and ruminating amounts to 13 to 17 h/d when animals are given ad libitum access to diets that contain a high proportion of roughage. The capacity of ruminants for mechanically reducing feed particle size could be a limiting factor for feed intake. In addition, the energy requirement for chewing accounts for a considerable proportion of the total energy requirement. In low- quality roughages (like paddy straw), the energy requirement for eating could amount to substantial proportion of the metabolizable energy (ME). Energy needed for chewing thus reduces the amount of ME available for production, and this could have a substantial effect on productivity, particularly at low levels of production in tropical countries like India. This fact might be mainly responsible for the lower efficiency of utilization of ME in roughages than in other feedstuffs. In large parts of southern India, un-chopped dry roughage is offered to the ruminants. The activity of various muscles involved in chewing activity and rumination is a potential mechanism to reduce the particle size of feed to the threshold size which, for cattle is around 1.0-1.18 mm. Although some chewing and rumination is essentially required for proper mixing of the saliva with the feed particles, in addition to reducing the particle size,

126

excessive chewing and rumination needs extra energy expenditure, resulting in wastage of biological energy. Studies were carried out at the National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, India to determine the effect of feeding chopped paddy straw (Oryza sativa) on the energy expenditure in crossbred cattle. Three experimental trials, one each for the feeding of un-chopped paddy straw offered ad libitum (UCA), chopped paddy straw fed at restricted level (CR) and chopped paddy straw offered ad libitum (CA) were conducted. Chopping has resulted in 32% improvements (9 kg) in DMI of CA as compared to that of UCA. Although ME intake was similar in UCA and CR (47.2 MJ/day), energy expenditure (EE) was higher in UCA (23.3 MJ) when compared to that of CR (19.5 MJ). The ME intake (63.3 MJ) as well as EE (27.1 MJ) was highest in CA. Energy expenditure when expressed as MJ/kg DMI was 3.48, 2.90 and 3.12; whereas as per cent of ME intake it was 50, 41 and 44 in UCA, CR and CA respectively. From the results of this study it could be concluded that chopping of poor quality roughages like paddy straw has definite advantages in terms improving the intake by decreasing the time taken for ingestion as well as in reducing the energy cost of eating in ruminants. Raghavendra Bhatta NIANP, Bangalore, INDIA

I am Dr. KHANUM (144) from Pakistan Commenting on message number 138 and 142 regarding Mineral mixture and its use Mineral mixture feeding in Pakistan present several problems and attributes. Firstly, the mineral deficiency in various areas of Pakistan is dependent on several factors like type and nature of animal production systems, land type and soil salinity level. We have seen several extreme deficiency symptoms in all classes of livestock which can be further judged from the fact that the second largest disease in Pakistan is post parturient haemoglubinurea and which is caused mostly due to phosphorus deficiency. One has little options for advising common farmers to mineral mixtures of good quality. There are examples where the continuous use of mineral mixture has resulted in improved productive and reproductive performance of animals. However, the use of this technology is still in its initial phase and will remain prone to economic condition of the farmers, given that the poor farmers will hardly afford expensive mineral mixtures. Another factor is presence of antinutritional factors (chelating agents) causing lower efficiency of the mineral mixtures and that should be seen as predisposing factors for its future needs. During our about twenty years work experience on extreme saline and saline sodic solids with a herd of sheep and goat, we noted better productive and lower kid mortality rates by the use of mineral mixture technology. In other

127

experiments using animals with lower reproductive efficiency they responded well to feeding of mineral mixtures on both saline and normal husbandry conditions. On demonstration the same technology to farmers through a farmer participatory programme, we learned only a partial adoption of the technology mainly due to lack of awareness and continuous follow up by the extension workers. Dr. Shahnaz Adeeb Khanum DCS/Head Animal Sciences Division NIAB, Faisalabad, Pakistan A joint contribution by A.K. SHINDE and S.K. SANKHYAN (145) from India Area Specific Mineral Mixture for Sheep and Goats Mineral deficiency in animals is an area specific problem and relate to feed and fodder, water, soil and topography. Mineral deficiency is a common problem in sheep and goats maintained on degraded pastures of tropical countries. Area specific mineral mixture was developed for sheep and goats based on deficient minerals (Ca, P, Cu, Zn and Mn) in animals of the semiarid region of Rajasthan, India. Initially, mineral mixture was developed in powder form and tried in sheep flocks. But it was observed that it was difficult to use it in sheep feeding since farmers maintain sheep on pastures without any kind of grain supplementation. Accordingly mineral mixture was changed from powder to pellet form for easy delivery. Mineral mixture pellets of 5 g incorporating the required minerals concentration (Ca 35.3%; P 13.64%; Cu 0.32%; Zn 0.33% and Co 0.076%) were prepared with molasses (1%) as binder; it was dried at room temperature for establishing desirable hardness for easing the transportation and preventing breakage losses. Average size of pellets was: 2.5 cm length and 6 mm diameter. It was tested and demonstrated in the 6 villages involving 12 sheep flocks of 50-60 animals each. The supplementation of mineral mixture at the rate of 5 g daily for a period of 5 months increased wool yield by 8-9%, during 3 month of early lactation milk yield increased by 10-15% and supplementation of the mineral mixture in anoestrus sheep brought 60% of sheep into estrus within 15-21 days and remaining 40% after 42 days of supplementation. Some of the limitations for popularising area specific mineral mixture in the region are poor extension network for dissemination of technology to poor farmers who are illiterate in many cases, and poor market accessibility for mineral mixture. Initially the technology may be disseminated from government support and once it is adopted by the farmers, it should be gradually withdrawn. Since cost of mineral mixture is very low and it comes to 0.12-0.13 rupee per sheep per day or 3.75 rupee per month (1 US $ = 46.16 rupees). It can be easily adopted by even the poor farmers. Farmers are ready to take the technology since it has many benefits. The accessibility of mineral mixture to farmers can be enhanced by making it available to

128

farmers at their doorsteps through dairy cooperative society in the villages, State extension departments, NGOs, State Agricultural Universities, Indian Council of Agricultural Research institutions and Agriculture extension centres may be involved in the dissemination of technology. A.K. Shinde and S.K. Sankhyan Central Sheep and Wool Research institute, Avikanagar 304501 Rajasthan, India, sankhyan1964@gmail.com <mailto:sankhyan1964@gmail.com> Ben LUKUYU (146) from ILRI, Kenya On Chaffing of fodder I shared experiences from East Africa (Message 82) relevant to this topics – it was mushroomed by the urea treatment discussion then. Participant’s attention is drawn to the Message 82, as a follow up on some of the very relevant and interesting experiences raised in this contribution from India. Ben Lukuyu Improving Market Opportunities International Livestock Research Institute www.ilri.org <http://www.ilri.org/> P.O. Box 30709 Nairobi Kenya, Tel: +254 20 422 3000 via USA Tel +1 650 833 6660 , Fax: +254 20 422 3001

I am again Datta RANGNEKAR (147) from India. Voluminous literature exists on technical aspects of value of tree foliage and some of the participants have provided useful information, however, much of it has been generated through conventional research. The objective of this mail is to suggest considering a different approach to Research and Development on Trees with Feed/fodder value so as to extend benefit to the resource poor, particularly those from ecologically fragile areas. I look forward to response/reaction of participants since a similar attempt about 2 decades ago, in an FAO meeting, did not evince much response (Rangnekar 1991). Ø Observations and studies show that some of the traditional practices are worth in-depth study and evaluation (with participatory and systems approach- refer Conroy 2005) and help the livestock keepers to get extra benefits (Conroy and Rangnekar 2000).

129

Ø Trees are not merely a source of edible foliage since they play multiple roles in Livestock Production - by serving as ‘Live Feed-fodder Bank’ (or Protein Bank) making available leaves, flowers and fruits/pods in dry period; provide shade (preferred by animals) and help in development of understory of grasses and legumes (hence Silvipasture is recommended). Ø While discussing about Trees let us not ignore ‘Bushes and Creepers’ that are used for feeding livestock feeding (particularly small stock) and benefits are claimed (for example Zizyphus sp.). Ø Socio-cultural linkage of trees, seen in all parts of India (must be there in other countries as well), indicates that importance of Trees has been realized since ages, by the rural society. This linkage is evident from the practice of not allowing cutting of some tree species. This practice can be utilized in preferring such tree species in tree plantation on CPRs or for Silvipasture. Some examples of species that have multiple utility are: · Madhuca latifolia (syn. Bassia latifolia) - the tribals consider it a sin to cut it. · Prosopis cineraria – is not allowed to be cut in most parts of Rajasthan state in India. Both of the above mentioned species provid flowers and fruits that can be used for animals and humans and leaves used for feeding livestock. These species survive very dry conditions. Ø The traditional systems of usage of leaves, flowers and pods of some tree species for feeding of livestock can be further developed for improving their utilization some examples: · Hiring of Trees by migrating pastoralists from farmers for feeding their goat and sheep. While many know about the system of penning animals by migrating pastoralists on farmer’s fields not many are aware that the pastoralists pay for lopping of trees and most common species are Acacia nilotica and A. leucophlia [A contributing factor to the system is the tradition of agro-forestry adopted by farmers (although presented as a new concept/approach). This practice is commonly seen along the migration route of pastoralists from Rajasthan to Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh states in India and there is a tacit understanding about lopping. Improving benefits from the system through appropriate technical inputs and social engineering needs to be explored. · Processing / Storage and use of Tree products as strategic supplements - a traditional practice in rain fed semi arid and arid areas of India and some examples are: *<file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Datta/LOCALS~1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif>

130

Drying. Storage and use of flowers of Madhuca latifolia as supplement - practiced in tribal districts of the country. The plant flowers in summer and flowers are energy rich and used for liquor production. Tribals dry and store some flowers for feeding livestock (also used as human food during scarcity). It is a common belief amongst the tribals that unless the bullocks are fed Madhuka flowers they will not work well on the farm and the explanation is simple - Bullocks are not fed any concentrate in early summer as there is no field work and become weak and Madhuka flowers provide much needed energy to prepare them for work. This practice is being extended to high pregnant cows and male goats nearing slaughter weight. However, the price paid for flowers by breweries influence its usage. *<file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Datta/LOCALS~1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif> Storage of pods of Prosopis juliflors for feeding of goats. Feeding of Acacia pods has been a traditional practice while feeding Prosopis pods is a relatively new introduction made after study of feeding practices and feeding behavior of goats in South Rajasthan and North Gujarat (ref. Conroy etal, 2000). The pods are cheapest nutritious feed available for goat keepers in semiarid areas and fits well in their low external input system. Moreover these pods become available in summer when other feeds are scarce. *<file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Datta/LOCALS~1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif> Drying and storage of leaves of Zizyphus nummularia for feeding goats. This is also a traditional practice in rain fed semiarid areas where Zizyphus is a naturally growing shrub. The leaves are collected, dried and stored for use as supplement in dry season. It can withstand long dry spells and grows fast even under limited rainfall conditions. Goats seem to have liking for this shrub and is preferred in silvipastures. The feeding system can be further improved after study of the dried leaves and feeding practices. (One must appreciate nature that provided tree species provide leaves, flowers and pods in summer when there is scarcity of good feed) Ø Benefits to livestock are claimed on feeding leaves of some tree species and creepers. The benefits claimed are improvement in growth, milk production, fat in milk etc. · I mention two examples of lesser know species for which such claims were noted in participatory studies carried out in 3 western states of India. Initial validation was done by conducting survey in a number of districts to ensure that a good number of livestock keepers are using these tree leaves since long and have noted the benefits. It was the women who provided detailed information about these plants, their usage and benefits observed (Rangnekar S.D.1994). The two examples are – *<file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Datta/LOCALS~1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif> Allangium salvifolium, claim- improvement in milk and fat%, CP content 20%

131

*<file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Datta/LOCALS~1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif> Morinda tomentossa, claim- improvement in milk and fat%, CP content 22% There was hardly any work done on these species (in that period) and chemical analysis showed that leaves of most of these species had fair amount of protein and minerals. Feeding recommendations were developed based on the study and propagation of these species taken up in various programmes. · Harwickia binata, one of the better known tree species in India, fed to cattle and buffaloes in many parts of India. However, its use in parts of the state of Maharashtra, as the major component of feed given to dairy animals and claims of improvement in quantity and fat% of milk has attracted my attention. However, studies carried out on H. binata indicate that it does not have high nutritive value and cannot sustain milk production. I believe it should be possible to analyze more critically the claims made by the livestock keepers about benefits of feeding some of the tree leaves / pods using advanced laboratory techniques and simulating the field conditions and make rational recommendations for full utilization of the top feed resources (the approach indicated by Ron Leng (1997) in the FAO animal Production and Health Paper 139 entitled ‘Tree Foliage in Ruminant Nutrition’ is worth considering). Conroy (2005). Participatory Livestock Research A guide. Published by ITDG Publishing Warwickshire, UK Conroy, C. and D. V. Rangnekar, (2000). Constraints facing goat keepers and ways of addressing them through participatory approach. Some experiences in semiarid India. BAIF/NRI Goat Research Project report no. 2, Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK. Conroy, C. D.V.Rangnekar, M. Sharma, (2000). Use of Prosopis juliflora pods/barley supplements to improve the reproductive performance of does. Proc. 7th International Conf. on Goats France 15 to 21 May 2000 pp. 986 - 987 Rangnekar, D.V. (1991). Feeding systems based on traditional use of trees for feeding livestock, in FAO Animal Production and Health paper no. 102, FAO, Rome, pp. 221 - 231 Rangnekar, S.D. (1994). Studies on the knowledge of rural women regarding local feed resources and feeding systems developed for livestock. Livestock Research for Rural Development Vol. 6, No. 1 pp 1 - 8 Datta RANGNEKAR

132

This again Prof. Ghulam HABIB (148) from Pakistan Commenting on mineral feeding To my knowledge in traditional farming system we have more problem of mineral imbalance than mineral deficiency especially with regards to macro minerals. Due to lack of awareness, farmers do not match mineral supplementation/concentrate composition with forage type and quality in different seasons, resulting in mineral excess or deficiency in the animals. Occurrence of red water disease (hemoglobinuria) is a good example. Conventional concentrate supplements are always rich in P but deficient in Ca and require addition of cheap source of Ca such as lime stone /marble powder but even this due to weak extension services not known to farmers. We often ignore the importance of drinking water and irrigation water for fodder crops in deciding mineral supplementation. Another point of concern is the high concentrations of toxic elements in sewage water used for irrigation of agriculture and fodder crops and also when mixed with drinking water poses health problems for both animals and human through excretion of these in milk above tolerable level. GHULAM HABIB Agricultural University, Peshawar, Pakistan habibnutr@gmail.com

This is Ben LUKUYU again (149) from ILRI, Kenya I share an article recently posted on the internet regarding use of pulveriser feed mills by small scale farmers in East Africa and how these have been promoted through the hub approach. The key lessons here being helping farmer’s access loans (micro finance facility) to help purchase pulverisers, providing technical back up on storage and use of crop residue/fodders and developing fodder/feed markets through catalyzing small scale entrepreneurs to take up chaffing of feed as a business. This approach has proved very successful in improving utilization of crop residues on smallholder farms. http://eadairy.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/innovative-technologies-for-smallhold er-farmers-the-pulverizer-feed-mill/ Ben Lukuyu Improving Market Opportunities International Livestock Research Institute | www.ilri.org P.O. Box 30709 Nairobi Kenya Tel: +254 20 422 3000, via USA Tel +1 650 833 6660, Fax: +254 20 422 3001

133

I am Dr. S.A. KHANUM (150) from Pakistan My comments are in connection with message 141 1. Unlike selective use of chaff cutters in India, the technology is well spread in Pakistan. Under local conditions of Pakistan this technology dates back to manual cutting of Maize, Millet and Sorghum stovers into smaller pieces. 2. Presently several types of chaff cutters like manual, animal or electricity based are available in almost all of the parts of Punjab. 3. Chopping of fodder has resulted in better palatability, intake, digestibility as well as helped in saving the wastage of forages through selective leaf uptake by the animals. 4. This technology has been felt necessary by the farmers due to a number of reasons including bulk size yields of Kharif fodders which otherwise can only partially be utilized by the animals. 5. The farmers presently face ease of mixing more than one type of fodders like stand over types of fodders with the young succulent cuts by mixing the same by these chaff cutters. In winter these serve purpose of mixing sugarcane/sugarcane tops in Berseem fodder rendering the quality of Berseem more balanced. 6. In contrast to figures presented by CHANDER, there are many manufacturers of the chaff cutters in Faisalabad, Gujranwala and other cities of Pakistan introducing advancement in its physical and electrical parts. 7. Factors which still hinder use of this technology include dependency of the farmers on electricity and extra labour and expenses involved in cutting, shifting and then chopping the fodders. We can share examples where farmers remain in wait of electricity for more than half a day for this task in case of load shedding and feel discomfort in their normal routine work. There are some farmers who prefer field grazing of the fodders for their own ease. Dr. Shahnaz Adeeb Khanum Deputy Chief Scientist (DCS) Head, Animal Sciences Division Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB), Faisalabad-Pakistan Tel: +92-41-2654221-30 Fax: +92-41-2654213 Direct: +92-41-2573576

134

Dr A K MISRA (151) from India In South India chaff cutter are less popular not because of non-availability, but more due to prevalent feeding practices. In most part of the south India, major feed resources available for animal feeding are sorghum and maize stover, pearl millet (ragi) and paddy straw, whereas in north India major feed resources are wheat straw, sugarcane tops and to the some extent paddy straw. Another difference in feeding practices, in north India, different forage resources are mixed together (dry and green fodder) and fed to animals whereas in south India, farmers offer individual fodder to animals. However in areas where dairy animals are popular (Tamil Nadu: Salem, Nammakal) and Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka) or in per-urban areas, farmers are commonly using chaff cutter. While documenting traditional livestock feeding systems of south India, we have found out the some regions of less popularity of chaff cutter. The traditional feeding systems are very well integrated within the household systems and they are not wasting even a blade of straw. Farmers offer stover as such and allow animals to select the soft portion of stover (leafy portion) and left over stems either used as a fuel or for composting. Women gave maximum preference for trampled stover for fuel, as it facilitate easy burning of dung cakes and also saves their time and energy. Trampled stover/straw mixed with urine and dung promotes decomposition, as mentioned by both women and men. Another point for less popularity of chaff cutter in south India is that comparatively more grazing resources are available compared to north India. In most part of south India only one crop is taken and after harvesting, fields are utilized for grazing without any restriction. Now situation is changing very fast. In areas where dairying is popular, use of chaff cutter is becoming common. Even in Hyderabad, Chennai and Bangalore, very good market of chaffed dry fodder (sorghum stover) is in operation and traders are selling chaffed dry fodder depending on quality. So in south India demand of chaff cutter can be created by improving the productivity of the animals and linking dairy farmers with market. Once demand is created, manufactures automatically come up, as it happens in some parts (Coimbatore, Salem, Nammakkal (Tamil Nadu) and in peri-urban areas of south India. Dr A K Misra Principal Scientist Livestock Production and Management Directorate of Research on Women in Agriculture Bhubneswar 751 003, India Phone:+91 672 2386220(O); +919938424708(M), Fax:+91 674 2386242 Website: www.drwa.org.in

135

My name is John MORAN (152) from Australia I am a dairy adviser who undertakes training programs throughout South and East Asia in dairy production technology and farm business management. CSIRO Publications have published 2 of my books on tropical dairy farming. I wish to suggestion a rather novel way to improve the utilisation of fresh tropical forages, which I have called "Improving the utilisation of tropical forages through fractionating the stems into juice and fibrous residues. Please see the Discussion paper below (Fractionating [1]) I look forward to responses from the e-conference participants. John Moran, Kyabram Victoria Australia, Email : jbm95@hotmail.com, Phone +61418379652

Improving the utilisation of tropical forages through fractionating the stems into juice and fibrous residue

John Moran, Kyabram, Victoria, Australia (jbm95@hotmail.com), Sep 2010 Many of the tropical forages (such as Napier grass) have very thick stems which consist of high levels of intra cellular water (Moran 2005). This fills up the rumen with a lot of water (and fiber) reducing the animal’s appetite and level of production (of milk, meat or fiber). It also makes it difficult to wilt the grass unless these stems are smashed to facilitate the evapo-transpiration of this water. Napier grass is an ideal crop for small holder dairying, which is essentially zero grazing (or cut and carry) because it can be easily harvested by hand for feeding to the stalled animals (Orodho 2006). Being an erect grass species, Napier has a tall, highly fibrous stem with leaves growing from several nodes along the stem. Total crop DM contents can fall below as low as 12%, with leaves containing 16% DM and stems only 9% DM. (Moran and Mickan 2004). Depending on stage of maturity, fiber levels vary from 55 to 75% NDF. As a sole feed or when supplemented only with Leucaena, Napier grass will only support milk yields of 7 to 8 L/cow/day (Muia et al 2000). Low DM and high fiber contents and the physical nature of the crop are all factors reducing the utilisation of freshly harvested Napier grass. In addition to restricting forage intakes, the high fiber content and lengthy rumen retention time are likely to reduce the digestion of any additional concentrate supplements. Such a phenomenon is called associate effects, because the rumen microbial population created by the highly fibrous tropical forages reduces the numbers of starch digesting microbes, required for optimum concentrate utilisation. Nutrition researchers are continually seeking feeding techniques for tropical dairy

136

systems that can improve both the voluntary intake of tropical forages and the utilisation of more expensive concentrate supplements. Mechanical processing to improve forage utilisation There are several ways that mechanical processing can improve the utilisation of Napier grass. Following harvest, it can be chopped, either by hand or mechanically, prior to feeding. Secondly, the stems can be conditioned, through damaging the cuticle on the stems, after which the unchopped forage is wilted in the sun for several hours to reduce DM content. Such processes improuve forage utilisation by:

1. Firstly through chopping, by reducing selection on leaves and stems by the animal

2. Secondly through conditioning and wilting, which increases forage intake, through reduced total crop moisture levels which stimulates appetite through smaller rumen volumes of intra-cell water and improved rumination of the chewed forage (McDowell 1994). In addition, the higher forage intake produces a denser mat of predigested forage in the upper rumen, making it easier for this material to be regurgitated during rumination. A faster rate of forage breakdown in the rumen increases the rate of passage of feed through the animal’s digestive tract, thus increasing its appetite for more. There is a third way in which mechanical processing could improve forage utilisation, namely through fractionating the stems into juice and fibrous residue by squeezing them through a simple motorised, draught powered or human operated roller mill. Many food markets in SE Asian sell freshly squeezed sugar cane juice using a small 3 roller mill (driven by a 3 HP motor) to extract the juice from sugar cane stalks; these machines would adequately serve this purpose. For the last 10 or 20 years, fractionation of forages into juice and fibrous residues has been commercially practiced:

1. to produce protein-rich liquid from which the high value protein can be easily extracted for inclusion in pig and poultry diets, with the fibrous residue fed to ruminants (Dumont and Boyce 1976)

2. in sugar cane, to produce soluble sugar-rich liquid for intensive dairy and beef cattle or pig production, with the fibrous residue fed to ruminants (Preston 1988). Processing sugar cane stalks was developed to overcome the extremely low fermentability of sugar cane fibre and the negative effect this had on voluntary intake of the overall diet. Fractionation allowed the juice and residual fibre in the pressed stalk to be treated as separate entities (Preston 1988). A similar argument holds true for Napier grass stems.

137

Fractionating Napier grass stems Fractionation of Napier grass stems could improuve total forage intake in high performance stock, such as milking cows, by allowing them to drink much of the intra-cell liquid and to increase their rate of rumen digestion of the fibrous residue through a greater surface area available for digestion by rumen microbes. Physical fractionation is similar as pre-chewing the forage except the juice is drunk separate to the “masticated/squeezed” forage stalks. Cows could be initially fed the Napier grass leaves, which would be readily consumed, followed by the residual stem, with the juice offered in a drinking trough. Concentrate supplements, required by milking cows, should be fed out prior to the juice. As has been found with sugar cane juice, juice consumption can be regulated through varying free water intake. Increased labour requirements are not an issue because all grass is harvested, and in many cases, chopped by hand in small holder dairy systems. Larger dairy operations generally mechanically chop the forage using a chaff cutter or forage chopper. Fractionating of sugar cane stems has been shown to greatly increase animal performance. Because of the high concentration of soluble sugars, the addition of urea (0.5% of the juice volume) provides a cheap source of dietary N, through conversion of non-protein N into microbial protein. Fattening beef cattle can grow at 0.8 kg/d on a diet solely of cane juice (with urea) plus residual stem, and at 1.3 kg/d with additional sunflower meal (Sanchez and Preston 1980). Research to be undertaken There are several unknown factors to investigate before a procedure can be developed for Napier grass. Napier grass stems contain considerably less soluble sugars than sugar cane, hence the resultant juice would be lower in nutritive value. Much is known about the benefits of fractionating sugar cane stalks, and this can be used as a basis of any new research to ascertain:

1. The extraction rate of Napier grass juice. As a percentage of stalk weight, 45 to 55% of juice from sugar cane can be extracted using a simple 3-roller press.

2. Nutritive value (chemical composition) of grass juice. Sugar cane juice contains about 15 % DM with a very high content of soluble sugars, resulting in high levels of animal performance.

3. Intake of grass juice and how it changes with amount of free water offered. Growing 130 kg bulls can consume 25 to 30 kg/day of freshly extracted sugar cane juice.

138

4. Longevity of grass juice. Because of its high soluble sugar content, sugar cane juice ferments within 10 to 12 hours of extraction.

5. Voluntary intake of pressed grass stems. There may be little production benefit

by feeding all the residual pressed Napier grass stalks to milking cows, thus providing forage for other dairy stock.

6. Total forage intake and milk response. The ultimate measure of potential success

would be the additional milk produced on a diet based on ad lib forage components (leaves, pressed stems and juice) with additional protein and energy supplements to formulate an ideal milking ration for tropical small holder dairy systems. Current recommendations for Napier grass are to offer 50 kg fresh forage per day (that is 6 to 8 kg DM/day).

7. Costs and benefits from Napier grass fractionation. Unless there were economic

benefits in this process, it is unlikely to be adopted, except possibly by farmers with high yielding dairy herds who would benefit more from the improved voluntary intakes of processed forage. The economic benefits would obviously have to take into account the investment of a roller mill, and motor if required. Increased forage intakes will reduce total feed costs and improve feed efficiency hence farm profits (Moran 2005). Only after answering most, if not all, of these questions can feeding systems incorporating physical fractionation of Napier grass stems, be developed and adopted by small holder farmers trying to produce more milk from their limited areas of forage. Future successes and failures As this technology has yet to be tried with tropical forages such as Napier grass, it is not possible to predict its likely success and failures. Reviewing the farmer adoption of fractionating sugar cane could give us guidelines. How readily has it been accepted by beef and dairy farmers in Latin America? The original research was undertaken in the 1980’s, so we should have some idea 30 years later if it is considered a useful tool to improve farmer returns. The list of topics in the above section indicates that the technology is not yet ready for an extension program. However, initiating a research program combining both commercial cattle farmers and research scientists should be a worthwhile exercise. References Dumont, A. G. and Boyce, D. S. (1976). Leaf protein production and use on the farm: an economic study. J. Brit. Grassl. Soc., 31, 153-163. McDowell, R. E. (1994). Dairying with improved breeds in warm climates. Kinnic Publishers, Raleigh, NC, USA. Moran, J. B. (2005). Tropical dairy farming. Feeding management for small holder dairy farmers in the humid tropics. CSIRO Publications, Melbourne http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/197/issue/3363.htm

139

Moran, J.B. and Mickan, F. J. (2004). Increasing intakes of quality forages by cows on Indonesian small holder dairy farms. Proc 11th Animal Science Congress, Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies, Malaysia, 2, 7-10, Sep 2004. Muia, J.M., Tamminga, S., Mbugua, P.N. and Kariuki, J.N. (2000). The nutritive value of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and its potential for milk production with or without supplementation: a review. Trop. Sci. 40, 109-31. Orodho, A. B. (2006). The role and importance of Napier grass in the smallholder dairy industry in Kenya. FAO website. Preston, T.R. (1988). Fractionation of sugar cane for feed and fuel. p. 310, Sugar cane as feed, FAO Animal Health and Production Paper, No 72. Sanchez, M and Preston, T. R. (1980). Sugar cane juice as cattle feed: Comparison with molasses in the presence or absence of protein supplement. Trop Anim Prod. 5:2:117-124.

