Katholieke Universiteit Leuven

FACULTY OF BIOSCIENCE ENGINEERING

INTERUNIVERSITY PROGRAMME (IUPFOOD) MASTER OF SCIENCE IN FOOD TECHNOLOGY Major Food Science and Technology

Academic year 2015–2016

FEED AND FEED SUPPLY CHARACTERISATION ON PERI-URBAN SMALLHOLDER DAIRY FARMS WITH IMPROVED BREEDS IN THE TIGRAY REGION, NORTHERN ETHIOPIA

by Moses Matovu

Promotor: Prof. dr. ir. Veerle Fievez

Tutor: Alemayehu Tadesse Tassew

Master's dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Food Technology COPYRIGHT

The author and promotor give permission to put this thesis to disposal for consultation and to copy parts of it for personal use. Any other use falls under the limitations of copyright, in particular the obligation to explicitly mention the source when citing parts out of this thesis.

…………………….... ………………………......

Moses Matovu Prof. dr. ir. Veerle Fievez

Author Promotor

Ghent, Belgium

August 2016.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I give the greatest honour to God for the gift of life.

Utmost appreciation goes to my promoter, Prof. ir. dr. Veerle Fievez, for the invaluable guidance and positive criticism throughout the research period. In addition, I thank Prof. ir. dr. Mark Breusers and my tutor, Mr Alemayehu Tadesse for all your efforts and insights throughout the survey period and the entire research time. I also take this opportunity to salute Ms Prisca E. W. Kang, the anthropology student at KU Leuven, with whom I spent the survey period in the Tigray region, Mr Birhane G. Gebremedhin and Emmanuel, staff at the Department of Animal, Rangeland and Wildlife Resources, University of Mekelle, and Mogose (my interpreter) for all the help and time we shared.

Ms Charlotte Melis, thank you so much for the assistance in the laboratory. I am indebted to your kindness. In addition, I express my gratitude to the staff and PhD students at the Laboratory for Animal Nutrition and Animal Product Quality (Lanupro) for all the support rendered whenever I came calling.

I give recognition to VLIR-OUS, the institution that not only funded this research study but entirely made my wish to pursue a Master’s degree possible. Thank you very much the Flemish people!

Finally, I pay tribute to the beautiful people of Hagere Selam, Agula, Mekelle and Wukro in the Tigray region, northern Ethiopia, for the hospitality and cooperation during the survey period. I have eternal memories and I would never hesitate to come back and work with you in the fight against poverty. I was inspired by your work ethic and enterprising spirit against all odds.

i

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my late father, Mr Swaib Kimera, who was pronounced dead

at 12:15 EAT, on 30th March, 2016 while I was running my last series of experiments.

May God grant you an eternally peaceful rest.

Inna Lillahi wa inna ilaihi raji'un

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... i

DEDICATION ...... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iii

LIST OF TABLES ...... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii

ABSTRACT ...... ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Background ...... 1

1.2 Objectives ...... 2

1.2.1 Overall objective ...... 2

1.2.2 Specific objectives ...... 2

1.3 Justification of the study ...... 2

1.4 Thesis outline ...... 3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 4

2.1 Urban and peri-urban dairy farming systems ...... 4

2.2 Milk production, processing and marketing in (peri-)urban Ethiopia ...... 5

2.3 Milk consumption and the effect of culture ...... 5

2.4 Breed improvement in (peri-)urban dairying ...... 5

2.5 Major constraints to (peri-)urban dairy farming ...... 7

2.5.1 Access to improved cattle breeds ...... 7

2.5.2 Climate ...... 8

2.5.3 Animal health ...... 9

2.5.4 Access to land...... 10

2.5.5 Feed resources and nutrition...... 10

iii

2.6 Major feeds utilised by (peri-)urban dairy farmers in the Tigray region...... 12

2.6.1 Crop residues (Roughages) ...... 12

2.6.2 Agro-industrial by-products (AIBP) ...... 13

2.6.3 Non-conventional feedstuffs ...... 13

2.7 Nutritional value of the common feedstuffs ...... 14

2.8 Cost of feeds and technology related to harvesting, transport and storage ...... 14

2.9 Use of improved forage crops ...... 15

2.10 Water resources for the urban and peri-urban dairy farms ...... 17

2.11 Nutrient requirements for optimum dairy productivity ...... 18

2.11.1 Energy requirements ...... 18

2.11.2 Crude protein requirements ...... 19

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 22

3.1 Research setting...... 22

3.2 The survey sites ...... 22

3.3 Data collection...... 22

3.4 Collection of feed samples ...... 23

3.5 Proximate analysis of feed samples...... 23

3.6 Balancing feed rations ...... 24

3.7 Degradability and digestibility of the protein sources ...... 25

3.7.1 Rumen degradability ...... 25

3.7.2 Digestibility of rumen by-pass protein ...... 26

3.7.3 Fermentable carbohydrates: Volatile fatty acids (VFA) analysis ...... 26

3.8 Analysis of results ...... 27

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS...... 28

4.1 Farm characteristics...... 28

4.1.1 Household characteristics ...... 28

4.1.2 Landholding ...... 28

iv

4.1.3 Livestock holding ...... 28

4.2 The Tigray feed basket ...... 29

4.3 Feed supply routes ...... 30

4.4 Variation of feed prices ...... 31

4.5 Proximate composition of the feeds ...... 31

4.6 Classification of diets for lactating cows ...... 33

4.7 Ration optimisation ...... 33

4.8 Detailed characterisation of protein sources ...... 35

4.8.1 Fermentable carbohydrates (FCH) ...... 35

4.8.2 Rumen degradable crude protein (RDCP) ...... 36

4.8.3 Intestinally digestible crude protein ...... 37

4.9 Constraints to peri-urban dairying in the Tigray region ...... 38

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ...... 39

5.1 Farm(land) and dairying characteristics ...... 39

5.2 Feeds, feed supply and price variations...... 39

5.3 Proximate composition ...... 40

5.4 Ration optimisation: improving milk yield ...... 41

5.5 Rumen degradability and small intestine digestibility of feeds ...... 41

5.6 Limitations of the study ...... 43

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS ...... 44

RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 45

REFERENCES ...... 46

APPENDIX ...... 55

Appendix 1: The survey questionnaire ...... 55

Appendix 2: Measured concentrations of volatile fatty acids produced by the feed samples after different durations of in vitro rumen incubation ...... 73

v

Appendix 3: Proportion of fermentable carbohydrates relative to the total dry matter for the different feed samples over 72 hours in vitro rumen incubation...... 74

Appendix 4: Crude protein content of the feed samples following different intervals of rumen incubation and (abomasum) small intestine digestion of rumen by-pass protein...... 74

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Average (± SE) landholdings in residence and farming areas for urban and peri-urban dairy farmers in northern Ethiopia (Gebrekidan, et al., 2012)...... 10

Table 2.2. An overview of the different feeds utilised by dairy farms in the Tigray region ...... 12

Table 2.3. Nutritive value of the various feedstuffs utilised by smallholder dairy farmers in the Tigray region...... 14

Table 2.4. Challenges to the adoption and utilisation of improved forage crops as dairy cattle feeds in the Tigray region ...... 17

Table 2.5. Crude protein requirements for cows at different stages of lactation ...... 20

Table 4.1. The mean (± SD) landholding characteristics of the peri-urban dairy farms in the survey areas...... 28

Table 4.2. Number of farms and the routes through which they obtain the most common feeds ...... 30

Table 4.3. Average prices of the major feeds in both survey sites during July and August, 2015 ...... 31

Table 4.4. Proximal composition of the collected feed samples (% on DM basis, unless stated otherwise) ...... 32

Table 4.5. Ration composition for lactating cows in the survey region ...... 33

Table 4.6. Potential milk production based on estimated dietary metabolisable energy and crude protein supply from the measured/reported rations...... 34

Table 4.7. Potential milk yield and the corresponding ration composition for the metabolisable energy–protein balanced rations ...... 34

Table 4.8. Potential rise in milk yield and profit from the optimised group 1 ration ...... 35

Table 4.9. Challenges facing peri-urban smallholder dairy farmers in the Tigray region ...... 38

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1. The different types of feeds reported to be a source of nourishment for dairy animals in peri-urban farms in Agula and Hagere Selam...... 29

Figure 4.2. Proportion of fermentable carbohydrates relative to the total amount of incubated dry matter at different incubation times. The error bars represent the average standard deviation at the different incubation times for each feedstuff ...... 36

Figure 4.3. Rumen degradable crude protein of the different feeds over 72 hours ...... 37

Figure 4.4. Percentage of rumen by-pass protein that is digestible in the small intestine for the different feeds as assessed from consecutive in vitro simulations of abomasum (2h) and small intestine (2h) .. 37

viii

ABSTRACT

The study was conducted to characterise the major feedstuffs and to formulate a balanced ration in terms of dietary crude protein (CP) and metabolisable energy (ME) supply to crossbred dairy cows kept by smallholder peri-urban farmers in the Tigray region districts of Agula and Hagere Selam, northern Ethiopia. This involved a survey on 60 smallholder dairy farms (30 from each district), owning 1–5 lactating cows, collecting data about feed supply and feeding practices. Measurements were made to quantify the different feedstuffs in the daily cow rations and samples of the major feeds collected for Weende, Van Soest, in vitro rumen degradability and intestinal digestibility analyses. From the determined proximal compositions, the dietary ME and CP contents were assessed.

The measured or reported daily lactating cow rations were grouped into five categories based on the inclusion rates for wheat and barley straw (WBS), noug seed cake (NSC) and atella (a local brewery by- product). Diets in group 1 (26% of the farms) were characterised by the highest WBS proportions and a deficiency in CP supply due to relatively low amounts of atella (9% of the dry matter (DM) intake) and absence of NSC in the diet, although the latter was found to be an excellent CP–ME imbalance corrector. Inclusion of 1.6 kg NSC in the group 1 diet was calculated to balance the ration’s ME and CP supply, resulting in a theoretical increase in the daily milk yield from 7 to 15 litres, doubling profit and lowering the cost of feed per litre of milk from €0.21 to €0.13.

Diets of groups 2, 3 and 4 (56% of the farms) contained between 13% and 17.5% of NSC in combination with atella (9% to 22% of the dietary DM) as the main CP suppliers. The group 5 (18% of the farms) ration, containing 49.8% WBS, 21.8% WB, 17.5% NSC and 10.8% atella was found to be relatively CP and ME balanced, while diets in the previous three groups theoretically oversupplied CP. This oversupply was due to the inclusion of NSC and atella in high proportions. Balancing the dietary ME and CP supply in the diets of groups 2, 3 and 4 was best achieved by lowering their NSC contents and this led to a theoretical decline in the potential milk yield.

Atella CP was found to be of lower nutritional quality as compared to the other protein suppliers. Twenty-six to thirty-three percent of atella CP was rumen degradable when compared to 91% and 87% for NSC and WB CP, respectively. In addition, 74% to 81% of atella rumen by-pass protein was found to be intestinally digestible in comparison to 94% and 92% for NSC and WB rumen by-pass protein, respectively.

Key words: Crude protein, metabolisable energy, milk yield, noug seed cake, wheat and barley straw, atella, wheat bran, smallholder dairying, crossbred cows, urban, peri-urban, Tigray, Ethiopia.

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADF Acid detergent fibre ADL Acid detergent lignin AGP-LMD Agricultural Growth Project–Livestock Market Development AI Artificial insemination AIBP Agro-industrial by-products CP Crude protein CSC Cotton seed cake DE Digestible energy DM Dry matter DMI Dry matter intake EE Ether extract ETB Ethiopian Birr FCH Fermentable carbohydrates HF Holstein Friesian ME Metabolisable energy NAIC National Artificial Insemination Centre NDF Neutral detergent fibre NE Net energy NEg Net energy growth

NEL Net energy lactation

NEm Net energy metabolism NFTA National Forage Testing Association NGOs Non-government Organisations NSC Noug seed cake RDCP Rumen degradable crude protein SE Standard error UDP Undegraded dietary protein VFA Volatile fatty acids WB Wheat bran WBS Wheat and barley straw

x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Ethiopia is endowed with a large livestock population, relatively favourable climate suitable for improved, high yielding dairy cattle breeds, and regions with less animal disease-stress. It is therefore a country with substantial potential for dairy development and the dairy sector offers a pathway out of poverty for a large number of households (Yilma et al., 2011). According to Land O’ Lakes (2010), the country’s dairy production sector can be categorised into four major production systems: (1) pastoral and agro-pastoral, located on non-arable rain fed lands with local breed animals primarily reliant on natural pasture and seasonal movement of stock to follow water and pasture resources; (2) rural dairy smallholder, a mixed farming system where the cattle are used for milk production and animal traction. Mostly local breed cows are kept, with the livestock grazing on communal pastures, sometimes supplemented with on-farm grown or purchased fodder; (3) urban and peri-urban dairying, where farmers keep crossbred animals with 50%–62.5% improved genetics under confined systems with feed provided directly to the animals; and (4) commercial dairy production, comprising well established private or government farms where the majority of the country’s pure breed stock is kept.

