Smallholder farmers’ feed material conservation strategies in the tropical dry-lands of South-eastern Kenya

Aphaxard J N Ndathi, Moses M Nyangito*, Nashon K R Musimba** and Barnabas N Mitaru***

Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, National Range Research Centre, P.O. Box 12-90138.Makindu, Kenya.
ndathi4@yahoo.com
* Department of Land Resource Management and Agricultural Technology, University of Nairobi, Kenya.
** South Eastern University College, Kitui, Kenya.
*** Department of Animal Production, University of Nairobi, Kenya

Abstract

Availability of feed is the major constraint to livestock production in the drylands of southeastern Kenya. In an effort to address this problem, this study was carried out to identify and rank feed material conservation strategies being used by the Kamba agro-pastoralists inhabiting this region. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to household heads of households selected using agro-ecological zones and systematic sampling using the road transect method. Ranking was done using the pairwise method while data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences.

Feed conservation strategies identified being used in the study area were leaving the feed standing in the field, harvesting and placing the feed on tree branches or putting in an open wooden rack, roofed wooden rack or a granary. The granary was ranked the most effective structures followed by the tree branches, the roofed wooden racks and lastly the open wooden racks. However, a granary could only store small amounts of feed material hence the roofed wooden rack was more popular. 

Key words: Dry season, feed conservation, structures, ranking

Introduction

Livestock play important roles in pastoral households in tropical drylands. They provide food interms of milk, meat and blood, traction for cultivation and transport, cash from sale to meet recurrent needs, a symbol and store of wealth and varied roles in festivals, rituals and cementing relationships (Wurzinger et al 2008). In livestock production, feeding is the major constraint especially during the dry seasons and droughts (Lukuyu et al 2011, Njarui et al 2011, Sere et al 2008). However, tropical drylands produce adequate high quality feed material that can feed livestock throughout the year if well managed and conserved. The major cause of feed shortage south-eastern Kenya has been lack of appropriate feed harvesting, processing and conserving technologies. Feed conservation strategies currently being promoted in Kenya are inaccessible to the resource poor smallholder farmers utilizing these drylands (Mworia and Kinyamario 2008).  

Apart from feed material from natural pastures, the agro-pastoralists produce large quantities of edible crop residue that can be a major source of livestock feed especially during the dry seasons and droughts. With increasing opening of land for crop production, dependence on crop residue for livestock feeding is expected to increase because of the decrease in land available for grazing (Hassen et al 2010, Aredo et al 1998). 

However, farmers in these drylands have over the years developed and have been using a wide range of feed conservation strategies that have achieved their intended purposes to varied degrees. In southeastern Kenya drylands, a large number of farmers conserve grass hay but quantities conserved are not enough to feed the animals throughout the dry seasons and the drought periods (Njarui et al 2011). With increasing demand for feeds as demand for livestock products increase (Delgado 2005) and expected increase in drought frequency with climate change (Adger et al 2003), there is need to evaluate and improve conservation strategies being used. Farmers will benefit more if they continue to produce quality livestock products deeper into the dry seasons and drought periods because of the higher price of the products during the dry seasons compared to the wet seasons.

Evaluation and promotion of appropriate feed conservation strategies will assist farmers in storing adequate feed to bridge the feed shortage gap experienced during the dry seasons and drought periods.

The objectives of this study were to identify feed conservation strategies and structures used by farmers in south-eastern drylands of Kenya and to generate base line information for further use. 

Materials and methods

This study was done in Kibwezi District in the tropical drylands of southeastern Kenya. The district was selected because it hosts most of the agro-ecological zones characterizing drylands in southeastern Kenya. The Athi River belt is the driest (IL6 – Inner Lowland: Ranching zone) while the foot hills of the Chyullu are the wettest (LM4 – Lower Midland: Marginal cotton zone) (Jaetzold et al 2006). These two are separated by an expansive low lying middle potential land (LM5 – Lower Midland: Livestock/ Millet zone). The district is predominantly occupied by the Akamba agro-pastoralists (Musimba et al 2004, GoK 2009). The annual rainfall is low and erratic averaging between 351.8 mm and 687.4 mm while the diurnal temperatures vary between 11.0⁰C and 35.8⁰C (GoK 2009). The soils are dominated by the orthic, rhodic and xanthic ferralsols (Sombroek et al 1982). 

