Upload
ilri
View
152
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Forage needs in pig value chains: The Ugandan case
Danilo Pezo
Workshop on forage and fodder tree selection for future challenges —
Linking genebanks to forage use, Addis Ababa, 16-20 March 2015
Outline of the presentation
Supply and demand of livestock products: some projections
Pig production systems in Uganda Feeding strategies in smallholder pig farms in
Uganda How to incorporate forage crops in smallholder
pig systems in Uganda? Nutritional limitations while using forages for pig
feeding
Livestock Production to 2050: TRENDS
GLOBAL TRENDS: The Livestock Revolution
• Livestock demand and production are increasing rapidly in developing countries, and will continue to rise (with some differences for commodities)
• Global per capita consumption 2% in meat, 61% milk,
• 2000 less consumption of ASF in Africa than EC, but in 2050 this will be reversed
J. Smith, 2014
Changes in per capita consumption of pork in Africa and Southeast Asia
FAOSTAT Gateway, 2015
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
kg
/year
Per capita consumption of pork
Uganda
Southern
Eastern
Southeast Asia
% change in consumption of animal products:2000–2030
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Milk Beef Mutton Pork Poultrymeat
Eggs
China
Russia
Brazil
India
SSA
High income
843%
%
J. Smith, 2014
Projections of livestock production increases at global level: 2000–2050
In half a century, total livestock commodity production is projected to increase by 92%:
+ 106% for monogastric meat (pig and poultry) and poultry eggs
+ 88% for ruminant meat (cow, sheep, goat, camel, water buffalo)
+ 85% for milk
With large regional differencesHerrero et al. 2014
Changes in cattle and pig population in Africa
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Milio
ns
Cattle population
Eastern Africa Africa
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Millio
ns
Pig population
Eastern Africa Africa
FAOSTAT Gateway, 2015
% change in production of animal products:2000–2030
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Milk Beef Mutton Pork Poultrymeat
Eggs
China
Russia
Brazil
India
SSA
High income
%
J. Smith, 2014
Monogastric production systems in Africa are in rapid transition to industrial
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2050 2000 2050 2000 2050
smallholder
industrial
Europe Latin America Africa/Middle East
Herrero et al. 2014
Over 30% of African
monogastric
production will still be
smallholder in 2050
Trajectories of growth for the livestock sector
Strong growthIntensifying and making increasingly market oriented, often transforming smallholder systems
Fragile growthWhere remoteness, marginal land resources or agro climatic vulnerability restricts intensification
High growthwith externalitiesIntensified livestock systems with diverse challenges, including the environment and human health
J. Smith, 2014
Farm
Systems:Breeding
Growing/Fattening
Inputs and Services
Pig breeder
Vet / Animal Prod extension services
Agrovet / feed shop owners
Feed manufacturers and suppliers
Transporters of inputs
Post-farmLive-pig traders
Transporters
Slaughterers
Pork Butchers
Pork processors-large and medium
Supermarkets/ restaurants
Consumers
Actors in a typical pork value chain
Constraints in smallholder pig production systems in Sub-Saharan Africa
Feeds and feeding (Seasonality, poor quality of feeds)
Disease control measurements (parasites, viral & bacterial infections)
Genetics & breeding (Inbreeding, poor quality animals)
Husbandry and management (deficient corrals, if available)
Poor management of excreta (pollution, could lead to social conflicts)
Human and Cultural Capitals
Pezo and Waiswa, 2012
Constraints in smallholder pig production systems in Sub-Saharan Africa
Technology transfer bias (mostly focused on males, although women manage the pigs)
Limited knowledge on new options for improving productivity and profit
Poor access to information services (technology, markets)
Absence of organizational strategies to achieve economies of scale
Sector largely ignored by policy makers
Limited access to credit
Social & Financial Capitals
Pezo and Waiswa, 2012
Management Systems
Semi-intensive/Intensive**
Tethered
Scavenging
Op
po
rtu
nit
ies
for
pla
nte
d
fora
ges
**In large scale intensive (industrial) systems MAY BE NOT
Type of management, as a function of value chain domain in three districts of Uganda
Pig managementRural – rural
(n = 170)
Rural-
urban
(n = 90)
Urban-
urban
(n = 80)
Tethering 66 40 13
Housed
Housed raised
floor5 6 25
Housed not
raised floor 16 37 61
Free-range/Scavenging 17 18 1
Ouma et al, 2014
Feeding Strategies - Seasonality
Relative availability of feeds along the year in smallholder pig farms in Mukono
Ouma et al, 2014
Feeding Strategies - Diversity
Types of feeds used in different periods of the year in Kamuli
Ouma et al, 2014
Use of fodder sources in smallholder pig systems in Uganda, as a function of VC domain
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Amaranthus Banana peels Cassava leaves Elephant grass Fruit peels Other grasses Sweet potatovines
Yam leaves
RR
RU
UU
and weeds
ILRI/SPVCD, unpublished data
Use of fodder sources in smallholder pig systems in Uganda, as a function of animal category
ILRI/SPVCD, unpublished data
Labor distribution for feed collection
Pezo et al, 2014
How to incorporate forage crops in smallholder pig systems in Uganda?