Urban and peri-urban dairying is an important sub-sector of the Ethiopian agricultural production system involving production, processing and marketing of milk and milk products that are mainly channelled to towns and cities for sale. It is an emerging business, characterised by market-oriented dairying and playing the important role of meeting the increasing demand for milk and milk products (Gebreegziabher and Tadesse, 2014). In addition, this form of dairying supports the lives of urban and peri-urban dwellers through provision of a source of subsistence in terms of meat and milk for household nutrition, income, and generation of employment opportunities (Ayenew, 2008). It has evolved as a consequence of a fast rising population, increasing urbanisation, rising per capita income and increasing cost of imported milk and milk products (Aysheshim et al., 2015). Because of their location, urban and peri-urban dairy farmers have limited access to land which restricts the scale of their operations and availability of pastureland. As a result, they are mainly small to medium size enterprises, heavily relying on feed purchase for nourishing their animals.

Efforts towards the development of the country’s dairy sector have been unsatisfactory thus far, with several economic, ecological, technological, institutional and policy challenges cited to be limiting factors. Because of the low levels of milk production, Ethiopia’s per capita milk consumption is reported to be a measly 20 kg, which is half the African average (40 kg) and 180 kg less than the recommended intake by the World Health Organisation. The low per capita milk consumption is as well attributed to

1 the fasting practice by Orthodox Christians who refrain from consumption of animal derived products for almost two-thirds of the year (AGP-LMD, 2013).

Animal nutrition is one the most important factors determining the productive and reproductive performance of dairy cattle (Tesfay et al., 2016). This therefore calls for continuous and adequate supply of the required nutrients to the animals as no improvement in production is possible without adequate understanding and subsequent improvement in feed quantity and quality. To achieve this, proper ration formulation is important not only to produce high quality and quantity of products, but also to ensure efficient use of the available resources.

1.2 Objectives

1.2.1 Overall objective

The overall objective of this research was to characterise the major feed resources available to smallholder peri-urban dairy farmers in the districts of Hagere Selam and Agula, in the Tigray region, northern Ethiopia, followed by formulation of an optimal ration from the identified feeds to improve the milk yield.

1.2.2 Specific objectives

1. To identify the major feeds utilised by peri-urban dairy farmers in Agula and Hagere Selam. 2. To characterise the major feeds in terms of their proximal composition. 3. To evaluate the milk production based on the metabolisable energy and crude protein supply from the measured or reported rations. 4. To formulate a diet that ensures a balance between the crude protein and metabolisable energy supply with potential to raise the level of milk production.

1.3 Justification of the study

In the Tigray region, the dairy sector is a major engine of farm development for smallholders in urban and peri-urban areas. It is a source of income, employment, food as well as better nutrition with milk and milk products being excellent sources of dietary protein. However, the sector has not developed to its potential with inadequate quantitative and qualitative feed supply cited as one of the major curtailing factors. Yet, government and non-government development organisations already started introducing crossbred animals, which most likely is stimulating important changes in the applied technologies of small-scale dairy farming.

However, according to Gebrekidane et al. (2014), there are limited studies on peri-urban dairy production in Ethiopia with the bulk of the few studies thus far concentrated in and around Addis Ababa,

2 the country’s capital city. In the Tigray region, most efforts are directed towards rural agricultural activities (Tesfay, 2014). As a result, urban and peri-urban dairying is not well assimilated into the country’s research agenda and the overall agricultural development program.

With the current high rates of urbanisation, (peri-)urban dairying is becoming an important agricultural activity around urban and peri-urban centres, and it is therefore paramount to develop relevant strategies and area specific interventions that will ensure efficient development of this dairy production system. With feed being the single most important factor determining the productivity and marketability of livestock products, designing efficient and cost effective feeding strategies will ensure rise in productivity and improvement in the farmers’ way of life.

1.4 Thesis outline

The thesis is divided into 6 chapters. Chapter 1 is the introduction, giving a brief overview of the Ethiopian dairy sector, the objectives, and the rationale of the study. Chapter 2 is a review of literature with respect to urban and peri-urban dairying in Ethiopia, with emphasis on the Tigray region while chapter 3 elaborates the methods and materials utilised during the field survey, laboratory analysis of feed samples and analysis of data. Chapters 4 presents the results of the study and it is followed by chapter 5 comprising the discussion of results and the limitations of the study. The last chapter, 6, comprises the conclusions of the study, recommendations for further research and possible interventions to improve feeding practices of the (peri-)urban dairying system. These are followed by a reference list for all the cited materials and an appendix.

3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Urban and peri-urban dairy farming systems

In Ethiopia, and many other parts of the tropics and sub-tropics, urban and peri-urban dairying systems constitute an important subsector in agricultural production (Tegegne et al., 2000). The urban dairy production system ranges from smallholder to highly specialised state or business owned farms, mainly concentrated in the cities and major towns of the country while the peri-urban milk production system is developed in areas where the population density is high and agricultural land is shrinking due to urbanisation around big cities and regional towns (Ayenew, 2008; Tegegne et al., 2000). The fast growing urbanisation has accelerated demand for food in general and protein in particular, thus propelling the emergence of these market-oriented dairy production systems. Furthermore, increasing income strata among urban people, a depressed economic situation resulting in limited ability to import dairy products and dwindling food aid have contributed to this development (Aysheshim et al., 2015; Ayenew, 2008).

The primary objective of urban and peri-urban dairy farmers is to get additional cash income from milk sales to the household through production, processing and marketing of milk and milk products to consumers in urban centres (Azage et al., 2000, cited by Desta, 2002). This dairying system therefore plays a vital role in the lives of the urban and peri-urban poor by providing a source of subsistence through household nutrition (milk and meat), supplementary income and generating employment opportunity (Ayenew, 2008). With the (peri-) urban dairy sector reported to own the largest portion of Ethiopia’s improved dairy stock (Tegegne et al., 2000), it is safe to say that it is a potential engine for the country’s economic growth. In addition, Ahmed et al. (2003), reiterated that the benefits of crossbred cows go far beyond household consumption as they enable farmers to obtain cash income from the sale of milk, milk products and heifers. This increases their ability to buy fertilisers and improve their living standards by building decent houses and sending their children to school. Haile (2009) reported that the Ethiopian (peri-)urban dairy system creates 14,760 full-time jobs per year.

In a study about peri-urban livestock systems in sub-Saharan African, Smith and Olakolu (1998) reported that these production units have herd sizes of up to 10 cows, kept under an intensive zero- grazing regime. The authors described these systems of dairying as backyard systems because of their insufficient landholdings, with all operations carried out with in the homestead compounds measuring 275 m² and 39 m² for large and small operators, respectively.

4

2.2 Milk production, processing and marketing in (peri-)urban Ethiopia

Milk and milk products are marketed through formal and organised cooperatives, as well as informal channels to traders and individual consumers in the urban and peri-urban areas of Ethiopia (Land O’ Lakes, 2010). Some producers convert surplus milk to ayib (cottage cheese), kibe (butter) and/or ergo (fermented milk/sour milk) which are consumed in the household or sold to their neighbours (AGP- LMD, 2013). In some regions, the smallholder dairy farmers are organised into farmer groups and cooperatives which help market their milk and milk products, and lower their operating costs. Dairy cooperatives can reduce a farmer’s transaction costs by 45% (Land O’Lakes, 2010, cited in AGP-LMD, 2013). Holloway et al. (2000) showed that farmer associations and cooperatives can be of special importance to dairy smallholders enabling them to participate in the agro-industrial sector and even the regional export market.

2.3 Milk consumption and the effect of culture

The majority of (peri-)urban dairy farmers produce milk for sale (Ketema and Tsehay, 1995). But, some is reserved for the calves (as available) and home consumption (Ngigi et al., 2005). According to Ahmed et al. (2003), the consumption of milk and milk products in Ethiopia varies geographically between the highlands and the lowlands, and the level of urbanisation. In the lowlands, all segments of the population consume dairy products while in the highlands, the major consumers are children and some vulnerable groups of women. In addition, the AGP-LMD (2013) reported that Ethiopian families are very conscious of the nutritional importance of milk, particularly for children.

Wildman and Briggs (2012), reported that 95% of the population of the Tigray region, estimated at more than 4.8 million, are Orthodox Christians. According to their belief, the faithful must abstain from eating animal derived products to attain forgiveness of sins committed during the year, and undergo a rigorous schedule of prayers and atonement (Teklehaimanot, 2005, cited by Seleshe et al., 2014). During the fasting period, spanning an average 250 days a year (Belwal and Tafesse, 2009), milk prices decline as a consequence of limited market for milk and milk products. As a coping mechanism, some farmers convert the raw milk into longer shelf life products such as butter, ghee, fermented milk and cottage cheese which are sold in the seasons of greater demand (Ayenew et al., 2009).

2.4 Breed improvement in (peri-)urban dairying

(Peri-)urban dairy systems own most of Ethiopia’s improved dairy stock (Tegegne et al., 2000). Crossbred animals ranging from F1 (50%) up to animals with a higher exotic breed blood level (mainly Holstein Friesian [HF]) are kept in small to mid-sized farms (Ayenew, 2008). Other exotic breeds utilised for breed improvement as reported by Desta (2002) are Jersey and Simmental sires. The AGP-

5

LMD (2013) stated that, “by virtue of their production and adaptation, HF and Jersey have been the most accepted improved breeds.” According to Yitaye (2008), the crossbred cows perform better than local breed cows when evaluated based on the economically most important traits such as daily and lactation milk yield, age at first calving and calving interval, but the overall productive and reproductive performance of the former is still below their genetic potential.

An efficient, systematic and operational breeding strategy is necessary to bring about improvement in the dairy sector. Such a strategy needs to take into account selection within the local cows and crossbreeding local cows of good production potential with sires of known exotic dairy breeds, accompanied by a well-designed recording system. The breeding strategy should also take into consideration the agro-climatic and production system as well as socio-economic conditions of the country (Yilma et al., 2011).

Modern dairy farming in Ethiopia started in the early 1950s with the importation of exotic dairy cattle by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA). Following this idea, several government and non-government organisations have launched dairy development projects in urban and peri-urban areas of Ethiopia (Mohamed et al., 2003, cited by Ayenew, 2008). Furthermore, breed improvement has been achieved through the use of selected breeding bulls by distributing 75% crossbred bulls along with crossbred heifers and artificial insemination (AI). Ahmed et al. (2003) observed that all regions of the country except Tigray, Somali and Gambela appear to have benefited from the distribution of crossbred heifers. This is supported by the AGP-LMD (2013) where it is stated that, “there is no crossbred heifer/cattle supplier in the Tigray region.”

Tegegne et al. (2013) reported that access to AI services is increasingly expanding in the highland areas to alleviate the above challenge, though the efficiency and effectiveness is not satisfactory. According to Ahmed et al. (2003), only one government institution, the National Artificial Insemination Centre (NAIC) provides AI services in the entire country and its service is available in urban, peri-urban and rural areas. Private provision of genetic material and AI service is a recent development with 6 private AI service providers throughout Ethiopia (Land O’ Lakes, 2010). The Addis Livestock Production and Productivity Improvement Services (ALPPIS) is the major private supplier of genetic material, its operations extending to most (peri-)urban milk sheds of the country. The other 5 private AI service providers are located in various smaller cities, providing services to dairy producers on an on-call basis.

On the contrary, the AGP-LMD (2013) reported that there are no private AI providers in the Tigray region thus leaving the (peri-)urban dairy farmers solely relying on the NAIC for breeding services. According to Ashebir et al. (2016), AI services in the Tigray region started 19 years ago in the region’s

6 capital, Mekelle, with the establishment of a NAIC sub centre for semen storage and liquid nitrogen production. The sub centre has two liquid nitrogen producing plants each with a production capacity of 10 litres per hour. Presently, the region has 52 breeding units in 33 woredas, employing 70 AI technicians and the breeds used are pure HF, Jersey, Begait-HF cross (50%) and pure Begait (Ashebir et al., 2016). Liquid nitrogen, semen and other consumables are distributed to these breeding units monthly from the sub centre but the delivery system has been reported to be ineffective. The NAIC estimates that 50% of the bull semen produced never gets to the cows as a result of distribution problems to the regional centres and from the regional centres to the technicians at the woredas (AGP-LMD, 2013).

2.5 Major constraints to (peri-)urban dairy farming

Ethiopia’s dairy sector has been influenced and shaped by distinct policies and regulatory environments such as the land tenure system, the macroeconomic and orientation of development endeavours (Yilma et al., 2011). The overall objective of the various policies and regulations of these successive periods that correspond to three successive political regimes have been to improve commercial dairy production in dairy potential areas of the country, through the introduction of exotic and crossbred dairy cattle, AI technology, feed and husbandry technologies and development of the milk processing industry (SNV, 2008, cited by Yilma et al., 2011). Nonetheless, several challenges have been identified as the major constraints for the future development of the Ethiopian dairy sector.