This is S.B. N. RAO (153) from India. I have gone through the article posted by Ben LUKUYU. The pulveriser technology appears to be very interesting. I believe that these pulverisers work with electricity. This may be a constraint under small holder production systems in India. One more thing is that there may be possibility of fine grinding of roughages, in that process, it may lead to increased rate of passage and depression in digestibility of crop residues. Are there are any comparative studies between pulverisation vis-a-vis chaffing. Dr. S. B. Nageswara Rao Principal Scientist, Animal Nutrition Division, National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Adugodi, Bangalore 560 030 Ph: 09880437543 (Mobile)

140

Carlos E. LASCANO (154) from Colombia I suggest that an alternative to the proposal of John Moran (contribution 152) of fractionating stems into juice and fibrous residues to improve the utilization of fresh Napier grass (Elephant grass) is the use of dwarf Elephant grass cv Mott with higher leaf: stem ratio than Napier grass. To support my suggestion, I cite work carried out in China (Wen Shilin et al 2007, Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 47-8:942-948) where seven grasses fertilized with 200 and 400 kg of nitrogen (N)/ha/ year were evaluated under cutting, as cut-and-carry of improved forages is, and is likely to remain, more widely used than grazing in this region. Results showed that dwarf elephant grass cv. Mott gave similar yields of leaf but only half the yields of stems than Napier grass. Average leaf yields of the elephant grass accessions evaluated were 24% higher at the higher rate of N in the first year and 40% higher in the second year. In summary, the most promising accession was dwarf elephant grass as it gave a high yield of leaf, but a low percentage of stem. This cultivar was found to be well suited to a cut-and-carry system of feeding, especially as the time of cutting is less critical than with other forms of elephant grass, which can rapidly develop a high percentage of stem. Carlos E. Lascano, PhD Universidad Nacional de Colombia- Sede Bogotá c.lascano@cgiar.org <mailto:c.lascano@cgiar.org>

From the Moderator of the E conference Today we start discussion on forage preservation methods/approaches/strategies and their adoption by farmers…Moderator]

B.M. KHALEDUZZAMAN, M.A. AKBAR and M. SHAMSUDDIN, (155) from Bangladesh Low-cost silage making techniques for increasing milk production and income generation Seasonal variation or fluctuating supply of forages with acute scarcity is one of the reasons for low average milk yield of dairy animals in Bangladesh.

141

Seasonal deficits can considerably be reduced by the preservation of excess forages with low cost preservation techniques. Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute worked on low-cost forage preservation techniques at farmer’s level where forages were heaped in the underground earthen pit in an anaerobic condition. However, in low lying areas, farmers reported that water was inflowing the earthen pit and damaging silages. Bangladesh Agricultural University has been demonstrating forage preservation techniques using concrete silo as well as earthen pit but the rate of adoption at farmer’s level has not been satisfactory. Keeping this in mind, Community-based Dairy Veterinary Foundation (CDVF) has taken initiatives to develop low-cost forage preservation techniques with local inputs available to the farmers. Low-cost silo: The Bamboo-mat Fenced Chamber (BFC) silo was the chamber like house made of 4 bamboo mats (local name was ‘chatai’) the total volume of which was 150 cft (height x length x width = 5’ X 5’ X 6’). The outer surface of BFC was plastered by a mixture of mud, rice husk and cow dung and the inner surface was lining with polythene sheet to confirm the BFC completely airtight. The floor of the BFC was prepared by brick and sands. The total cost of each silo was only Bangladesh Taka (BDT) 1486.0 (USD 21.23). The color of the maize silage samples preserved in BFC was yellow-green in nature and the characteristic aroma smell indicates its good fermentation quality. The pH and NH3-N (% of total N) of silage samples from BFC was 4.11 and 16.72 respectively indicated the effectiveness of BFC as low-cost silo. No mold infestation was recorded in silage samples from BFC. The BFC having 150 cft would be large enough to compact green matter resulting good fermentation during ensiling forages. Field study 1: An on-farm research of 22 small holder dairy farmers on forage production and preservation was conducted by CDVF in Sirajgonj district. Using BFC as low cost silo, it was found that the maize silage production cost (BDT/kg, fresh) was slightly higher (1.24) than jumbo (1.10) and napier silage (1.05). The milk production performance of 32 crossbred dairy cows (Local x Holstein Friesian) and income generation by feeding forage silages as a replacement of conventional straw diet was recorded. Maize, jumbo and napier silage from BFC could safely replace the conventional straw (50% of roughage DM) with increased (P<0.01) milk yield (kg/cow/d) from 8.24 to 10.25, 9.37 and 8.96 for maize, jumbo and napier silage respectively. Similarly, the milk fat (kg/cow/d) was increased (P<0.05) from 0.34 to 0.40, 0.41 and 0.38 for maize, jumbo and napier silage respectively. At the same time, the solid not fat (SNF) (kg/cow/d) increased (P<0.05) from 0.72 to 0.84, 0.79 and 0.76 by the replacement of conventional straw with maize, jumbo and napier silage. The increased income was BDT 46.3, 27.3 and 17.9 per cow per day with decreased feed cost was BDT 1.30, 1.05 and 0.81 per kg milk by feeding maize, jumbo and napier silage respectively.

142

Field study 2: The small holder dairy farmers are interested with low-cost silage making particularly in North and Northwest part of the Bangladesh. At present, a total 26 small holder dairy farmers are using BFC as low-cost silo in making maize stover silage. The silage making activities are jointly organized by CDVF and CARE, Bangladesh. The project did not give any sort of financial support to the farmers in making silo, however, a grass chopper was provided from the project by which maize stover chopped with a particle size of 2-3 cm. The project staffs trained the farmers on silage making techniques. CDVF observed that the maize stover silage production cost was getting higher (BDT 4.00/kg, fresh) which was be due to maize stover processing and labor cost. The average daily milk yield per cow increased (P<0.01) from 6.25 to 7.22 kg with supplementing maize stover silage. The milk fat percentage was also increased from 4.18 to 4.30 percent (P<0.01). Finally, the daily income (BDT/cow/d) from milk increased (P<0.01) from 76.8 to 93.4 after subtraction of total feed cost. Lessons learned: q Silage making by the farmers in milk sheds and river basins is encouraging q Most of the silages made so far by the farmers are of good quality. q Silages are better in nutritive quality and economic in feeding to animals compared to those of urea molasses straw (UMS) and of course of straw. q Silage making could be a better feeding strategy to cattle in terms of nutrient supply and productive performance during the period of forage scarcity and flood q Making silage with maize, napier and jumbo forages is to be encouraged in the farmer’s level q Making silage with maize stover has potential in the North and Northwest part of the country During the project period, campaign on low-cost silage making and its beneficial effects on milk production in dairy cows had been continuing to build farmers awareness. Small holder farmers are interested on BFC due to its local inputs with low-cost and therefore, they will keep on making silage even after the end of project. In addition, the annual maize stover production in Bangladesh is around 575 million tons (considering 250% extraction rate) in 2007-2008 having a growth rate of 62.9%. These huge quantities of maize stover could potentially use as dairy feeds in future. Therefore, in my opinion is that the awareness campaign and training to the farmers on maize stover preparation and preservation for milk production is continued with

143

high priority. Further, on-farm research should be done with BFC as low-cost silo. A.B.M. KHALEDUZZAMAN Upazila Livestock Officer Department of Livestock Services, Dhaka, Bangladesh Ph.D. Fellow Department of Animal Nutrition Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh Phone: +88 02 9138903, Cell Phone: +88 01716 001137 Email: abmkhaled@yahoo.com M.A. AKBAR Professor Department of Animal Nutrition Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh Phone: +88 091 55695-7, Cell Phone: +88 01715 004752 Fax: +88 091 55810 Email: maakbar52@yahoo.com M. SHAMSUDDIN Chair Community-based Dairy Veterinary Foundation (CDVF) And Professor Department of Surgery and Obstetrics Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh Phone: +88 091 55695-7, Cell phone: +88 01713 013530 Fax: +88 091 55810 Email: m.shamsuddin@gmail.com <mailto:maakbar52@yahoo.com>

B.K. MATHUR (156) from India Arid region of Rajasthan having mostly rainfed agriculture, experiences drought more frequently. Needs fodder /forage conservation technologies applicable in arid zone. Since, green is restricted only to post monsoon months being utilized by livestock, acceptability of preparation of silage remains out of question for arid zone farmers. The system prevails is storing chaffed cereal straw blended with arid legume straw and local grasses with crude protein varying from 3-6%. Dr. BK Mathur CAZRI-Jodhpur, India

144

Carlos E. LASCANO (157) from Colombia Unsuccessful promotion of the "Little Bag Silage" technology in small dairy farms in Central America Feed shortage during the five to six months dry season in many areas of Central America severely limits livestock production and farm income. Alternative strategies to reduce the negative effects of the dry season on milk production include silage preparation. However, adoption of silage making as a forage conservation alternative by small-scale farmers has been historically low. Reasons include silage technologies promoted have not been suitable to smallholder conditions given that they require high investments (e.g. machinery and/or large bunker silos). In addition there is a lack of knowledge by farmers on appropriate low cost silage alternatives such as heap silo, earth silo, wrapped silage and little bag silage (LBS). An R&D project funded by BMZ (Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development), Germany and executed by researcher associated with CIAT was carried out in Honduras, Central America to evaluate the potentials and constraints for adoption of LBS for smallholders. The underlying assumption of researchers participating in the project was that the LBS technology did not require additional manpower, could be elaborated in periods of low labor demand, and could make use of small areas of cultivated high quality forages and other feed resources. Even though many farmers participated in researcher and farmer led demonstration events organized by the Project, adoption of the LBS technology after two years was disappointing. Restrictions for the promotion and diffusion of LBS included: a) limited availability of suitable and cheap plastic bags, b) high silage losses due to perforation of plastic bags caused by inappropriate handling and rodents (e.g. rats), and c) lack of adequate storage facilities in many smallholder farms. Moreover silage adoption by smallholders was often restricted by limited access to a chopper as hand-chopping is cumbersome, time- and/or labor-intensive. Small-scale farmers with forage choppers rather adopted other silo types with higher capacities (i.e. heap and earth silos), either instantly or after having tried LBS. Lessons Learned: In spite of no adoption, the LBS technology was found to be suitable as a) tool for the introduction, promotion, and extension of principles of silage making among farmers and b) as an entry point for silage making and utilization in small scale milk farms. Carlos E. Lascano, PhD Universidad Nacional de Colombia- Sede Bogotá c.lascano@cgiar.org <mailto:c.lascano@cgiar.org>

145

This is Ben LUKUYU again (158) from ILRI, Kenya. Many thanks to Dr Rao and other participants who have been following up on this interesting topic. The pulverisers used in East Africa are mainly diesel powered - with engines of varying capacities. The engines are mounted on metal frames (mobile or stationery) with different designs manufactured by local artisans. The mobile ones are fitted with wheels to enable these machines to be moved easily to areas of farms where crops residues are found or for operators to move from farm to farm processing feed (example shown Photo 1 attached). These machines do not grind forage very finely but rather shreds (Photos 2 and 5). Fine grinding is not a problem especially with fresh or partially dry forages (photo 5) Ben Lukuyu Improving Market Opportunities International Livestock Research Institute www.ilri.org <http://www.ilri.org/> P.O. Box 30709 Nairobi Kenya, Tel: +254 20 422 3000, Fax: +254 20 422 3001

B. K. MATHUR (159) from India Feeding Mineral Rich Resource- Thorn less Cactus (Opuntia Ficus Indica) to Tharparkar Cattle in Arid Region -Water as water source Cacti are gaining popularity as agricultural and industrial crops, for its use as vegetables, fruits, and animal feed. At Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur four different strains of Cacti were introduced in the year 1997 for their performance and evaluation. Therefore to utilize it as animal feed, feeding trial of thorn less Cactus (Opuntia ficus indica) cladodes were conducted on Tharparkar bull calves for five weeks, at Research cum Demonstration Unit of Tharparkar cattle, KVK, CAZRI., Jodhpur. It was observed that the animals fed with cacti (having high water content (92%) had higher water intake than the control group. The mineral rich cactus (Opuntia ficus indica) cladodes have good acceptability, palatability and dry matter intake with higher body weight gain in cattle. B K Mathur Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, India-342 003

146

This is again Rogério M MAURICIO (160) from Brazil Regarding to LASCANO contribution I would like to say that plastic bags silos is a very useful technology applied for medium and big farms in Brazil not only for silage but also for grain storage (maize). The problem related to perforation was solved by using a polietileno textile that has the advantage in terms of protection and also that could be used for several years. The second point is this technology allows the silo construction be close to forage area, promoting lower cost in terms of transport. In addition the anaerobic conditions are better than traditional methods using tractors to remove air. Looking for small farms we developed metal rings (2 m diameter x 50 cm height) which are placed one over the other. It is covered by plastic sheet and the air is removed by putting pressure by people using their feet over the silage. It is very useful and price is affordable. However, even the both technologies are approved the extension programs are still trying to "convince" farmers without success. Rogério M MAURICIO

M. D. SANCHEZ H. (161) from ILCA in the Dominica Republic Comments on contribution 152 by Moran I would like to provide some information on the proposal made by Moran on the fractionation of Napier grass. Under the supervision of Dr. T. Preston, I conducted an experiment at the University of Yucatán on feeding sugar cane juice to beef cattle in 1979. The objective was to see the response when the juice was the main energy source for beef cattle compared to molasses. Juice with 0.5% urea added (w/w) or molasses with 2.5% urea were offered ad libitum, if I recall right. The animals were supplemented with a small amount of fresh Star grass and half of them, in both, juice or molasses groups, with a half a kg of meal cake (sunflower), four treatments in total. The animals drank the juice with joy and in greater amounts in occasions where drinking water was non available for short periods of time. The response was unbelievable, I was very surprised of the gains, every time we weighed the animals, I could not believe what I was seeing. There was a steer, a cross-bred with Brown Swiss, which gained on average 2 kg a day! The daily gains were juice with sunflower meal > juice without meal > molasses with meal > molasses without meal.

147

A nice, well conducted experiment, which proved the hypothesis that the juice, without the mineral load, with be a better energy source for cattle than molasses. After these exciting results, the next thing to try was to feed the sugarcane juice to dairy cattle. Several attempts were made but the results were disappointed. Dairy cows did not give more milk when juice was the main energy source, there seemed to be a shortage of something, propionate was suspected. Considering the huge potential that sugar cane juice has for cattle production, in particular for milk production if the problems could be solved, several years later, in 1994, when I was at FAO headquarters, I proposed to Cuban scientists to give it another try. Previously I consulted the gurus of animal nutrition, Dr. Preston, Dr. Orskov and Dr. Leng, and several other ruminant scientists in the USA. They all agreed that there should be no reason why sugarcane juice would not work for dairy cattle, considering its complete fermentability in the rumen and thus, the potentially very high microbial yield. My idea was to set up a series of experiments in which combinations of grass and juice (with urea added) were fed to dairy cows, going from 100% grass to approximately 90% juice and 10% grass, the minimum amount needed for rumen function. The results, which I do not believe were ever published as far as I know, were inconclusive because I could not convince the Cuban scientists that sugarcane juice could be the main source of energy, they insisted that grass should be the main feed and juice only a supplement. The responses to small amounts of supplemented juice to a grass diet were excellent, the same as when grain-based supplements are fed, but the response diminished when larger amounts were given. This was easily explained by the predominance of cellulose breaking microbes in the rumen. What was needed was a major population of bacteria digesting sugar with a small amount of those digesting cellulose. The trials with sugarcane juice as the main energy source for dairy cattle, was never done. As for the shortage of propionate, glucose (lactose) precursor, I thought with could supplement with a bypass source of (grain) energy in the form of cracked maize or rice. Well, the use of juice, cane, grass or otherwise, as a main energy source for dairy cattle is yet to be worked out. It works extremely well with beef cattle, I have no doubts. I always imagined a dairy operation next to a sugar mill, which has the machinery to strict the juice with high efficiency (small juice extractors leave 50% of the juice in the biogases), with potential economic results much better than a normal sugar mill. I still hope that those experiments are carried out; it would be a great breakthrough in animal feeding in the tropics.

148

As for the feeding of grass juices in general, I agree with Moran about the potential benefits of fractionation, but whether farmers can understand and put it in practice, that is yet to be seen, I am a little skeptic about it since it requires a very good understanding of rumen functioning and facilities for fractionation at the farmer level. I hope this information is of interest to the e-conf participants. Dr. Manuel D. Sánchez Hermosillo IICA Representative in the Dominica Republic Again this is S.A. KHANUM (162) from Pakistan My comments are in continuation with my earlier message on Chaffing of fodders and presently for message by Ben LUKUY from ILRI Kenya, related to "Pulveriser technology". It looks useful for better utilization of crop residues for livestock feeding. However, every established process or technology should be user friendly and cost: benefit ratio is the most important factor that should be given prime importance before the transfer of technology to the end user. This technology has the disadvantage of reduction in the digestibility of crop residues. It is also highly uneconomical and even impossible under small holder production systems in Pakistan due to the involvement of electricity. According to my opinion and experience, that apart from other prevailing factors in various countries, the most prominent hindrance to adopt ‘Pulveriser technology” in Pakistan, is energy crisis and poor technical and financial condition of Pakistani farmers. They are often not in a position to adopt high cadre technologies based on fuel or electricity. It may be concluded for Pakistan, that in order to process fodders, the fodder chaffing technology is at present the more suitable, simple one and well adopted in Pakistan compared with Pulveriser feed mills. Dr. Shahnaz Adeeb Khanum Deputy Chief Scientist (DCS) Head, Animal Sciences Division Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB), Faisalabad-Pakistan Tel: +92-41-2654221-30, Fax:+92-41-2654213, Direct: +92-41-2573576

149

The Moderator of the E conference from FAO, Rome, Italy Dear Participants, From next Monday, we start discussion on 'Urea Molasses Multinutrient Blocks (UMMB)'. So far we have received two main contributions on UMMB, both from India. This technology has been widely used in many parts of the world. If you have worked in this area, you may send contributions now. It would be good to share experiences from different countries and learn from them. We thank you all for actively participating in the e-conference proceedings. The response so far has been overwhelming. Discussion on all topics except urea treatment of straw is open. We look forward to your continued active participation in the e-conference. The Moderator of the E conference Livestock Production Systems Branch AGA, FAO, Rome, Italy This is Dr (Mrs) SUBRAHMANYESWARI (163) India In response to message 141 regarding usage of chaff cutters and its variation in different parts of India I agree with Dr Mahesh Chander about the variation in the adoption of practice of using and feeding chaffed fodder. In South India, farmers with organized/commercialized dairy farms use chaff cutters and also farmers with 5-6 milk animals use it but not in a wider range. Small farmers with 1-2 milk animals usually leave animals for grazing in open fields and feed them with concentrates during milking time. Most of the farmers are not cultivating much green fodder besides there is lack of education efforts by extension workers. The extension workers focus mainly on food and cash crops only. These people need to be made aware of advantages of cultivating green fodder and feeding it in proper way. Milk production has been shown to decrease during the time of feeding of unchaffed fodder, as the animal leaves the unchaffed long stems, resulting in decreased production of milk. As a Veterinary Extension worker, I feel farmers have to be reached through milk cooperative societies about the usage of chaff cutter and milk societies in villages can start common chaff cutter services besides providing fodder seeds and supply to its members on subsidy basis. Once farmers get used to advantages of feeding

150

chaffed fodder, they won’t mind going for owning a chaff cutter, even if no subsidy is available. The State Department of Animal Husbandry can also take initiation in starting the common chaff cutters at their livestock service units and thereby encouraging the farmers to go for chaff cutters. In India, especially UP and Uttarakhand, during my doctoral programme I observed most of the houses with summer air cooler and a chaff cutter and mostly women operating chaff cutters. It’s appreciable that these farmers realised the importance of chaffed fodder and reaping its benefits. Farmer study tours / documented stories of theses farmers can be used to motivate the farmers in other regions of India. Dr (Mrs) B.Subrahmanyeswari Associate Professor Dept. of Veterinary & A.H.Extension NTR College of Veterinary Science' Gannavaram - 521 102 Andhra Pradesh India 91-8676 253781

N. K. S. GOWDA (164) from NIANP, India, I support the findings of Prof. Ghulam, Pakistan. 1. The feeding practices do not vary much in India and Pakistan. In some regions (South India), most small holding dairy farmers feed home made concentrate mixture made of wheat bran and oil cake with gram husk. This ration is highly imbalanced in terms of more phosphorus and less calcium. The ratio of P: Ca is almost 6:1 as both bran and oil cakes are very good sources of P and low in Ca. Our study has shown that high P lowers the utilisation of other minerals (N.K.S. Gowda, D.T. Pal, C.S. Prasad and S.R. Bellur. 2008. Nutrient utilization and plasma mineral level in sheep fed diets with different calcium and phosphorus ratios with ragi (Eleusine coracana) straw as a roughage source. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 78(9): 980-986). Hence we need to balance the ration by lowering the proportion of wheat bran and replacing with cereal grains (maize, jowar, ragi) and also including calcite powder and mineral mixture at appropriate level. On the other hand, In North India (Punjab, Haryana), berseem is fed in more quantity and berseem contains more calcium than Phosphorus and hence will imbalance the Ca: P ratio. In my opinion, the concept of total mixed ration (TMR) comprising both concentrate and fodder (green / dry)is very ideal to ameliorate the mineral / nutrient imbalance as it is not possible to have a single feed / fodder source that is balanced in all aspects. TMR will provide complimentary and supplementary effects.

151

2. It is true and is of great concern the effects of pollutants on both animal and human health. High levels of lead and cadmium in fodder, blood, milk and dung have been recorded in dairy animals reared near industrial areas (N.K.S. Gowda, V. Malathi, S. Jash and K.S. Roy. 2003. Status of pollutants and trace elements in water, soil, vegetation and dairy animals in industrial area of Bangalore. Indian Journal of Dairy Science. 56(2) : 86-90. Gowda

I am Mohammed SHAMSUDDIN (165) from Bangladesh I thank Dr. Lascano and appreciate his comments on the small-scale low-cost silage production. I am equally aware of his concerns on low adaptability of such technology at end user level. The ruminant livestock industry of Bangladesh almost entirely depends on the crop residues. Many efforts have been made to popularise feeding cattle and buffaloes with urea molasses multinutrient blocks (UMMB), tree leaves, urea molasses-treated straws (UMS), silage prepared in earth pit, bunker and concrete pit, to mention a few. Most of these projects demonstrated good results in terms of demonstration and statistical significance. But only a few of those continued when the projects were over. The CDVF as its extension activities tried most of these technologies. When we make it, farmers appreciate that but only a few continue doing this. We examined the situations and found the followings: 1. Takes a lot of time everyday. This was the response to UMMB and UMS. A small farmer with one or two cows has to go to several shops to buy the ingredients and spent a lot of time to feed a few cows. UMMB and UMS would have sustained if they could be produced at industrial scale and the farmers could buy that at a feed shop. But that hardly happened. 2. Climate concerns. Bangladesh has a long rainy season and it rains here almost any time of the year. Therefore earth-pit silage was not popular. 3. The initial cost for concrete silage (about $1000 for 25MT silage) is too high for a small farmer. Medium and large scale farmers (10 -100) cattle of the south-western districts of Bangladesh have been using the straw chopping as a regular basis. Rice straws are largely traded as cattle feed all over the country. Bangladesh produces 575 million tons maize stover with more than 60% growth over the last few years. Feeding cattle with maize stover has not been popularised yet. Therefore, we took these initiatives (1) to chop the maize stover and in near future

152

help industry to come forward and trade maize stover as cattle feed like rice straw and (2) encourage feed industry to produce maize stover silage and or total cattle feed (roughage + concentrate) based on rice straw and maize stover. Bangladesh livestock industry has a big deficit of sources of proteins. Cultivation of legume forage as relay crop to HYV rice has got good potentials. We believe farms can be smallholders but the input providers can be large scale industries. Mohammed Chair, Community-base Dairy Veterinary Foundation (CDVF) and a professor of Theriogenology Bangladesh

Prof. Ghulam HABIB (166) from Pakistan Comments on Silage Making Fodder conservation through silage making is feasible under conditions when green fodder is abundantly available over short period of time in a season. Normally smallholding farmers have limited cultivable land mainly used for grain crops and a small fraction spared for fodder cultivation. This may not allow silage making. Some of the situations where silage making is relevant are; 1. Transitional zones in high altitude where maize crop can not reach maturity because of cold season. The maize can be harvested, chopped and preserved as silage. In Northern Areas of Pakistan this was successful and prevented wastage through free choice feeding as fresh fodder and served an alternative to hay making which was not efficient due to cold season and limited sun exposure. 2. Plants of hybrid maize remain still green after removing grains. As the crop is ready for disposal at one time after harvesting grains, the best option is preservation through silage. However addition of little molasses or other carbohydrate source`is required to increase the sugar contents for good preservation. 3. Land temporarily occupied by dam water is exposed for cultivation for limited time after the water is reduced which can be utilized for fodder cultivation over a short duration of 1-2 months. In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, where Tarbela dam water is extended in Hazara division, farmers grow maize fodder on such temporarily exposed dam land from July 1st week to mid August. The fodder never reaches maturity because the land is again over run with dam water after mid August. So farmers try to finish harvesting the maize fodder and feeding free choice with considerable wastage over this short period (grasses for grazing are also plenty at

153

this time). These farmers were taught how to make silage of the maize crop and feed it during winter scarcity period. The practice was introduced this year and the success is yet to be experienced. Nevertheless the farmers appeared convinced and took great interest in silage making as they prepared silage on their own after watching the demonstration. 4. Making silage from sugar beet pulp: Fresh sugar beetpulp contain high moisture 85-90% and due to high sugar contents can be successfully preserved as silage after mixing with dry roughages. Farmers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan are making beet pulp silage for feeding to milking buffaloes and cows and also to feedlot calves. It is available over a short period of 50-60 days (May-June) and preserving it as silage is the best option because drying of wet beet pulp is very difficult rather impossible in the open. Beet pulp silage was found as highly economical feed that increases milk production and supports high growth rate in calves and saves expensive concentrate feeding. Some famers also add urea to it at the time of ensiling. The practice of silage making from beet pulp has saved wastage of this valuable feed which occurs when a truck load of beet pulp is dumped at the farm and animals are allowed to consume free choice over weeks lying in open. 5. Bale Silage as a possible solution for urban/peri-urban commercial dairy farms: Commercial urban and peri-urban dairy farmers are mostly landless and buy fodder from local market on daily basis. Summer (May-July) and winter (Dec-Feb) are hard periods of fodder shortage. Such farms have limited space and can not prepare silage. Farmers near cities having cultivable land can prepare bale silage of fodder for selling to urban and peri-urban dairy farms. This is easy to transport and store and will help these dairy farms in combating production losses during feed scarcity periods. Efforts on this line have been initiated in Pakistan. PROF. GHULAM HABIB Agricultural University, Peshawar, habibnutr@gmail.com

I am Sofjan ISKANDAR (167) from Indonesia As explained by Mr MOHAMMED, in Message 165, in Indonesia with wet tropical climate and small number of cattle kept by farmer s, silaging has not been a regular practice, even in institution like Indonesian Research Institute for Animal Production (IRIAP); we prefer chopped fresh elephant grass. There is not enough time and skill to make silage; the silage becomes rotten. ISKANDAR

154

I am professor MISSOHOU (168) from Senegal (West Africa) One of the constraints of straw production and use in animal feeding in Senegal is how to easily cut it. To solve this problem the Ministry of Animal Resources initiated the use of ‘motofaucheuse’ (moto reaper?) imported from Italia. However they were too fragile. In Chad too the same problem was encountered and scythe was imported from Swiss but the adoption rate seems low. On the net I found that the East Africa Dairy Development is using successfully a pulveriser feed mill. For the benefit of participants could someone provide more information about this machine, the process and its adoption by farmers? Professeur Ayao MISSOHOU DMV, MSC, Professeur Titulaire Service de Zootechnie-Alimentation Ecole Inter-Etats des Sciences et Médecine Vétérinaires (EISMV) BP 5077 Dakar, Sénégal Tel: 00221338651022, fax : 00221338254283 Courriel: missohou@refer.sn, ayao_missohou@yahoo.fr www.eismv.org <file://www.eismv.org Raf SOMERS (169) from Vietnam Positive experience with plastic silage bags in Vietnam The Vietnam Belgium Dairy Project introduced large plastic bags to make silage, mainly from corn. The plastic bags come in long tubes (they are actually made for biogas installations). The tube is cut and one end closed with an elastic band. The chopped corn is added layer by layer of about 20 to 30 cm while 3 to 4 people stand inside the bag to press. Some other ingredients can be added (rice bran 2-3%, Molasses 2- 3%, salt 0.5%). On the top, we add a layer of some rice straw. When the bag is 1.5 m high, the bag is closed. The air is pressed out as much as possible and the bag is closed with another elastic band. It is worth to note that many farmers tried other silage techniques before, including small drums (50 kg to 70 kg silage) and concrete bunkers. But they did not continue with these techniques. In our project area, 90% of the 450 farmers are applying this technology. Of all innovations that were introduced by our project, the silage bag received the most appreciations (98% said that is it relevant to their dairy production). The reason is that it is cheap, easy to apply and really solves the problem of shortage of fodder in the winter.