The listing and ranking of the feed conservation strategies was done through a questionnaire that was administered through a reconnaissance survey. The questionnaire was administered to household that were selected through a systematic sampling method along a road transect placed in each of the three major agro-ecological zones (LM4, LM5 and IL6). The respondents were asked to mention the most important cattle feed material conservation structures in the study area and rank them using the pairwise ranking method (Defoer and Budelman 2000). The reasons for the ranking were also discussed during the ranking and the reasons also ranked using the pairwise ranking method. The study team then looked for and took photographs of feed conserved using the top ranked feed material conservation structures. 

Data collected was analyzed using the frequency and descriptive tools of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 12 (SPSS 2003) and weighted using the Likert scale weighting procedures (Vagia 2006). 

Results

The feed conservation strategies and structures used for the different materials were depended on the bulkiness of the materials and the required period of storage. When the farmer had no conservation structures or the material was difficult to harvest or the farmer did not see the need to store, the farmer conserved the feed material as standing hay (Photo 1). Browse material is left on trees or shrubs for the animals to browse or collect the leaves and/or the leaflets when they fall down. Bulky feed materials such as maize stover and grass hay were conserved on tree branches (Photo 2) or on an open wooded rack (Photo 3). Less bulky material such as pods from crops and other trees such as Acacia tortilis were first put in gunny bags and then stored in a roofed wooden rack (Photo 4) or a granary (Photo 5). However, some farmers have constructed modern feed material conservation barns (Plate 6).

The farmers ranked the granary as the most preferred conservation structure (table 1) with the reasons being that the granary protects the feed materials from rainfall, pests such as ants, scotching by the sun, destruction by animals and being stolen by thieves (table 2). The tree branches and the wooden racks were valued by the farmers because there could hold more feed, protect the feed from pests such as ants and they required less money to prepare. 

Discussion

All the conservation strategies listed by the farmers have their advantages and disadvantages. Standing hay in the field is a low cost strategy but the feed is exposed to loss of quality through lignifications as the material ages, loss of proteins and vitamins through scotching by the sun, spoilage bacteria and fungi enhanced by moisture from rainfall, destruction by pest such as ants and rats and stray livestock and wildlife. The in-situ utilization of standing hay also results in feed material wastage in the farm (Njarui et al 2011) as the animals selectively feed on the material and trample, urinate and defecate on the feed material. Feed is normally stored on tree branches when the storage period required is short. The feed on tree branches is protected from livestock and wildlife and pests such as ants and rats. However, climbing and placing the feed material on the tree branches is a difficult task. Similarly, climbing the tree and removing the feed material is not an easy task and requires expertise. The feed material is also exposure to scotching by direct sun when the tree has shed it leaves and being rained on during the rainy seasons. These two strategies may not have room for improvement as feed material conservation strategies. 

The open wooden racks are the most common structures in the farms and the homesteads and are used to store bulky feed materials for short periods. The open wooden structures protect the feed from destruction by pests, livestock and wildlife but not from direct sun and rain. Many farmers were found to be placing polythene sheets to cover the feed materials during the rainy periods. The open wooden racks are improved by roofing with either corrugated iron sheets or thatch grass. The result is the roofed wooden rack. The roofed wooden racks are used to store feed materials for a longer time. They provide protection from the rain, pests, sun, stray animals and thieves. However, the cost of construction is higher than the open wooden rack hence are usually smaller. At the top of the rank is the granary. 

The granary has the highest security because it has a door that provides security even from thieves. However, granaries can only store small quantities of feeds that are packed. This is because of the small size of the door fitted to the granary and the store area. The granary construction cost is the highest. A few farmers had adopted modern feed conservation barns that are an improvement to the roofed wooden rack. Although these barns are able to hold more and bulky materials the cost of their construction is higher than the other conservation structures. 

Ensilaging which is the most popular strategy of conserving green feed materials was not mentioned or observed during this study. This may be because the strategy has not been promoted in this area. One of the major constrain to ensiling as a conservation strategy would be labour availability. Most of the labour is devoted to crop production during the wet season. 

Conclusion

• Farmers in the dry-lands of South-eastern Kenya conserve feed using either by leaving the material standing in the field, harvesting and placing the material on tree branches or putting them in unroofed or roofed wooden racks or granaries. Although the granary was the top ranked feed conservation structure, its inability to hold a large quantity of the material was a major limitation. This made the roofed wooden rack the most preferred feed conservation structure in the study area.

