utilization of crop residues by small ruminants in Northern Ghana Conservation and utilization of crop residues by small ruminants in Northern Ghana Addah, W. and Ayantunde, A. A. University for Development Studies

Outline of this presentation Background to the project Achievements/challenges Gaps Lessons learnt Opportunities for outscaling

Background to the project

Importance of crop residues to small ruminants production in Ghana Natural pasture/crop residues Weight gain Conserved crop residues Rain season Dry season

Common methods of conserving crop residues: a recap Drying Moisture is undesirable because it causes deterioration. Ensiling Moisture is a desirable trait Chemical treatment Both wet and dry forages can be conserved (e.g. NH3, urea, NaOH)

Conservation of crop residues: Groundnut and cowpea haulms Drying on the farm field: a poor farmer practice High leaf & leaching losses

Drying on a shed: a good farmer practice Minimal leaf and leaching losses (Antwi et al., 2010)

Controlled drying: better practice Excessive drying: Volatilization of nutrients Inadequate drying: Deterioration in storage

Conservation of crop residues: Cassava peels Cassava is grown everywhere in Ghana except some parts of UE and UW. Bitterness (HCN ) of the peel reduces its palatability and intake Reducing HCN concentration: Sun-drying (86%) vs ensiling (96%) (Tewe, 1992). Ruminal degradability of cassava peels (Asaolu, 1988): 70% (drying) vs 73% (ensiling)

4. Ensiling: a best practice Merits Wet crop residues can be conserved Conservation can be done at times that drying is not possible (rain season) Nutrient losses are reduced Demerits Ensiling procedure may be laborious Intake may lower than dry crop residues Cassava peels Groundnut haulm

Achievements/challenges: On-farm demonstrations/trainings

On-farm demonstrations Regions: NR, UE and UWR Communities: 3 per region Crop residues: Groundnut haulm, cassava peels and rice straw. Total: 135 farmers NR: Tibali, Tingoli, Botingli UE: Nyangua, Gia, Samboligo UW: Zanko, Guo, Passe

Ensiling groundnut/cowpea haulms Filling the silo Harvesting & chopping Filling the silo

5% urea treatment of rice straw Spraying Mixing Bagging

Ensiling Sun-drying Conservation of cassava peels Sun-drying

Achievements/challenges: On-station and On-farm experiments

Table 1: Nutrient composition (mean ± SD) of dried or ensiled groundnut haulms TMR (On-station ) Item Dried Ensiled Dry matter 830.1 ± 40.4 847.5 ± 37.3 Crude protein 88.5 ± 35.4 108.3 ± 18.4 Crude fat 70 ±0.3 80 ± 11.6 NDF 445.0 ± 86.7 470 ± 11.7 ADF 352.0 ± 113.3 225 ± 86.6 ME (MJ/kg DM)1 9.0 ± 1.99 10.1 ± 0.04 Groundnut haulm = 20% 1ME (MJ/kg DM) = 0.31crude protein + 0.12 crude fat + 0.05 crude fibre + 0.14 nitrogen free extract (Ellis, 1980).

ADG: average daily gain Table 2: DMI and growth performance of sheep fed dried or ensiled groundnut haulm diets (On-station) Item Rations Hay Silage SEM P value Initial wt. (kg/d) 15.2 14.5 0.96 0.618 Final wt. (kg/d) 17.4 16.0 0.34 0.012 Weight gain (kg/d) 2.5 1.2 ADG (g/d) 81.8 38.8 10.82 DM intake (g/d) 782.2 664.3 42.82 0.069 Feed efficiency (ADG/DMI) 0.10 0.05 0.019 0.053 ADG: average daily gain

Fermentation quality of haulms Silage Hay Plate 1. Poorly fermented silage vs hay can reduce DM intake

Table 3: Nutrient composition (mean ± SD) of dried or ensiled cassava peels TMR (On-farm ) Item Dried Ensiled Dry matter 94.4±0.85 95.0±0.61 Crude protein 10.3±0.5 12.6±0.42 Crude fat 4.2 ±0.48 7.4 ±0.55 N free extract 64.6±0.94 55.9±0.96 ME (MJ/kg DM)1 12.5 12.7 Cassava peels = 75% 1ME (MJ/kg DM; Pauzenga, 1985).