2.5.1 Access to improved cattle breeds

The productivity of dairy cattle breeds depends mainly on their reproductive performance and efficiency of service per conception (Dinka, 2012). Among reproductive performance traits, age at first service, number of service per conception, calving interval, age at first calving, days open, first service per conception, gestation length, calving rate, non-returning and returning rate of service are the bases of profitable production for dairy farm (Mukasa-Mugerwa, 1989, cited by Dinka, 2012).

Haile (2009) reported that milking cows in the traditional sector, which is largely based on low producing local breeds, have an average lactation length of 190 days and an average milk yield of 2 litres per day (excluding what the calf has suckled); approximately 380 litres/lactation, whereas the crossbred cows in the (peri-)urban system are capable of producing 1,120 to 2,000 litres over a 209 days’ lactation period.

Milk production in Tigray is largely dominated by smallholders, the majority of whom keep 3–20 local breed milking cows of the Begait and Arado breeds. Average milk yield per day per cow is 8 and 5 litres from Begait and Arado breeds, respectively (AGP-LMD, 2013). Only a few smallholder dairy producers

7 have 2–3 crossbred dairy cattle, yielding an average of 13 litres per day. Crossbreeding combines the high milk yielding potential of exotic breeds with the adaptability of the local breeds (Chebo and Alemayehu, 2012).

While the value in terms of productivity of improved breeds is well recognised, producers complain that they only have limited access to such animals, or to AI services. Land O’ Lakes (2010) suggested that the small number of improved breed dairy cattle indicates the low level of adoption or access to modern technologies like AI and improved breed bull services. Lemma et al. (2008) observed that the availability and accessibility of AI services has substantially improved due to the establishment of regional facilities for sourcing liquid nitrogen and semen, and the increasing training and deployment in the number of AI technicians. They however added that there is a concern with regard to the effectiveness and efficiency of AI service provision due to technical and logistical reasons, leading to most dairy producers expressing preference of improved heifers to AI. As cited by Chebo and Alemayehu (2012), Ababu et al. (2006) believed that breed improvement through AI is weak and declining as a result of the lack of a clear breeding policy and inconsistent service in the smallholder livestock production systems. IBC (2004) cited by Chebo and Alemayehu (2012) elucidated that with lack of a clear breeding policy, crossbreeding is bound to cause genetic erosion resulting in loss of adaptation and loss of the unique genetic identities inherent of both indigenous and exotic animal genetic resources.

Comparing milk production and reproductive performance of crossbred cows at Holetta Agricultural Research Centre, Effa et al. (2011) observed a continuous decline in milk production traits over time accompanied by substantial improvements in reproduction traits with progressive breeding programmes. This was attributed to: a general lack of an efficient selection program, absence of periodic monitoring of the genetic progress attained and use of sires with low breeding value.

2.5.2 Climate

Milk production can be affected by the seasonal distribution of rainfall and the resulting seasonal production of forage. In the Tigray region, rainfall is characterised by a distinct bimodal pattern with less marked Belg rains in April-May and the Krempt rains (main wet season) between July and September (Conway, 2000). The rest of the year is characterised by dry spells with elevated temperatures and in addition, Wildman and Briggs (2012) reported that the Tigray region is prone to total rainfall failures. Milk production in the dry season is approximately 45%–50% of that in the wet season (AGP- LMD, 2013).

8

Gebremedhin et al. (2007) indicated that during the dry periods, there are forced animal sales due to shortage of feed and water. The excessive exposure of the animals to high temperatures in the dry seasons negatively impacts their health and performance. This is because as ambient temperature approaches body temperature, sensible routes of heat loss (through respiration) are compromised which leaves only evaporative heat loss as the major route of heat dissipation. According to WSU (2008), the effects of excessive heat exposure on animals include:  Increases in: respiration rate, rectal temperature, water intake and sweating.  Decreases in: the rate of feed passage, dry matter intake (DMI), blood flow to internal organs, milk production and reproductive performance.

Droughts are a major hazard affecting crop and livestock production in most parts of the Tigray region and over the years, they have led to vast losses of crop yield and livestock. Moreover, the serious degradation of natural resources as a result of the increasing human and livestock population pressure has weakened the capacity to cope with this natural catastrophe (Asheber, 2010).

2.5.3 Animal health

Livestock diseases and parasites are widespread throughout Ethiopia. They cause direct economic losses through mortality, morbidity and diminished reproductive performance. Although veterinary service is provided by the government extension, the majority of farms in (peri-)urban areas get the service privately on a regular basis or over the phone on an as-needed basis (AGP-LMD, 2013). However, regular vaccination is mostly obtained from government extension and in some areas, community animal health workers (CAHWs) support the veterinary service. The animal health services delivery system is considered to be inadequate and is widely criticised by livestock owners, especially dairy producers (AGP-LMD, 2013). Lemma et al. (2008) inferred that animal health coverage is generally low in all regions of Ethiopia though some improvements have been achieved as a result of training and deployment of many CAHWs and para veterinary workers and, the increasing role of private veterinary drug vendors in supplying drugs, animal health diagnosis and treatment.

In the Tigray region, the woreda veterinary departments provide vaccination services for most common diseases with preventive vaccination every year for contagious diseases such as anthrax, black leg and Foot and Mouth Disease coupled with periodic spraying for external parasite protection. However, service availability does not meet the demand (AGP-LMD, 2013). Gebrekrustos et al. (2012) found that there was a high prevalence of mastitis in the Mekelle smallholder dairying shed, a disease linked to great loss of productivity, quality and quantity of milk, and animals due to culling. This high prevalence

9 was majorly linked to unhygienic dairy production environments with risk factors such as age, breed, stage of lactation, udder lesion, and physiological status of cows.

Ketosis is another dairy cattle health challenge for smallholders in the Tigray region (Gebrehiwot et al., 2012). It is a metabolic disorder caused by impaired metabolism of carbohydrates and volatile fatty acids that leads to excessive production of ketone bodies from depot fat in the animal’s body (Radostits et al., 2000). Impaired carbohydrate metabolism can be a result of inadequate feed intake due to high nutrient demand at stages such as late pregnancy and early lactation leading to a negative energy imbalance.

2.5.4 Access to land

Access to land is reported to be another major constraint to peri-urban dairy farming in the Tigray region with most farmers indicating that they are not able to cultivate forage due to the scarcity of land (AGP- LMD, 2013). These smallholder farmers are not able to produce and sell improved forage crops because they use the little land they can access for subsistence production of food and cash crops (Tekalign, 2014). The land policy, which according to Haile (2009) mainly focuses on crop production and gives negligible emphasis for livestock development affects (peri-)urban livestock development by depriving lands for affordable feed development. In addition, the administrative allocation of smaller landholdings to dairy farmers, incompatible to the size of stock (low level of carrying capacity) is big challenge for market oriented farms.

According to Ayenew et al. (2007), only 46% of peri-urban dairy farmers in the northern Ethiopian highlands own land. Gebrekidane et al. (2014) reported that the total land owned by individual farmers is less than a hectare. Comparing urban and peri-urban farmers, Gebrekidan et al. (2012) found that there is no difference in landholding around their residential areas across both locations, attributed to the small and similar land sizes allocated for the families. However, they observed differences in landholdings available for farming with peri-urban farmers reporting ownership of larger pieces of land compared to urban farmers (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1. Average (± SE) landholdings in residence and farming areas for urban and peri-urban dairy farmers in northern Ethiopia (Gebrekidan, et al., 2012).

Landholding (ha) Urban Peri-urban Residential area 0.21 ± 0.082 0.35 ± 0.056 Farming area 0.22 ± 0.055 1.02 ± 0.331

2.5.5 Feed resources and nutrition

Feed is the single most important factor determining the productivity and marketability of livestock products (Tesfay et al., 2016). Feeds are a source of energy, protein, minerals and vitamins, and, water;

10 the four main groups of nutrients needed by dairy animals to live, grow, produce and reproduce (AHDB Dairy, 2016). The major feed resources available in the Tigray region as summarised in Table 2.2 can be categorised as: (1) green fodder, from communal and private lands (2) crop residues (straws, green and dry maize and sorghum stovers) (3) agro-industrial by-products and (4) non-conventional feeds such as atella (AGP-LMD, 2013 and Gebremedhin et al., 2007). Tesfay et al. (2016) stated that there is a substantial level of integration between crop and livestock farming as the overall contribution of crop residues to the total livestock feeds used by smallholder farmers in the Tigray region currently exceeds 50%; with wheat straw reported as the most dominant. A large portion of feed is sourced through purchasing and the economics of the dairy operations are therefore heavily affected by increases in feed prices (AGP-LMD, 2013).

Because of land scarcity, cattle are maintained under confined systems where feed is provided directly to the animals (Land O’ Lakes, 2010); the barley and wheat straws supplied mostly as a mixture. Dairy farmers in the Tigray region prefer a higher proportion of barley straw in the mixture (Gebremedhin et al., 2009) but if supplied pure, it is mostly wheat straw, since there is usually no pure barley production. In addition, pasture-based dairying is rarely practiced because of land limitations. National and international research agencies have developed several feed production and utilisation technologies, plus strategies such the adoption of forage crops and better crop residue management to address the problems of inadequate and poor quality feeds but the adoption of these technologies in the Ethiopian highlands is still limited (Ahmed et al., 2003). Tesfay et al. (2016) attributed the slow adoption of forage development to the lack of access to sufficient land, water and forage planting materials. They also reported dismal practice of feed improvement practices such as urea treatment of crop residues and silage making due to inadequate finances and limited knowledge.

Feed, usually based on fodder and grass, are either not available in sufficient quantities due to fluctuating weather conditions or, when available, are of poor nutritional quality; the overall effects being low milk and meat yields, high mortality of young stock, longer parturition intervals and low animal weights (McIntire et al., 1992). According to Gebremedhin et al. (2007), the status of feed supply in the Ethiopia is at an alarming state where the supply shortage problem is not only limited to the shortage of own produced feed or naturally available feed such as from grazing lands, but also to the unavailability of feed supply for those who can afford to buy.

The over dependency on high fibre feeds (straws, stovers and native pasture hay), which are deficient of nutrients (nitrogen, sulphur, several minerals, phosphorus etc.), essential for microbial fermentation in the rumen is one of the major constraints to livestock productivity (Osuji et al., 1993).

11

Table 2.2. An overview of the different feeds utilised by dairy farms in the Tigray region Category of feeds Common name Scientific name Crop residues Wheat straw Triticum spp. Barley straw Hordeum vulgare L. Teff straw Eragrostis tef Millet straw Eleusine coracana subsp. Africana Faba bean Vicia faba Field peas Pisum sativum Chick peas Cicer arietinum Maize stover Zea mays Sorghum stover Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench

Agro-industrial by-products Wheat bran & middlings Triticum spp. Noug seed cake Guizotia abyssinica Cotton seed cake Gossypium spp. Sesame meal Sesamum indicum L. Molasses

Non-conventional feeds Atella Vegetable left overs Cactus Opuntia ficus indica

Grass hay

Forage crops & fodder trees Alfalfa Medicago sativa Sesbania Sesbania sesban Leucaena Leucaenia leucocephala Napier grass Pennisetum purpureum Adapted from Tesfay et al. (2016); AGP-LMD (2013) and Gebremedhin et al. (2007)

Feed supply for dairy cows is generally not adequate and is considered to be costly. Stakeholders continually describe the availability and cost of feed as persistent and core issues. In addition, the dairy sector is constrained by insufficient quantity of forage produced on the farm, insufficient inputs for commercial feeds, lack of quality feed formulation, and the absence of feed testing for analysis (AGP- LMD, 2013).

2.6 Major feeds utilised by (peri-)urban dairy farmers in the Tigray region

The major feed categories utilised by smallholder (peri-) urban dairy farms in the Tigray region are: crop residues, agro-industrial by-products and non-conventional feedstuffs.

2.6.1 Crop residues (Roughages)

Crop residues make up the bulk of the dairy cattle basal diets for smallholder (peri-)urban farmers (Tegegne et al. 2013). Generally, the crop residues market is informal, with the major crop residues

12 supplied being cereal crop residues like teff straw, barley and/or wheat straw, green maize fodder, sorghum stover and oat (Avena sativa) fodder. The availability of pulse crop residues such as faba bean, chick peas and field peas is limited (Dejene et al., 2014). The market for roughages is booming due to the continuous reduction of grazing area and the expansion of commercial farms in these (peri-)urban areas. Consequently, the supply of natural pasture hay is diminishing while crop residues are becoming increasingly important in the annual feeding cycle. Other less common grass species utilised as cattle feed include Phalaris (Phalaris aquaticum), Columbus (Sorghum almum) and Setaria (Setaria encephalata) (Tesfay et al., 2016).

2.6.2 Agro-industrial by-products (AIBP) The major feed resources belonging to this category are milling by-products (wheat bran [the coarse outer coat of wheat], wheat middlings [which may contain bran, endosperm and germ], wheat short, rice bran and screenings), edible oil processing by-products such as noug seed cake (NSC) and cottonseed cake (CSC), molasses, and spent brewery grain. The major producers of wheat by-products are flour mills, with wheat bran being the most common by-product marketed and used for livestock feeding (Dejene et.al, 2014). Around Mekelle, there are about five flour factories that supply wheat bran and wheat middlings to small scale and commercial farmers. On the other hand, there is no or limited supply of brewery by-products (Meconen, 2014).