Recommendations

• We recommend the efforts should be made towards the development of more appropriate feed conservation structures that can hold enough feed materials for dry seasons and drought periods and still be affordable by the resource poor farmers. In this study, the cost of construction of the structure and the cost –benefit analysis was not done hence should be evaluated before making a choice on which feed conservation strategy to use.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the European Union (EU) for funding this project through the Kenya Arid and Semi-Arid Project (KASAL) and the Director KARI. We further acknowledge academic support given by the University of Nairobi, Department of Land Resource Management and Agricultural Technology (LARMAT) and the ASARECA, Regional Universities FORUM for their technical support. We also acknowledge KARI staff members at Kiboko and the Kibwezi district Akamba community for their assistance and cooperation. 

References

Adger W N, Huq S, Brown K, Conway D and Hulme M 2003 Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Progress in development studies 3, 3(2003). Pp. 179 - 195

Aredo T A, Musimba N K R and Mbuvi, D M. 1998 The role of crop residue as a livestock feed in semi-arid Adami – Tulu District Ethiopia. The African Pastoral Forum. Working Paper Series No. 18. Nairobi, Kenya

Defoer T and Budelman A 2000 Managing soil fertility. A resource guide for Participatory Learning and Action Research (PLAR). Royal Tropical Institute. Amsterdam

Delgaldo C L 2005 Rising demand for meat and milk in developing countries: Implications for grassland – based livestock production. In: McGilloway D A (ed.) Grassland – A Global Resource. Pp 29 -39. (Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen)

Government of Kenya (GoK) 2009 Kibwezi District Development Plan 2008 -2012.Vision 2030.Towards a globally competitive and prosperous Kenya. Ministry of State Planning, National Development and Vision 2030.Government Printers, Nairobi, Kenya

Hassen A, Ebro A, Kurtu M and Treydte A C 2010 Livestock feed resources utilization and management as influenced by altitude in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 22, Article #229 Retrieved April 17, 2012, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/12/hass22229.htm

Jaetzold R, Schmidt H, Hornetz B and Shisany C 2006 Farm Management Handbook of Kenya. Vol. 2. Natural Conditions and Farm Management Information, 2^nd Edition, Part C, Eastern Kenya

Lukuyu B, Franzel S, Ongadi P M, and Duncan A J 2011 Livestock feed resources: Current production and management practices in central and northern rift valley provinces of Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 23, Article # 112 Retrieved April 17, 2012, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/5/luku23112.htm

Musimba N K R, Nyariki D M, Ikutwa C N and Teka T 2004 Dryland husbandry for sustainable development in the southern rangelands of Kenya. Organization for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa (OSSREA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Mworia J K and Kinyamario J I 2008 Traditional strategies used by pastoralists to cope with La nina induced drought in Kajiado, Kenya. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. Vol 2(1), pp. 010 - 014

Njarui D M G, Gatheru M, Wambua J M, Nguluu S N, Mwangi D M and Keya G A 2011 Feeding management for dairy cattle in smallholder farming systems of semi-arid tropical Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 23, Article #111 Retrieved April 17, 2012, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/5/njar23111.htm

Sere C, Ayantunde A, Duncan A, Freeman A, Herrero M, Tarawali S and Wright I 2008 Livestock production and poverty alleviation-challenges and opportunities in arid and semi-arid tropical rangeland based systems. In: the proceedings of multi-functional grasslands in a changing world. XXI International Grassland Congress and VII International Rangeland Congress, China. 19-29 pp.

Sombroek W G, Braun H M H and Van der Pouw B J A 1982 Exploratory soil map and Agro-Climatic Zone Map of Kenya. National Agricultural Laboratories. Kenya Soil Survey. Ministry of Agriculture. Kenya.

Statistical Procedures for Social Sciences (SPSS) 2003 SPSS (Version 12) Illinois, Chicago, USA

Vagia W M 2006 LIkert-type scale response anchors. Clemson International Institute for Tourism and Research Development, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management. Clemson University

Wurzinger M, Ndumu D, Okeyo A M and Solkner J 2008 Lifestyle and herding practices of Bahima in Uganda. African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 3(8), pp. 545 – 548.

Received 6 October 2011; Accepted 19 April 2012; Published 1 June 2012

Go to top