155

Some important points: * Practically no spoilage. * Bags can easily be opened and closed. * Bags are used one after the other, which means that the bags stay completely airtight until they are actually opened for use. * The bags can last 2 to 3 years. Holes should be repaired with tape. * The size is appropriate. The 50 to 70 kg drums are considered to be small. * A key point is that someone can sell the bags to the farmers! I attach some pictures and refer to our website for articles and manuals: www.dairyvietnam.org.vn. The techniques are described in the manuals “Nutrition and feeding management in dairy cattle” from the Vietnam Belgium Dairy Project and in the magazine Milk matters 3 (page 24). All materials can be downloaded. Raf Somers Managing Director Somers Livestock Solutions, Tel: +84912017660 This is Tej K. WALLI (170) from India I do agree with the views expressed by S.A. KHANUM from Pakistan about chaffing of fodders vs. pulverisation of these fodders. Chaffing of green fodder is common in northern parts of India and Pakistan. Along with greens dry fodders are also subjected to chaffing. It is very simple and useful technology and it also helps the farmers to give the feed to their animals as total mixed ration, after adding concentrate ingredients. Unfortunately, this simple technology has not been adopted by the farmers in other parts of India, though concerted efforts are on now to popularize this technology in these areas. Like Dr. Khanum, I too have reservations about the pulverization technology for ruminants. Apart from the fact that it requires more energy and thus, adding to the cost of feeding for the smallholder farmers, there is also a technical flaw in this technology, as pointed out by Dr. Khanum in her message. Straws are slowly degrading feeds and need more retention time in rumen, so that microbes are able to digest fiber. Pulverization reduces the particle size of the straw and it directly affects their retention time, giving insufficient time for the microbes to act on the fiber particle. This could lead to reduced digestibility of straw; no doubt, the intake would be higher. Pulverization also reduces chewing time, which is such an important activity for ruminants to supply bicarbonates to the rumen through saliva for maintaining its pH, in order to avoid condition like acidosis. Tej K. Walli, Ph. D. Chief Technical Advisor, Poshak Agrivet G.T. Road, Karnal- 132001 Haryana, India tejwalli@yahoo.co.in

156

S. A. KHANUM (171) from Pakistan My comments related to E- Conference Message 165 on “Silage making” are the following: Based on our experiences, information and subsequent feedback from livestock farmers in Pakistan, we have some observations related to Silage making and its uses. Silage production and its adoption at the farmers’ level in Pakistan are very low. Mostly this technology under a Research Project or at the level of farmer’s participatory programme, where trials or demonstration are free of cost and include some other incentives for the farmers is attractive to the farmers. However, only few of them are convinced for its application/adoption at their own level, when the researchers are out. The role of department of extension services for the transfer of technology and to create awareness amongst the farmers is also very week. Some other cultural and other factors that play role in the adoption of "Silage Making Technology" in Pakistan are:

1. Availability of fresh fodder supply the year round in irrigated belts during summer and winter shortens the scope of silage making in livestock feeding.

2. Almost no development in silage production and demonstration at farmers’ level. They

mostly lack necessary skills and infrastructure for this task. Most farmers are not even aware of forage preservation through silage making.

3. Special behavioral preferences of milking buffalo and cow for fresh fodders.

The above mentioned points were an outcome of various field reports. In one critical report from a livestock farm, located in Sheikupura, Pakistan, we observed acute fungus growth in silage heap. The silage thus available caused lower animal performance and health responses, and casualties of precious animals, as it was confirmed by positive results when feeding of such contaminated silage was withdrawn. However, in view of current feed scarcity and high feed prices, it is hoped that silage making process might find a place in the future; however for this necessary skills of farmers must be improved through a dedicated extension work.

Dr. Shahnaz Adeeb Khanum Deputy Chief Scientist (DCS) Head, Animal Sciences Division

157

Nuclear In B.K.MATHUR (172) CAZRI, Jodhpur-India I agree with Dr GOWDA. However, the arid Rajasthan of India has a different picture regarding mineral status. We undertook a comparative study of mineral status of villagers' cattle in Jodhpur district v/s institute farm that managed Tharparkar cattle in hot arid zone. We found that mineral nutrition plays a great role in the normal reproduction and it was observed that mineral imbalance remains a major cause of delayed maturity or longer service period in dairy animals. The Tharparkar cattle of the institute’s farm maintained on balanced ration viz., pelleted cattle feed or on own formulated Total Mix Ration were not deficient in minerals, where as zinc and iron was significantly higher when compared to Indian standards; however, the animals showed good general and reproductive health. While mineral imbalance was found in extreme desert area cattle in villagers' cattle, with deficiency of calcium and phosphorus, copper and manganese and higher level of zinc and low or excess of iron. In Jodhpur area infertile cattle and buffaloes, per rectum examination of genitalia, revealed hypoplastic & or smooth ovaries and persistent corpus luteum, with poor general health. Therefore, formulation of area specific mineral mixture was recommended as per requirement for the arid zone. B.K.Mathur Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB), Faisalabad-Pakistan Tel: +92-41-2654221-30, Fax:+92-41-2654213, Direct: +92-41-2573576 The Moderator of the Conference from FAO, Rome, Italy Dear Colleagues, Today we post two Discussion Papers on Urea Molasses Multinutrient Blocks (UMMB). To the best of our knowledge, this technology has been used in over 60 countries and a wealth of information exists on the extent of its adoption by farmers. A number of block variants containing additives and anthelmintics have also been developed and used by farmers/producers organisations. Please take this opportunity to share your experiences on: · whether the UMMB technology has been a success or failure in your region, · reasons that you ascribe to its success or failure, and · lessons learnt. Thanks. The Moderator of the Conference Livestock Production Systems Branch AGA, FAO, Rome, Italy.

158

I am Dr. Vishnu SHARMA (173) from India Rajasthan state is divided in 10 agro climatic zones with different feeding practices. In semi arid part of the state, most of the farmers are using chaff cutter on regular basis to chaff green fodder and are aware about the good part of this technology. I am in agreement with Dr. Wali that thete is no point of adopting pulverized over chaff cutter as far as animal feeding is concerned. However, one very important and unfortunate aspect in chaff cutting is invariably occurring accidents; many of them are very much threatening to life or can cause permanent disability. Since chaff cutters are open so fingers, hairs, cloths etc. go inside the cutter if attention gets diverted and cause life threatening accidents. To my understanding simple prototype of chaff cutter is quiet ok, manual or electrical, but we need to make it safer for farmers particularly women who mainly perform this activity. In attachment find a photograph of an 'open' chaff cutter depicting the chances of meeting with an accident. Dr. VISHNU SHARMA, M.V.Sc; Ph.D Senior Assistant Professor Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences Mansarovar, Jaipur-Campus-302020 drvishnus@yahoo.com Tel:09460387949

This is Dr. M R GARG (174) from India Contributing on UREA MOLASSES MINERAL BLOCK TECHNOLOGY

Introduction

Ruminants in India are fed predominantly on crop residues with very low levels of nitrogen and minerals and poor source of fermentable energy. Animal nutritionists world over have demonstrated that the nutritive value of crop residues can be improved if supplemented with deficient nutrients. However, supplementation of deficient nutrients through concentrates and green fodder is either cost intensive or these are not readily available in adequate quantities. In absence of adequate level of fermentable nitrogen, energy and minerals in the ration, rumen microbes don’t get nutrients supply for their own growth. As a result, supply of nutrients through rumen microbes and the digestibility of fibrous feed in the rumen are reduced.

159

The urea molasses mineral block (UMMB) is a strategic feed supplement for ruminant animals. UMMB is most readily available source of fermentable nitrogen, carbohydrates and minerals for the protein synthesis by the rumen microflora. The microbial protein is highly digestible and is an important source of protein for the host animal for meeting its physiological needs. Microbial protein can contribute to about 30-40 per cent of crude protein requirement of an animal. Through licking, UMMB provides fermentable nitrogen, energy and minerals at different time intervals, necessary for optimum microbial growth. As ruminants can produce microbial protein from non-protein nitrogen, UMMB supplementation in the ration could be quite beneficial, especially when fed crop residues form the bulk of basal diet.

Cold process developed by NDDB for production of urea

molasses blocks

National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) developed ‘cold process’ for manufacturing UMMB and designed a simple plant and automatic pressing device for manufacturing block licks. UMMB manufacturing technology has been provided to dairy cooperatives, private organizations and international agencies, for commercial production of block licks.

Considering the buying capacity of milk producers in India, weight of each block is kept at 3.0 kg and one block lasts for 5 – 7 days. Daily feeding cost of block is about Rs. 4 to 5 (approx. 1/10 of US $) and its supplementation leads to increase in daily milk production by 0.4 – 0.5 liters and improvement in milk fat per cent by 0.2 to 0.5%, as indicated by several scientific studies.

Advantages of feeding UMMB

• Improves feed intake by supplying fermentable nitrogen, energy and minerals for the growth of rumen microflora.

• Improved feed intake helps in increasing milk yield and milk fat per

cent in lactating animals and growth in growing animals.

• Helps in regulating estrus by supplying deficient nutrients, especially on crop residues based diets.

• Regular supplementation in the diet helps in reducing methane

emission.

• Could be used for deworming large and small ruminants by incorporating suitable anthelmintics in the block lick and feeding during strategic times of the year.

160

Important

• Dispense UMMB to facilitate only licking by the animals.

• The UMMB licks should be readily available to animals to ensure licking as per their requirements.

• Do not dissolve the UMMB licks in water for feeding the animals. • The UMMB licks should be protected from dung, litter, urine, fodder &

rain water. • Do not feed UMMB to calves below 3 months of age.

Technological developments As an alternate to steam-heating the ingredients, adding gelling agents such as calcium and magnesium oxide, calcium hydroxide etc., helps to solidify the block material (FAO, 1988; Garg, et al. 1998; Tiwari, et al. 1990). This technique is referred to as the cold process. A new process of manufacturing UMMBs and a device has been developed by NDDB, which is capable of mixing the ingredients thoroughly and efficiently. After mixing, the material is discharged into a stainless steel tray for transfer into moulds or a pressing device.

Plant for manufacturing block

licks

Pneumatically controlled

rotary type pressing device

161

Constraints in the large scale use of block licks Regional feeding and management practices

Feeding and management practices vary from region to region. In some regions, animals are let loose to the fields in the morning and return home only in the evening. Animals don’t have regular access to block lick. Secondly, tying place of animals is different in the morning and evening. Milk producers don’t shift the UMMB dispenser when they shift animal from one place to another. At certain places, there is no manger to offer feed to animals. Under such situations, it is difficult to feed block lick to animals as it gets soiled with dung, urine, water etc. Due to all these factors, animals don’t have regular and free access to UMMB. As a result, no distinct benefits of its feeding were seen by the milk producers in certain areas and they refrained from its use. Lack of extension education

While taking up production of good quality UMMBs by various agencies, proper extension education to the milk producers about the regular use of UMMB is equally important. Users need to be explained the do’s and don’ts related to UMMB so that they are able to derive proper benefit with the use of this supplement. In absence of such an attempt, some agencies tried to introduce UMMB in their area of operation and discontinued as there was no regular demand of the product after some time. Cost and availability of molasses

Being highly palatable and many other inherent qualities, molasses is an important and economical source of nutrients in the UMMB. In view of large variations in sugarcane production, cost and availability of molasses keep fluctuating. At times price of molasses is as lower as Rs. 4000 per MT and as high as Rs. 15000 per MT. Due to high cost and problem of availability, sometimes agencies were distracted from regular production of UMMB.

Lessons learnt and the future of the UMMB technology In view of the above mentioned constraints, the agencies that are willing to popularize UMMB technology in their area of operations is advised the following:

162

• UMMB technology is suitable for only those areas where dry fodder is predominantly fed to animals as source of roughages.

• Free access to UMMB for at least 10-12 hours in a day need to be ensured.

• A special dispenser is to be designed for feeding UMMB. All agencies

are advised to popularize the use of dispenser for feeding UMMB to avoid its biting and over ingestion.

• Agencies are also advised to educate the milk producers about the safe

use of UMMB and the benefits accrued out of its regular use.

• Agencies that are willing to set up facilities for production of UMMB are advised to ensure regular availability of molasses at a reasonable price.

In view of the above, some of the agencies are now producing and supplying UMMB on regular basis, using the equipment, formulations and production process developed by NDDB. On an average, about 300,000 blocks are produced in India per annum, each block of 3.0 kg. The use of block lick has been quite effective in the state of Rajasthan where there is perennial shortage of green fodder and the dairy animals are fed primarily on crop residues. Similar success has also been achieved in other states like Karnataka and Maharashtra, where crop residues form the basal feed. The consumption of block lick was found to be quite satisfactory at the farms, especially during the periods of green fodder scarcity. In all, about 10, 000 milk producers in the dairy cooperatives are presently using block lick for feeding their animals. In addition to increase in milk and fat per cent in milk, many farmers reported improvement (shine) in the hair coat. Overall, where there was good provision of regular access to block lick it fared very well, especially when on crop residue based diets. References

FAO, 1988. Molasses urea blocks as a multinutrient supplement for

ruminants. By R. Sansoucy, G. Aarts and R. A. Leng. In Sugarcane as feed, p. 263-279. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 72. Rome.

Garg, M. R., Mehta, A. K. and Singh D. K. 1998. Advances in the production

and use of urea molasses mineral blocks in India. World Animal Review, the FAO journal on animal health, production and products, WAR/RMZ 90, p. 22-27

163

Tiwari, S. P., Singh, V. B. and Mehra, V. R. 1990. Urea molasses minerals block as a feed supplement, effect on growth and nutrient utilization in buffaloes calves. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech., 29: 333-338.

Dr. M R Garg Sr. Scientist (AN) National Dairy Development Board Anand 388 001 (Gujarat), India Tel: 02692-226248 E-mail: mrgarg@nddb.coop

This is Dr. Parkash Singh (175) BRAR from India Impact of supplementary feeding of Urea Molasses Multi-nutrient Blocks (UMMB) in improving reproductive efficiency in dairy buffaloes Buffalo are the predominant dairy animal in India. However, poor nutrition limits their productive and reproductive efficiency. The effects of supplementary feeding of urea-molasses multi-nutrient blocks (UMMB) prepared by an easy ‘cold method’ were assessed during different phases of reproduction in dairy buffalo kept with farmers. Supplementary feeding during the pre-partum period improved postpartum reproductive efficiency in terms of days to first oestrus (34 vs 48 d) and conception rates (30% vs. 0%) when compared to unsupplemented controls. The effects of UMMB supplementary feeding were more pronounced in buffalo kept in rural areas by marginal farmers than in those kept on organized farms, due to the differences in the basal diet in each system (effect being higher at low plane of nutrition). Pre-partum UMMB supplementation also improved the post-partum milk yield. Supplementation of UMMB during first 50 days after calving induced estrus in higher proportion of buffaloes (71 vs. 14%) compared to their unsupplemented controls. Milk yield was greater and peak milk yield was maintained for a longer duration with the UMMB supplementation during the post-partum period. Supplementation with UMMB for 30 days in buffalo with delayed onset of puberty induced oestrus in 33% of heifers during the summer season and in 93% of the heifers during the winter season. Similarly, in anoestrus adult buffalo, UMMB supplementation induced ovarian activity in 40% of buffalo during the summer season and in 90% buffalo during the winter season. In addition, UMMB supplementation was shown to increase the effect of pregnant mare serum gonadotropin (PMSG) used for induction of oestrus in anoestrus and delayed pubertal buffalo. Overall, UMMB supplementation improved milk production and reproductive efficiency in dairy buffalo.

164

Success of Technology: After its introduction in 2001, the technology became highly popular among the farmers and veterinarians in areas where pilot studies were conducted. A number of training course were organized for farmers and veterinarians of the state, for scientists of other states and central universities and for six international fellows. With the result that research and extension activities were started in other states using similar formulations and technology. The tag of its use ‘only as a disaster feed’ or a ‘carrier of minerals’ has been removed in the minds of veterinarians to a great extent. Based only on increase in milk production the cost benefit ratio remained 1:3 Failures of technology: - Under our conditions the use of UMMB is seasonal. During winter seasons leguminous fodder is available in plenty limiting use of non-protein nitrogen based feeds such as UMMB. During rainy season the storage of UMMB sometimes becomes a problem. - UMMB production by cold process was introduced to the marginal farmers; however not all the marginal farmer were able to produce the blocks of their own, because they had fewer number of animals. Limited resources and problem of storage of blocks were other constraints. Rather than producing UMMB of their own it was cheaper for them to buy them from others due to lower cost of ingredients when purchased in bulk. Hence veterinarians and few farmers started producing and selling the blocks. At certain places, the farmers and veterinarians involved in its production sold UMMB at much higher prices rendering blocks not cost effective. · Overall the technology has been partially successful. The technology has a good future in the small/marginal holder farming system provided a continuous and dedicated extension system is in place. In the state of Panjab and for buffaloes this technology has been adopted to a greater extent by farmers who have anoestrus buffaloes (buffaloes not coming to oestrus for many months after calving) in contrast to the situation when the aim is to increase milk. Most veterinarians have started prescribing UMMB in case of poor reproduction in buffaloes. For increasing milk the UMMB technology faces stiff competition from a number of products produced by many commercial companies, due to their aggressive marketing strategies. I understand that the blocks are produced and sold by a number of institutions in India. It is hoped that colleagues from various parts of India and from other countries would give more information, through this e-conference platform, on the adoption of this technology in their regions. Dr Parkash Singh Brar Associate Professor, Department of Animal Reproduction, Gynaecology and Obstetrics College of Veterinary Sciences,

165

GAD Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana 141 004, Punjab India

Dr. Noble JAYASURIYA (176) from Sri Lanka A contribution on Urea molasses multinutrient blocks (UMMB) When we talk about feeding urea and molasses as a supplement I believe that we are looking at two different aspects. On one hand urea and molasses together has been a ‘survival feed’ in many countries, especially in Australia and India and perhaps in some Latin American countries as well. It has been a very effective drought feed when there is no green (or even brown) material available for feeding. It has helped farmers to manage their cattle (basically survival) until the next rainy season, minimizing death due to lack of feed and drought conditions. On the other hand UMMB – urea molasses multi-nutrient blocks – is a supplement for poor quality roughages. The principal behind the use of UMMB as a feed supplement for ruminants is very well understood and recorded. As conceptualized by Leng, Preston and others in very simple terms the idea has been to ‘feed the bugs first’ to optimize rumen function and then feed the animal to get the best out of the feed. The real question is can UMMB be used as an economically viable and sustainable supplement for production purposes? FAO has a long history (30 years or more) on the introduction of UMMB to developing countries. We remember names such as Rene Sansoucy and Arts when we talk about UMMB. Then the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of the IAEA took it further through its many RC and TC projects in Asia, Africa and Latin America not only looking at its usefulness in milk production but also its effect on reproductive performance, using radioisotopes and ELISA techniques. There is no doubt that results have been overwhelmingly attractive and conclusive. But looking around the various developing countries in Asia and Africa (may be even in Latin America) one finds it difficult to pin point any one country where UMMB is being used for production purposes on a day to day basis. Looking at published (as well as unpublished) literature we see how scientists have attempted to introduce UMMB especially at small farmer level. Various components, preparations, mixing techniques etc. have been tested out to produce various size blocks of various consistencies and nutritive values. Immense number of feeding trials with cattle, sheep, goats and buffaloes has been carried out and results in terms of growth, milk production, and reproductive performance have been recorded. But has the technique been sustainable? Is it being used in a large scale for production purposes? I believe the fate of UMMB is more or less the same as that of urea ammonia treatment of cereal straws. It works in practice but is not being adopted on a large scale. There could be pockets (especially in India) where it is being used but I believe

166

that it has not received world wide acceptance as a supplementary feed to be used on a regular basis. (I believe that urea-molasses mixture is often used in places where there is sugarcane tops as green forage). It would be interesting to find out why the farmers have not readily adopted the technique? Could it be the cost of urea once again? Is it the availability of molasses (in some countries molasses has more value as a base material for alcohol production)? Is it the process of manufacturing the blocks that keeps the technique away from farmers? Could it be that the benefit from investment is inadequate for a farmer to continue with it? Sorry a lot of questions but I have no answers. Dr. M. C. N. Jayasuriya 98/M/47, Scenic View Kahantota Road, Pittugala Malabe Tel. 0094 11 2413335; mob. 0714272996 nj8583@gmail.co

Dr. S. A. Khanum, M. Hussain and H. N. Hussain (177) from Pakistan Impact of Urea Molasses Multi-nutrient Blocks (UMMB) Supplementation on livestock production in Pakistan Livestock is an integral part of the agriculture sector in Pakistan while it has over 66 million buffaloes/cows and 80 million goat/sheep. Small farmers have limited feed resources, generally low in essential nutrients and thus unable to support efficient rumen fermentation. Ruminant feeding system based on low quality roughages needs improvement by way of creating optimum conditions in the rumen for maximizing fiber digestion. Ammonia concentration in rumen fluid is the most important limiting factor governing microbial growth, digestibility and intake. A solidified UMMB lick provides critical nutrients namely nitrogen as urea, readily available energy as molasses and minerals for microbes, and can be easily introduced into the existing on-farm practices. In Pakistan, the UMMB technology was established with the technical and financial help of FAO/IAEA. UMMBs were prepared from local, easily available and cheaper feed ingredients like sugarcane molasses, cotton seed meal/sunflower meal and wheat bran, etc. Its high Crude Protein content and Metabolizable Energy make it an excellent supplement for the livestock. The feeding trials of UMMB were conducted on buffaloes, cattle, calves, goat and sheep with the involvement of various research organizations, farmers and NGOs.

167

Advantages of Technology: UMMB supplementation had a significant effect on various traits of animal production. Various studies conducted on livestock had shown its positive effects as given below: i. Fodder intake and dry matter digestibility were significantly increased and during the shortage of green fodder UMMB proved to be a better replacement. ii. UMMB proved the cheapest and the most economical source of nitrogen as well as of energy among all the other supplementary feeding strategies. iii. UMMB feeding to animals, raised on low quality fodders, may be an alternative to other forms of supplementation especially when these become unavailable or too expensive. iv. Pica (disease of our region) was a common problem in almost all the animals of arid region due to mineral deficiencies that was effectively subsided by UMMB supplementation. In some cases animals suffering from haemoglobinurea due to phosphorus deficiency recovered when UMMB was supplemented. v. Farmers are fully convinced and receptive to this technology for positive effects on milk yield, reproductive efficiency and health of animals. vi. This technology may act as an innovative feeding strategy for all type of livestock, where concentrate feeding is not a common feature such as goat and sheep farming. vii. The farmers were found more concerned with general body condition of the animals. After UMMB supplementation the animals looked healthier and more active in searching feed on ranges with sparse vegetation. viii. Due to prolonged mineral deficiency in the animals, especially milking and pregnant buffaloes and cows suffered from bone disorders manifested by stiff joints, ataxia, and characteristic posture with bulging scapula and stiff neck. When the animals were offered UMMB that contained dicalcium phosphate and other minerals, the symptoms subsided over a week of feeding of the blocks. ix. Cows that did not show estrus signs for long time due to inadequate nutrition were reported resuming the estrus cycle when given mineral rich blocks. Farmers of arid and semi-arid regions very much appreciated the UMMB strategy because block feeding did not demand extra arrangements. In some cases where animals chewed the blocks, these were offered in a wooden box of the same size. Constraints of technology:

168

Lack of awareness of the benefits of UMMB supplementation is one of the major constraints for the spread of this technology. Limited resources and problem of availability of molasses in certain parts of the country further shortens its scope. Farmers always like to buy the UMMB rather than preparing at their own, as it proved expensive for them to arrange all the ingredients by themselves (not in bulk). Dr. Shahnaz Adeeb Khanum Deputy Chief Scientist (DCS) Head, Animal Sciences Division Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB), Faisalabad-Pakistan Tel: +92-41-2654221-30 Fax: +92-41-2654213 Direct: +92-41-2573576

Dr. WMPB WEERASINGHE (178) from Sri Lanka Urea Molasses Multinutrient Block (UMMB): A Sri Lankan Experience Introduction As with other countries in the region, the UMMB technology has a long history in Sri Lanka. The technology was introduced in mid and late 1980s, though the feeding of molasses and inclusion of urea into dairy rations have been in practice even before. Some foreign funded projects and personnel were the early introducers and a significant amount of research and publications were the outcomes. Those projects identified and successfully demonstrated several formulae of UMMB according to the ago climatic zones in Sri Lanka. The basic formula included urea, molasses, salt and a mineral mixture whilst rice polishes being the filling material. And for high producing animals in the hill country areas, fish meal was also added. Cement was the binding agent. After its introduction, the block was mainly supplied to the needy farmers through some extension programmes and government funded development programmes. Successes Success story of UMMB in Sri Lanka is mainly an experimental demonstration of beneficial effects of UMMB on production, performance and the better utilization of poor quality roughages for ruminant feeding. But, various programmes and projects formulated and conducted by both the government and some NGOs during past three decades yielded little results. For example, Department of Animal Production and Health initiated a programme to introduce UMMB as a supplementary feed to improve nutritional status of dairy animals in the country during 2005-2007 periods, but after conclusion of the project, very few farmers are still using the block.