Oil crop by-products (seed cakes) are produced mainly by edible oil processing factories with the type and importance of particular seed cakes varying from farm to farm (Dejene et.al, 2014). They can be purchased directly from processing plants or cooperatives although their use is rather limited (Gebremedhin et al., 2007). Molasses are mainly produced by the state sugar factories. They are a cheap source of soluble carbohydrates for livestock, highly palatable and are used for flavour and control of dust in ration formulations. However, because of the competing alternative use (ethanol production), increasing exportation and difficulty in their transportation due to their bulky nature, the amount of molasses used as animal feed is quite insignificant (Dejene et al., 2014).

2.6.3 Non-conventional feedstuffs Atella, vegetable left overs, cactus cladodes and the pods of cactus pear are the most important non- conventional feeds for smallholder (peri-)urban dairy farms in the Tigray region (Tesfay et al., 2016). Atella is a traditional brewery residue while the vegetable left overs include tomatoes, cabbages, salads and potato vines. Cactus cladodes and the pods of cactus pear are normally used in the dry seasons and are usually mixed with the other feeds in the ration. Prior to mixing, the spines on the cladodes are removed using fire (Tesfay et al., 2016).

13

2.7 Nutritional value of the common feedstuffs

Wheat bran is the major AIBP utilised in the Tigray region, while oilseed cakes are rather uncommon (Tesfay et al., 2016). This therefore makes the former, together with atella, the major crude protein (CP) sources for the (peri-)urban dairy farms (Table 2.3). Various ingredients are used in the tella production process with marked variation in the combination of ingredients between different producers. The ingredients include millet, sorghum, barley, wheat, teff and hops and the nutritive value of the yielded atella varies with the type and combination of ingredients used. Tadesse and Yayneshet (2011) found that there are marked variations in the dry matter (DM), CP and phosphorus contents of atella produced from different combinations of the ingredients.

Table 2.3. Nutritive value of the various feedstuffs utilised by smallholder dairy farmers in the Tigray region DM CP NDF ADF ADL IVOMD ME Type of feed % of FM Average (% DM) MJ/kg DM Wheat straw 92.2 4.4 74.4 49.6 7.0 53.6 8.4 Barley straw 91.9 3.4 73.9 48.3 6.2 53.5 8.4 Teff straw 91.7 4.2 76.4 44.7 5.4 53.2 8.1 Faba bean straw 94.4 8.8 59.2 46.8 13.2 55.6 8.2 Chickpea straw 92.8 4.4 54.9 41.1 10.3 51.8 8.0 Field pea straw 94.7 5.6 73.0 57.3 16.4 49.4 7.7 Maize stover 93.7 2.8 70.1 34.7 4.0 58.0 8.8 Sorghum stover 91.2 4.7 73.6 39.5 6.1 59.5 8.5 Wheat bran 89.3 16.8 46.4 13.7 3.3 73.4* 11.0* Noug seed cake 92.3 31.4 37.6 31.6 12.4 61.3 9.0 Cotton seed cake 92.0 41.1 38.5 20.7 6.3 70.4 10.5 Alfalfa 91.8 18.7 43.4 34.4 7.1 62.7 9.2 Napier grass 92.1 7.5 64.3 41.1 5.5 65.0 8.4 Atella 52.8 21.4 56.8 25.1 11.0 65.1 10.5 FM=Fresh matter, IVOMD=In vitro organic matter digestibility. Compiled from CGIAR (2011) * from Feedipedia (2015)

2.8 Cost of feeds and technology related to harvesting, transport and storage

The tradition of crop residue harvest is well established and the time of harvesting normally coincides with the dry season when other alternative feed resources are either not available or expensive. Crop residues are transported in a variety of ways: human backs, equines, carts, and sometimes by trucks. Loose teff, barley and wheat straws, and hay are also transported in sacks (Gebremedhin et al., 2009). However, the storage conditions are generally poor, with most farmers keeping the residues on open fields leading to rapid deterioration. Yayneshet et al. (2009) cited by Tesfay et al. (2016) estimated that as a result of poor storage of grass hay and straw, the CP content of the feeds decreases by almost 70% between September and March.

14

Following the general price upsurges in Ethiopia’s economy, roughage prices have also risen sharply in recent years (Dejene et al., 2014). Generally, prices of roughages tend to be higher during the dry and wet seasons, and lower during the harvesting season. Ayele et al. (2006) reported that annually, there is a general increase in feed prices from January to June, a period corresponding to feed shortage as a consequence of the dry season. On the other hand, they reported a decline in feed prices between August and November as a result of increased availability of feeds, especially crop residues following the harvest of the respective crops.

The variations in prices are also attributed to the alternate purposes of some feeds. For instance, the straws are used for the construction of mud houses and mattress making (Gebremedhin et al., 2009). According to Dejene et al. (2014), the prices of AIBP have also consistently risen over the years. The average NSC price increased from 54 ETB/100 kg (€2.20) in 2003/04 to 185 ETB (€7.64) in 2009/10. During the same period, the average wheat bran price increased from 52 ETB/100 kg (€2.15) to 140 ETB/100 kg (€5.80). There was a slight price decline for all AIBP in 2008/09 due to the government’s intervention in the importation of wheat grain and tax exemption on consumable products but the prices of these feeds have been rising since 2009/10, a trend associated with the overall increase in prices of agricultural products as well as the increased demand for the agro-industrial by-products, following the expansion of market oriented livestock farming in urban and peri-urban areas (Dejene et al., 2014). As a result of the continued rise in feed prices relative to the price of milk and milk products, most peri- urban dairy farmers either destock their cows or maintain the animals underfed for some period of time which has resulted in a sharp reduction in animal productivity and consequently, reduction in the lifetime productivity of these dairy cows.

In order to achieve a commercialised livestock production system, an enabling environment including strategic policy in livestock feed marketing is one of the most important aspects that should be addressed and implemented (Dejene et al., 2014). Unless there is a wider investment in the sector mainly in modern/commercialised livestock farming, the demand for compound feed will remain low. Therefore, it is important that there is a planned promotion of modern livestock farming where the existing resources, especially the feedstuffs, are utilised efficiently.

2.9 Use of improved forage crops

To alleviate the feed shortage constraints, forage development programs have been undertaken in the Tigray region since 1994 by the government, non-government organisations (NGOs) and several projects. This has been through the introduction of several improved forage species such as sesbania, alfalfa, leucaena and elephant grass (Meconen, 2014). In addition, herbaceous and woody leguminous

15 forage tree species such as common vetch (Vicia dasycarpa), cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata), green leaf desmodium (Desmodium intortum), silver leaf desmodium (Desmodium uncinatum), siratro (Macroptilium atropurpureum), lablab (Lablab purpureus), and tagassate (Chamaecytisus prolifer var palmensis) have been introduced (Tesfay et al., 2016).

In some areas, forage crops have been well established and introduced in the animal feeding system (Meconen, 2014). However, through the 20 years of this intervention, forage development attempts have not been appreciated and thus not achieved the anticipated change in the animal feed supply as evidenced by the low supply of animal products largely attributed to the low livestock production and productivity. This is in line with Sahlu et al. (2008) who described the formal forage seed system as predominantly underdeveloped due to a lack of technical and business expertise in seed production, processing and marketing. According to Tekalign (2014), smallholder farmers and livestock owners have not yet developed the culture of purchasing seeds from NGOs and regional agricultural bureaus which often distribute the seeds at subsidised prices or for free. The smallholder farmers producing forage seeds use the forage for their own livestock needs and maintain the seeds for the next cropping season rather than for sale.

Improved milk yield, growth/fattening promotion and disease tolerance are some of the reported benefits of improved forage feed utilisation (Meconen, 2014). Table 2.4 summarises the observed challenges by some researchers with the adoption and utilisation of improved forage feeds by smallholder dairy farmers in the Tigray region. The potential for the adoption of improved forage is high because of the possible opportunity for regular cash income generation from dairy sales, but forage cropping is in direct competition with current cash and subsistence cropping enterprises for land (Andualem et al., 2015).

16

Table 2.4. Challenges to the adoption and utilisation of improved forage crops as dairy cattle feeds in the Tigray region Challenge Reference i Land shortage Mengistu (2006) & Tekalign (2014) ii Drought Mengistu (2006) iii Weeds and bush encroachment iv Soil infertility v Lack of seed and planting materials vi Inadequate technical and business expertise in Sahlu et al. (2008) forage seed production, processing and marketing vii Lack of improved forage feeding strategies Meconen (2014) viii Lack of integrated knowledge on forage production & conservation ix Low quality of forages x Land degradation and decline in soil fertility xi Preference to use land for cash and subsistence Andualem et al. (2015) cropping enterprises

2.10 Water resources for the urban and peri-urban dairy farms

Animals obtain water through 3 major ways: by drinking; as water constituted in their feeds; and as metabolic water formed during oxidation of nutrients of dietary origin and catabolism of body tissue (CSIRO, 2007). Several researchers have shown that water intake is positively correlated with the level of dry matter intake but there are other factors that affect the level of water intake. These include: the environmental temperature, humidity, wind speed, diet composition, water quality in terms of sodium and sulphate levels, as well as the temperature and pH of the drinking water. Lactating cows in the tropics require 60 to 70 litres of water per day for maintenance plus an extra 4 to 5 litres for each litre of milk produced (Moran, 2005).

Generally, in Ethiopia, water is a very scarce resource for the majority of smallholder farmers (Sileshi et al., 2003). In the Tigray region, the situation is sometimes exacerbated by the unimodal rainfall pattern where most areas get rainfall for only 3 months a year (July–September), the remaining 9 months being dry as a result of failure of the March-April belg rains. Watering frequency of dairy cattle depends on access to water sources, the age structure of the herd, physiological stage of animals and the prevailing season (Tegegne et al., 2013). Limitations on water intake depress animal performance quicker and more drastically than any other nutrient deficiency as it affects feed intake, productivity and metabolism though the minimum amount required is affected by several factors, thus seldom known (Sileshi et al., 2003). In addition, milk contains approximately 87% water and therefore, when a cow does not consume sufficient amount of water, it is unable to produce a good quantity of milk (Pandey and Voskuil, 2011).

17

Aysheshim et al. (2015) reported that in both the wet and dry seasons, most urban farms use tap water while ground and river water are the main water sources for peri-urban farms.

2.11 Nutrient requirements for optimum dairy productivity

The main objective in feeding management is to increase the cows’ DMI and this should lead to higher level of milk production. To achieve this, close attention has to be paid to the nutritional composition (energy, protein, vitamins and minerals especially calcium and phosphorus), ration digestibility, rumen fill, palatability, temperature, body weight of the animal, feeding conditions, environment, ventilation, frequency of feeding, and water intake and quality (Ishler et al., 1996). Due to milk secretion, lactating cows have higher metabolic rates and nutrient requirements. These upsurges must be catered for in their diets to optimise production (Indetie, 2009, cited by Shewangizaw, 2014). Energy and protein are the primary nutrients that should be considered with respect to milk yield and composition and, the diets should ensure a good balance between the two (Lukuyu et al., 2012; ESAP, 2003).

Along with the limited quantity of feed supply and intake, imbalanced nutrition is another major factor responsible for low livestock productivity in Ethiopia (Tekalign, 2014). For smallholder peri-urban dairy farms in the Tigray region, the highly fibrous feeds, which comprise the bulk of the cow’s basal diets are deficient in nutrients and have low digestibility, resulting in low intake of digestible nutrients (Osuji et al., 1993). Utilisation of the feed resources is highly inefficient with about 85% of feed intake used to meet the animal’s maintenance requirements and only 15% utilised for production. As a result, lactating cows are unable to reach peak milk production during early lactation leading to low milk yields (Tesfay et al., 2016).

2.11.1 Energy requirements

The energy portion of feeds is the source of fuel for all body functions and it is the major nutrient required by dairy cattle as it facilitates maintenance, growth and weight gain, reproduction and milk production (Lukuyu et al., 2012). Continued negative energy balance causes decreasing milk yield, fertility problems, and incidence of metabolic diseases (Remppis et al., 2011, cited by Shewangizaw, 2014). On the other hand, excessive energy consumption leads to fattening of animals which could result in low conception rates and during the early stage of lactation, excessive energy consumption especially in the form of grain may lead to acidosis (too much acid in the rumen), increased risk of displaced abomasum, depressed feed intake and low milk fat percentage (Lukuyu et al., 2012).

The total energy content of a feedstuff is known as gross energy (GE) and it is the amount of energy released on complete combustion of the feed in excess oxygen. Not all the digested feed energy is utilised by the animal as some is lost during ingestion, digestion and metabolism of feeds, especially in

18 the excreted faeces. The difference between GE and the energy lost in faeces is known as the digestible energy (DE). DE takes into account the digestibility of the feed and gives a useful measure of the energy the animal may be able to use. The advantage of DE is that it is easy to determine though it does not take into account losses of energy in urine and combustible gases, and, during metabolism of the feed (Moehn et al., 2005).