ADG: average daily gain Table 4: DMI growth performance of sheep fed dried or ensiled cassava peel diets (On-station ) Item Dried Ensiled Control SEM P value Initial wt. (kg/d) 12.6 11.9 11.3 1.06 0.637 Final wt. (kg/d) 18.0a 18.7a 16.0b 0.55 0.040 Weight gain (kg/d) 6.1a 6.9a 4.0b 0.53 0.028 DM intake (kg/d) 0.18 0.23 - 0.04 0.436 ADG (g/d) 0.09b 0.10a 0.06c 0.01 0.031 ADG: average daily gain

The Gaps

Was lower intake of silage due to poorer fermentation? Will addition of soluble sugars enhance fermentation of legume crop residues? Is controlled drying more preferable to ensiling? Effect of urea treatment on growth was not done Nutrient cycling? Is additional on-station necessary before outscaling

What opportunities exist for outscaling and further research?

Further improvements in collection and preservation methods that reduce leaf losses (controlled drying and ensiling) Collection, preservation, storage, utilization and sale of surplus residues Microbial analyses

Discussions?

Conclusion Silage fermentation characteristics Silage was poorly fermented largely because of lower concentration of WSC for fermentation (Muck, 1998; Addah et al., 2012) Hay had a higher retention of leaves and was well dried Greater feed intake (P = 0.069) and growth performance (P = 0.053 or less) for hay compared silage may be due to the poor fermentation of the haulms compared to the hay. Additional sugars could be added to haulms to improve fermentation Where the weather conditions are favourable, drying is preferable unless sugar is added before ensiling Growth performance

Fig. 1. Growth pattern of sheep fed hay- or silage diets

Table 2. Ingredient and chemical compositions of total mixed rations containing groundnut haulm conserved as hay or silage Item (g/kg DM) Hay Silage Ingredient composition   Corn chaff 450 Rice bran 150 Whole cotton seed1 200 Ensiled groundnut haulm - Dry groundnut haulm Chemical composition (mean ± SD)1 Dry matter 830.1 ± 40.4 847.5 ± 37.3 Crude protein 88.5 ± 35.4 108.3 ± 18.4 Crude fat 70 ±0.3 80 ± 11.6 Crude fibre 327.3 ± 82.3 300.9 ± 76.3 Nitrogen free extract 284 ± 93.2 306 ± 60.1 Ash 60 ± 5.8 53 ± 14.5 Neutral detergent fibre 445.0 ± 86.7 470 ± 11.7 Acid detergent fibre 352.0 ± 113.3 225 ± 86.6 ME (MJ/kg DM)2 9.0 ± 1.99 10.1 ± 0.04 Whole crop groundnut haulm was ensiled for 171 d in bag (23 x 34 x 56 m) silos whereas hay was initial field-cured for 6 d and then stored unprotected for addition 130 d 1Whole cotton seed was treated with 1% (fresh basis) saline solution 2ME (MJ/kg DM) = 0.31crude protein + 0.12 crude fat + 0.05 crude fibre + 0.14 nitrogen free extract (Ellis, 1980).

Scope of on-farm demonstrations/trainings The trainings/demonstrations covered the following areas: Benefits of ensiling vs. drying The principles/biochemistry of silage fermentation Characteristics of a good silage Management factors that affect the production of a good quality silage Urea-treatment (5%) of rice straw to meet microbial requirements of small ruminants for N

Table 2. Chemical and microbial compositions (mean ± SD) of groundnut haulm conserved as hay or silage Item (mean ± SD)   Unensiled haulm Conserved haulm Hay Ensiled DM (g/kg DM) 390.9 ± 24 937.1 ± 33.60 301.3 ± 0.1 pH 6.5 ± 0.6 6.7 ± 0.09 5.2 ± 0.08 Chemical composition (g/kg DM) WSC (mg/kg) 21.4 ± 03.6 19.1 ± 0.9 17.3 ± 1.1 Ammonia-N (g/kg of total N) 16.1 ± 0.2 70.6 ± 0.1 170.3 ± 0.2 Lactic acid ND 9.5 ± 1.3 16.5 ± 0.2 Microbial populations (Log10 CFU/g DM) Lactic acid bacteria 4.6 ± 0.6 5.8 ± 0.4 6.6 ± 0.2 Moulds 3.7 ± 1.9 6.0 ± 1.3 7.1 ± 1.0 Yeasts 4.9 ± 2.1 6.5 ± 0.8 7.2 ± 1.0 ND, below limits of quantification