169

However, careful reweaving of past activities on the introduction of UMMB to Sri Lanka can reveal that the failure or little progress on the popularization of the technology is not due to any technical reason but is mainly due to some other factors. Failures

1. Introduction of any new technology should first go to beneficiary groups as an extension programme but after that phase, farmers or farmer organizations should be able to produce the requirement or it has to be commercially available at a reasonable price. In Sri Lanka however, the progress on these two aspects were very limited. Farmers found it difficult to collect raw materials needed to produce UMMB; especially molasses, which required a license to transport and also a suitable storing facility. In addition, there was no commercial scale production of blocks except some unsuccessful attempts to do so.

2. There are some practical problems in supplementing UMMB. The block has to be provided as a lick, so that it has to be put in a suitable container; the commonest is a wooden box. In dry zone areas where the available roughage is in poor quality and thus the use of the block is most recommended, animal management pattern is not very much suitable for the supplementation of the block. In dry zone, animals are often reared as free range and not confined specifically to a build farm yard; supplementation of blocks in a container is practically a difficult task.

3. The major energy supplement in UMMB is molasses and the price of a block

greatly depends on how cheap that ingredient is. A few years ago, price of molasses was 50 Rupee cents to Rupee 1 per kg but currently it is in the range of Rupee 30 to 35. This increases the manufacturing cost of UMMB several folds and even commercial scale producers are now finding it difficult to make the blocks at a price affordable to farmers. Recent developments After its initial introduction, use of UMMB in Sri Lanka was very limited and it can be seen that only few studies were conducted during that “lag” period. One of the problems in making blocks was the use of cement. It is a costly ingredient and farmers had a feeling that as it is a building material and its feeding to dairy cows is not good. Though it’s not scientifically proven that the cement has negative effects on animals, there was a requirement of finding a cheap, suitable alternative for cement and also ways and means for the commercial production of the block. During the period of 2003-2005, research conducted in the Veterinary Research Institute of Sri Lanka by the author and colleagues successfully demonstrated that locally available “lime” (Dolomite) can be used as a binder. Various formulae being tested and the technology has subsequently transferred to a government owned commercial scale feed manufacturer, who is currently produce UMMB in a commercial scale.

170

In conclusion, Lessons learned so far in Sri Lanka on the use of UMMB revealed that the technology can be successfully adopted among farmers. As it is now in commercial scale production, this would be the ideal time to look back and correct any failures. In this regard, we firmly believe that through an active and dedicated extension programmes, finding practical ways to feed the blocks in different farming systems, value addition to the blocks (e.g.; incorporation of anthelmintics) and further research on how the block’s performance with different ruminant diets will greatly enhance the popularization of UMMB in Sri Lanka. Dr WMPB WEERASINGHE Veterinary Research Officer, Veterinary research Institute, Gannoruwa, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka.

Noluvuyo BANGANI (179) from South Africa A contribution on Urea Molasses Multinutrient Blocks (UMMB) For most developing farmers in South Africa, maize and plain coarse salt have been the most popular supplements given to grazing animals. Animals are given these additional feeds during the periods of feed scarcity e.g., drought, dry winter months or when the forage has been burnt due to veld fires. This is done mainly for humanitarian reason rather than to improve the production potential of the animal. To respond to Dr. Noble Jayasuriya’s question (message 176), most techniques are usually not adopted by developing farmers because of the following reasons:

• Lack or inaccessibility of information.

• Poor method of technology transfer - not reaching the level of the people one is communicating with.

• Inavailabity of infrastructure to make the technology a viable one.

• Farmers not seeing their livestock as a major source of income or a means to

alleviate poverty - the feeding are therefore only supplied for maintenance.

• The relationship between feeding and fertility has also not been a clear concept to developing farmers.

Disseminating information to developing farmers in a simple form that can be easily understood by them, leads to technology being easily adopted, if they see the benefits of the technology though. The Urea Molasses Multi-nutrient Blocks are now gaining popularity in South Africa although still at a snail pace. Developing farmers are starting to use the blocks, buying them from feed manufacturing companies

171

without having to wait for grants from NGOs. This is because farmers are now starting to realise the value of their livestock. The interest in Urea Molasses Multi-nutrient Blocks specifically can be attributed to the fact that they are an easier way of feeding supplements, as most developing farmers do not have mixing facilities. They are easy to handle and ready to use. The information on feeding is shared and made available to them in occasions such as Farmers’ Information Days. Also studies like that by De Villiers, Gumede and Mapeyi (2008) in a Goat Health Research and Extension Project where they had developing farmers actively participating in the research made a positive impact in disseminating information. The developing farmers that participated in the research started to act as role models and an accessible source of advice and encouragement to other farmers in that area (De Villiers et.al, 2008). Inasmuch as Urea Molasses Multi-nutrient Block technology is gaining acceptance, complaints that these blocks are expensive do often come up. Farmers also do not have implements and raw materials to make their own blocks and it is therefore convenient for them to buy. The advice is that, rather than having ten starving unproductive animals, it is better to sell one and use the money to improve the condition of the others and hence their productivity. This not only serves to improve the production potential of the animal but also changes the mentality of farmers into seeing their animals as another source of income and hence poverty alleviation. Noluvuyo Bangani (Pr. Nat. Scientist) No.3 Isabella Blvd Caledon Estate, Ballito KwaZulu Natal South Africa Tel: +27 32 439 5874; mob. +27 83 720 6570 Vuyo.Bangani@Voermol.co.za

This is Elmer Edgardo COREA (180) from El Salvador I want to share our experience with multinutritional bocks (MNB) in dual purpose cows. Context Livestock production in El Salvador is characterized by low productivity and poor reproductive performance; forages are of low quality and scarce during the dry season. Livestock production is limited, overall average of milk production is close to 3 liter/day, and weight gain is less than 300 g/day on dual purpose and subsistence systems, which represent more than 90 % of farmers. As in many areas of Central America, cattle are related to human nutrition and income of rural families.

172

Experience with Multinutritional blocks (MNB) With the support of IAEA, We develop a system to produce blocks with reasonable facility on a hydraulic press. We proved different molding method and pressure to a better block structure and we also proved to develop a formula with good composition and physical characteristics. We chose a formula that had the conventional ingredients (urea, molasses, cement, mineral salts and wheat bran) to achieve some 36 % protein on a 5 kg hard block. We mainly tested the daily consumption and milk production on dual purpose cows. We had the limitation of running our evaluation in the rainy season, and offered the MNB for only two hours a day; however, the voluntary consumption was 160 g/day and the milk production increased by 0.36kg/day which was profitable. Considering the cost of MNB to be US$ 0.39/kg and price of milk US$ 0.45 per kg. The voluntary and controlled consumption of MNB produced an increase in milk production in the rainy season. In the dry season we are sure it would work better since the forage quality is low. Main limitations In our experience, a 20 ton hydraulic press produced enough pression to produce a block that kept its shape. A mixing machine was also necessary, when we used manual mixing, it was very difficult to form blocks. During the rainy season, blocks tend to exudate molasses and become softer after some days of storage, we put some corn stover dust with goods results. Other difficulties were: how to offer the blocks out of the barn on rainy days, and how to control high voluntary consumptions. Experience with farmers Farmers accepted the blocks and gave it to cows with good results but they were not able to produce it by themselves. Probably for this, communal factories should be established to get the ingredients and produce the blocks. More work is needed to promote this technology Perhaps our efforts to transfer this technology have not been enough. Goverment institutions should take this task on a larger scale than we can do as an education and research institution. Comments We believe this is a very useful technology for the dry season for small holders in our country.

173

Specific programs should be implemented to increase the use of these feeding strategies by small holders. Research institutions, Agriculture Ministry and Farmers /farmer organisations should work together. International organisms could support financially the spreading of this technology. Elmer Edgardo Corea MSc. Direccion de Investigacion. Facultad de Ciencias Agronomicas. Universidad de El Salvador. Tel 503 2225 6903

This is John MORAN (181) from Australia I am a government dairy adviser with many years experience with small holder livestock farmers in South and East Asia. FAO should be congratulated for providing such an excellent forum to provide the opportunity for livestock advisers, researchers (and farmers) throughout the tropical world to share their practical experiences on the problems of improving the nutritional management of small scale cattle (dairy and beef), sheep and goats farms. From their desks and offices in any region with access to internet technology, anyone can freely teach us why our ideas do or do not end up where we think they should, namely "on the farm". Contributors can introduce their thoughts on how to enhance adoption of truly great ideas, as well as help us all to understand why what seems logical to us is not so to a farmer on a restricted area of land and with livestock that are exposed to so many of the constraints to animal performance. These include the usual ones of shortages of quality forages, poor institutional support to address animal health problems and trying to make their stock comfortable in very aggressive climates. It also includes the social ones such as minimal access to technology transfer (that is farmer extension), limited access to credit to invest in improved farm management and the major one of time constraints (not enough hours in the day hence the need to prioritise their farm activities). The appropriateness of the technology needs to be evaluated and I have discussed this at great length in one of my books (see Chapter 19 of my book which is freely downloadable on http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/220/issue/5522.htm). Are urea/molasses blocks appropriate for small scale livestock farmers? Yes I believe so, so long as he/she can access them or make them as cost effective supplements to available forage supplies. Depending on his herd size, the farmer can make them on farm such as the Indonesian dairy farmer shown in the two pictures attached to this article. For farmers with very small herds and limited time, a

174

cooperative would be a logical place to establish a simple "hand powered" urea/molasses block assembly line. I have seen this introduced successfully at dairy farmer training programs in South Vietnam. Why do we need an expensive machine to press these blocks when man power is not expensive in these regions. Obviously there needs to be a thorough cost benefit analyses of the technology. What does it cost (in time and money) the farmer to make (or purchase) such blocks? What are the likely improvements in animal performance through their use and what is this worth to the farmer? The information must be generated from locally undertaken farmer research and extension activities. How much extra milk, live weight gain or fiber, can he expect through feeding such blocks can only be quantified in a believable way using farming systems similar to those undertaken in the region. It is not all that difficult for cooperatives or government extension agencies to undertake such studies and generate the necessary data for farmers to evaluate. The catch cry of much of the small holder livestock production systems around Asia (and other tropical regions) should be "feed fewer animal better". Once farmers understand the theory of why we recommend better feeding management, then put these into practice (learning from their failures as well as their successes), they are more likely to be able to more selectively choose such technologies with first hand experience. Putting on more and more stock until their performance suffers is not the most logical way to manage a farming operation, where profit is one of the key drivers. The optimum stocking capacity for any small holder dairy farm is discussed in detail in Chapter 20 of another of my books, freely downloadable on http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/197/issue/3363.htm. John Moran (International dairy adviser, Kyabram, Victoria, Australia, jbm95@hotmail.com)

This is Andrew HARBERD (182) from Karamoja NE Uganda As someone who has marketed these blocks, I can attest to the problem of storage referred to by Elmer Edgardo. Stacking even well compressed reasonably well packaged blocks in a warehouse results in the lower blocks in a stack becoming mobile and spreading a sticky mass over the floor. Storage of these blocks consequently necessitates a large floor area of storage space. Dr. Andrew Harberd Regional Technical Adviser VSF-Belgium 3rd Floor, Titan Complex, Chaka rd. Nairobi, Kenya. Tel: +254-20-2734518/19/20/24/27 Fax: +254-20-2734533

175

Cell: +254-722-488748 E-mail: Andrew Harberd [aharberd@vsfb.or.ke] Prof. Ghulam HABIB (183) from Pakistan Urea Molasses Blocks as survival feed supplement in flood affected areas of Pakistan In Pakistan the recent flood has caused huge damage to livestock, fodder and feed stocks. The survived animals have nothing or little to eat because the standing fodder crops were completely destroyed and the stocks of wheat straw, hay, stovers and concentrates were washed away with the flood water. As an immediate relief measure wheat straw bales and molasses urea blocks are being provided by various agencies. Under this condition when green fodder is not available and animals subsist mainly on wheat straw, feed blocks proved to be the most relevant supplement for survival of the animals. Feed blocks are purchased from local manufacturers and distributed among the livestock owners in the flood affected areas. In the Khyber Paktunkwa province, (one of the four provinces of Pakistan that was most severely affected), it was estimated that bout 3000 tons of blocks or one million blocks weighing 3 kg would be required for two months for the ruminant livestock that survived during the flood. About 30% of this has so far been distributed and the efforts are continued to reach more farmers. During the earth quack disaster in Pakistan in 2005, provision of feed blocks to survived animals was found very helpful. Prof. Ghulam Habib Faculty of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Sci. Agricultural University, Peshawar, Pakistan E-Mail: Ghulam Habib [habibnutr@gmail.com] This is Olaf THIEME (184), Livestock Development Officer at FAO My experiences with Urea Molasses Blocks (UMBs) are from projects in Afghanistan. During the 1990s the FAO programme for Afghanistan introduced UMBs as supplementary feed for the winter feeding period and distributed them in drought emergency feeding programmes. As Afghanistan has no substantial production of molasses, the blocks were produced in and transported from Pakistan. The programme supported the introduction on a trial basis and entrepreneurs were then encouraged to start production and selling the blocks through a network of Veterinary Field Units. The efforts lasted about four years and several hundred tonnes were

176

produced and distributed. The promotion of UMBs faced the following difficulties which finally led to a discontinuation of the efforts: 1. It was very difficult to prepare the right hardness of the blocks to both serve the requirements of long transport and ease of feeding. If blocks were too soft they disintegrated into pieces which could then either not be sold at all or with a loss. If they were too hard, feeding became very difficult or impossible. Many farmers found it necessary to break them into pieces for feeding which was difficult for the harder versions and laborious. 2. Selling the UMBs through the Veterinary Field Units gave them an image of being a drug for a treatment which sometimes was also reinforced by the selling price. 3. With respect to their feeding value and in comparison with other alternatives for supplementation like grains or oil cakes the UMBs were in fact not cheap. 4. When customers buy the blocks they don’t see what they get and quality control is difficult. Commercial productions lead to the inclusion of non nutritious components. The result was that the use of UMBs continued as long as they were distributed free as emergency feed or subsidized but not as a commercial activity. Olaf Thieme, Ph.D. Livestock Development Officer FAO Animal Production and Health Division Room C 583 Viale delle Terme di Caracalla - 00153 Rome Italy Tel: +39-06-570-55418 Mobile: +39-3482341159 Fax +39-06-570-53927 E-mail:olaf.thieme@fao.org The Moderator of the Conference from FAO, Rome, Italy Dear Colleagues We have entered the last week of the e-conference and there are many technologies and practices that have not yet been covered/commented by the participants; for example box baling, use of enzymes and other additives in monogastric nutrition, removal of mycotoxins from feeds, use of protected fats and ionophores, solid state fermentation, treatment with exogenous fibrolytic enzymes, use of novel feeds,

177

among others. We invite you to send us your experiences with these and others not covered so far. We also encourage participants from the private industry to share their experiences on some of these technologies and practices. The Moderator of the Conference Livestock Production Systems Branch AGA, FAO, Rome, Italy.

Dr. Tej K. WALLI* (185) from India Straw Based Densified Feed Block Technology Background Straws worth billions of dollars are burnt in the field itself in many countries in tropics, where these are the major roughage feed resource for ruminants. Burning not only results in feed wastage but also causes environmental pollution. Feed management should include the use of specially designed bailers for the collection of residual straw from the field and the use of processing technology, like the technology of Densified Total Mixed Ration (DTMR) or Densified Complete Feed Block (DCFB). The technology has the potential to remove regional disparity in feed availability and to supply balanced feed to the dairy and other livestock farmers on a large scale. The Feed Block Technology is also an attractive disaster management technology for managing emergency situations that arise due to natural calamities like floods and droughts and during the conflicts. Straw Based Densified TMR Blocks as a Complete Feed Straw based densified TMR has two major components and one minor component. The major components are roughage and concentrate. The roughage part is generally the crop residues, such as wheat or paddy straw, sorghum stalk and sometimes a little proportion of sugarcane bagasse/pith. In hilly areas, even the non-conventional roughage sources like forest grasses and tree leaves have been used in place of crop residues. The second major component is the concentrate part. The proportion of the straw and concentrate in the block varies with the type of animal to which it is to be fed, which may vary from 60 to 40 per cent straw. As a survival ration for use during natural calamities and disasters, the straw component could be as high as 87 % and molasses (10%), minerals, urea and salt one percent each. The third component, the additives provide catalytic supplements to enhance the productive and reproductive efficiencies of animal and to enhance its immuno-protective ability.

178

Uniqueness of feed block technology The process of densification involves mixing of major and minor ingredients followed by their pressing, using a hydraulic press. This not only increases the density of the feed three folds, but also brings uniformity to the feed, increasing its palatability and minimizing the feed wastage. The process of densification may also slightly improve the digestibility of straw, as the proximity of concentrate to straw particles may facilitates the cellulolytic microbes to grow faster and enhance fiber degrading activity in rumen. In India and other tropical countries, farmers generally do not follow any feeding standards as they are unable to scientifically compute a balanced feed for their animals, mainly due to lack of knowledge and the means to do so. Densified TMR is a revolutionary concept to provide balanced feed to animals in tropics. Each feed block of 14 kg is a total ration for a cow or a buffalo for 24 hours and supplies all the nutrients, including micronutrients required by the animal. Benefits of this technology A promising way to feed balanced ration to ruminants in tropics and reduce methane emission; An efficient nutrients delivery system for animals in feed deficient areas (no chance for selectivity by the animal, less feed wastage); Time, as well as labour saving, respite to women in hills from drudgery of collecting fodder; Easier to store and transport and cheaper to transport; Better way to manage crop residues as it can reduce pollution by discouraging straw burning and reducing CO2 emission; Causes improved productive and reproductive efficiency, better animal health status; Setting up of Feed Banks now possible, which is effective during natural calamities like draughts and floods, emergency situations; Brings stability in feed prices, better over all economic returns. Whether the technology is a success or a failure in India? In India the field trials of this technology were carried out by the extension specialists of National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, on the feed blocks provided by Poshak Agrivet, Karnal, India. During a month long trial, while in cows the average yield increased from 8.2 to 10.8 kg/day, in buffaloes it increased from 6.2 to 7.8 kg/day, compared to normal feeding practice followed by farmers. Govt. of India has realized the potential of this technology for enhancing the productivity of animals, and has announced to provide 50 % subsidy on setting up the plant. Right now several dairy cooperatives, federations and livestock boards have either set up or are lined up for setting up feed block plants in different states in India. However, in areas where the farmers are traditionally growing green fodders and use less quantity of straw, this technology may not prove to be that effective and popular. tejwalli@yahoo.co.in

179

I am Prof Ghulam HABIB (186) from Pakistan Experience Sharing on Use of Molasses Urea Feed Blocks (MUB) as a Supplement for Ruminant Livestock Adaptability of Feed Blocks in smallholder system As suggested by John Moran (Message #181), the cost/benefit ratio apparently influence the adaptability of smallholder farmers to molasses urea blocks (MUB) feeding. In Pakistan a 3 kg block cost Rs. 50.00 (or US $0.58). A buffalo consuming 500g/day will cost Rs. 10 per day. With this is much amount one kg wheat bran or half kg cottonseed cake could be purchased and fed to the animal. The later would support better response in milk yield than MUB The quality of MUB available in the local market is also questionable, these do not contain desired ratio of minerals and urea and often non nutritional stuffs are included as pointed by Dr. Olaf Thieme (message #184) therefore animal response is poor to feeding of such blocks. We have conducted extensive trainings of farmers on preparation of MUB with the simple cold method. It worked well to the extent of training but farmers did not continue the activity on their own. The main reason is lack of accessibility of farmers to molasses. All five sugar mill in our province utilize molasses for alcohol production. In some cases molasses is imported from other parts of the country through dealers but that is supplied in bulk and not in small quantity and the price of molasses has increased 10 times during the last 10 years. Sometime back when raw sugar (in the form of small balls) manufactured in local cane crushing plants was cheap, farmers used it for making MUB by adding water to it. This is no more practiced because of escalated price. Another common complaint by farmers is that most of the animals take long time to get use to the blocks and some never touch these. Texture and taste of the blocks that determine licking by animals is due to variation in proportion and quality of the ingredients used which is not consistent and not controlled at manufacturing level. Animals on green fodder are difficult to adapt as compared to those given dry forages. During humid season keeping quality of block is reduced and sometime affected with mold. Animal Response to MUB No doubt MUB feeding increases feed consumption, milk yield, and growth rate and reproduction efficiency in ruminant livestock. But these animal responses are highly variable and depend on the composition of block, the quantity consumed and basal diet the animals are receiving. Animals receiving green fodder and or

180

concentrates give less response than those given crop residues and other poor quality diets. The basic idea with MUB feeding is to enhance rumen efficiency which is no more a limiting factor on green forage or concentrate mixtures. The little response if noted on such diets could be due to additional minerals received from the block consumption. Compared to urea supplementation (adding urea as such to diet), MUB lick is more beneficial because it help maintain desired level of ammonia in the rumen all the time through continuous licking and also the risk of urea poisoning with block feeding in minimum. But it is important that block shall contain not less than 7-10% urea to achieve optimum ammonia level in rumen on poor quality diets. Mulberry Fruit based Feed Blocks Molasses is not produced in Northern Areas of Pakistan which is a mountainous region, Due to remote and isolated niche, molasses can not be transported from plain region and the price of MUB is almost double of that in plain due to overhead transportation cost. Livestock performance in Northern Areas suffer due to long winter feed scarcity period of 4 to 5 months accentuated by heavy snow fall. We tried mulberry fruit as a substitute for molasses in making feed blocks and it was found equally good rather better. Mulberry fruits are abundantly available in the region over a season of 2 months in April-May. After successful demonstration of making blocks using fresh or dried mulberry fruits, farmers were trained in groups who quickly adopted the technology for making blocks on small scale at their own farms. Some farmers also sold the blocks for earning cash. The blocks made a good combination with range grass hay and maize stovers offered as a basal diet to cattle. Milk production on average was increased by 0.50 kg per day in cows producing 2-3 kg/day (low producers). An important observation was that not only persistency of lactation yield maintained during lean winter period, losses in body condition were also prevented when mulberry feed blocks were fed as lick to the animals. Feed Blocks as carrier for anthelmintic and other drugs Inclusion of anthelmintics against internal parasites has been tried in Pakistan, Malaysia, India, Venezuela and other countries at experiment level. Our results also showed that egg count per gram faeces (EPG) decreased from 2500 in control sheep to less than 500 when feed blocks containing albendazole was fed free choice to grazing sheep. Results based on long term studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of antiparastic feed blocks. Questions to be answered are: 1. Does parasite resistance develop to the drug with continuous consumption of small quantity of anthelmintic through block lick over long duration?

181

2. Any strategy in offering medicated feed blocks to minimize the risk of parasite resistance in the animals? 3. How to control the daily intake of the anthelminitic from the feed block 4. Scope of including herbal products in blocks against parasites. GHULAM HABIB Faculty of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Sci Agricultural University, Peshawar, Pakistan habibnutr@gmail.com

I am S. P. GUNARATNE (187) from Sri Lanka This communication explain the status of utilization of technologies with respect to Non-Conventional (non-traditional) feed resources for monogastric feeding in Sri Lanka A bibliography on animal feeds and nutrition (S.P.Gunaratne and Supriya Haleemdeen , 2003; “Bibliography on animal feeds and nutrition research in Sri Lanka” , Printed at the Department of Government Printing, Sri Lanka, ISBN. 955-8004-00-6) shows a voluminous research conducted in Sri Lanka on the above topic. Some of the materials tested and shown potential are; Rubber seed meal, Fish silage, Colocasia yams, Eppawala rock phosphate (local rock phosphate), Distillary waste, Acacia senegal seeds, Poultry by-product meal etc., However, according to the annual statistics of the state Department of Animal Production & Health, which summarise the usage of raw materials for animal feed production based on the returns submitted by the registered feed millers, none of the above listed materials was found to be used. This concludes that the commercial feed millers are not using above materials. These feed millers produce about 60-70% of the feed requirement for monogastric animals in Sri Lanka. The usage of non-conventional feed resources at farm level, which comprise about 30-40% of the feed requirement, is not known, as no any study conducted or no information collected by the government. However, random checking of farm mixing formulations and feeding practices at farm level suggests some use of non-conventional feed materials at different levels, but often not exceeding 20% of total mixture. The following two book chapters explain the feeding and nutrition situation with respect to small holder pig and poultry production in Sri Lanka.

182

1) Gunaratne S.P., Chandrasiri, A.D.N. and Shadana Gajanayake (2009). Smallholder pig production 187-212p In: Livestock for rural development and poverty reduction: Sri Lankan experience. Published by Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. 2) D.V.S.deS.Gamage and Gunaratne S.P. (2009). Smallholder poultry production. 59-96p In: In: Livestock for rural development and poverty reduction: Sri Lankan experience. Published by Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian Research and Training Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Based on the above publications, following conclusions could be drawn with respect to the utilization of non-conventional feed resources in monogastric feeding in Sri Lanka; 1. Utilization of non-conventional feed resources at commercial feed milling is minimum or none. 2. Certain amount of non-conventional materials is used at farm level or small scale mixing. Problems in low utilization of technology or research findings with respect to non-conventional feed resources and possible suggestions to improve utilization: 1. Most of the research on above materials was done at research stations and no adaptive trials conducted on farms 2. Farmer (user) is not included as a stake holder during the research 3. No impact assessment done, once the project is concluded 4. Publications are mainly in research domain and not converted to extension materials 5. Inefficiency in technology transfer systems Therefore, revising the present situation and making arrangements to transfer available technology will be an urgent need. Reviewing and revisiting the past will give valuable lessons for the future. Dr. S.P. Gunaratne, B.V.Sc (Sri Lanka), Ph.D (Nottingham), Senior Lecturer, Farm Animal Production & Heath, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, Tel. 081-2395932, 0777-881748, Fax.081-2388205 Email: spgunaratne@gmail.com

183

My name is John MORAN (188) from Australia I would like to offer some thoughts on the role for demonstration and model farms for small holder dairy industries throughout the tropical world. Demonstration/model farms To improve adoption of better dairy cow feeding practices, greater use could be made of model farms. Virtually every day small holder farmers deliver their raw milk to milk collection centres. Such centres, whether run by cooperatives or milk processors, could establish a model farm to extend the principles of good farming practice, such as improved forage agronomy, ration formulation for milking cows, calf and heifer rearing, milking hygiene and other aspects of herd management. Ideally, the model farm should be similar in herd size and forage production area to those in the area from where the milk is sourced. For example, simple field trials could be set up, such as using fertiliser strips to visually demonstrate yield responses to inorganic fertilisers. Associated data collection and feed analyses could quantify the additional nutrients which could then be followed up with economic analyses to allow farmers to decide for themselves whether to try such practices on their own farms. Similarly, various milking rations could be formulated for comparisons of profit margins to explain the concept of marginal cost of production (that is, the cost of extra feed inputs and the returns in extra livestock production). Cost: benefit analyses of innovations, such as silage making and urea/molasses blocks, can be quantified at a local level. With thorough data collection, entire economic analyses could be undertaken to provide guidelines for future policies on rural development in the region. Collaborative studies could be undertaken with government and university dairy researchers, who are usually very short of research facilities, in a more controlled environment than a commercial small holder farm. Such farms would also provide excellent opportunities to evaluate different shed designs and cooling systems. For example, using local materials to construct sheds of various roof heights, insulation materials and internal plans, appraisals could be made of the number of years for such costs to be returned through improved cow milk and reproductive performance. Not only would these ventures increase the credibility of the milk processors in the area, they could also attract new suppliers to improve their milk quality and daily throughput. Such a venture may even attract additional support from agribusiness, government or even international funding agencies, providing a “win-win” situation for all those involved in such technology transfer and adoption.