Planting forages – Limited land(Rural: 1.4 – 3.3 acres; Urban: 1.4 – 1.8 acres;
most don’t have area dedicated to forages)
Forages have to be inter-cropped or as hedgerows
For what group of animals?• Breeding stock, less for growers, &
fatteners• NOT for piglets and weaners (limited
intake and fiber digestion capacity)
Which forages should we focus?
Those with at least similar quality than the crop residues commonly used. Those able to produce when crop residues are not available.
Nutritive value of crop residues used for feeding pigs
Fraction/Nutrient
Sweet potatovines*
Cassava leaves*
Cocoyam leaves*
Amaranthusspp.**
CP, % 16.5 24.9 24.4 19.9
DE, MJ kg-1
DM12.7 12.4 10.4 11.3
Ca, g/kg-1 9.5 11.9 3.3 3.2
P, g/kg-1 2.9 3.7 5.6 2.5
Methionine, % CP
1.1 1.0 ? ?
Lysine, % CP 3.6 ? ? ?
Anti-quality factor
Tannins, anti-trypsin factor
Hydrocyanicglucoside
Oxalate saponins
*Feedipedia, 2015; **ILRI/SPVCD unpublished data
Nutritive value of some legumes for feeding pigs
SpeciesCP
%
Tannins
g kg-1 DM
Lysine
g kg-1 DM
Methionine
g kg-1 DMDegradability
%
Cratyliaargentea
25.7 7.6 14.3 4.2 38.6
Leucaenadiversifolia
23.6 49.4 13.2 3.7 41.9
Clitoriaternatea
19.0 5.0 8.4 2.9 --**
Lablabpurpureus
20.3 7.8 8.5 2.6 --**
Vignaunguiculata
24.3 1.8 8.5 2.5 52.1
Heinritz et al., 2012
** Not available, but could be around 50%
Other tropical forages evaluated for pig feeding
Trichantera gigantea (Ly et al., 2001; Leterme et al., 2005)
Morus alba (Leterme et al., 2005; Chiv Phiny et al., 2003; ChivPhiny et al., 2010; Ty Chhay et al., 2010; Ly & Pok Samkol, 2014
Desmanthus virgatus (Ly & Pok Samkol, 2001)
D. velutinum, F. macrophylla, Cannavalia brasiliensis, Centrosema brasilianum, S. guyanensis (Heinritz et al., 2012)
Nutritional limitations while using forages for pigs
High fiber content, limits voluntary intake
Low energy density, along with limited gut capacity does not allow pigs to cover energy requirements
Requirement of essential amino acids by pigs
Presence of toxic or inhibitory factors
Lectins in soybean and Amaranthus cruentus
Tannins in several legumes (herbaceous and shrubs)
Saponins in B. brizantha, B. decumbens, Amaranthushypochondriacus
Phytates and oxalates in S. sphacelata, Vigna unguiculata, Lablab purpureus.
Kabirizzi & Zzewa, 2014
The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is
given to ILRI.
better lives through livestock
ilri.org
Thank you!