1. 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

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

3. Background to the project

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

5. 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)

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

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

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

9. 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)

10. 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

11. Achievements/challenges: On-farm demonstrations/trainings

12. 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

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

14. 5% urea treatment of rice straw
Spraying
Mixing
Bagging

15. Ensiling
Sun-drying
Conservation of
cassava peels
Sun-drying

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

17. 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 crude fat crude fibre nitrogen free extract (Ellis, 1980).

18. 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

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

20. 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).

21. 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

22. The Gaps

23. 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

24. What opportunities exist for outscaling and further research?

25. 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

26. Discussions?

27. 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 = 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

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

29. 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 crude fat crude fibre nitrogen free extract (Ellis, 1980).

30. 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

31. 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