184

Farmer research The rapid milk response to any changes in feeding management means that dairying is the only form of livestock production that allows farmers to closely monitor animal performance on a day to day basis. Every farmer undertakes some form of research whether it is actually measuring daily variations in milk yield with measured changes in the amount of feed offered, or subjectively assessing gross changes in milk output over several weeks with seasonal changes in feed quality. The future for small holder dairy development will rely on continued research and education of the farmers themselves. Applied research orientated to small holder needs cannot be met solely by importing technologies. Research must acknowledge integrated systems and the role of these farmers while focusing on technical parameters such as feeding herd recording, management of reproduction and health, milk harvesting and breeding systems. However its future is often more dependent on national socio-political decisions, such as the location of dairying areas in relation to farm resources as well as milk markets, policies on local market protection, compared to free trade from imports. Furthermore, the very perishable nature of the end product, raw milk, when produced in a tropical climate, often with minimal milking hygiene, dramatically influences its end use as fresh, chilled, dried or frozen dairy products. John Moran, Kyabram, Victoria, AUSTRALIA; Email: jbm95@hotmail.com

I am Sofjan ISKANDAR (189) from Indonesia In addition to Dr GUNARATNE, Message 187, Indonesia also has the same situation. A lot of local feedstuffs for monogastric have been tested at research institutes and universities, but very little are known to farmers about them. Poultry shops that sell feedstuff have been dominated with formulated ration, milled and pelleted feeds by some large feed mills. Efforts are now being made by some researchers by convincing the livestock service offices to promote the use of local feedstuffs by local farmers. This could be tough since the big feed mills have contracted the local feedstuff producers. Sofjan ISKANDAR Senior Resercher at Indonesian Research Institute for Animal Production (IRIAP) Bogor Indonesia

185

Mahesh CHANDER (190) from India, Comments on MESSAGE 188 from John MORAN The idea of Demonstration cum model farm is good since farmers often want to see how does a system work before they give a try to it and if found well, adopt it or even further refine it. In mix farming systems, where specialized dairy or livestock operations are rare and mostly adjunct to crop husbandry, standardizing models is a bit complicated task due to the diversity in herd, crop and categories of farmers having different requirements. The size of land holdings as also the herd size varies, making it difficult to develop such farms. Also, some farmers maintain livestock not for milk and meat but for cow dung and manure to fertilize crops! Nevertheless, in India, Integrated farming systems models are being advocated wherein, diversified agriculture including livestock component is being emphasised. Such models need to keep in mind the categories of farmers, small (1-2 ha land), marginal (<1ha), large (>2h land holding) and even the Landless livestock producers. Perhaps landless livestock keeping is unique to India which is a system on its own with its special features producing substantial quantities of milk and meat. urban and peri-urban dairy production is another system having significant contribution to milk production in Indi. Often these varying systems operate in a same location or village, having varying requirements including for feeds and fodder. What a large farmer feed its animals in terms of quality and quantity often differs from the feeding practices of other categories of farmers but animals have their own standard requirements for nutrition, so they need to be fed and properly supplemented. Can we have model farms simply based on their feeding requirements is answered when we say Model Farm meaning ideal to the given situation. The idea is worth trying to improve the production efficiencies in different categories of production systems. May be we are able to find applicability of feeding practices like urea treatment of straw, Azolla feeding, urea molasses multinutrient block (UMMB), non conventional feeds, mineral mixtures among different categories of farmers when we work on model farms. Its good area for research and development. Mahesh CHANDER

This is S. KHANUM (191) from Pakistan Use of urea molasses multinutrient block (UMMB) in the recently flood affected areas in Pakistan The recent flood, besides displacing millions of people, have caused a massive devastation to livestock sector that is the main source of income and livelihood of

186

poor people living in the rural areas. The recent floods have affected the most densely populated livestock areas in all the four provinces of Pakistan. Here is a great danger that majority of the surviving ones might die of starvation due to lack of feed resources while the rest of animals are suffering from various diseases. The survived animal are a productive asset of the poor farmers and are now facing severe feed shortages. Presently the main challenge is to feed those animals that have survived. The animal feed resources like wheat/rice straw and forages have been lost in the floods. The areas where straw and fodder are available it can be supplemented with multinutrient feeding blocks which were introduced in Pakistan with the help of FAO/ IAEA and are getting popular among the farmers. The UMMB seems to be one of the most promising means of easy transportation of feed supplement alone with the low quality roughages like wheat/rice straw etc, and can serve the purpose of dense nutrient supply in the far from areas of flood affected animals in Punjab and other provinces. These blocks have the potential to save the animals from extreme vigour loss due to non availability of essential nutrients in the affected areas. During various disasters like drought in Sindh province of Pakistan in 2002, earth quack in 2005, provision of feed blocks to survived animals was found very helpful and have a good national impact. Various agencies (NGOs, private manufactures and distributors) related to animal feeding, national and international agencies have realized that the feed blocks are one possible options in combating with the current feed shortage in the flood affected areas and are trying at their possible level to supply UMMB in these areas. Several million metric tones of blocks have been distributed in flood affected areas so far. Provision of UMMB for feed scarcity can be successfully realized through our experiences of a similar supply in drought conditions in Tharparkar, Sindh, and province of Pakistan. The farmers in such conditions acknowledged our help of block supply as a blessing and we got a positive response in terms of better animal performance and health in the past. Under the recent flood situation our Institute (NIAB) has also been contacted by various agencies for the supply of feed blocks and even, farmers are also directly contacting for the purchase of UMMB. However, the exact quantity of UMMB supply and distribution in different affected areas of flood could not be given as the estimates of survived animals and animal feed resources are in process. There is huge demand as well as popularity of feed blocks feeding along with wheat/ rice straw bales. It could be concluded that Compound feeds and feed blocks along with straws are the most popular feed resources in flood damaged areas in Pakistan. Dr. Shahnaz Adeeb Khanum Deputy Chief Scientist (DCS) Head, Animal Sciences Division Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB), Faisalabad-Pakistan

187

Tel: +92-41-2654221-30, Fax:+92-41-2654213, Direct: +92-41-2573576

I am S. KHANUM (192) from Pakistan Utilization of saline marginal lands for animal production Salinity is one of the major agricultural problems facing Pakistan. About 6.0 million hectare of land in Pakistan is affected by salinity. Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB) has developed a biological approach to the problem of salinity whereby plants more suitable for the environment are grown. The green biomass (salt tolerant plants) thus produced could be used as a fodder for animal production. In Pakistan ruminants are mostly fed on low quality roughages, which are poor in protein, energy, minerals and vitamin contents. Addition of foliage from tree species in ruminant diets can improve the utilization of low quality roughages mainly through supply of nitrogen to rumen microbes. The ruminants can make efficient use of non-conventional feed sources like salt tolerant plants (containing tannins) being equipped with rumen microbial ecosystem. Various studies were conducted on Goat and Sheep to evaluate the potential of various salt tolerant plant species under prevailing conditions like Sorghum vulgare, Echinochloa colona and Sesbania aculeate, Cynodon dactylon, Desmostachya bipinnata, Eleusine flagellifera, Kochia indica, Sporobolus arabicus, Acacia ampliceps and Brachiaria mutica, Kochia indica and Suaeda fruticosa. On the basis of different trials it is concluded that the option of using salt tolerant plants has been found successful under saline conditions and it could be utilized for poverty alleviation by improving economy of poor small farmers. Our Institute (NIAB) Faisalabad was awarded a mega project form the Govt. of Pakistan entitled, Saline Agriculture Farmer Participatory Development Project (SAFPDP) for the reclamation of saline lands with the participation of farmers. One of its aspects was the utilization of green biomass raised on saline lands for livestock rearing, which was mainly a continuation of the research work conducted by NIAB at Bio-Saline Research Substation Lahore and Pakka Anna. Its related activities were carried out at different demonstration sites at farmer farm levels all over the country. Farmers were given necessary demonstrations, trainings, on the utilization of non-conventional (salt tolerant plants) feed resources for animal feeding. On the basis of all this work and activities a package of technology on “Livestock farming for economic utilization of saline waste lands” has been established and disseminated to the end users. It is getting popular among the farmers day by day. Dr. Shahnaz Adeeb Khanum Deputy Chief Scientist (DCS)

188

Head, Animal Sciences Division Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB), Faisalabad-Pakistan Tel: +92-41-2654221-30, Fax: +92-41-2654213, Direct: +92-41-2573576

This is Ben LUKUYU (193) from ILRI, Kenya Silage making technology: Experiences from East Africa Inadequate feed supplies on smallholder farms in East Africa is aggravated by seasonal variations in feed quantity and quality that causes fluctuations in productivity throughout the year. Despite this predictable situation smallholder farmers generally do not conserve feed for dry season feeding resulting in milk production and pricing fluctuation with the climatic seasonal patterns, hence over-supply/ low price during the wet season and shortages/ high prices in the dry seasons. The commercial trench and above ground silos introduced in Kenya in the 1960’s and adopted by the large commercial farms after independence could not be adopted to any significant scale by small scale farmers mainly due to the input cost involved and labour constraints. In the 1990’s most development partners concentrated on scaling down the commercial trench or above ground silos in an effort to enhance adoption of the technology. However, adoption continued to remain low not only due to limited resources of smallholders but also knowledge about the technology. The concept of scaling down meant economies of scale would obviously result to increase in the cost of silage making per tone as the silo becomes smaller. In addition, the milk pricing policy in most countries also did not encourage feed conservation for smallholder farmers. Perhaps one of the underlying factors slowing down adoption of silage making on farms is the limited on-farm fodder production and opportunistic feeding patterns on most farms. In an effort to come up with ways of making silage that are not only suitable for small amounts of fodder but also using techniques and operations that keep the cost of making silage low, use of polyethene tubes to make silage was promoted in 2000’s. It was anticipated that this will greatly enhance adoption of the silage making technology since it makes it easy to match the size of ‘silos’ to the amounts of material available and gives the farmers flexibility to distribute labour over time depending on how much of it is actually available. Recent surveys show that the adoption of plastic bag technology is still low. Some of the problems the technology encountered during its on-farm application include unavailability and high cost of polyethene tubes. Farmers therefore resort to using recycled plastic bags or reject fertilizer. This reduces the quality of silage and limits the number of times farmers can make silage per year hence reducing the adoption of the plastic bag technology on farms. Other problems were accumulation of affluent with succulent and high protein forages and rodent destruction during ensiling. However, in a country like Rwanda

189

use of plastic bags for ensiling fodder will be a non starter due to a policy that prohibits use of plastic bags. Efforts to use metal tanks were too costly to smallholder farmers. Recent efforts have now turned to promoting plastic tanks for feed and food storage. Some of the reasons advanced for silage making in plastic tanks include it multipurpose use (water, grains & feed storage), means a one off initial investment at purchase (use > 5 years), resistant to rodent damage , can be fitted with a tap to drainage excess affluent and can easily maintain anaerobic conditions. It still remains to be seen how use of plastic tanks will be adopted. A lesson learned from the past is that technical changes and adjustments have done little to enhance adoption of the technology. May be it is time to complement technological approaches with non technological interventions e.g. involving stakeholders – private sector, policy makers etc. to address some of the highlighted constraints including introducing a business approach to delivering the technology? Ben Lukuyu Improving Market Opportunities International Livestock Research Institute www.ilri.org <http://www.ilri.org/> P.O. Box 30709 Nairobi Kenya Tel: +254 20 422 3000, Fax: +254 20 422 3001

Pablo Herrera, Beatriz Birbe, Carlos Dominguez, Nelson Martinez and Karin Drescher (194) from Venezuela In the conditions of the Venezuelan tropics, strategic supplementation with molasses blocks (MB), manufactured from local raw materials and with a formulation taking into account local ecosystem deficiencies and animal physiological requirements, resulted in better reproductive performance in cows grazing poor quality fibrous resources ( Herrera et al., 2007). Experiences with growing heifers in Venezuela Grazing heifers deserve special attention, because this group has both reproductive needs and growth requirements. These factors have to be considered when designing strategic supplementation. Some examples of blocks prepared with different local raw materials, reflecting location-specific conditions. In the case of well drained savannahs, where, besides protein, phosphorus is the most limiting element, additional phosphorus was added in addition to the commercial minerals used in the block at a 15 percent level. This ensured adequate phosphorus supply to meet animal requirements.

190

Phosphorus contents in the blocks used in well drained savannahs were 2.51 percent on average, with 37 percent crude protein. Heifer weight gain varied from 121 to 568 g/day with MB intakes of around 300 g/day/animal. These responses imply not only an improvement in weight but also an earlier first mating and first calving 300 days before the unsupplemented group. In the various studies reported it is evident that ovarian activity rises from 17 to 45 percent with the use of MB. A reproductive response (start of ovarian activity) of 17 percent in 2-year-old heifers, in the dry season, represents a positive impact for cattle in well drained savannahs, considering that the normal initiation of ovarian activity is more usually at four years of age. These effects could be improved on, when base diet availability is guaranteed and using good quality MB. Experiences with dual purpose cows in Venezuela In dual-purpose cows, similarly to heifers, the responses have been mainly on reproductive efficiency. There have been improvements in postpartum body condition (Martínez et al., 1998), but there are few experiences reported of supplementation pre-calving. In relation to milk production, no positive responses have been observed, although significant responses have been reported in weight gain in calves from MB-supplemented mothers (Herrera, Birbe and Martinez, 1995). Differences observed in ovarian activity and pregnancy percentages with grazing cows ranged from 18 to 52 percent among those consuming minerals and MB. In the study reported from Domínguez et al. (1998), MB supplementation was provided in the morning at milking time and in the evenings at suckling time, for an hour each time. Intakes reached 774 g/ animal/day, which resulted in the observed responses, being superior in the supplemented group by 52.9 and 64.7 percent in ovarian activity and pregnancy, respectively, compared with the control group. Extent of use of MB in Venezuela We do not know exactly how many farmers are using now this technology. Nevertheless, our research team still working at Savannas region and Dry Forest region and it is common that many farmers use it. The use of multi-nutritional block technology is spreading in small, medium and large holder farms and is used both in dual purposed cattle (Bos indicus x Bos taurus) and beef cattle (Bos indicus and Bos indicus x Bos taurus). This technology block is being adopted both by farmers and industry. Farmers prepare their own blocks in farms or used cooperative associations to prepare for a group of farmers. In the industry case, they prefer mineral block now it is more common to observe the multinutritional blocks and anthelmintics blocks on sale stores and in all regions of Venezuela (high lands and savannas). The contribution of our team is to teach this technology based on practical courses (20) on farm conditions last five years. These courses are designed for farmers, students and agrotechnicians. We emphasise the use of local resource. We used protein leave flour (Vigna sp., Manihot sculenta, Leucaena leucocephala, Gliricidia sepium), cotton seed and legumes fruits (Pithecelobium saman, Enterocarpum sp., Ciclocarpum sp., Prosopis sp., Cassia moschata) in blocks.

191

Domínguez C., P. Herrera, B. Birbe y N. Martínez. 1998. Impacto de la suplementación estratégica con bloques nutricionales en vacas de doble propósitos. En: C. González, N. Madrid - Bury y E. Soto Belloso (Eds). Mejora de la ganadería mestiza de Doble Propósito. Universidad del Zulia, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Facultad de Agronomía, CONDES, GIRARZ. Ediciones Astro Data, S.A. Maracaibo. Venezuela.1998. Cap. XVIII. 349-379. Herrera, P.; Birbe, B.; Domínguez, C. y Martínez. N. 2007. Experiences with multinutrient blocks in the Venezuelan tropics. In: Feed Supplementation block. Edition: FAO, Animal Production and Health (164). Ed: Herinder Makkar, Manuel Sanchez and Andrew Speedy. Part. III, Pag. 149 -159 Herrera, P., B. Birbe y N. Martínez. 1995. Suplementación Estratégica con bloques multinutricionales. En: D. Plasse, N. Peña de Borsotti y J. Arango (Eds.) XI Cursillo sobre Bovinos de Carne. Universidad Central de Venezuela, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias. Maracay, Venezuela. pp 129-159. Martínez N., P. Herrera, B. Birbe y C. Domínguez. 1998. Relación entre la condición corporal y la respuesta reproductiva de hembras bovinas de doble propósito. En : C. González, N. Madrid-Bury y E. Soto Belloso (Eds). Mejora de la ganadería mestiza de Doble Propósito. Universidad del Zulia, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Facultad de Agronomía, CONDES, GIRARZ. Ediciones Astro Data, S.A. Maracaibo. Venezuela.1998. Cap. XX. 398-412. Prof. Nelson Martinez. Universidad Central de Venezuela. Facultad de Agronomía Instituto de Producción Animal. Maracay. Venezuela. Email: n_martinez@mailcity.com

Carlos E. LASCANO (195) from Colombia The model farm as a means of promoting adoption of technologies In my first contribution to this e-conference, I illustrated an example of promotion of a forage legume (Arachis pintoi) as a sound alternative to recuperate degraded pastures in small and medium size dairy farms in an Amazon region of Colombia. In the initial strategy to promote adoption of the legume we established legume-based pastures in degraded grazing areas in15 pilot (model) farms to demonstrate how to manage the technology, to illustrate the productive and economical benefits of the technology and for those model farms to serve as promoters to surrounding farms. This was complemented with training of extensionists in pasture establishment and management of legume -based pastures. The initial strategy carried out for a two year period did not promote adoption of Arachis given that results from surveys

192

indicated that constraints for adoption were not related to lack of knowledge or interest on the technology, but rather on farmers lacking capital, limited seed supply and lack of machinery in the region to carry out land preparation and planting. What contributed to adoption of the legume-based pasture technology being promoted was the creation of a technology transfer fund managed by a milk processing plant in the region, contracting multiplication of Arachis seed based on demand and contracting tractors and implements for timely land preparation and planting. Another relevant example of model farms or production modules not serving the purpose of promoting adoption by farmers of improved technologies comes from Central America. Researchers in a regional institution established a model milk production model to demonstrate that with Jersey cows, Star Grass, nitrogen fertilization (400 kg /ha /year) and rotational grazing management farmers could produce 10,000 liters of milk/year in a very sustainable and profitable manner. Researchers were successful in demonstrating that the technology being tested in the model system was as productive and profitable as initially predicted. However, farmers did not adopt the "package". What farmers adopted was the grass cultivar but without the N fertilization and the grazing management that had been recommended. Today they are thousands of hectares of Star Grass pastures in the Central American Region under different stages of degradation. My preferred approach for technology development and promotion is to first produce high quality research results under controlled conditions that produce principles and as a second step involve farmers (as early as possible) in contrasting locations in the testing and adaptation to local constraints of the technology being developed. These steps need to be complemented by well designed socio-economic studies on constraints for adoption of the technology, which in most cases are site specific and thus need to be replicated in the locations and regions we want to target. Carlos E. Lascano, PhD Universidad Nacional de Colombia- Sede Bogotá c.lascano@cgiar.org

I am Dr (Mrs) Manpal SRIDHAR (196) from India I have been working on the Solid State Fermentation and addition of fibrolytic enzymes for enhancing productivity in both monogastric and ruminants and strongly advocate these two technologies for the futuristic animal feed industries. Agricultural by-products show enormous variations in their chemical composition and nutritional value, and often are very high in low-quality fiber, that only a specific enzyme complex would be effective to break it down in order for it to be useful in ruminant feeds. The nutritional value of such material is easily improved by biodegradation methods of fiber in the rumen, through efficient delignification. Fiber-degrading enzymes produced by thermophilic fungi exhibit characteristics which make them conducive to function in the rumen. Application of fiber-degrading enzymes to feed

193

enhances the binding of the enzyme with the substrate and can potentially improve cell wall digestion and the efficiency of feed utilization by ruminants. Ruminant feed enzyme additives viz. primarily xylanases cellulases, and ligninases are concentrated extracts resulting from bacterial or fungal fermentations having specific enzymatic activities. Improvements in animal performance due to the use of these enzyme based additives, is attributed mainly due to improvements in fiber digestion resulting in increased digestible energy intake. Animal responses are maximum when fiber digestion is compromised and when energy is the first-limiting nutrient in the diet. In monogastric animals enormous success has been achieved but the response to feed enzymes in ruminants is highly variable depending upon the composition of the enzyme used (individual/consortia) as additive and experimental conditions and could be attributed to experimental conditions in which energy is not the limiting nutrient, to the characteristics and specific activities of the enzymes supplied, inappropriate method of feeding the enzyme product to the animal, and under- or over-supplementing of the enzyme and the level of productivity of the test animal. Though a limited number of enzyme products are now commercially available for ruminants, many of these were not designed specifically for this purpose. Instead preparations containing cellulases and xylanases meant for use in the food, paper, pulp, textile, fuel and other allied industries have been used (Beauchemin et al., 2003) while some other products containing fibrolytic enzymes evaluated as additives for ruminant diets were developed originally as silage additives. Although immense progress has been made in advancing enzyme technology for ruminants, research is still required to reduce the variability of response in individual animals. With increased awareness about the use of feed enzymes in increasing animal performance these products hold a pivotal role to play in the near future. Spraying exogenous enzymes (individual/consortia) in a liquid form onto feeds before consumption / oral dosing of animals at predetermined intervals can have a positive effect on animal performance. It has been reported that exogenous enzymes in the rumen are generally more stable than previously thought (Hristov et al., 1998; Morgavi et al., 2000, 2001), particularly when applied to feed prior to ingestion and we have also observed in our laboratory that enzymes produced by fungal immobilizations are much more stable with regard to both pH and temperature and apt for oral dosing. The close association of these added enzymes with feed allows some form of preingestive attack upon the plant fiber and facilitates their binding to the feed particles, thereby increasing the resistance of the enzymes to proteolysis and prolongs their residence time inside the rumen. Though the exact mechanism by which enzyme additives improve fiber digestibility by ruminants is not well understood, it is presumed that direct hydrolysis in the rumen is one possible mode of action. At times the extent of ruminal digestion may be limited by factors other than enzyme activity such as substrate accessibility associated with very large particle sizes of masticated forage (chaffed forages circumvent such problems) and short ruminal retention time. Addition of supplemental enzymes to animal diets without consideration of specific situations and substrate

194

targets will only discourage or delay on-farm adoption of enzyme technology. To achieve maximal benefit, a number of different enzyme sources are required to be used in a typical diet. Research is required to understand the mode of action of these products so that on-farm efficacy of ruminant enzyme technology can be assured. More detailed studies to quantify the mode of action of these enzymes can enhance our understanding of ruminal fiber digestion as well as production of nutritionally improved feeds and feed ingredients for ruminants. With regard to Solid Substrate Fermentation (SSF) the use of this technology for protein enrichment of lignocellulosic residues has been a focus of attention due its direct applicability of the fermented product for ruminant feeding purposes. It’s use to upgrade the nutritive value of agricultural byproducts as well as for enzyme production has immense scope on account of the vast quantities of residues available every year (at present these are burnt in the fields contributing to global warming) and could be a potential solution to feeding animals in developing countries like India. Such residues have yielded good results in the production of enzymes including pectinases (Martins et al., 2002), cellulases and xylanases (Carmona et al., 2005; Kang et al., 2004; Kalogeris et al., 2003), amylases, ligninases (Couto and Sanrom´an, 2005), inulinases (Mazutti et al., 2006), chitinases (Binod et al., 2005), and phytases (Roopesh et al., 2006; Chantasartrasamee et al., 2005; Papagianni et al., 1999). This technique can also be economically advantageous for application to ruminant production. White rot fungi (Phanerochaete chrysosporium and Pleorotus ostreatus strains) are the organisms most adapted to SSF because their hyphae can grow on particle surfaces and colonize the solid substrates. Their lacasses, lignin peroxidases and Mn peroxidases assist in selectively degrading lignin. Several other studies have been conducted to identify white-rot fungi that can degrade lignin bonds but preserve cellulose fibers and thereby improve the quality of lignocellulosic substrates for ruminant feeding. Improvements in digestibility ranging between 2 to 22 % have been reported by various workers with varying substrates and duration of fermentation which are in agreement with our finding as well. SSF processes present an increased opportunity for underdeveloped or developing countries where current economical difficulties and globalization of the world economy do not permit farming and cattle raising sector to accompany the biotechnological evolution. The advantages of using SSF are its low cost as well as ease for adoption by farmers. With a proper fermentor to handle 50 to 100 kilograms of solid substrate at a time this technology could easily revolutionize the animal feed industry. Dr (Mrs) Manpal Sridhar Principal Scientist, National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Adugodi-Bangalore-560030 (India) manpal sridhar [manpalsridhar@yahoo.co.uk]

195

T.K. WALLI (197) from India, Contributing on Biological Treatment of Straw Background The idea of using biologically treated straws as animal feed originated from the mycologists who were engaged in producing edible mushrooms for humans, using straw as the substrate for the soft rot and white rot lignolytic fungi. Once the mushrooms were harvested, these mycologists assumed that the spent straw having less lignin with some added protein as fungal mycelium, could be improving the nutritional quality of straw. Getting some interest in this new area, these mycologists as well as other microbiologists got busy in screening and identifying aerobic fungi with higher lignolytic activity. All their activities related to screening and identifying of fungi, were confined to the four walls of the laboratories. As the technology of mushroom production was transferred to mushroom growers, they were briefed about the usefulness of the byproduct i.e. spent straw, as animal feed. Since in the advanced countries, straw is not that much important as a roughage source as in the tropical world, the focus shifted to tropical countries to see the potential for the transfer this new recycling technology for increasing ruminant productivity. Spent Straw from mushroom production In India the spent straw as animal feed caught the attention of animal nutritionists and the first feeding trial on spent straw was carried our on growing calves at Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana in mid eighties. Animals fed control diet with normal straw did better than the group fed diet with spent straw. The scientific queries revealed that the mineral content of the spent straw was to the tune of 20-22 %, which lowered the palatability of the straw. It was concluded that the spent straw is just a very poor quality animal feed, rather unfit for feeding ruminants. Solid state fermentation of straw using lignolytic fungi Around mid eighties, an Indo-Dutch project “titled“, Bio-conversion of Crop Residues”, was launched in India, involving a few animal nutrition research centres. At NDRI Karnal, a mycologist supplied an alkalophilic cum lignolytic fungi coprinus fimetarius, which could grow in urea treated straw. Solid state fermentation was carried out in 2 meter x 2 meter x 2 feet brick enclosure with sufficient aeration. For one quintal of urea treated straw, moisture was maintained at 65 % along with the addition of 1 % CaO and 0.1 per cent single super phosphate. The enclosure was covered with wet gunny bags during fermentation. A white cottony growth of the fungal mycelium was visible after a period 7-10 days. That is when the fermentation was stopped so that it does’t reach the fruiting bodies stage. The wet fermented straw had a typical flavour,

196

because of which it was not acceptable to calves and goat kids. So, the stuff was sundried and offered to the animals in a month long trial, comparing it with urea treated straw. Crude protein (CP) content had definitely gone up from 9 % in urea treated straw to 12 % in fungal treated straw, because some residual ammonia had been converted into fungal protein, which otherwise would have been lost through evaporation. The results revealed that the palatability as well as digestibility of fungal treated straw was lower than that of urea treated straw. The calves and kids fed fungal treated straw obviously grew at rate which was 10-15 % lower rate than those fed urea treated straw. In short, the fungal treated straw was not comparing well with the urea treated straw. Reasons for the impracticability of transferring this technology a) The organic matter loss during solid state fermentation at best could be minimized to 10%, however, if the fermentation was allowed to be carried out till the fungal fruiting bodies (mushrooms) appeared, the losses would go even up to 50%. So, the loss of some biomass during the process of fermentation is unavoidable. b) The mineral content even before the start of fermentation is higher and the loss of organic matter means increase in mineral content and this in turn, results in lowering the palatability of the treated stuff. c) The palatability is further lowered by the presence of lignin derivatives produced during lignin bio-degradation. These derivatives get accumulated in the fermented straw and impart a bitter taste to this stuff. d) It is quite likely that these lignin derivates may even prove toxic to rumen microorganism and thus reduce their activities in rumen. e) In wet form, the treated stuff does not smell good to the animal. But the sun drying process completely changes the texture of the straw and imparting it a dark colour. This may be another reason for animal not showing much preference for its consumption. f) The process of solid state fermentation is quite a cumbersome one. It needs several controls, for moisture and humidity, temperature and aeration. It may be also difficult to keep the pathanogenic organism at bay, though in the alkaline medium provided through urea treated straw does help to some extent. g) Conducting solid state fermentation of straw under farmer’s field is rather unthinkable. However, even if we go for the industrialization of this technology, it may increase the cost of straw by two to three folds. Future approach Considering so many negative points, the prospects of this technology are quite bleak. Even through the genetic manipulation, it may be difficult to produce a

197

lignolytic fungi, which is both cellulose negative and hemicellulose negative, one need not waste and our precious resources on the development of this technology. However, an alternative approach has also been suggested, that is to isolate a fungi which is highly lignolytic in nature and then cultivate it for the commercial production of the ligninase enzyme. But before that, it needs to be ascertained that the products of lignin degradation are not injurious to rumen microbes and the enzyme-treated stuff is not unpalatable to the animal.