To cater for the above disadvantage, more accurate systems of useful energy measurement are applied. These are metabolisable energy (ME) i.e. the difference between DE and the energy losses through urine and combustible gases, and net energy (NE); the difference between ME and the heat increment. Heat increment refers to the heat produced (thus the energy used) during digestion of feed, metabolism of nutrients and excretion of waste. The energy left after the deduction of the losses is the energy actually used for maintenance and production (growth, gestation, lactation). Therefore, NE is the most accurate system describing the energy that is actually used by a ruminant (Blair, 2011). However, it is much more difficult and complex to determine NE when compared to DE or ME and hence the latter are the most commonly used energy systems for ration formulation (Moehn et al., 2005).

The energy required to sustain body tissue is called maintenance energy. It is the amount energy from feed needed to keep an animal without gaining or losing weight. Animals unavoidably consume energy in order to maintain basal metabolic function, homeostasis and minimum physical activity, for instance, feed uptake and walking short distances. The amount of energy exceeding maintenance requirements is available to the animal for production purposes. NEm, NEL and NEg are defined as the net energy requirements per unit of maintenance, lactation and growth, respectively (Blair, 2011). NEL is as well defined as the energy contained in the milk produced. Since milk fat is high in energy, cows producing high fat containing milk require more energy per kilogram of milk produced (Harris, 1992).

2.11.2 Crude protein requirements Feedstuffs contain many different proteins and several types of non-protein nitrogen compounds, all together known as crude protein (CP). The functions of CP in a dairy animal’s body elaborated by Pandey and Voskuil (2011) include: making up new tissues and muscles in the body, repairing lost body tissues/healing, growth and development of the body, production and functioning of enzymes and hormones, production of milk, development of the unborn calf during pregnancy, formation of hair, horns and hooves, providing resistance against diseases and provision of energy in the case of excess protein.

Not all the CP present in a feed is utilised by an animal. Part of it appears undigested in the faeces (Pandey and Voskuil, 2011) and the excess digested CP is excreted as urinary urea (Lock and Van

19

Amburgh, 2012, cited by Shewangizaw, 2014). The CP that is digested by the animal is called the digestible CP and it is the difference between the total ingested protein and the amount of protein in faeces (Pandey and Voskuil, 2011). When the animal is fed excessive amounts of CP, extra energy, which would otherwise have been used for milk production, is used to remove this excess protein from the body (Lukuyu et al., 2012). Therefore, overfeeding with protein should be avoided to minimise the cost of production as protein rich feeds are expensive.

The amount of CP required by a cow depends on its size, growth, stage of pregnancy and milk production, with the latter having the major influence on the protein needs (Moran, 2005). Table 2.5 summarises the CP needs as a percentage of the DMI for cows at different stages of lactation. The table shows a progressive decline in CP requirements as the lactation period progresses. This is in line with the fact that peak milk yield is achieved in the early stage of lactation, followed by a progressive decline in the mid and late stages of lactation (Walstra et al., 2006).

Table 2.5. Crude protein requirements for cows at different stages of lactation Stage of lactation % CP requirements (dry matter) Early lactation 16–18 Mid lactation 14–16 Late lactation 12–14 Dry cow 10–12 Source: Jacobs and Hargreaves (2002)

CP is divided into rumen degradable crude protein (RDCP) and undegraded dietary protein (UDP). RDCP is broken down by rumen microbes to yield products such as ammonia, organic acids and amino acids whereas UDP escapes rumen degradation and flows to the abomasum, where it is hydrolysed to amino acids and later absorbed in the small intestine. Depending on the type of feed, 40%–75% of dietary CP is RDCP and it is used by the rumen microbes for their protein synthesis. The extent of breakdown also depends factors such as: the solubility of the protein, resistance to breakdown and rate of feed passage through the rumen. Generally, with sufficient energy supply, increase in dietary CP content leads to increase in RDCP (Colmenero and Broderick, 2006). The rumen microbes are later digested and absorbed by the animal to avail the microbial protein.

The rumen together with the omasum absorb the by-products of microbial fermentation. These are volatile fatty acids (VFA), mainly acetic, propionic and butyric acids that are absorbed into the blood stream through the rumen wall (Blair, 2011). The VFA collectively account for 66%–75% of the energy the animal derives from feed and the rest of the energy is derived from carbohydrates, fats and proteins that escape rumen degradation into the small intestine.

20

Microbial synthesis is only optimal when the dietary energy supply for the animal is sufficient. As DMI increases, energy concentration of the diet decreases due to the increase in feed passage rate. Increased passage rate results in low rumen degradability of the feeds and the UDP content of the diet increases (Linn, 2003). Therefore, if sufficient RDCP is not available, the rate of digestion of fibrous as well as concentrate rich diets will be reduced, leading to a reduction in feed intake, lower energy supply and reduced milk production (Reynal and Broderick, 2015). On the contrary, if RDCP exceeds microbial needs, large amounts of ammonia are produced, absorbed into the blood, converted to urea in the liver, and excreted in the urine (Colmenero and Broderick, 2006). This leads to wastage of the feed resources.

21

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Research setting

This thesis is part of an interdisciplinary research project in the Tigray region, geared towards addressing some of the key problems facing smallholder dairy farmers and exploiting the realised opportunities to promote improvement of livelihoods. The entire project aims at gaining in-depth understanding of the ecological, technological, social and economic constraints and opportunities of these smallholder dairy farming systems followed by improvement of dairy productivity. In this study, focus was on the technical characterisation of the available feed resources for market oriented peri-urban smallholder dairy farmers, particularly relying on purchased feed for the nourishment of their improved cattle breeds.

3.2 The survey sites

The survey was conducted for 8 weeks (between July and August, 2015) in the peri-urban dairying sheds of Agula and Hagere Selam, located in the Tigray region, northern Ethiopia. Agula, at an elevation of 1930 metres above sea level, is located in the district (woreda) of Kilte Awulaelo, approximately 32 km northeast of Mekelle; the capital city of the Tigray region. Hagere Selam is located approximately 50 km west of Mekelle in the Degua Tembien woreda, 2625 metres above sea level. According to McCann (1995), the areas above 2500 metres are cool highlands referred to as daga while the areas ranging between 1800 and 2400 metres are classified as midrange, locally known as wayna daga.

A total of sixty smallholder farms, 30 from each site, keeping 1–5 crossbred cows were selected for this survey. Almost all farms in Hagere Selam belonged to Hiwot Milk Cooperative, an association run by the farmers themselves for the purpose of collecting and marketing their produced milk as well as sourcing some feeds. Most farmers in Agula also belonged to one of the three cooperative societies: Daero, Selam and Abay, the cooperatives playing a role in milk collection and marketing on behalf of their members.

3.3 Data collection

Data were collected through conducting interviews at the different farms, aided by a structured questionnaire and field observations. The questionnaire comprised open and closed-ended questions that facilitated the gathering of information pertaining to household characteristics, landholding, animal feeding and breeding practices, types of feeds, their sources, cost and availability, watering practices of their dairy animals and the challenges the farmers face. Details of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1. Pocket balances were distributed to all the 60 farmers to weigh the feeds given to their animals at all feeding routines. The farmers were also supplied with recording sheets to keep record of the animals’ daily feed intake and milk yield.

22

Four weeks were spent in each site, alternations between sites occurring after every fortnight. During the first phase of farm visits, emphasis was placed on helping the farmers understand the benefits of the research, putting in place a feed weighing and record keeping mechanism as well as filling parts of the questionnaire. In addition, there was active participation in the farm activities to best understand how and why they were carried out. In the second phase, focus was placed on ensuring that the previously discussed activities such as weighing of feeds and record keeping were implemented accurately coupled with completion of the questionnaires. Visits were also paid to different feed suppliers such as retailers, tella brewers, cooperatives and merchants in local markets to gain information on the feed supply chain, the cost and level of availability of feeds.

3.4 Collection of feed samples

Feed samples for the wheat and barley straw (WBS) mixture, wheat bran (WB) and atella were collected from 4 farms in each site (a total of 8 farms), sealed in air and moisture proof plastic containers, and delivered to the Department of Animal, Rangeland and Wildlife Resources, University of Mekelle for storage. In addition, single samples of noug seed cake (NSC), cotton seed cake (CSC) and teff straw were collected from Hagere Selam. The limited sampling for NSC, CSC and teff straw was due to their lower levels of utilisation and/or availability during the survey period. Atella samples, which initially contained high levels of moisture were pre-dried in an air oven at 55 °C for 72 hours, the decrease in mass recorded and the samples sealed in moisture proof plastic bags. All the samples were later air freighted to Belgium for analysis.

3.5 Proximate analysis of feed samples

NSC, WB, WBS, CSC, atella and teff straw samples were each ground into fine particles using a Retsch Grindomix (GM200), sealed in vacuum bags and stored awaiting analysis. Proximate analysis (Weende method) was carried out to obtain the dry matter (DM), ash, crude protein (CP), crude fibre (CF) and ether extract (EE) contents of the samples. In addition, neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF) and acid detergent lignin (ADL) were analysed using the ANKOM A200 fibre analyser (ANKOM technology, Macedon, NY, USA).

The DM analyses were done following a modified NFTA 2.2.2.5 protocol (Shreve et al., 2006) with 2.5 g ± 0.1 g of each sample heated in a forced air oven at 103 °C for 3 hours. The residues of the DM analyses were pre-incinerated on a hot plate under a hood until no smoke was formed and thereafter ignited in a muffle furnace at 550 °C for 3 hours for the ash determination (AOAC, 1990). The total Nitrogen contents were obtained using the Kjeldhal method and converted to CP using the factor 6.25 (AOAC, 1990). EE contents were obtained by soxhlet extraction using diethyl ether after hydrolysis of

23 samples with hydrochloric acid (AOAC, 1990). CF was obtained after boiling subsequently with sulphuric acid and sodium hydroxide (EC, 1992). NDF was determined as the residue remaining after digesting the samples with a neutral detergent solution (NDS) without the use of α-amylase. 1 litre of NDS comprised: 30 g sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), 18.61 g ethylenediaminetetraacetic disodium salt dehydrate (Na2-EDTA.2H2O), 6.81 g sodium tetraborate (Na2B4O7.10H2O), 11.5 g disodium hydrogenphosphate dodecahydrate (Na2HPO4.12H2O) and 10 ml triethylene glycol dissolved in distilled water. ADF was determined as the residue remaining after digesting the samples with sulphuric acid and cetyl trimethylammonium bromide (CTAB), and finally, ADL was determined by treating the ADF residues with sulphuric acid according to Van Soest et al. (1991).

3.6 Balancing feed rations

The farms were classified into 5 groups depending on the percentage composition of NSC and atella in the rations of early lactating cows (≤ 120 days in milking) measured or reported by the farmers during the survey. The ration compositions were derived from measurements on some farms using pocket balances (22 farms) as well as responses to the question, “What are the major feed ingredients and their quantities given/day for a cow during early lactation?” in the questionnaire (38 farms).

The average weight of the cows was taken as 550 kg, the fat content of the produced milk assumed to be 4%, and a daily DMI of 2.5% the animal’s body weight (BW) was considered for this assessment. An efficient milking cow needs a daily DMI equivalent to at least 3% of its BW (QDAFF, 2013) but due to the highly fibrous nature of the diets in the Tigray region, the factor 2.5% BW (13.75 kg) was used. In addition, energy and protein requirements for lactating animals depend on the fat and protein contents of the milk, the former being the most important requirement for milk production while the requirements of the latter are dictated by the level of milk production (Moran, 2005).

The potential milk yields for the ration classifications were computed using the metabolisable energy (ME) contents of the individual feeds (Feedipedia, 2016), the measured DM contents, the CP contents from the Kjeldhal analysis and the ME plus CP requirements for maintenance and milk production depending on the milk fat content. According to Lee et al. (1998), a cow weighing 550 kg requires a daily supply of 54.5 MJ ME and 0.454 kg CP to meet its maintenance requirements. In addition, such a cow requires a supply of 5.3 MJ ME and 0.085 kg CP per day for every kilogram of milk with 4% fat produced.

Diets that showed protein/energy deficiency/surplus were balanced using the most appropriate of the four feedstuffs commonly used in the survey area and the corresponding potential milk yields calculated. For atella, the ME (ruminants); 8.9 MJ/kg DM for fresh malt distillers’ grains (Heuzé and Tran, 2016)

24 was used. Six farms, 1 from Hagere Selam and 5 from Agula were not categorised in the 5 groups due to the lack of inclusion of one of the major feeds in the diets of their milking cows, an inconsistent pattern of their feeding regimes such as an indiscriminately high usage of atella or the usage of teff straw as a replacer for WBS.

3.7 Degradability and digestibility of the protein sources

The feedstuffs which were identified as the major crude protein sources from the Weende analysis i.e. NSC, WB and atella were further characterised in terms of rumen degradability and small intestine digestibility using in vitro experiments.