T.K. WALLI from India,

Manpal SRIDHAR (198) from India again Contributing on Biological Treatment of Straw Work on Solid state Fermentation (SSF) has been not been systematic. Workers have had great variations in their studies on the context of substrate, experimental conditions, microbe utilized (using just one or two isolates) as well as duration of fermentation. Long durations of fermentation would definitely yield higher loss of dry matter. Promising isolates of White rot fungi are present and if not on the farm level, on an industrial scale would definitely yield success in handling the bulk of straw available every year. The advantage of SSF (both cost and recovery of enzymes) as compared to submerged fermentation is also widely accepted. When cellulases and hemicellulases produced by fungi such as Aspergillus are not injurious to rumen microbes we do not expect ligninases produced by White rot fungi which are edible to be toxic. Studies in our laboratory have yielded higher in vitro dry matter digestbility with the treated straws, as definitely there are substrate specificities and one fungus may or may not give desired result with each and every substrate just as is the case with enzyme supplements. A consortia is advocated which works best with most substrates. Manpal SRIDHAR

This is Manju WADHWA (199) from India. Regarding solis state fermentation, around 16 lignolytic fungal strains were tested (systematically) for their potential to enrich the straws with protein with minimum pre-treatment without exogenous nutrients, except Coprinus cinereus which required N and P exogenously and was highly cellulovorous.

198

Cythus stercoreus; Phellinus linteus; Philophora hoffmannii and Heterobasidion annusium were observed to be the most effective. The increase in in sacco dry matter and crude protein degradability upto 5-10 days was associated with linear increase in DM loss in all the cases. In order to achieve the optimum degradability with minimum nutrient losses, the fermentation should be stopped within 6-8 days. The combination of different fungi was more effective in lignin biodegradation and enrichment of straw with microbial protein as compared to single strain. The combination of Pycnoporus sanguineus-Oideodendron echinula was considered to be the best for improving the nutritive value of wheat straw. Limitation and strengths: 1. The major drawback of this treatment is of course the loss in dry matter, though loss can be reduced by stopping the fermentation before the appearance of fruiting bodies. 2. It is very difficult to treat the straw in bulk, to be used for feeding to animals, and Dr. Walli has rightly said process of solid state fermentation is quite a cumbersome one. It needs several controls, for moisture and humidity, temperature and aeration. It may be also difficult to keep the pathanogenic organism at bay. 3. Regarding presence of phenolic isomers, the amount released should not affect the rumen microbes, as the release of phenolics ranged from 0.13% (control) to 1.50% (23 days of fermentation with lignolytic fungi) and this level is not toxic. Spent Straw from mushroom production: This technology has an edge over solid state fermentation with lignolytic fungi, because production and consumption of mushroom has increased, and disposal of spent straw is a great problem. The use of spent straw as animal feed has been exploited since long and till today is being used in various parts of the world. The latest study conducted on Pleurotus florida harvested spent wheat-paddy straw (50: 50) based diets in goats revealed that though spent WS-RS had low nutritional worth than WS-RS but could be incorporated in isonitrogenous and isocaloric complete feed without any adverse effect on the performance of kids. In the Northern region of India, especially Punjab state, rice straw (RS) is available in plenty i.e. to the tune of 11mt/yr, most of which is surplus because the livestock requirement is met by feeding wheat straw (WS). More than 80% of RS is burnt causing environmental pollution. This technology (use of spent straw) would not only help in supplementing the ever depleting feed basket, but also prevent the burning of rive straw, along with mushrooms. Manju WADHWA from India

199

This is Bob ORSKOV (200) from UK. Having participated in the Indo Dutch project described by T. Walli (#197) I think he gave an excellent decryption of the results. Growing mushroom on the straw decreased the nutritive value of the straw for ruminants. At that time or a bit later we at the Rowett Institute tried experimentally to steam treat straw under presure and with a rapid release of the presure the lignin became separated so it was possible to extract the lignin and also to separate the hemicellulose and cellulose. The lignin was probably the most valuable product as this could be used for making paints etc. The hemicellulose is a good ruminant feed and the cellulose could be used for paper production or hydrolysed to glucose which could be used for many purposes. We needed to use about 10% of the straw for burning to produce sufficient energy for producing steam for the treatment. I am sure others researchers have tried similar things which are quite exciting. Prof. E. R. Orskov Macaulay institute Craigiebuckler Aberdeen AB15 8QH Scotland UK Phone 44 1224 498243 Home Craigie Park Whitecairns Aberdeen AB23 8 UN Scotland UK Phone 44 1651 862351

S. A. KHANUM (201) from Pakistan, “Demonstration Model Farm” related to J. MORAN (MESSAGE 188) I would like to comment on the role of demonstration model farms. The idea of demonstrations and model farms is practicable and useful for the progressive farmers only. They always remain in good contacts with the related agencies/organizations and are always ready to adopt the latest and established technologies to get maximum benefits. In Pakistan where the livestock are dispersed and small holder farmers are in majority, and hence they are generally not in a position of taking advantage of this type of dairy or livestock operations, due to their poor economic condition. In Pakistan the farmers have mixed agriculture with small land holdings and also small herd size (3-4 heads), making it difficult to adopt such practices. Pakistan and India have many cultural and agricultural similarities like integrated farming systems being very common and most of the farmers having mixed agriculture (cropping and livestock component). Here in Pakistan, landless livestock keeping, particularly for Goat and Sheep is very popular and common source of

200

livelihood for the small farmers, which contribute for the production of mutton at the national level. Mostly they have limited resources, located in villages or remote areas and fulfilling the requirements of animals by free grazing in the pastures or left over in the fields of big farmers. Under these situations, particularly in the absence of cooperative systems it is not possible for all categories of farmers to have the benefits of model farms. However, the usefulness of Model Demonstrations Farms for the dissemination or transfer of technology is fully acknowledged. We might be able to realize its potential in the future. Shahnaz

I am Dr SS KUNDU (202) from NDRI, Karnal (India) I want to communicate that chaffing of forages is always beneficial for better utilization of resources. It decreases wastage, increase intake and energy utilisation. If particle size is too small retention time in rumen may decrease but at the same time intake may be higher and Net Energy will be more with less of heat increment and decreased methane production. Both the latter attributes could be beneficial in hot and humid conditions and decrease green house gas production. Dr SS Kundu Head DCN& Chief Editor Indian J. Anim. Nutrition National Dairy Research Institute Karnal 132001, Haryana, India

M.P.S.BAKHI and M WADHWA (203) from India A contribution on Urea Molasses Multinutrient Blocks (UMMB) The concept of Uromin lick (UML)/ UMMB was developed in order to provide blend of nutrients to the animals. Besides urea and molasses it contained wheat flour, oiled seed cake, rice bran and mineral mixture etc. The animals lick such licks and meet part of their nutrient requirement. But the demand and cost of conventional energy (starch/wheat flour) and protein (groundnut/mustard cake) supplements have escalated due to dynamic explosion of human population and urbanization. The manufacturing and sale of UML/UMMB should be advocated in order to avoid the deficiency diseases related to energy, protein and minerals. A survey conducted in most of the animals in different agro climatic zones of Punjab state resulted in a very bleak picture; as most of animals under different agro-climatic zones were underfed, especially in terms of protein. Only 20% of the farmers of central plain zone offered mineral mixture, followed by farmers of flood prone, bet zone and

201

undulating plain zone as compared to only 2.5% in sub-mountainous undulating zone. The situation is quite bleak as majority of the farmers were not aware of the mineral supplement. As far as salt supplementation in the diet of animals was concerned, the situation was slightly better as 48% of farmhouses of central plain zone supplemented salt in the diet of animals followed by that of undulating Plain zone as compared to only 20% in western zone. The lack of mineral mixture and common salt in diet lead to various reproductive problems/failures, like repeat breeding and anoestrus. With UMMB supplementation, the cost of concentrate feed for cows producing up to 5 liters of milk per day was reduced by 100 percent, whereas for cows producing 5–10 liters/day it was reduced by 45–60 percent. The reduced concentrate feed cost, coupled with the improved butterfat content, gave the farmer a net overall daily economic gain. Dept. Animal Nutrition, GADVASU is selling the UROMIN LICKS (see attached picture) around the clock at nominal price (@ Rs. 50 for a lick of 3 kg, which last for about a week. Approximately 6000-6500 licks were sold during the last year. Though not many farmers are preparing the licks themselves, but quite many are using these licks. The cost of UML can further be reduced by using the wastes from processing units of fruit and vegetables. A trial conducted for preparation of UMMB by replacing the starch source (wheat grains) with waste bread (an excellent source of cooked starch (bypass) and protein (gluten)), mustard cake with tomato pomace (20-22% CP and 10-11% EE and a good source of lycopene, a pigment that gives colour to meat and is a known antioxidant). The combination of sugar syrup, waste bread and tomato pomace can reduce the cost of UMMB, without affecting the quality (availability and utilization of nutrients) of the lick. The cost of bread waste and tomato pomace is around Rs. 7-8/kg vs. the cost of Wheat- Rs. 13-14/kg and that of mustard cake. The manufacturing and sale of UML/UMMB should be advocated in order to avoid the deficiency diseases related to energy, protein and minerals and to exploit the genetic potential of dairy animals.

202

M. Wadhwa Dept. Animal Nutrition, GADVASU Ludhiana, Punjab India E-Mail: mw_7in@yahoo.co.in

I am John MORAN again (204) from Australia I wish to comment on the role of silage making for livestock feeding throughout Asia. My team has conducted many workshops on silage making for small holder dairy farmers and advisers throughout Asia, particularly in Indonesia.

203

1. Farmer participants are always interested to make silage at workshops but very few of them make it for many years after their training. 2. In fact Indonesia is "littered" with unsuccessful silage making programs to better utilise any excess wet season forages they may have, as I suspect are many other Asian countries. 3. In many cases farmers do not have any excess, because they frequently stock their farms to their wet season forage supplies and rely on purchased forages during the dry season. 4. The important fact is that most small holder dairy farmers do not like double handling their forage. Once they harvest it, they just want to feed it to their cows. 5. It is different when they source large supplies of crop by products such as sweet corn "trash" from the sweet corn processing factories, sweet corn stover or other cash crops rejected by processing factories. The only way they can preserve it is as silage. 6. Is silage technology really relevant to small holder livestock farmers to improve their year round supplies of quality forages? What have the experiences of other livestock advisers been with regards they long term "viability" of silage making training programs? John Moran 24 Wilson St Kyabram, Vic 3620 Australia. Ph +61418379652 Email: jbm95@hotmail.com

I am Padma KUMAR (205) from India In response to the message of S A KHANUM (Message 188), I would like to reinforce her views on the technology adoption aspect. I think, whenever we suggest a new technology, invariably we should indicate its appropriateness in the smallholder context as a preponderant number of farmers in the developing countries are small holders. Past experience taught us that Technological excellence in isolation in the value chain (e.g. urea molasses blocks) will not yield the desired results unless problems of other elements in the chain such as (1) the type of animal that can efficiently respond to the technical innovation (2) availability of the suggested product at the doorstep and (3) significant level of economic realisation of the output (such as increased quantity /quality of milk or meat) from the market considering the cost of the technology product in use and the additional labour involved. There is no point in using a technology which will increase

204

fat content in milk, if the vendor pays flat price for the milk irrespective of its quality. So market becomes an important element. Therefore, to be successful when we introduce a technology it should be done in places where the product value chain is pretty strong and responsive (e.g. breeding activities, service delivery, credit facility and quality based pricing - like the cooperative set up - are in position). Unfortunately only a small percent of farmers will get the benefit of it. In places where the value chain is very weak (majority of the farmers fall under this category), along with the technology introduction, one should also pay attention to strengthen the other elements of the chain (breeding, service delivery and marketing) as well. Obviously, the researchers do not take up the responsibility of the non-technical aspects of technology introduction as their mandate is to conduct research /develop technologies, which may not be suitable for majority of farmers in the country (the researchers' performance is judged not based on the extend of adoption). In the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), we are trying to overcome this by promoting "research for development" using "participatory", "value chain" and "Innovation system" approaches. Padmakumar Senior Manager (ELKS) International Livestock Research Institute CG Centres' Block B, National Agricultural Science Centre, Dev Prakash Shastri Marg, New Delhi 110012, India Phone: +91 (0)11 2560 9844 +91 (0)11 2560 9844 Fax: +91-(0)11 2560 9814 Website: www.ilri.org

This is Dr. Hichem BEN SALEM (206) from Tunisia My contribution summarizes the experience of Tunisia on Feed Block Technology. Rational

Efficient utilisation of local feed resources is a challenge and the search for urgent solutions is justified by two interrelated reasons: 1) the concept of self-reliance which strives to achieve targets of food production based on the use of indigenous resources, and 2) the fact that feeding and nutrition are possibly the most important factors influencing animal production. Additionally, and even more pertinent, the dissemination and application of development-orientated research is weak, in spite of the vast database available in research laboratories. The Mashreq and Maghreb

205

(M&M) Project coordinated by ICARDA played a key role in developing, transferring and disseminating several interesting technologies in the West Asia and North Africa region (WANA). Amongst these technologies, feed block (FB) manufacturing and utilisation in livestock feeding were initiated in several countries and reinforced in others. May be this project was the first to bring together through what is called “Participatory Approach” researchers, technicians and farmers to exchange opinions and to make decisions on how to ensure transfer of FB technology. History

Feed blocks have been used in Tunisia in the thirties, but had been overlooked ever since until the nineties. In 1989, a program on FB making was initiated by the National Institute of Agronomy (INAT) and the Pasture and Livestock Agency (development organism) with the technical support of FAO. About 40 formulas of molassed or unmolassed FBs have been evaluated in terms of their consistency and palatability of some of them was tested on sheep. Unfortunately, there was not a consistent evaluation of these FBs in terms of their nutritive value, their effect on digestion of low quality forages and livestock performance. Additionally, there was no economic assessment of this technology. Farmers were still unaware of this technology until the start, in 1996, of a research-development program involving the National Institute of Agricultural Research of Tunisia (INRAT) and the Pasture and Livestock Agency. The aim of this program was to develop and evaluate new formulas of FBs and the impact of their utilization as alternative supplements on sheep and goat performances. Laboratory evaluation, on-station and on-farm trials have been performed to achieve this objective. While earlier projects focused on the development of molasses-urea blocks as catalytic supplements and restricted studies on laboratory level, the M&M project facilitated the development of molasses-free blocks and therefore, efforts have been made to replace this ingredient by other by-products such as cactus fruits. This is justified by the fact that molasses is produced in limited quantities in Tunisia. Achievements

Among the wide range of FB formulas developed, only few of them have been transferred to farmers. They were composed of mainly olive cake, tomato pulp and wheat bran. These formulas have been evaluated in feeding trials on sheep and goats, validated in on-station trials. Cost-effective formulas were transferred through on-farm trials. A reduction of feeding cost by 20 to 40% was achieved using olive cake-based feed blocks as alternative supplement for sheep. Based on the particularities of FBs as to ensure fractionated and synchronised supply of essential nutrients to rumen microflora and host animal an idea came up as to whether hard FBs could be used as a carrier of polyethylene glycol (PEG) to deactivate tannins in tree and shrub foliage consumed by livestock. In the previous studies, PEG was administrated either orally or in concentrate given to ruminants fed on tannin-rich diets. It was hypothesised that better deactivation of tannins by PEG could be achieved when the consumption of these two compounds are synchronised. FBs proved efficient in synchronising PEG and tannins, which might explain the significant

206

increase of Acacia cyanophylla foliage (+200%), crude protein digestibility of the diet, microbial N supply and consequently the growth rate of lambs receiving PEG-containing-FBs (Ben Salem et al., 2000; Livestock Production Science vol. 64 pages 51-60). The daily consumption of PEG was 20 g/day. FBs could be considered as an efficient carrier of PEG. Technology transfer

On-farms trials have been found an effective tool to involve farmers in the evaluation process of transferred technologies. Farmers would be furious and thus reject block technology due to thoughts on probable dangerous effect of several binders (cement and quicklime) on animal health. Whatever the number of research studies on block technology, and means traditionally practiced by extension services to disseminate this technology (leaflets, mass media, etc.) adoption of block technology by small farmers was still, until few years ago, limited. Research on alternative feed sources, especially FBs, and their integration into sheep and goat feeding calendars must address farms and communities of farmers; seeking their participation and involvement is part of the adaptive research, whose objective is to make the generated technology meet specific needs and to apply it to the targeted environment. This type of research provides scientists with feedback from farmers and end-users, which enabling them to change, modify or refine their technology to better respond to farmers needs. Therefore, on-farm trials are a substantial step beyond on-station research. They allow a more realistic testing of new technologies while stimulating new research. One should expect a relatively poor precision and low production levels in research work involving farmers, but the results reflect the realistic potential yield responses to technology adoption. Such data could be used in future planning. Furthermore, farmer participation can also manifest their acceptance of the technology. For this collaboration to be fruitful, it is important that scientists develop a good working relationship with farmers at various stages of on-farm activities. Technology adoption

The low adoption rate (13%) of this technology by Tunisian farmers for the year 2000-2001 was ascribed by economists to the high cost of FBs manufacturing. Indeed, in contrast to most M&M countries, labor cost is relatively high and may account for 50% of FB cost. Additionally, they face difficulties to purchase several ingredients, mainly urea. In Tunisia, the degree of adoption by farmers involved in the M&M project increased to 60%. Many farmers are aware of the importance of FB technology. The importance of this technology is reinforced by its adoption by a development organization (Pasture and Livestock Office, OEP) as an incentive tool for rangeland rehabilitation with cactus and/or fodder shrubs. The equivalent of 45 Tunisian Dinars (about 35 US $) is given by this organism as FBs to the farmer per hectare of cactus or shrubs planted in his farm. Efforts have been devoted in several national and international (FAO, IAEA, ICARDA, etc.) research-development projects to ensure a wide dissemination and adoption of FB technology in many communities. Economists estimated an annual benefit of about 60 millions U$ is expected as a

207

result of the adoption of this technology. An internal profitability rate of about 58%, calculated for 15 years, could be reached following the substitution of feed blocks for common concentrate feeds like barley. These values demonstrate the importance of FB technology at the national level, mainly the improvement of livestock performance and farmer’s income. On the basis of this assessment, economists contend that mechanisation of feed blocks units could be a solution to reduce the cost of production and eventually enhance wide adoption of this technology in Tunisia. Sustainability The most compelling task for the M&M teams is to develop strategies facilitating the sustainability of transferred technologies, particularly FBs. The strategy adopted by several M&M teams was involving target farmers in the financial support of FBs manufacturing. The experience with several development projects revealed that subsides influence farmer behaviour to accept or reject a new technology. The approach adopted in the M&M project could be considered as successful approach in convincing farmer to contribute in funding some technologies. For the particular case of FB technology a progressive financial contribution of several M&M farmers in FBs manufacturing mainly ingredient provision was noted in some countries. In Tunisia for example, FBs manufacturing was initially funded by the M&M project. Thereafter, farmers accepted to purchase from the market some ingredients like wheat bran, olive cake and tomato pulp. The other ingredients have been purchased by the M&M team. Some other farmers funded totally the provision of ingredients. This contribution could be considered as an indicator that farmer is aware of the importance of FB technology and consequently may guarantee its sustainability. The full involvement of the OEP, a development organization, in FB manufacturing and distribution to farmers concerned with rangeland rehabilitation may guarantee the sustainability of this technology. The OEP technicians are organising throughout the country field days for farmers to train them on FB production and use. Dr. Hichem BEN SALEM Coordinator of the FAO-CIHEAM Sub-Network on Sheep & Goat Nutrition Head of the Laboratory of Animal & Forage Productions - INRAT INRAT Laboratoire des Productions Animales et Fourragères Rue Hédi Karray, 2049 Ariana, Tunisie Tel. 216 71 230 024 - Mobile 216 98 208 565 Fax (Lab.): 216 71 231 592 Fax (Institute): 216 71 716 537 - 216 71 752 897 Email: bensalem.hichem@iresa.agrinet.tn

208

I am Aimable UWIZEYE (207) from Rwanda Technology adoption in animal nutrition in Rwanda was not a success. Many innovations were proposed to farmers by extensionalists such as:

Use of by-products of crop productions

Use of legumes fodder (Mucuna, Lab Lab, Alfa Alfa, Desmodium)

Use of tree forage (Calliandra, Leucena,)

Use of concentrates and mineral block Maps of recommended pasture grasses and legumes were done by district. Seeds were distributed free to farmers with brochures indicating how to cultivate and use them in nutrition and the importance of their feeding. But many farmers are still using only the fodder grasses (Cenchrus ciliaris, Chloris gayana, Setaria) in cattle feeding. Main problems identified are:

1. lack of the ownership by farmers, 2. small land available for many crop activities, 3. many farmers use legumes before the maturation, 4. concentrates and mineral block still very expensive to small farmers, 5. farmers demand always money for extension activities.

In some area where there are extension projects, farmers use legumes because the project gives them money to buy fertilizers and to maintain their land. Dr Amiable UWIZEYE MUCYO Phone + 39 38 80 54 18 53 University deli study did Catania Agric Munds student Sustainable development in Agriculture Master of science Via Valdisavoia, 5 95123 Catania, Italia

209

I am Pierre MORAND-FEHR (208) from France My comments concern items 2.2 and 2.3 of the table of contents During the 30 past years, I often noticed a lower efficiency of research use in Animal Nutrition in developing countries than in developed countries. Particularly it appears difficult to apply simple and adapted techniques, scientific advances at farmers ‘level in developing countries. Developing countries' farmers cannot take benefits of reliable nutritional recommendations in ruminant production. There are numerous explanations: In my opinion, when attempting to assess scientific advances in developing countries from literature on digestibility, ingestion, feeding behavior, adaptation to under-feeding etc, one notices that the results cannot be compared from one paper to another due to utilization of different methods, protocols, adaptation periods, etc. This tends to make the synthesis of published papers less reliable and their application less relevant. Namely, it would not be essential to implement coordination on usual methods (digestibility, measurement of ingestion, duration of experimental and adaptation periods) by taking the specific conditions in tropical environment into account so as to get reliable nutritional recommendations for ruminants adapted and useful for developing country farmers.

Pierre MORAND-FEHR Former Coordinator of the FAO-CIHEAM network on sheep and goats

Ruchita KHURANA (209) from Bhutan Willow Silage: an alternative to winter fodder in Bhutan At SA PPLPP we have documented a practice in Bhutan where the Department of Livestock (DOL), Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Bhutan, has promoted the practice of making silage from willow leaves and twigs with an aim to address the acute shortage of fodder in winter. In Bhutan, almost 20 percent of the fodder requirement is met from fodder trees, which are generally grown for live fencing around homestead areas. To name a few of the commonly grown trees - Ficus, Bambusa, Quercus and Salix species. Among these, Willow (Salix babylonica) is the most popular species, since it is found in abundance throughout the country at elevations ranging from 800 to 3,000 masl. In addition, the willow grows well in harsh climatic conditions and poor soil types over a wide range of altitudes starting from the sub-tropics to the alpines.