3.7.1 Rumen degradability

Organic matter degradability was analysed for atella, NSC and WB samples following the in vitro procedure elaborated by Lima-Orozco et al. (2014). Feed samples weighing 250 mg ± 1 mg (500 mg ± 1 mg in the 12 h series) were sealed in nylon bags (Solana, Edegem, Belgium, pore size 37 μm) and incubated in a shaking incubator at 39 °C in flasks each containing 25 ml (50 ml for the 12 h series flasks) buffer/rumen fluid solution. Incubations were done over 0, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 24, 48 and 72 hours; the 0-hour incubation facilitating the determination of the soluble organic matter fraction. The buffer solution, comprising 3.58 g sodium dihydrogen phosphate dodecahydrate (Na2HPO4.12H2O), 1.55 g potassium dihydrogen phosphate monohydrate (KH2PO4.H2O), 0.124 g magnesium chloride hexahydrate (MgCl2.6H2O), 8.74 g sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3), and 1.00 g ammonium bicarbonate

(NH4HCO3) per litre of solution was saturated with CO2 overnight in a water bath at 39 °C prior to mixing with the rumen fluid.

On the morning of the incubations, rumen fluid (pH = 6.28, 25 °C) was taken from three sheep, which were fed hay ad libitum and had free access to drinking water (Gadeyne et al., 2016). It was delivered in thermos flasks, filtered through a kitchen sieve and mixed with the buffer solution in a ratio of 1:4 under a CO2 atmosphere. 25 ml and 50 ml of the mixture was added to the flasks containing 250 mg and 500 mg samples, respectively. An anaerobic environment was also created in the incubation flasks by replacing the air in the flasks with CO2. The samples were analysed in duplicates with one nylon bag incubated per flask, the incubation taking place under intermittent shaking.

At the end of each incubation period, the flasks were immersed in an ice bath to stop the activity of the rumen fluid microbes and thereafter, the nylon bags removed from the flasks, rinsed thrice with tap water (10 minutes each time) and subsequently dried in an air oven for 2 days at 50 °C. The dry residue was used to determine the DM degradation (mass difference) and CP degradation using 50 mg of the remaining sample (micro-Kjedhal; AOAC, 1990).

25

3.7.2 Digestibility of rumen by-pass protein

Another in vitro experiment was used to determine the abomasum and small intestine digestibility of the rumen undegraded protein following the protocol described by Kaitho et al. (1998), cited by Lima- Orozco et al. (2014). In this experiment, 150 mg of the dried residue from the 12-hour rumen fermentation bags were placed in new nylon bags, sealed and incubated in Erlenmeyer flasks containing 20 ml of hydrochloric acid (HCl)–pepsin solution (2 g pepsin/litre of 0.074M HCl) for 2 hours at 39 °C in a shaking incubator. Thereafter, the nylon bags were washed thrice with distilled water, added to Erlenmeyer flasks containing 20 ml pancreatin solution (2 g pancreatin/litre of phosphate buffer) and incubated in a shaking incubator for 2 hours at 39 °C. This was followed by addition of 20 ml phosphate buffer to the Erlenmeyer flasks and keeping them overnight at 39 °C in the incubator without shaking. Finally, the nylon bags were removed from the flasks, washed thrice with distilled water and dried in an air oven at 50 °C for 24 hours. The dried bags were weighed to determine the intestinally digestible organic matter (mass difference) and the residue used to determine the crude protein (micro-Kjeldahl).

1 litre of phosphate buffer (pH=7.4) comprised 2.21 g of sodium dihydrogen phosphate monohydrate

(NaH2PO4.H2O) and 30.08 g of disodium hydrogen phosphate dodecahydrate (Na2HPO4.12H2O) dissolved in distilled water.

3.7.3 Fermentable carbohydrates: Volatile fatty acids (VFA) analysis

The pH of the solutions remaining in the incubation flasks post rumen simulation was recorded and to 2 ml of each solution pipetted into a plastic centrifugation tube, 200 µl of an internal standard (ethyl butyric acid (EBA) and formic acid) was added at a concentration of 10 mg EBA/ml formic acid and the tubes with their contents centrifuged at 31,000 x g for 15 minutes (Beckman J2-HS centrifuge Palo Alto, CA, USA). After centrifugation, the supernatant was filtered through Pasteur pipettes containing glass wool into previously labelled vials. The vials were sealed and kept in a fridge at 4 °C till VFA analysis. The VFA analysis was carried out using gas chromatography as described by Gadeyne et al. (2016). Two blank samples containing only the rumen fluid-buffer solution were as well assessed to correct for any VFA not arising from the samples. Fermentable carbohydrate (FCH) was calculated from the VFA results as;

 acetate  propionate  162 FCH(mg)        butyrate X (Hassim et al., 2012); 162 being the  2   2   1000 molecular weight of a theoretical carbohydrate polymer unit (Jouany, 1991).

26

3.8 Analysis of results

Exploration of the survey data was done using Microsoft excel 2013® and the statistical analyses done using the statistical package R (R 3.3.0), at a 5% level of significance. The mean farm characteristics between the two study sites such as cow barn size and landholding were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test as the assumption of normality (Shapiro test: P<0.05) was not fulfilled by the data means, thus excluding the two sample t-test.

The mean feed prices between the two sites and months, i.e. Hagere Selam–July, Hagere Selam–August, Agula–July and Agula–August, were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test as the assumption of normality for the mean feed prices was not fulfilled using the Shapiro test (P<0.05) although the Levene's test showed that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude unequal variances (P>0.05), thus excluding one-way ANOVA. The Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test showed that there were differences between the mean feed prices between sites and months (P<0.05). Consequently, pair-wise comparisons between the means of different prices were carried out using Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

27

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

4.1 Farm characteristics

4.1.1 Household characteristics

Majority of households in the survey were male headed households (54) and all the 6 female headed households were found in Hagere Selam. The average age of household heads was 50 years and the average number of children in the households was 4. Most household heads reported to have at least obtained primary school education. Farming was reported to be the sole source of livelihood for 58 households and the household heads were responsible for feed purchases, with the rest of the farm and household chores shared between all the family members. Eleven households employed a worker to take care of the farm activities.

4.1.2 Landholding

The landholding characteristics of the dairy farmers in the two survey sites are summarised in Table 4.1. Out of the 60 farmers, 57 reported ownership of their cow barns, with the remaining 3 renting; two from the government and one from a relative. There was no significant difference in the size of the cow barns (P>0.05) between the two sites. With the exception of the government rented barns, all barns were located in close proximity with the human settlements. In Hagere Selam and Agula, 60% and 37% of the farmers (respectively) reported ownership of another piece of land. This was utilised for food crop production, sometimes mixed with forage cultivation. The farmers in Agula reported ownership of larger pieces of land compared to those in Hagere Selam (P<0.05). In addition, 73% of the farms had some space utilised as an exercising area for the animals with no significant difference in these areas between the two sites (P>0.05).

Table 4.1. The mean (± SD) landholding characteristics of the peri-urban dairy farms in the survey areas Characteristic Hagere Selam Agula P-value Cow barn size (m²) 30 ± 13 35 ± 10 0.07 Land for crop cultivation (ha) 0.5 ± 0.5 1.2 ± 0.5 0.02 Animal exercising area (m²) 29 ± 14 33 ± 12 0.19

4.1.3 Livestock holding

In both sites, the number of lactating cows owned by a single farm ranged from 1 to 3, the predominant breed being the cross between Holstein Friesian and local breeds such as Begait, Abergelle and Arado. Only 1 farm possessed hybrids of Jersey.

28

4.2 The Tigray feed basket

Various types of feeds were reported by the peri-urban smallholder farmers as a source of nourishment for the dairy animals during the different times of the year (Figure 4.1). The mixture of wheat and barley straw (WBS), wheat bran (WB), atella and grass hay were reported to be the most common feeds throughout the year but the use of the latter was not observed during the survey period. One farm in Agula never utilised atella, the farmer citing fear for the animals’ health as he deemed the sources of the feed unhygienic while WBS and WB were used on all 60 farms.

Salt OTHERS Limestone Molasses % - Hagere Selam % - Agula Urea Molasses Blocks

Alfalfa GRASS & FORAGE CROPS Elephant grass Grass hay

Cotton seed cake AGRO-INDUSTRIAL BY-PRODUCTS Noug cake Type of feedof Type Atella Wheat bran

Residues of pulses Pods of cactus pear Maize stover Teff straw CROP RESIDUES Wheat & barley straw 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of farms that reported utilising the feed

Figure 4.1. The different types of feeds reported to be a source of nourishment for dairy animals in peri- urban farms in Agula and Hagere Selam.

The pods of cactus (Opuntia ficus indica) pear were common to most farmers in the month of July but were reported to be very seasonal. Indeed, by the end of August, hardly any farm utilised these pods. Noug (Guizotia abyssinica) seed cake (NSC) and crop residues from pulses were feeds reserved for lactating cows, especially in the early stage. Although 77% and 63% of the interviewed farmers in Agula and Hagere Selam, respectively, reported supplementing NSC to their lactating cows, the observed usage of the feed during the survey was limited to only 6 farms (4 in Hagere Selam and 2 in Agula). The use of maize (Zea mays) stover, teff (Eragrostis tef) straw and urea molasses blocks was reported more in Agula than Hagere Selam. Three of the 18 farms that reported use of maize stover in Agula also reported

29 irrigation to support the growth of maize. Molasses usage was reported but not observed, the farmers citing unreliable supply as well as challenges with transportation of the feed from the rather distant sugar processing factories or dealers in Mekelle.

There was limited use of cotton (Gossypium spp.) seed cake (CSC), which in the few cases was reported as a substitute for NSC. In addition, only a few farms fed their animals on forage crops such as alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum), these either cropped on the same land used for crop farming or grown at home in the backyard.

WBS, WB and atella were the feedstuffs observed to be most utilised in the survey sites.

4.3 Feed supply routes

There were several ways through which feeds were obtained by the individual farmers. Table 4.2 shows the different routes through which the three most common feedstuffs (WBS, WB and atella) were sourced. The major supply routes for some feeds varied between the sites. For instance, in Agula, most farmers obtained WB from retailers while in Hagere Selam, the majority obtained it through a cooperative. On the other hand, atella was mainly obtained from neighbours in both sites. In addition to their neighbours, atella was also obtained from established tella brewers, who ran tella houses (tellabet), usually in regular homes, where people would converge for a drink and socialise. Some farmers also brewed their own tella for home consumption or sale, the by-product of this process (atella) utilised as animal feed.

Table 4.2. Number of farms and the routes through which they obtain the most common feeds Hagere Selam (out of 30 farms) Agula (out of 30 farms) Supply route WBS WB Atella WBS WB Atella Retailers 24 2 - 28 30 - Cooperatives - 29 - - 12 - Rural crop farmers 10 - - 19 - - On farm production 3 - 9 2 - 4 Local markets 27 3 - 18 1 - Neighbours 1 2 30 2 1 26 Tella brewers - - 10 - - 9

As discerned from the table above, sourcing feeds through multiple supply routes was a common practice for most farmers. For instance, WBS was obtained from retailers, local markets and rural crop farmers. Furthermore, some farmers with farmland would keep the crop residue for use as animal feed after harvesting their crop produce.

30

4.4 Variation of feed prices

Prices of feeds were found to be quite volatile. The average prices of the major feeds reported by farmers between July and August in the two sites are shown in Table 4.3 (on DM basis). Between the beginning of July and the end of August, the average price of WBS doubled in Agula and rose by 30% in Hagere Selam while a 20% increase in the average WB price was reported in Agula. These price trends reported by the farmers matched the market prices reported by merchants in the local markets as well as retailers of the different feeds. The average price of atella differed significantly between the two sites (P<0.05) but remained stable within each site in the two months. For NSC, there was no significant change in price in Hagere Selam between July and August (P>0.05). The average price of the feed, as reported by 20 farmers was €27 ± 3.80 (650 ± 90 ETB) per 100 kg. At that price, most farmers reported not being able to afford the feed since the prices of the basal feedstuffs especially WBS were rising.

Table 4.3. Average prices of the major feeds in both survey sites during July and August, 2015 (Euros/100 kg DM) July August Feed Hagere Selam Agula Hagere Selam Agula WBS 4.8a ± 1.00 5.3b ± 1.00 6.4b ± 1.40 11.2c ± 2.10 Atella 12.6a ± 2.70 5.5b ± 1.85 12.6a ± 2.70 5.5b ± 1.85 WB 21.8a ± 0.17 23.0b ± 0.80 21.8a± 0.60 27.1c ± 1.20 NSC 28.6a ± 4.00 31.8b ± 3.90 28.7a ± 4.00 34.4c ± 2.10 Values with different superscripts in a row differ significantly at P<0.05. 1 Euro = 24 ETB

In Agula, a significant change was reported by 16 farmers in the average NSC price between July and August (P<0.05), from €30 ± 3.70 to €33 ± 2.0 per 100 kg. Furthermore, 14 of the 23 farmers who recounted the use of the feed at other times of the year reported not to use it in August due to this rise in price.

4.5 Proximate composition of the feeds

The proximal composition of the sampled feeds is summarised in Table 4.4. NSC was found to be the richest source of CP (43%). CSC and atella from Hagere Selam contained equivalent amounts of CP (17.6%) while the atella from Agula contained less CP (14.5%), equivalent to the CP content of WB.

31

Table 4.4. Proximal composition of the collected feed samples (% on DM basis, unless stated otherwise) Hagere Selam Agula Feed category DM CP NDF ADF ADL Ash CF EE DM CP NDF ADF ADL Ash CF EE (% of FM) (% of FM) Crop residues Wheat & barley straw 92.7 2.7 79.0 56.9 8.6 9.4 46.6 1.6 93.4 2.6 75.3 52.0 7.4 9.0 42.4 1.7

Teff straw 93.2 5.8 73.1 49.6 6.8 9.4 41.6 2.0

Agro industrial Wheat bran 92.0 14.4 43.0 14.1 3.8 5.2 10.1 6.0 91.2 14.9 40.6 11.4 2.8 5.2 8.0 6.2 by-products Cotton seed 93.1 17.6 60.5 48.8 15.7 5.2 37.9 6.4 cake

Noug seed 93.7 43.0 28.5 23.0 4.6 7.3 7.8 9.4 cake

Non- Atella 18.6 17.6 39.8 20.1 7.8 3.2 10.8 12.9 16.8 14.5 41.6 18.4 6.6 2.5 10.1 9.6 conventional feeds DM – Dry matter, FM – Fresh matter, CP – Crude protein, NDF – Neutral detergent fibre, ADF – Acid detergent fibre, ADL – Acid detergent lignin, CF – Crude fibre, EE – Ether extract

32

WBS was found to contain the least amount of CP (2.6%–2.7%). Teff straw, which was not widely utilised by the farmers in the survey region, was found to contain higher concentration of CP (5.8%) as compared to WBS. The limited usage of the former was linked to its texture i.e. light, dusty straw.

4.6 Classification of diets for lactating cows

The lactation diets for cows from both sites were classified into 5 groups, depending on the NSC and atella inclusion rates in the diets of early lactating cows. Of the 54 farms in the classification, 26% did not report feeding NSC to their cows during early lactation. The remaining 74% reported feeding their early lactating cows with the feed but, in varying quantities. It was further observed that the use of NSC was more widely reported in Agula (23 farms) compared to Hagere Selam (12 farms). The NSC (and atella) inclusion rates from groups 1 to 5 were: zero (0), 16%–20%, 10%–15.9% (and less than 15% atella), 10%–15.9% (and more than 15% atella), and 5%–9.9% (Table 4.5). The bulk of the DM intake for all the rations was from WBS, ranging between 40% and 60%.

Table 4.5. Ration composition for lactating cows in the survey region GROUP (% of feed in daily ration on DM basis ± SD) Type of feed 1 (n = 12/2) 2 (n = 5/3) 3 (n = 7/4) 4 (n = 1/10) 5 (n = 4/6) WBS 60.4 ± 2.2 49.8 ± 5.3 53.5 ± 3.5 40.7 ± 3.6 50.4 ± 7.5 WB 30.8 ± 2.9 21.8 ± 2.4 24.5 ± 3.3 24.0 ± 3.2 26.7 ± 3.6 NSC 17.5 ± 2.1 13.3 ± 0.6 13.1 ± 1.2 8.2 ± 2.2 Atella 8.7 ± 1.8 10.8 ± 5.4 8.7 ± 2.0 22.2 ± 3.9 14.7 ± 5.7 n refers to the number of farms included in a group from Hagere Selam/Agula

4.7 Ration optimisation The 5 ration classes were assessed for their CP and metabolisable energy (ME) supply. The potential milk yield was calculated based on the CP and ME excess of the animals’ maintenance requirements (Table 4.6). Results in the table represent the CP and ME available for milk production together with the corresponding milk yields in the five ration classes. With the exception of group 5 whose DMI (13.8 kg) was equivalent to the assumed maximum DMI (13.75 kg DM/day; 2.5% of the cow’s body weight), the potential milk yield assessment suggests that all the other 4 rations were imbalanced in terms of CP or ME, thus restricting milk production to the most limiting nutrient supply.

Rations containing more than 60% WBS were found to be CP deficient whereas rations with high amounts of NSC (>10%) were found to be ME deficient, both situations restricting milk production to the supply of the most limiting nutrient.

33

Table 4.6. Potential milk production based on estimated dietary metabolisable energy and crude protein supply from the measured/reported rations. CP supply ME supply Milk production/day Production Feed** Group for milk for milk ME basis CP basis efficiency cost/litre production production (kg milk/day) (kg milk/day) (kg milk/kg DMI) (EUR) (kg CP/day)* (MJ/day)* 1 0.6 59.3 11.2 7.0 0.5 0.21 2 1.4 68.9 13.0 16.9 1.0 0.14 3 1.2 66.4 12.5 14.6 0.9 0.14 4 1.4 69.9 13.2 16.6 1.0 0.14 5 1.1 65.3 12.3 12.5 0.9 0.14 *CP and ME supply evaluated from the CP and DM contents of each feed as reported in Table 4.4. **Derived from Table 4.3 (July Hagere Selam feed prices) and Table 4.5.

The diets of farms in group 5 were identified as the most balanced based on CP and ME supply. The group 1 diet, with CP as the limiting nutrient, led to a theoretical milk production deficiency, 37.5% the animals’ potential based on CP intake. On the other hand, milk production evaluation for groups 2, 3 and 4 rations, which were limited by ME supply suggested 23%, 14% and 20% lower yields, respectively, compared to the animals’ production potential based on CP intake. To balance their CP and ME contents, 1.5 kg, 0.8 kg and 1.3 kg NSC was reduced from the initial rations of groups 2, 3 and 4, and this led to a theoretical reduction in the milk yield of the respective groups by 27%, 14% and 23% (Table 4.7). In addition, the resultant dry matter intakes for groups 2 and 3 ME and CP balanced rations were about 1 kg below the assumed maximum DMI while the new DMI for group 4 was equivalent to the assumed maximum.

Table 4.7. Potential milk yield and the corresponding ration composition for the metabolisable energy–protein balanced rations % DMI Milk yield DMI Feed cost/litre* Group WBS WB Atella NSC (kg milk/day) (kg DM) (EUR) 1 54.1 27.6 7.9 10.4 15.0 15.3 0.13 2 55.8 24.4 12.1 7.7 9.5 12.3 0.15 3 56.7 25.9 9.2 8.2 10.7 12.5 0.14 4 44.8 26.4 24.5 4.3 10.2 13.8 0.17 5 50.4 26.7 14.7 8.2 12.3 13.8 0.14 *July feed prices from Hagere Selam used to calculate the feed cost/litre (Table 4.3)

It was found that the imbalance in milk production in group 1 can best be offset when about 1.6 kg NSC is added to the daily ration, leading to a 114% rise in the daily milk yield. In addition, the evaluation revealed potential to double the milk production efficiency, from 0.5 to 1 kg milk per kg DMI. The resultant DMI for this group’s ration optimisation was approximately 2.8% of the assumed body weight of the cows; 2 kg higher than the maximum assumed DMI. Theoretically, the protein imbalance in this

34 diet could also have been overcome using atella and/or wheat bran. However, this would require high amounts of these feeds leading to unrealistically high DMI assumptions.

Table 4.8 shows the potential theoretical rise in profit as a result of increased milk yield and reduced cost of feeds per litre when animals of group 1 are fed on the group’s optimised ration. From the table, it can be discerned that this ration would raise the total daily feed cost by €0.48 but lower the cost for producing a litre of milk from €0.21 to €0.13. Consequently, the revenue from daily milk sales could be doubled leading to rise in daily profit by €4.17 (100 ETB).

Table 4.8. Potential rise in milk yield and profit from the dietary ME and CP balanced group 1 ration Group 1 Milk yield Daily cost of Revenue from Profit Profit (litres/day) feeds (EUR) milk sales (EUR) (EUR) (ETB) Imbalanced ration 7 1.47 4.10 2.63 63.0 Balanced ration 15 1.95 8.75 6.80 163.2 Rise in profit 4.17 100.2 1 litre of milk was sold at 14 ETB (€0.58) at the cooperatives in July/August, 2015. Price decreases during the fasting periods.

4.8 Detailed characterisation of protein sources

NSC, atella and WB, which were identified as the major sources of crude protein, were further characterised in terms of their rumen degradability as well as abomasal and intestinal digestibility of the rumen by-pass protein using in vitro simulation experiments.

4.8.1 Fermentable carbohydrates (FCH)

Based on the volatile fatty acids i.e. acetate, propionate and butyrate production during 72 hours of in vitro incubation and the rumen stoichiometric reactions (see materials and methods: 3.7.3), the amount fermentable carbohydrates from the feeds was calculated and expressed relative to the amount of DM incubated (Figure 4.2). The figure shows that during this incubation time, 54%, 50%, 46% and 48% of NSC, atella from Agula, atella from Hagere Selam and WB, respectively, was FCH. For all the feeds, acetate made up the bulk of the volatile fatty acids.

35

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 FCH (g/g DM) (g/g FCH 0.1

0 0 20 40 60 80 Incubation time (hours) WB Atella(Ag) NSC Atella(Hg)

Figure 4.2. Proportion of fermentable carbohydrates relative to the total amount of incubated dry matter at different incubation times. The error bars represent the average standard deviation at the different incubation times for each feedstuff

The curves for NSC and WB suggest an elevated level of fermentable carbohydrate between the first 4– 10 hours of incubation.

4.8.2 Rumen degradable crude protein (RDCP) Micro-Kjeldhal analysis of the residues from the in vitro rumen simulations showed that after 72 hours, 87%, 33%, 26% and 91% of the CP in WB, atella from Agula, atella from Hagere Selam and NSC, respectively, was degraded (Figure 4.3). NSC and WB were found to have high amounts of readily rumen degradable CP fractions (67% and 52%, respectively) within 6 hours of incubation. For both atella samples, rumen degradable CP did not change considerably over the incubation period.

With the exception of WB, CP degradability over the first 10 hours showed some unexpected variation; i.e. patterns of decreasing CP degradability with increasing incubation time.

36

90 75 60 45 30 % RDCP % 15 0 0 20 40 60 80 Time (Hours) WB Atella (Hg) NSC Atella (Ag)

Figure 4.3. Rumen degradable crude protein of the different feeds over 72 hours

4.8.3 Intestinally digestible crude protein

Digestibility of the rumen by-pass protein was calculated after micro-Kjedhal analysis of the residue from the in vitro small intestine digestibility experiment. The calculations revealed digestibility of 94%, 92%, 81% and 74% for NSC, WB, atella (Agula) and Atella (Hagere Selam) rumen by-pass protein, respectively (Figure 4.4). Therefore, in addition to atella having the lowest proportion of rumen degradable protein, its by-pass protein was also found to have the lowest intestinal digestibility. Atella from Hagere Selam had the highest amount of overprotected protein (26% of the rumen by-pass protein and 19% of the feed’s total CP).

90 75 60 45 30 15 0

WB Atella (Hg) Atella (Ag) NSC IDCP (% of rumen bypass protein) bypass rumen of (% IDCP Type of feed

Figure 4.4. Percentage of rumen by-pass protein that is digestible in the small intestine for the different feeds as assessed from consecutive in vitro simulations of abomasum (2h) and small intestine (2h)

37

4.9 Constraints to peri-urban dairying in the Tigray region

The surveyed peri-urban farmers cited various challenges to their dairying activities. These are summarised in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9. Challenges facing peri-urban smallholder dairy farmers in the Tigray region Number of farmers Challenge Hagere Selam Agula Total % 1 Fluctuating milk prices 30 29 59 98.3 2 Prolonged droughts 29 29 58 96.7 3 Limited land accessibility 27 30 57 95.0 4 Fluctuating feed prices 29 22 51 85.0 5 Insufficient gov’t support 25 20 45 75.0 6 Very long distances traversed to get feeds 12 21 33 55.0 7 Lack of access to seeds of different forage 21 6 27 45.0 plants 8 Unproductive land 12 10 22 36.7 9 Very close proximity between the animals 7 13 20 33.3 and human residence 10 Lack of knowledge about the importance of 4 14 18 30.0 forages 11 Unreliable veterinary & AI services, and 7 8 15 25.0 technicians

38

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

5.1 Farm(land) and dairying characteristics

The average landholding for the peri-urban dairy farmers in the study area was rather small, comparable to the findings of Gebrekidan et al. (2012) and Bishu (2014) who reported landholdings averaging 0.35 ha for peri-urban dairy farming households in northern Ethiopia and 0.5 ha for households in the peri- urban areas of Mekelle, respectively. This limited the area available for dairying, in most cases the human settlements being very close in proximity to the cow barns. As a consequence, limited access to land was reported by most farmers as one of the biggest challenges to the expansion and improvement of their dairy farming activities.