210

Research undertaken in Bhutan established that willow is a fodder of high nutritional quality comparable to common forages such as Lucerne (Medicago Sativa) and can be fed to ruminants without any adverse side effects. The studies also indicated the potential of willow leaves as a nutritious fodder resource in the Himalayan belt. SA PPLPP has documented the use of willow leaves for silage, and this potential good practice note can be accessed from the SAPPLPP web-site: http://sapplpp.org/goodpractices/CPR-Livestock/BHGP13-willow-silage-an-alternative-to-winter-fodder/view At the time of documentation of this potential Good Practice note, 25 households were involved in this practice and according to estimates by the Department of Livestock, Government of Bhutan; the number is expected to grow three times by the end of 2010. The Royal Government of Bhutan is assisting farmers by providing them required material (polythene sheets) and guiding them during the ensiling process. According to some recent field surveys, individual farmers have also started approaching the concerned department to seek benefits from the silage making technique. There are success stories which demonstrate that villagers continue with the practice of making willow silage even after government support is withdrawn. One of these success stories can be accessed from the following link: http://sapplpp.org/stories/provengps/willow-silage-a-source-of-nutritious-winter-fodder-bhgp13 A photo slide show demonstrating the process of ensiling the willow leaves and twigs can be also accessed from our website at: http://sapplpp.org/PhotoGallery/photo-slide-shows/BHGP13-willow-silage-an-alternative-to-winter-fodder/index_html/view Ruchita Khurana Communications and ICT4D Coordinator, South Asia Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Programme (SA PPLPP), a Joint initiative of NDDB and FAO NDDB house (6th floor), PB 4906, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi - 110 029, INDIA Tel: +91 (0)11 2619 7851 / 7649; Fax: +91 (0)11 2618 9122 Website: http://www.sapplpp.org

211

Tej K. WALLI (210) from India Bypass protein Technology Background When the concept of bypass protein technology was put forth in mid seventies, it was widely believed to be the technology for high milk producers, to meet their essential amino acid requirement for milk protein synthesis. Bovine and other ruminant stock of lower production potential, mostly located in tropical countries, were deemed unfit for the use of this technology, as it was assumed that the microbial protein synthesized in rumen is sufficient to meet the amino acid requirement of low producing animals. However, the concept underwent a slight amendment after it became known that the optimum ammonia level in rumen for maximum microbial synthesis is just 5 mg/100 ml of rumen liquor, while for most of the ruminant stock in India much higher ruminal ammonia values have been reported. This suggested an insufficiency of soluble carbohydrates in the diet of ruminants for capturing available ammonia for rumen microbial synthesis, in tropical countries, where these animals are not offered sufficient grains through their diet, as the grains are mostly used by humans. Indian experience on bypass protein feeding Against severe criticism, some scientists at National Dairy Research Institute (NDRI), Karnal, India, went ahead to conduct studies on different aspects of bypass protein feeding to ruminants, just to find out its relevance/ irrelevance under Indian situation. On the basis of protein degradability studies, ground nut cake, mustard cake and rape seed cake were found to be highly degradable cakes in rumen. Formaldehyde application @ 1 % of the protein present in cake was found to be the optimum level for the protection of these cakes and was seen as a cheaper technology than the heat treatment. Feeding trials on growing animals using bypass protein recorded an increase in the growth rate to the extent of 25-35 %, while increase in milk production was to the tune of 10 to 15 %, from crossbred cows and buffaloes. Feeding trials on Mehsana buffalo bulls, using bypass protein showed that there was an increase in libido and improvement in semen quality. Feeding trials on goats showed improvements in reproductive parameters with higher conception rate. The faster rate of growth of calves leads to early maturity and calving, an added economic advantage to the farmer. A trial conducted on growing goats fed formaldehyde treated mustard cake showed a significant increase in growth response. Subsequently, the histo-pathological studies conducted on these kids showed cellular degeneration in the organs of animals fed untreated mustard cake and not in the animals fed formaldehyde treated cake. This suggested that formaldehyde treatment also protects glucosinolates present in cake from its degradation to more toxic form i.e. isothiocynate in rumen.

212

Higher plasma T3 and T4 levels and lower concentration of isothiocynate in the milk of the goats fed formaldehyde treated cake also proved the protection of toxin. Thus, the feeding of formaldehyde treated cakes has no adverse effect on the health of the animals and milk quality, since no trace of formaldehyde was found in the milk of such animals and their milk urea level was also reduced after feeding the treated cake. Increased efficiency of nutrient utilization & more milk volume The increased growth rate or milk production after feeding of bypass protein to ruminants is because of the efficient utilization of dietary nutrients. In the event of limited production of propionate in rumen (due to limited supply of soluble carbohydrate through the diet), the extra amino acids provided through feeding of bypass protein, assume a greater role as the precursor for gluconeogenesis in liver. Correspondingly, there is an increase in lactose synthesis in mammary gland from the extra glucose supply from liver. Since lactose regulates the osmotic pressure of milk, there is a proportionate amount of water uptake by mammary gland, resulting in more milk volume but without much change in milk composition. Whether the Technology is a success or a failure in India? 1) Bypass protein is a technically feasible and an economically viable technology, being a cost effective nutritional technology for ruminants in tropics 2) The results of on-station trial conducted at NDRI, Karnal showed the average milk yield of cross bred cows fed treated cake was11.6 liters against 10.20 liters/day in control group. The average increase in the daily gain of buffalo calves was 386 g for control and 600 g/day for the group fed treated cake. While in lactating buffaloes, the average milk was 6.3 liters in control and 7.3 liters /day in treated cake group. 3) The results of the field trials conducted by National Dairy Development Board, Anand, Gujrat, showed the average increase in milk yield of cows to the tune of 1.5 - 2.0 liters /day over normal feeding. Indian feed manufacturers have realized the potential of this technology and are now producing bypass protein on a commercial scale in the country, with National Dairy Development Board, Anand, Gujrat, taking the lead. Tej K. WALLI *tejwalli@yahoo.co.in

I am Tej K. WALLI (211) from India I fully agree with the views expressed by Padma Kumar, India, about the significance

213

of studying and strengthening the product value chain, before an attempt is made for a technology to be adopted by the small holder livestock farmers. This was indeed the bottomline message delivered during the CGIAR sponsored Meeting, Mega Programme 3.7 on Livestock and Fish Production, held at ILRI, Ethiopia on 24-25th Sept. 2010, which was attended by some of us participating in this e-conference. If we wish a particular technology to be successfully adopted by livestock farmers, we first need to strengthen the whole value chain of the product from production to marketing. Like, for popularising the technology of Complete Feed Block, we got to first identify the places where green fodder production is almost negligible, straw is available in plenty, other feed ingredients are easily available, electricity supply is regular, labour is cheap and there is an assured market for the product, which is generally possible if the project is operated through some agency like cooperative, federation, livestock boards, an NGO or a village level panchayat (Governing bodies). Then, the nutritional quality of the feed blocks has to be adjusted according to the type of animals which have to be fed these blocks. Of course, any good breeding programme can be made really successful, if it is accompanied by supply of nutritious feeds and balanced ration to the animals. Tej K. Walli Chief Technical Advisor Poshak Agrivet, Karnal -132001 Haryana, India tejwalli@yahoo.co.in

Ghulam HABIB (212 a) from Pakistan Comments on Technology adoption/model farm Most of the time technology development and demonstration in a model farm does not take in to account all technical and non technical elements that are experienced by a farmer in his specific local farm conditions for making decisions. This may hinder uptake of the technology which may not fit to farmers' situation. Farmer Field School is one of the excellent participatory extension methodology in which farmers learn through observations and experimentation in their own farms guided by a facilitator. This improves their management skill and they become knowledge experts on their own farms under local conditions. This approach empowers farmers using experimental and participatory learning techniques rather than advising farmers what to do. Farmers are not dictated rather they work together to test, assess and adapt a variety of options for solving their problems with in the specific local conditions.

214

Livestock Farmer Field School (LFFS) approach was started recently in some rural areas of Pakistan. We in the developing countries need to revive and strengthen our livestock extension services from traditional to farmer centered approaches. GHULAM HABIB habibnutr@gmail.com

S. A. KHANUM and H. N. HUSSAIN (212 b) form Pakistan Our comments cover some of the issues highlighted in a comprehensive way by Dr. Hichem BIN SALEM related to Feed Block Technology in Tunisia. We would like to exemplify a similar trend of improved cost economics with the use of feed blocks in case of sheep and goat under grazing conditions. We remained in neighborhood of 10% adoption rate for the feed block technology transfer campaign in a national project entitled Saline Agriculture Farmer participatory Development Project (SAFPDP) for use of this technology. As indicated in the contribution by BEN SALEM, the feed blocks are not only a source of essential nutrients for livestock rather they can equally serve the purpose of carriers of various feed additives. Under a scheme entitled, Development and use of feed blocks as a carrier for anthelmintics, herbal medicines and feed additives, we were successful in obtaining positive results when we tried Anthelmintics administration via Feed Block technology. It generated significant parasite load reduction rates in sheep and goat like the work reported by BEN SALEM on the administration of PEG for mitigating adverse effects of tannins in tree leaves. However, apart from other factors, we think that farmer recalcitrant behavior on established procedures hinders the fast technology transfer rates in Pakistan. Dr. Shahnaz Adeeb Khanum Deputy Chief Scientist (DCS) Head, Animal Sciences Division Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB), Faisalabad-Pakistan Tel: +92-41-2654221-30, Fax: +92-41-2654213, Direct: +92-41-2573576

215

Frik SUNDSTOL and L. O. EIK from Norway in collaboration with N. A. URIO, E. MTENGETI from Tanzania and F. CILERA from Malawi (213) Some comments on forage conservation Drying of grasses for improved feeding of ruminants in Africa and relevance in the climate change debate Seasonal availability of fodder is a problem most places in the world. In northern Europe farm animals have to be fed indoor for a long winter, some places up to nine months. During the short summer season forage has to be harvested and preserved for the long winter. Nowadays highly mechanised silage making is the preferred method. In Africa the farm animals can stay outside all year around, but the availability of fodder can be critically low in the dry season, often from May to December or even longer. Some places haymaking may be a better alternative for forage conservation than making of silage. For about five years we have collaborated with scientists from Sokoine University of Agriculture Tanzania) and Bunda College (Malawi) on a project where farmers in Njombe (Tz) and Lungwena/Manjawira (Ma) are cutting young grass with a scythe and drying it on bamboo fences during the rainy season. Split bamboo stems are tied to the poles with a soft and strong bark. Our experience is that the grass on the fence dries well even when there are showers of rain. After removal of the grass from the field there is a re-growth and the farmers are able to make up to three cuttings in one rainy season. The amount of grass harvested in this way is much higher than what would have been possible just by grazing. The quality is also much higher, digestibility of 65-75 % compared to 40-50 % for “standing hay” in the dry season. Since the animals are able to consume more forage of high digestibility, the production potential is considerably higher. In the debate on climate change there is a lot of focus on the methane emission from ruminating animals. There is no doubt that methane is a serious greenhouse gas of which enteric emission from ruminants contributes around 20 % or so. In our opinion the methane produced by ruminants should be expressed as liter or grams per unit of product (milk, meat, work etc.). Methane production in the rumen is related to gross energy intake, 6.5 % according to IPCC (2006), and lower for high-quality feeds than for low-quality feeds. This means that at the same level of feed intake forage in the dry season gives more methane than forage at an early stage of growth. Since the animal production is lower in the dry season there are fewer kg of products to divide the methane on, the CH4/product ratio becomes very high. When there is no longer any production the ratio becomes infinite.

216

This shows the advantage of harvesting the grass when it is of high quality, not only because of more effective production, but also because of less emission of greenhouse gasses per unit of livestock products. A question for further discussion may be: Can keeping of ruminants at maintenance feeding (no production) be justified from an environmental point of view? Frik Sundstol Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Aas, Norway frik.sundstol@umb.no

This is Jorgen HENRIKSEN (214) from Denmark. I have with great interest followed the conference and being impressed by the many technical and scientific contributions. However, I have missed some interventions on the economy of small scale livestock production and the need also to demonstrate the immediate economic benefit of taking up a new technology or method of production – the best argument for a new technology and for success is if the smallholder is confident that she/he will increase cash income. The Background document is also missing the aspect of economy and cost benefit of interventions in livestock production My experience is from the dairy sector and I would like to give a simple example: no matter how much you train and demonstrate how to improve milk quality for the smallholder, she is not going to take up the improved technology as long as the buyer of the milk is not paying a premium; and she is not going to invest in cooling if the dairy industry is not paying a premium. Smallholder dairy farmers are to be considered business entrepreneurs and for them to invest in improved technology for management and feeding they have to see a business plan that clearly in money terms demonstrates the outcome and benefit. It is no argument that it is good for the environment. We have used the business model approach in a dairy project in Sri Lanka; however, it is still too early to share the experience, whether it will be a success or another failure! Jorgen Henriksen senior rural and agricultural development adviser HENRIKSEN ADVICE 25 HARESPRINGET DK-2400 COPENHAGEN NV DENMARK +45 38806252 MOBIL: +45 24404029 jorgen.henriksen@henriksenadvice.dk

217

I am Tej K. WALLI (215) from India. I am happy to learn from Dr. Hichem BIN SALEM from Tunisia that feed block technology has been successfully tested and found useful. This technology is slowly being introduced in India, not by private entrepreneurs but by the agencies involved in rural community development like dairy cooperatives, federations, livestock boards and NGOs. But the technology is making more inroads in areas where the green fodder shortage is acute, especially in southern states of India. It is also becoming the preferred technology in the hilly states of India. A trial was recently conducted on buffaloes, yielding 7-8 liters of milk per day in the rural areas of Karnal (Haryana), feed block vs. normal feed fed by the farmers. On an average the increase in milk was from 2.0 l /day. Even the lactation length is longer and conception rate is considerably improved, because it being a complete balanced feed. Even if the per day cost was higher by Rs. 30/ (ca US$ 0.65) animal/day, the increase in milk yield brought double of that amount to the farmer. The technology finds favour with those who are landless livestock keepers, who have to purchase everything from the market to feed their animals. Apart from easy storage and transport, feed block can be used as a vehicle for feed additives and medicines, especially for treating parasitic infections. Tej K. WALLI Chief Technical Advisor Poshak Agrivet G.T. Road, Karnal -132001 Haryana, India tejwalli@yahoo.co.in

I am Raj JANI (216) working with Micro-Dairy Actors in North West of Cameroon (Africa) With great interest, I have been reading the various postings of experts from different parts of the world regarding animal nutrition practices. I am thankful to F. Sundstol and L. O. Eik of Norway to share their comments on forage conservation, which are indeed highly relevant in this part of African continent also. In Cameroon, pastoral livestock accounts for almost 95 % of cattle, goat and sheep production. The pastoral regions are the sahelian and savannah areas. They encompass the three Northern provinces, East, West and North West regions. More than 2.6 million inhabitants, mainly from the marginalized Mbororo and Fulani communities, depend directly on pastoral livestock, which is a main source of income for 30% of the rural population.

218

Pastoral Livestock is the predominant occupation of natives and some marginalized communities like Fulanis and Mbororos in Cameroon, who send almost 90% of their animals (mainly cattle) for transhumance in dry season stretching over 4-5 months (November to March). Extensive grazing is perhaps the only method applied by a large population of herders here and there is almost negligible awareness on animal nutrition practices and/or substitutes. As a result the local breed of Akuji, Gudali, Mbororoji and Bunaji produce more or less about 2 litres a day, which is abysmally low compared to traditional breeders in West and Central Africa region. Few of those practicing semi-intensive or intensive systems of dairy report very high prices of compound feed available in the market, almost all by way of imports, which makes it very difficult if not unviable, to sell fresh milk and milk products in the local market that is captured wholly again by imported milk products. In this case the forage conservation methods as suggested by experts above will be quite beneficial. I want to also know about other such low-cost alternatives animal feeding and nutrition using local resources, if available from similar cultures and also if there are any examples as to how the traditional cultural mindset of herder communities can be influenced to go an extra mile and take care of their animals. Raj Jani Value Chain Advisor, Inclusive Forestry/Pastoral Livestock North West Portfolio, Bamenda SNV Cameroon +237 9600 5688 rjani@snvworld.org <mailto:rjani@snvworld.org>

I am Dr Merida ROETS (217) from South Africa I’ve been following some of the discussion and debate and notice that most animal scientists are struggling with the concept of whether or not their technologies will be applied in the field (and when they are not it is an unfortunate “failure” – that seems to me a terrible waste of research resources!). In our work in rural development with the development of sustainable/profitable (albeit small) livestock and other projects (vegetable production, small business development etc.), we use the concept of “transaction costs” to determine whether something will be considered a waste of time or worthy of implementation. This concept is well-known and used widely in Agricultural Economics. I remember that describing the concept caused some “aha!” moments at the 2004 International Goat Conference. In economic terms: If the cost of a transaction is more than the income/benefit derived from that transaction, then the transaction will not take place (i.e. defined as “missing markets”). i. e. the “intent” to transact was there, but the environment was not conducive for the transaction to take place.

219

This translates easily to our animal nutrition technology scenarios as, “If the effort of an action is more than the benefit derived from that action, the action will not take place”. Remember, rural folk are often (not always) already over-burdened with fetching fire-wood and water, cooking (usually on fires), they do not have modern means of transport (most likely animal-drawn or bicycles), must generally walk to reach any type of technology or market, so it’s exhausting, etc. If you then keep the “time” and “physical effort”-dimension of your technology in mind, you will soon realize whether it really is worth the effort….. If the technology needs a “simple device that can be welded in an afternoon” – consider whether your potential users have “an afternoon” to spare – (let alone the sheet metal, or the welding equipment, or the welding rods, or the expertise to weld, or the money to pay a welder!). Alternatively, the transaction costs of a farmer him/herself applying the technology could be compared with whether a small entrepreneur could provide the service for a fee to farmers (What would this fee be? Can the farmer afford it? Can the entrepreneur make a living? And would it make using the technology worthwhile for the farmer?). Unfortunately, all too often these technologies are offered as solutions from research stations or extension services – thus essentially “subsidizing” the transaction costs for farmers. As soon as the service is no longer provided (for free) the “project” or “technology” fails – the reason is because the “transaction costs” were too great. Dr Merida Roets, (Pr.Sci.Nat.) (Ph.D-Univ. Pretoria) Scientific Roets (PTY) Ltd Tel/Fax: +27 39 727 1515 Web: www.scientificroets.com

I am Abdul Shakoor CHAUDHRY (218) from Newcastle University It is good to read so many excellent contributions from many countries. The FAO has done a great job in coordinating this e-conference which I’m sure would be helpful in the planning of improved livestock production at many small or medium sized farms. However, I’m unsure if these small to moderate changes in livestock production would really help improve the livelihood and social status of these farmers in developing countries. Should we not focus more on strategies which could help improve animal production on a much bigger but sustainable scale? Such an approach could then help develop plans to maintain self sufficiency in meat and milk in developing countries, for example.

220

Dr. Abdul Shakoor Chaudhry (PhD Cambridge) School of Agriculture, Food & Rural Development (SAFRD) Agriculture Building Newcastle University United Kingdom NE1 7RU Tel: +44 191 222 8499 Fax: +44 191 222 6720 Email: a.s.chaudhry@ncl.ac.uk http://www.ncl.ac.uk/afrd/staff/profile/a.s.chaudhry

The Moderator of the E conference from FAO Rome, Italy

Dear Colleagues, Today is the penultimate day of the Conference. I invite you once again to send your comments and contributions on the animal nutrition technologies and practices not covered so far. You are also welcome to contribute to the already covered technologies and practices. Two days left. Grab this opportunity to share your views. The Moderator of the E conference Livestock Production Systems Branch AGA, Rome, Italy

I am Dr. Frederic M. HOUNDONOUGBO (219) from Benin. I think that when we are talking about the adoption of new technologies we should take into account the training of the users (farmers or entrepreneurs). Some researches on the feeds sector in Benin had shown that: - Within the companies’ workers in general, only 15% of the employees and 44% of the managers had attended training in animal nutrition and feed formulation. - Specifically, only 36% of the feed companies’ managers (8% of animal scientists and 28% of veterinarians) had some knowledge in animal feeding and feed formulation; while 32% the managers had no background in animal science or agriculture. The remaining managers were technicians from agriculture school (so, no education at university level) or farmers.

221

- About 48% of managers worked in the sector of commercial feeds as secondary activity. - When we carried out an experiment in broilers feeding, the feed costs ($ feed/kg of weight gain) from 5 commercial diets were between 1.5 to 2 times the feed cost in a control diet. - The results demonstrated clearly the importance and the necessity of training and control of the feed quality by governmental services in the aim to protect the farmers. I am also particularly interested by the use of economic analysis in animal feeding. In that purpose an interesting variable we calculate is the economic feed efficiency (EFE). We decide to calculate that variable after some discussions with animal nutritionists and economists in Denmark (University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Live Science). EFE is calculated as the ratio between the revenue from the animal product (animal product obtained x unit price of product) and the Feed cost (feed consumed x unit price of feed). Thus, the ratio is compare to the value 1 in the aim to have an idea of the efficiency of the feed. Dr. Ir. Frederic M. HOUNDONOUGBO, PhD (Animal nutrition and economics - Poultry production) Chef Adjoint Chargé des Projets de Recherche, Département de Production Animale (Deputy Head in Charge of Research Projects, Department of Animal Production) Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques Université d'Abomey-Calavi Email Priv: fredericmh@gmail.com Email Prof: hmf@fsa.uac.bj http://www.fsa.uac.bj Tel: +229 95 96 81 36 01 BP 526 COTONOU République du Bénin

I am Margaret LUKUYU (220) from Kenya I have followed the discussion closely and I am amazed by the huge number of technologies from so many different countries that have been developed to help improve livestock production. This e-conference has provided a great opportunity for review, reflection, and proposal for upscaling of technologies. Some of the technologies could be borrowed and applied directly in other countries with similar climatic conditions. Having worked in Extension for many years and now in Research, my experience with livestock technologies is that firstly, there is a need to target technologies and find appropriate dissemination pathways for different audience and conditions. Secondly, we must go beyond technical issues and address social and policy issues. My experience with dairy is that there is a need to address the whole value chain from production to marketing and even consumption since they all impact heavily on the farmer. Policies that negatively impact on milk

222

marketing for instance reflect at the farm level in form of low technology adoption e.g. use of commercial inputs such as inorganic fertilizers and concentrate feeds. Some of the factors that influence adoption of dairy production in Kenya are milk marketing, availability of credit and poor infrastructure. We could greatly benefit from the experiences of other countries. Margaret Lukuyu, Research Scientist, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute

This is Noble JAYASURIYA (221) from Sri Lanka I fully agree with Jorgen Henriksen from Denmark when he says that if any new technology is to succeed there must be an economic benefit to the farmer. No matter how much you train or demonstrate how to improve milk production or quality of milk to the smallholder farmers they are not going to take up the improved technology if there is no real economic benefit for them. This real economic benefit is not simply a matter of getting a few rupees or dollars more. For most smallholder farmers cattle keeping are only a part time enterprise. Their main income comes from some other sources e.g. rice farming, vegetable cultivation, and owner of a village, shop etc. Most small holder farmers keep cattle as a financial reservoir for emergency use and therefore culling is never an acceptable option for them. They may enjoy the little extra income if they can produce a few extra liters of milk or sell an additional calf but they are not dependent on this for their livelihood. So in my opinion such small farmers (perhaps we need to define small farmer now) are not likely to spend their time adopting a new technology if the benefit is not going to be adequate. In other words I feel that if a new technology is to benefit a small farmer his enterprise has to become a ‘large scale’ enterprise where he is fully dependent on the income from this enterprise for his livelihood. I believe that this is where most of us failed. We ought to have targeted farmers with adequate numbers of animals who are dependent on livestock farming for their livelihood. This is where cooperatives/communal farming systems have worked. As long as a farmer remains a small holder livestock farmer where he is not dependent on this income, he will take the easy way out – try something out when demonstrated or given free and give up when he does not feel like it. This is where I fully agree with Merida ROETS from South Africa and the terminology 'transaction costs'. She is absolutely correct to say that 'If the effort of the activity (I presume this is not only the income that the activity will bring about but also involves other factors - e.g. farmers free time, his time with colleagues etc) is more than the benefit derived from that activity then the activity will not take place'. The technologies offered as solutions from research stations or extension services are often not worthy of pursuing because such income is inadequate to substitute for his main income of his livelihood.

223

Thus, to me the bottom line is, 'consider the economy of scale of production before trying to introduce new technologies'. The farmer to be involved has to be someone whose livelihood is dependent on livestock farming. In other words leave the small farmers whose main income comes from other sources alone as I believe that they are happy with their own technologies. This Conference has been a great success, perhaps an eye opener to many animal scientists and technologists who have been trying to develop and introduce new technologies and bring about a change in livestock production in developing countries. The FAO team should be congratulated for initiating it and the participants for their very active participation. Dr. Noble Jayasuriya Dr. M. C. N. Jayasuriya 98/M/47, Scenic View Kahantota Road, Pittugala Malabe Tel. 0094 11 2413335; mob. 0714272996

Edgardo COREA (222) from El Salvador Adequate adoption of technologies has been a challenge for those involved. It can be seen that after implementation of development projects, life in the rural communities remains almost the same. Some NGOs go beyond technology transfer and give a lot of assistance, providing inputs, animals, and even equipment and infrastructure, this also does not necessarily work because productive incentives are not sustained over the time. In our experience with cooperative dual purpose farmers, we have been working on using forage varieties, harvesting them at right time and making silage. Beneficial effects are evident but the forage plantation is still deficient and hence the availability is not adequate. I think that beyond the knowledge, the proper technology and the resources, we need to address the farmers' motivation to change their lives, and all the intrinsic factors that enable them to take decisions to make positive changes in their work routine. Elmer Edgardo Corea MSc. Direccion de Investigacion. Facultad de Ciencias Agronomicas. Universidad de El Salvador. Tel 503 2225 6903

224

I am Emmanuel Osafo, KNUST (223) from Ghana It has been interesting reading the contributions so far. Some of the technologies appear to have been adopted while others have not for many of the reasons we have read about. On simple technology, offering the ruminant more crop residue than it can eat. This allows for selective feeding thus the animal is able to pick up the more nutritious components of the feed and derives more from the feed than if feed offered was restricted. We tried this in Ethiopia by offering both sheep and cattle more sorghum stover than they would eat in a day. This allowed the animals to selectively feed and there was distinct improvement in those animals that were offered more sorghum stover and generated more refusals. When we see a big pile of refusals/rejected feed in stall feeding (especially when feeding crop residues) it is a good sign - it means that the farmer has allowed the animals to select the more digestible parts. Refusals can then be used for other purposes (fuel, compost, mulch etc. or even urea-ammonia treated and re-fed). Emmanuel Osafo

This is Jean MARGERISON (224) from New Zealand Interestingly, getting it across is quite hard too. Even when there is a premium payment (payment for protein in New Zealand) farmers tend not to realise what a difference it can make. They often look at the cost of a feed /kg or milk price / kg MS or litre, but not consider how feeding or diet composition, or consider a feed cost against ‘response’ to the addition of specific feeds in the diet. They need help to understand the effect of premiums and ‘response’ to feed, as these can make a big difference to the business. The other things that are important are short term and long term goals, i.e. fertility and thus use of feeding in the short term and long term to enhance this. That and optimal age / weight (% maturity and mature weight) for replacements at specific target goals (weaning, insemination and calving) and long term planning of growth rates to achieve these goals. Jean Margerison Major Leader of Animal Science Massey University Private bag 11 222 Palmerston North New Zealand

225

Tel: 64 06 350 5567 Mob: 64 021 747 783 Fax: 64 06 350 5657 Email J.Margerison@massey.ac.nz http://ifnhh.massey.ac.nz/staff/staffmember/staffmember.aspx?id=673

Carlos E. LASCANO (225) from Colombia I want to challenge the idea put forward in this e-conference that adoption of feed technologies by smallholders is mainly dependent on the income generated by the technology. Adoption of improved feed technologies by smallholders can be motivated by many factors as illustrated by the results on promotion of forages carried by CIAT and partners in countries of Southeast Asia. The example that I share bellow, illustrates the concept of "transaction cost" described by one participant in the e-conference as being key for the adoption of technologies by small farmers. In the example the driving force behind adoption of planted forages planted near houses was not increased income, but rather more efficient use of scarce family labor (no need to travel long distances to harvest forages to feed animals). Use of forages by smallholders in Southeast Asia to improve livelihoods Work carried by CIAT with NARS partners in Southeast Asian countries successfully introduced forage accessions (>500 accessions), conducted nursery and regional evaluations to select a set of approximately 50 broadly adapted, robust forage varieties, and evaluated these with smallholder farmers in a broad range of farming systems using a farmer participatory approach. As farmers started to integrate the new forages into their farming systems (e.g. contour hedges, intensive plots near houses, etc.) and use them in a variety of ways (e.g. night feeding for cattle, grasses for fish), the project and its partners started to disseminate forages to other farmers and new areas, using tools such as cross visits, development of multiplication systems (seed and vegetative), and training of extension workers and key farmers. Many of these farmers expanded their forage areas and received benefits, such as reduced labor needs for feeding livestock, improved income from sale of animals and manure, improved soil fertility through application of manure, and improved soil conservation by planting of contour hedgerows and cover crops. Planting forages near the houses also enabled farmers to provide supplementary feed to their animals. They could collect manure easily, which was sold or used on their own crops. Also, parasites were less of a problem and animals had less contact with other animals thus limiting the spread of diseases.

226

References CIAT- Annual Report of the Tropical Forages Project - IP- 5. 2004. Partnerships in Asia to undertake evaluation and diffusion of new forage alternatives. p 159-172 Horne, P.M. and Stur, W.W. 2003. Developing agriculture solutions with smallholder farmers-how to get started with participatory approaches. ACIAR (ACIAR, Canberra). ISBN 1 86320 379 6. Monograph No 103. 119 p Carlos E. Lascano PhD Universidad Nacional de Colombia- Bogotá c.lascano@cgiar.org

Shahid RAFIQUE (226) from Pakistan We need economical feeding technologies for small holders. Majority of livestock farmers (almost 60%) in Pakistan keep few animals (1-2 cattle/buffaloes, 4-5 sheep/goats per house hold) to meet domestic needs for milk, meat and fiber and sell the surplus if available. We need to design small containers of metal, wood, plastic or something else along with small quantity of supplement to contain 30-40 kg chopped fodder/forage to make silage so that it is handy and can be reused. Construction of silage pits is not affordable by small farmers. Most of the times, fodder is offered un-chopped to the livestock in rural areas. Small, handy, economical portable, manually operated energy efficient choppers are needed too be designed to feed chopped fodder/forage. When I was a child, in summer during feed deficit periods, I used to feed our animals (buffaloes and oxen) wheat straw after making it wet with very small quantity of water and mixing with wheat bran/flour. Efficient wetting mixing equipment is needed for small farmers to feed straws/roughages after mixing with concentrate supplements. Hay making results in mixing of dust, dirt with the fodder. Small, economical, portable handy containers where fodder can be easily dried to convert into hay are needed to benefit small farmers. Similarly, urea treatment of straw has not become popular among small farmers with inherent hazards. A feasible, economical, reusable mechanism/equipment to treat 40-50kg straw has to be designed to ease small holders. Planting of forage trees (mulberry, moringa, acacia, etc.) on large scale on marginal lands, along side crop fields, water channels, etc. is a convenient way of alleviating pressure on range-forage resources and for better livestock feeding management.

227

Cactus treatment to burn its spines and feeding to cattle could be an economical energy source for cattle. Dr. Shahid Rafique Director (Animal Sciences Division) Pakistan Agricultural Research Council Islamabad, Pakistan

I am Metha WANAPAT (227) from Thailand It has been a hectic time for me moving here and there that I could not possibly join with you, not until this very last moment. I took a chance to swift through and have learned and appreciated a lot with all the very valuable comments and experiences shared-in by many eminent scientists and with long time engagement in the this area both at the stations, on-farm interventions and development. They were great, however we should deeper review and apply these available technologies wherever suitable especially for the smallholder farmers who are in need. Anyway, may I jump in and share with you on some of my experiences of working in this field especially the ones which have been employed as on-farm interventions for the farmers in the developing countries. I deeply belief that any feed technologies useful for the farmers are those proved to be locally based, simple, ready-for-use on year round basis, sustainable and profitable, as well as enhancing their livelihood ... and here I call them... Resource-Features. Furthermore, in order to fulfill the above, I do belief in the three undertakings.....The Establishment, Development and Utilization (EDU). The two kinds of feed groups: the Roughages and the Supplementary Concentrates are of utmost importance for supporting the animal productivity for the smallholder farmers. These two, must have the above-stated characteristics. Resource-Features and EDU undertakings....and the ones that I am bringing out are....The Food-Feed-Systems (FFS) for the Roughages and then...Home-made-concentrates (HMC). These two interventions are not new, but they are the grass-root for the successful feeds and feeding technologies to be possibly adopted by the farmers engaged in their daily livestock raising in the developing countries. FFS.... are by far the most suitable, as the cash crops can be intercropped with legumes and can be selected by the farmers for their relevancies to suit each locality and the livestock production system prevailing. For example, cassava has been used, as roots are for both human and animals while the leaf and/or whole crop hay can be used as vegetable for human and a protein source for animals. While, legumes such as cowpeas, or Phaseolus calcaratus, Robx.,or Tua-mun, wild

228

legume can be intercropped for young pods production and for seeds for human consumption, and the crop residues for livestock feeding. The nutritive value of the cassava hay is by far the best as it contains high protein up to 25 % CP (good amino acid profile) and good rumen by-pass protein, since it contains about 3 % condensed tannins. It can also reduce internal parasites...As for Phaseolus calcaratus, it can thrive well in dry area s and even in poor fertile soil and its seeds contain high amino acid profile especially those of phenyllalanine, tyrosine and lysine, the great source for brain development esp for the young in the rural areas....and the crop residues are used for feeding. HMC....can be prepared so simply, using local feed resources, from the on-farm development as FFS or from other available feed resources such as rice bran, molasses, cassava chip, potato root, any kinds of by-products available, oil crop seed meals; e.g. cottonseed meal/cake, coconut oil meal, palm kernel meal/cake, para-rubber seed meal,...cassava hay/harvested intervally all year-round...etc. These can be formulated simply and mixed using fewer kinds of feed ingredients to obtain good protein and energy levels for all classes of livestock...for meat and milk production. Most importantly, these HMC are nutritious, palatable with low costs as compared to any commercial concentrates. The above feed technologies have been intervened by my myself and colleagues, in Thailand for the smallholder dairy farmers, and in neighboring countries esp. in Cambodia through my previous association with the EU-SLPP Project, the Smallholder Livestock Production Programme, where the above feed technologies interventions have been launched and implemented.... Further details of the FFS and HMC can be viewed and obtained from the published papers and Congress presentations given below. I am also sending you some of the pictures related to the above technologies. Finally, I wish to take these opportunities in thanking the FAO E-Conference Coordinator for his well intention and goodwill in providing opportunities for us in sharing these precious and interesting experiences among of all of us, around the world...and with the high expectations for further use and adoption by our farmers.

REFERENCES 1. Wanapat, M. 2000. Rumen Manipulation to Increase the Efficient Use of Local Feed

Resources and Productivity of Ruminants in the Tropics. Asian-Aus. J. Anim. Sci. 13 Suppl. B: 59-67.

2. Wanapat, M. 2003. Manipulation of Cassava Cultivation and Utilization to Improve

Protein to Energy Biomass for Livestock Feeding in the Tropics. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 116: 463-472.

3. Wanapat, M. 2008. Development and practical uses of cassava as feed for livestock.

In: 8th Asian Cassava Research Workshop. Oct 20-24, 2008. Settha Paplace Hotel, Vientiane, Lao PDR. p 57.

229

4. Wanapat, M., V. Chanthakhoun and S. Wanapat. 2009. Development of food-feed system for smallholder livestock farmers. In: Proceedings of Animal Nutrition Association World Conference 2009. February 14-17, 2009. NASD Complex, New Delhi, India. p 24-27.

5. Wanapat, M. 2009. Potential uses of local feed resources for ruminants. Trop. Anim.

Health Prod. 41:1035–1049. 6. M. Wanapat, N. Wongnen, A. Sukarin, N. Chantapasarn, M. Taoun, R. Pilajun, S.

Joomchantha, A. Petlum, and S. Wanapat. 2010. Integrated approaches for improving livestock production using indigenous resources and conserving the environment on smallholder farms in north-east Thailand. In Proceeding of Improving Livestock Production Using Indigenous Resources and Conserving the Environment. Animal Production and Health Section. IAEA, Vienna, Austria. pp. 87-96.

7. Wanapat, M. 2010. Current researches towards rumen fermentation and microbial

ecology of swamp buffaloes. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on BIOCHEMISTRY AND MEDICAL CHEMISTRY (BIOMEDCH '10). February 23-25, 2010. University of Cambridge, UK. pp. 431-435.

8. Wanapat, M., P. Kongmun, V. Chanthakhoun, A. Cherdthong, and R. Pilajun. 2010. Use of Local Feed Resources to Improve Rumen Fermentation and Reduce Methane Production in Buffalo Production in Southeast Asia. Proceedings of the 9th World Buffalo Congress, 25-28 April 2010, Buenos Aires, Argentina pp. 112-122.

Professor Dr. Metha Wanapat

Y. Ramana REDDY (228) from India Crop residues are main feed resources for ruminants in India. However, low level of nitrogen and minerals and high level of constituents of fibrous nature (particularly lignin and silica) limit their utilization. Some times even they can not meet maintenance requirements when fed to ruminant livestock. The Department of Animal Nutrition/Biochemistry developed a small complete feed manufacturing unit (see attachment) which can grind both fibrous crop residues and concentrates (includes molasses, minerals and vitamins also) into mash and then mixed in horizontal mixture. The end product is a complete feed mash. When experiments were conducted in dairy animals there is a cost saving by 20% and increase in milk production by 16% compared to conventional method of feeding crop residues. The machine capacity is 500 kg/h, Horse Power is 20 and cost is Indian rupee 400 thousand (1 US$ = ca 46 Indian rupee). This processing unit will work economically at rural level on community basis. Y. Ramana Reddy Department of Animal Nutrition

230

College of Veterinary Science Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 500 030 India

I am Ronilo DE CASTRO (229) from the Philippines, Currently I am working as Science Research Specialist in a government office and I want to share our experiences with the problem on mycotoxin in feeds in our country. Mycotoxins are a problem of the swine and poultry industries here in the Philippines. Earlier, the animal farmers did give much attention to the presence of mycotoxins until they have been severely affected. Mycotoxins are considered silent killers and often a time their effects to the health and performance of the animals manifest in the latter stage when there is severe contamination and build-up of toxins through continuous consumption of the contaminated feeds. Low level of mycotoxin in feeds affects growth and lowers the animal's immunity to certain diseases. In the Philippines the common practice of detoxifying mycotoxin contaminated feeds/ingredients is the use mycotoxin binders and mold inhibitors (which are mainly organic acids). We find it the most practical and appropriate method considering the availability, accessibility and economic reasons of using toxin binders. Feed millers and farm workers don’t have means to initially protect or prevent mycotoxin contamination in feed ingredients such as corn, soya, wheat and others. What the farm and feed mills do is regulate or screen the ingredients for mycotoxin contamination and if found to be highly contaminated with certain mycotoxin above the acceptable level they will reject or refuse to use those ingredients. For example corn having 100 ppb aflatoxin B1 can be rejected (the limit is up to 50 ppb). The common mycotoxins in the country are aflatoxin B1, T-2, ochratoxin, zearalenone and to a lesser extent fummonisin and deoxynivalenol (DON). Several kinds of toxin binders are available in the market which is mainly HSCAS/clay based. Some toxin binders will vary depending on its composition and type of clay used. Available toxin binders may contain one or combination of the following; organic acids, mananoligosacharrides (MOS), vitamins, copper salts, plant extracts, seaweed extracts, yeast, microbial inactivating enzymes etc. And the price of toxin binder will depends on its compositions and these are mostly imported from other countries. The inclusion of these toxin binders will range from 0.5 kg to 2 kg per ton of feed depending on the type of toxin binder and the degree of mycotoxin contamination in the feeds. Today, in most of the feed formulation, toxin binder or mycotoxin binder became an important part of the compounded feed. More especially when compounding feeds for breeder and young animals which are very susceptible to low level of mycotoxin contamination in feed. It is better to be on the preventive side preventing the absorption of mycotoxins by the animal than to feel sorry because of not using toxin binder.

231

However, still there are ongoing studies on the use of toxin binders and questions such as does it really helps alleviate the adverse effect of mycotoxin on the performance of the animals. There are issues with the binding capacity and number of toxins that it can bind and the possibility of binding nutrients other than the toxins because these toxin binders are adsorbents. In previous studies conducted in the university however, the effectivity of toxin binder can be best evaluated if there is a mycotoxin challenge given to the animal. Supplementation of the animal feed with toxin binder without high mycotoxin challenge gave no significant results. But nonetheless, here in the Philippines we still find the use of adsorbents to be most practical way to detoxify animal feeds from mycotoxins in addition to using mold inhibitors. Because the feed milling and animal industry has no way to prevent from the early beginning of the development and contamination of feed ingredients with fungi producing toxins. However, in cases that mycotoxin contamination prevalent to major feed ingredients (e.g. corn) supplementation of the animals with vitamins and minerals, antioxidants, plant extracts and essential oils and other performance enhancing supplement may be beneficial to lessen the adverse effect of mycotoxin to the animal. In my personal capacity I could say that the use of toxin binder is partially a successful practice. What I could recommend in the future is for the farmers and feedmillers to be wise in choosing the appropriate and effective toxin binders so that they are not just wasting resources in the process. There are references available online in the internet and published papers that explain a set of criteria or parameters that need to be considering in choosing toxin binders. This will serve as a good guide for them. Ronilo DE CASTRO Science Research Specialist Livestock Research Division, PCARRD Los Banos, Laguna, 4030 Philippines

I am Dr. (Mrs) Maïmouna Salah DICKO (230) from Mali Adoption of feed technologies: a comment which supports Dr Shirley TARAWALY (message 78). Through the contributions of this e- conference I have noted that in general, smallholders of developing countries (be they from India, Africa or Latino America) have basically similar attitudes towards adoption of feed technologies. They are careful, for their decisions regarding a given technology seem to be based on the responses at the following questions: What they earn? Are they able to go for the proposed technology? Have they under their control another appropriate way for attending the same objective?

232

It is true that cost/benefit ratio influence the adoption rate of a given technology by smallholders. However, important factors limiting adoption include risk, access to inputs in terms of availability of feedstuffs and of cash, work load, overlapping of the technology intervention with cropping activities and marketing possibility of animal products. Physical and social environments, market development, institutional policies play also a role in technology dissemination. For examples:

1. In Western Province of Zambia, in the nineties, several smallholders living along the Zambezi floodplain told me that they do not see a need to supplement their cattle because firstly they go round the shortage of fodder in the dry season by practicing transhumance, and secondly there are few marketing possibilities for the surplus of milk produced.

2. In the north of Mali where supplementary feeding is badly needed for the

survival of animals during dry season, people seldom apply supplementation because of the difficult access to feedstuffs like cotton grain and cake and molasses which are produced in the south of the country. Transport facilities in the North are already scarce and its cost, plus that of by-products, becomes so high at the point to be not concordant with the nutritive values of the feedstuffs being transported.

3. In Niger, the policy of the Madaoua cotton shelling plant, which fix at 30

tons the minimal amount of cotton grain for each sale, exclude automatically most of smallholders from buyers at this level. As a result, smallholders acquire the by-product at a prohibitive price from middlemen.

The above considerations show that a set of parameters is needed for adoption of feed technologies; more harmonious are these parameters, higher will be the adoption rate. This support Dr Shirley TARAWALY (message 78) who said “Innovation approach that encompasses farmers with service providers, input and output markets etc. and empowers all actors to be able to engage and respond may be part of the solution, which is different than addressing feed technology solutions only” Dr Maïmouna Salah DICKO Animal nutritionist Independent consultant/Farming system research and development 03 BP 20, Bamako (Mali) Tel +223 20211932 maysala@orangemali.net

233

My name is Roxana MENDOZA HUAITALLA (231) from Peru Currently, I am pursuing my PhD degree (final stage 2nd. year) at University of Hohenheim in the Institute of Agricultural Engineering in the Department of Livestock System Engineering in Germany. My comments are as following: Considering the current feeding standard for pigs in China, I have found that standards such as the «Lean Swine Feeding Standard» (direct English translation) were set in 1987. This standard applies to feed factories, pig farms and specialized households for pig diet preparation. Indeed, it classifies the amounts of minerals and nutrients that should be supplied for sows, piglets and fattening pigs diets based on the weight of the pigs. Further, considering that breeding and management practices have changed during the last 2 generations and especially in China, where the Livestock Revolution is a fact. Pig feeding standards should be revised following the new introduced pig breeds and new techniques applied in situ, especially in the intensive pig farms. In my research, I have analysed pig feed samples from farrowers, weaners and fattening pigs from a commercial pig farm in the peri-urban area of Beijing. I have found that trace elements such as Pb, Cr and Cd were within the recommended values given by the Feeding Standard; however, minerals such as Zn, Mn and Cu surpassed to almost ten times more the given thresholds. The highest values were specifically found in the weaner diets. M.Sc. Roxana Mendoza Huaitalla Institute for Agricultural Engineering Livestock System Engineering (440b) University of Hohenheim 70599 Stuttgart Tel: +49 (0)711 459 24318 Fax: +49 (0)711 459 24307 e-mail: rmendoza@uni-hohenheim.de www.uni-hohenheim.de/agrartechnik https://rtgchina.uni-hohenheim.de/

Again we are S.A. KHANUM and H.N. HUSSAIN (232) from Pakistan. We partially accept the proposed simple processing units by Reddy, to be a potential solution in case of crop residue feeding strategies in Pakistan. However, crop residues are commonly fed in combination with leguminous and other fresh cut fodders, the nutritive value of which can not be regarded low. Another constraint in such processing units lies in the reality that initial and running costs of such units can

234

not be afforded by majority of the small holders and they still need to rely on grass cuttings from other fields for feeding of their animals and other intra-farm developed skills related to feed supplementation. For a segment of farmers (progressive or advanced farmers representing about 10%) such technologies seem to be practicable. However, role of feed manufactures as a middleman can not be avoided since in prevailing conditions in Pakistan, a major portion of crop residues is being bought by these middleman and they, after adulteration with low quality feeds, sell the same to farmers on very high price to get their profit. Such factors suggest that any technology, process or product designed for common farmer must avoid chances of middlemen and therefore, should address directly the needs of the farmers in a particular area and according to seasonal availabilities versus needs of their animals. Dr. Shahnaz Adeeb Khanum Deputy Chief Scientist (DCS) Head, Animal Sciences Division Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB), Faisalabad-Pakistan Tel: +92-41-2654221-30, Fax:+92-41-2654213, Direct: +92-41-2573576 This is Datta RANGNEKAR (233) from Ahmedabad, India, again. I have been reading experiences and views on 'Technology Adoption' with interest - could not respond earlier due to touring and this being last day let me briefly express me. I found the exchange interesting particularly the views of Drs. Jayasurya from Sri Lanka; however, I wish we could look at the subject of 'Technology Adoption' differently - 'Why not Start looking from the point of Generation of Technology?' I wish the participants to consider the following:

• In case of developing countries the majority of livestock producers are Small Holders and the challenge is to improve productivity with these people who have limited resources and a complex Livelihood System.

• Is it not high time we drop the 'Good Old Approach of Transfer of Technologies that were centrally generated' and mostly generated without understanding and keeping in focus their needs/systems/resources and perceptions?

• Transferring such technologies is like "Making a Horse Shoe and Looking for a horse where it can fit". And then we either blame the Shoe or the Horse or the Person who made the shoe. Is it not high time we think of "changing the Process of Planning and Generating Research Recommendations and Technologies"?

235

• Resource poor and small holder producers and good examples of 'Managers of Resources (financial/material and human)' and their 'perceptions of Economics and Benefits' are different from conventional economics and hence we need to change our mindset while assessing the benefits. Moreover Livestock has closer link to Socio-cultural aspects' than crops and hence there is greater need to look at the total system (adopt Holistic Approach). I strongly suggest the need to consider adoption of a «Participatory and Systems Approach" while planning and implementing Technology development or development of Recommendations. Datta Rangnekar

I am again Mahesh CHANDER (234) from Indian By the end of this exciting conference, I wish to seek views of participants on Animal Nutrition practices under organic livestock production management as prescribed under the standards developed for this emerging system of production by various international and national agencies including in developing countries. The organizers of this conference deserve commendation for their well thought of theme and meticulous handling of the conference. It was an excellent opportunity to share our views with wider audience from around the world, which is often difficult in international conferences in person. Since organic is an emerging system, we should also deliberate on issues concerned with the nutrition practices prescribed under this new system, likely constraints and new opportunities for researchers. For instances, synthetic amino acids (methionin, for example) are going to be banned under organic animal production, so what are the sustainable alternatives to chemicals? The views of the participants may help build the body of knowledge for this system of production especially in context of nutrition practices. Livestock nutrition practices under organic production management of livestock Organic farming is slowly developing around the world including in developing countries as is evident from increasing production and rapidly rising export figures of organically produced agricultural products. Organic livestock production too is developing with increased interest on this system in EU & other developed countries. Looking at improved prospects of exports and improved consumer awareness in developing countries, domestic markets too attaching importance to this system of production. The standards for organic production are developed among several others by Codex Commission (www.codexalimentarius.net/ download/ standards/ 360/ cxg_032e.pdf) as also by EU, US, Canada, Australia and several countries

236

including in developing countries in Asia, Africa & Latin America. The IFOAM -a leading organization promoting organic agriculture around the world has done considerable work on development of organic agriculture standards. This system has been approved by several international organizations including FAO, UNCTAD, UNDP etc and work is going on to promote organic agriculture including in developing countries. Yet, many dismiss it as a sustainable production system. The standards for organic livestock production contain animal nutrition standards too. For instance Codex standards for animal nutrition can be seen from the weblink given above. It is important to have the opinion of various categories of stakeholders on these standards in general, any practical experiences, wherein, these standards were field tested? Is there any possibility of bringing out organic production to mainstream from market niche for a select group of consumer? Your responses would help develop wider choices to producers and consumers!

1. Chander, Mahesh and H.C. Tewari. 1997. Consumer response to organic production: A case study of emerging trends in developing countries. Proc. International Conference on Agricultural Production and Nutrition, P. 9, Tufts University, Boston, USA, March 19-21.

2. Chander, M.; Sanjay Kumar; R.S.Rathore; Reena Mukherjee; N.Kondaiah and Pandey, H.N. Organic-vis-à-vis conventional livestock production potential in India. Pp.48-49, In: Proc. International Conference on organic agriculture and food security, FAO, Rome, Italy, 3-5 May FAO, Italy.

3. Chander, M. Organic production management: Challenges for livestock feeding, In: Proc. Of Animal Nutrition Association World Conference (Animal Nutrition: Preparedness to combat challenges), New Delhi, February 14-17, pp. 112-114.

4. Subrahmanyeswari B. and Chander Mahesh.2008. Compatibility of animal husbandry practices of registered organic farmers with organic animal husbandry standards (OAHS): an assessment in Uttarakhand. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 78(3), 322-327.

5. Chander, Mahesh & Metha Wanapat.2006. Networking for Organic Livestock Production Development in Asian Countries: A suggested paradigm. In: Proc. 1st IFOAM International Conference on Animals in Organic Production, pp. 80-87, 23-25 August, St Paul, Minnesota, USA, 297p.

6. Chander Mahesh 2005.. Prospects of Organic milk and meat production in India. pp.486-92. (Eds) Rowlinson P. Wachirapakorn C, Pakdee P and Wanapat M . Integrating Livestock –Crop systems to meet the challenges of globalization, Volume 1. British Society of Animal Science, pp 510. Mahesh CHANDER

237

I am Stanley TEBUG (235) from Malawi I would like to thank the moderator and FAO for bringing up such a pertinent issue. I would like to comment on smallholder dairy farming in Africa south of the Sahara. I applaud the efforts being made to boost the dairy industry in many countries by government, NGOs and community based organisation especially in training farmers on dairy cattle nutrition. However, many adjustments still have to be made for remarkable impact to be felt. Farmers are usually taken back to the back to the benches and encouraged to change from their traditional pastoralist to zero grazing systems. Most often, consideration is given to the expected results than to the process. The consequence is poor results in term of milk yield and adoption of the technology. "These cattle eat a lot, there isn’t enough feed for my cattle especially during the dry season, seed cake/meal is not readily available, I haven’t anyone to assist me in feeding these cattle" are typical complains of smallholder dairy farmers in north of Malawi. "These animals are not producing as I was told during the training" is typical from farmers in the North West Region of Cameroon. These complain are indicative that more still need to be done especially in the feeding of dairy cattle in smallholder dairy farming systems. Moreover, dairy cattle nutrition happens to be amongst the top three priority areas for improving dairy production in Mzuzu milk shed area. Emphasis on practical demonstrations by livestock development agencies on the use of locally available feedstuff and fodder production would play a key role in achieving good results in smallholder dairy farming. Stanley Tebug Uniterra / VSF Canada, Mzuzu (Malawi)

Okhiomah A. ABU (236) from Nigeria I will like to comment on the issue of organic farming. Organic farming is really not a new concept as farming in most developing countries (especially with respect to ruminant production) is basically organic in nature. We should also bear in my mind the word "organic farming" is really deviating from the original concept. Organic farming is of low input with respect to the level of mechanization in crop production. But the heavy use of fertilizers in place of compost manure is becoming intensified. The subsidies on fertilizers for crop production are increasing. But with respect to livestock production the rearing of rural poultry and ruminants (sheep,

238

goats and cattle) is still largely organic in nature. However, commercial poultry production is almost a dumping ground for chemical inputs (in terms of drugs) that have been legislated against in some countries- especially the developed economies. Our livestock production (may be except commercially produced chickens) is still organic. The definition of concept of organic farming is a major source of debate among stakeholders. By the way, do we really think organic farming can feed the blossoming human population? I don't think so. DR. O. A. ABU DEPARTMENT OF ANIMALSCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN IBADAN, NIGERIA Mobile: +234-(0)805-800-98-72 The Moderator of the E conference from FAO, Rome, Italy Dear Colleagues, The e-conference on ‘Successes and failures with animal nutrition practices and technologies in developing countries’ is now officially closed. In our opinion it was an excellent conference, made rich by the participants' descriptions and analyses of the experiences on a wide range of animal nutrition technologies and practices. It was heartening to see over 90% of the contributions from developing countries. We hope that you found the conference informative, interesting and of value. We would like to thank all of you who contributed to making it a success. We have started preparing the Synthesis Document. During the first week of January 2011 it will be sent to all those who contributed to the conference for receiving comments. The document will be finalised by the end of January 2011 for posting at the Animal Feeding Gateway. The Background Document and all the messages will also be posted at this Gateway. We also intend to publish the main contributions in the extended form (maximum 2000 words, can have one picture, one figure or table, and < 8 references). The deadline for submission of these contributions is 31 December 2010. Those interested in submitting the contributions may please contact Harinder Makkar (Harinder.Makkar@fao.org).

239

Finally, we again thank all of you who invested time and efforts in sharing thoughts, views and experiences in this conference. With best wishes, The Moderator of the E conference Livestock Production Systems Branch Animal Production and Health Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy Acknowledgement

Livestock Production System Branch of the Animal Production and Health

Division of FAO would like to thank Dr Maïmouna Salah DICKO, Animal

nutritionist, Independent consultant/Farming system research and

development, Bamako (Mali); email: maysala@orangemali.net for compiling the

messages.