The major dairy cattle breeds kept were hybrids of HF and indigenous breeds such as Begait. Only one farm possessed hybrids of Jersey and Begait. Breeding was mainly done through AI by government employed technicians but as reported by Ashebir et al. (2016); Gebremedhin et al. (2009) and Ayenew (2008), the farmers described the service as inefficient resulting in poor conception rates.

5.2 Feeds, feed supply and price variations

There were three major classes of feeds in the survey region: crop residues, agro-industrial by-products and non-conventional feedstuffs. As reported by Gebremedhin et al. (2009), the straws of wheat and barley (WBS) were the most dominant crop residues, mostly supplied and fed to the animals as a mixture while wheat bran (WB) was the major agro-industrial by-product. Usage of the two feedstuffs was observed at all the 60 farms in the survey though this was affected by the feeds’ cost and availability. With the increasing scarcity and price for WBS, some farmers partially or wholly replaced the feed with teff straw. In addition, the local brewery by-product, atella was the most common non-conventional feed resource, utilised by 59 farms. Pods of cactus pear were also widely used in July but their availability and hence utilisation tremendously declined in August.

Feed prices increased as the survey progressed as a result of decreased availability and supply, most notably for WBS. This was exacerbated by the failure of the predicted rains which according to Abrha (2014) are very erratic. Similar feed availability and price patterns were reported by Tesfaye (2010), demonstrating scarcity of feedstuffs between May and September in several districts of the Tigray region. The same author reported June–September as the major rain season of the year and during this period, the farmers generally rely on natural grass pastures to feed their animals. The lack of rains therefore meant limited or no growth of pastures, hence the continued reliance on the insufficiently available straws. In addition, comparing the feed prices he reported in 2010 with the prices noted during the survey, one recognises a massive rise. For instance, the NSC price per 100 kg in 2010 was 300–400

39

ETB (€12.5–16.7) which is half or less than half the registered price of the feed during the survey; 600– 850 ETB (€25–35.4).

The cooperative to which the farmers in Hagere Selam belonged (Hiwot Milk Cooperative) was a well- functioning enterprise through which they sourced WB from factories in Mekelle. This helped to maintain the WB price stable in the site unlike in Agula where the farmers relied on retailers for the purchase of the same feed. This observed benefit of cooperatives in helping farmers avoid excessive feed price fluctuations was also realised by Gebremedhin et al. (2007). Though most farmers in Agula also belonged to cooperatives, the operations of the cooperatives were limited to marketing the members’ milk. As elaborated by Haile (2009), the farmers reported that the cooperatives used to be a supply route for agro-industrial by-products but this broke down when they were turned organisations fronting political motives, leading to disagreements amongst the members.

5.3 Proximate composition

With the exception of cotton seed cake, the proximal composition of the feed samples was in line with the respective ranges reported by CGIAR (2011). There were no marked variations in the proximal compositions of samples between the two sites except for atella. Atella from Hagere Selam had higher DM, CP and EE contents compared to the atella from Agula. This corresponds to the findings of Tadesse and Yayneshet (2011) showing that the proximal composition of atella varies between processors of tella depending on the type and proportion of ingredients used in the brewing process. Cereals are the major ingredients in this traditional brewing process and they include: sorghum, barley, millet, maize and teff, the choice depending on availability, price and individual preferences of the brewers.

With 43% DM, NSC was the most proteinaceous feedstuff. From the observations during the survey and the responses to the questionnaire about feeding practices, this feed was mostly added to the diets of the animals in the early stage of lactation. The nutrient demands of cows during early lactating rise as they reach peak milk yield and if not met, the animals go into catabolism (Walstra et al., 2006). Therefore, NSC helps to meet these increased nutrient demands during this stage of the animals’ production cycle, facilitating maintenance, body repair postpartum, and, adequate milk secretion and composition. Some farmers also utilised residues of pulses during these periods to supplement the animals’ CP intake.

The straws had the highest CF and the lowest CP contents though teff straw had a higher amount of CP (5.8% DM) than WBS (2.7% DM). Teff straw was not widely utilised at the farms during the survey period as most farmers reported it be to of inferior nutritive quality to WBS. Though only one sample of teff straw was analysed, its proximal composition raises the prospect of improved CP supply to the

40 animals if WBS is substituted with teff straw. In addition, it contains higher metabolisable energy (8.6 MJ/kg DM) compared to WBS (6.8 MJ/kg DM) (Feedipedia, 2016). Therefore, replacing a portion of WBS with teff straw could have positive impact on the dairy animals’ milk productivity through a possible increase in crude protein supply, thus reducing the quantity of WB and NSC required in the rations. This would ultimately lead to higher profit margins.

5.4 Ration optimisation: improving milk yield

Addition of 1.6 kg NSC to the most widely observed ration (group 1) theoretically has the potential of doubling the daily milk yield and lowering the feed cost per litre of milk produced. The total required DMI for animals with this diet is 15.3 kg DM/day, which is 2.8% of the assumed animal BW and 1.6 kg higher than the presumed maximum DMI in the calculations. An efficient milking cow requires a daily DMI at least 3% its body weight (QDAFF, 2013) but due to the inclusion of the highly fibrous WBS in this diet, 2.8% BW is a reasonable amount. This improved diet has the potential to ensure an adequate CP and ME balance, while maintaining efficient costing, parameters Moran (2005) deemed crucial for a profitable dairy enterprise.

Besides increasing milk yield and daily net income for the farmers, the FAO (2012) cited other benefits of balancing feed rations. These include: efficient utilisation of locally available feed resources, possible reduction in daily feeding costs, improvement in fat and non-fat solids of milk, improvement in the reproduction efficiency of animals, reduction in calving interval, and as a result increase in productive life, improvement in the growth rate of calves, leading to earlier maturity and calving, reduction in parasitic load, better immune response, hence better resistance to diseases, reduction in methane emission, and, reduction in nitrogen excretion.

5.5 Rumen degradability and small intestine digestibility of feeds

Following twelve hours of rumen degradation, 85% and 77% of atella from Agula and Hagere Selam, respectively was deemed to be rumen by-pass protein. After 2 hours of abomasum digestion, followed by 2 hours of small intestine digestion, 81% and 74% of the feeds’ respective rumen by-pass protein had been digested. These experiments revealed a high level of overprotected protein in the feed i.e. 18% and 26% of the rumen by-pass protein for atella from Agula and Hagere Selam, respectively. Although both results are higher than the value reported by Demeke (2007) (6.2%), following his study about the feed’s digestibility in chickens, it further emphasises that diets containing high proportions of atella could lead to increased amounts of indigestible protein, as well reduced rumen carbohydrate fermentation, reduced VFA and microbial protein production, thus limiting the animals’ productivity. The author attributed the low digestibility of atella to the production process during which excessive

41 heat is applied while preparing the raw materials. Such heat treatment might increase the amount of by- pass protein in feedstuffs (Harris, 1992) as a consequence of caramelisation and Maillard type reactions between amino groups of proteins and aldehyde groups of carbohydrates from the cereal ingredients to yield nutritionally unavailable dark coloured amino-sugar complexes.

The widespread use of atella could be attributed to factors such as; its wide availability and easy accessibility since the major supply route for the feed was the farmers’ neighbours, it’s low cost and the limited supply of brewery spent grain.

On the other hand, the 12 hours of rumen incubation followed by 4 hours of abomasum and small intestine digestion suggested that the total digestible crude protein for NSC and WB is 98% and 96%, respectively. Therefore, the major daily source of metabolisable crude protein for the dairy animals in this region is WB whose use was registered at all farms daily unlike NSC whose actual use was observed at only 6 farms.

With 58% and 56% of the CP from NSC and WB being rumen degradable, and over 90% of each feed’s rumen by-pass protein intestinally digestible (approximately 40% of the feed’s CP content), the in vitro experiments revealed a good balance between the rumen degradable crude protein and the intestinally degradable by-pass protein in these feedstuffs. Coupled with sufficient supply of metabolisable energy, this balance between the two CP fractions is necessary to ensure adequate functioning of the rumen microbiota and facilitation of good milk yield. In addition, a sufficient provision of nitrogen to the microbes in the rumen allows to upgrade the amino acid composition of the dietary CP as the microbes are able to synthesise essential amino acids such as lysine. This is particularly of interest for the cereal based feeds which usually contain limited amounts of lysine. These microbially synthesised essential amino acids can be absorbed in the small intestine and utilised by the animal for its own protein synthesis and milk production. This is another reason why the low rumen degradability of atella is of major concern, as only a limited amount of the grain-based atella protein will be converted into microbial protein in the rumen.

The noted (and unrealistic) decrease in CP degradability with increasing incubation time (Figure 4.3) could have arisen from the fact that nylon bags were incubated in separate incubation flasks and differences in microbial activity and/or adaptation to the in vitro environment might be more pronounced during the initial stages of the incubation. Additionally, microbial protein might have contributed to the rise of CP in the nylon bags, despite the standardised washing procedures. The influence of such a microbial contamination might be of increasing importance with incubation time when microbial adhesion takes place gradually.

42

5.6 Limitations of the study

The potential milk production computations assume that the CP from the different feeds is of the same quality. This could have resulted in an over estimation of the possible milk yields, particularly given the observations of low rumen degradability and limited intestinal digestibility of atella. Indeed, the in vitro studies following 12 hours of rumen incubation and 4 hours of abomasum and small intestine digestion reveal that 98%, 96%, 81% and 87% of the NSC, WB, atella from Hagere Selam and atella from Agula CP, respectively, is rumen degradable and/or digestible in the small intestine. Overestimation of the milk yield would mostly be the case with the group 4 ration containing more than 15% atella. Nonetheless, this shortfall is minimised in the ME and CP balanced ration as the amount of atella is reduced to 8% of the DM.

The ME used for atella (8.9 KJ/kg DM) corresponds to the value for fresh malt distillers’ grains (Heuzé and Tran, 2016) as no value could be found in literature for atella. This could have increased or decreased the ME supply from atella and thus affected the precision of the potential milk yield computations.

Majority of the ration compositions used in the study were merely reported by the farmers in response to the questionnaire but not measured or observed. For example, the usage of NSC was observed at only 6 farms but a total of 32 farmers reported utilisation of the feed, mostly when their animals are in early lactation. This could be attributed to the fact that only a limited number of cows were in the early stage of lactation when the survey took place. Most of the farmers reported that they vary the ration composition depending on the physiological status of the animals and NSC was mainly reserved for early lactating cows. It can also be attributed to the increased scarcity and rise in prices of feeds during the survey period.

43

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS

Feed supply, both in terms of quality and quantity is a major challenge to peri-urban smallholder dairying in the Tigray region. The farmers reported that this is the result of factors such as harsh climatic patterns, inadequate financial resources, limited access to land, unstable feed prices, lack of sufficient knowledge about the importance of various feedstuffs, seasonal availability of feeds and high cost of feeds, especially the agro-industrial by-products.

At most farms, the lactating cattle diets are imbalanced with respect to metabolisable energy or crude protein which might limit the level of milk production. Diets that did not include noug seed cake were found to be deficient in crude protein while rations with more than 10% noug seed cake were found to have excess crude protein and a shortage of metabolisable energy. The crude protein–metabolisable energy imbalance in the former could be theoretically overcome by addition of noug seed cake to the diets whereas the imbalance in the latter could be overcome by reducing the amount of noug seed cake.

Noug seed cake is a very nutritious feed and of all the feeds in the Tigray feed basket, it was found to be the most efficient in overcoming the metabolisable energy and crude protein imbalances in the rations. Its inclusion in the dairy cattle rations at a daily rate of 10% the dry matter intake not only improves the crude protein and metabolisable energy contents but could also ensures a good balance between the two nutrients thus potentially improving milk yield. In addition, the unit cost of milk production is lowered leading to higher profit margins while reducing feed wastage. On the other hand, atella is a relatively slowly degradable feed, with the highest amount of over-protected protein in comparison to noug seed cake and wheat bran.

The ration optimisation in this study was based on proximate chemical analysis of the feedstuffs. However, in vitro characterisation of the main protein supplying feedstuffs revealed important differences in rumen degradability and intestinal digestibility of these feed resources. Therefore, a more detailed and precise characterisation of the feedstuffs, which would allow diet formulation based on the rumen degradability and digestibility at the level of the small intestine is needed.

44

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Timely purchase and stocking of crop residues, which make up the bulk of the dry matter intake, can help alleviate the insufficient supply of this feed category. There were a few farms that had straws stocked from the previous harvest season and the farmers here reported little challenges with feed supply. They reported that during the harvest season, the crop residues are readily available and at low cost, allowing them to stock enough wheat and barley straw that can last until the next harvest season. Between May and September, when the supply of feeds declines, they direct the available financial resources to purchasing agro-industrial by-products.

2. Modifications to the tella production process could help reduce the effect of heat treatment on atella’s protein quality. Atella was found to be relatively rich in crude protein (14.5%–17.6% DM, equivalent to wheat bran). It is therefore a cheap source of the nutrient (compared to wheat bran and noug seed cake) but due to the processing technologies applied in its production, it contains higher amounts of overprotected protein. Lowering the intensity of heat applied to the cereal ingredients by decreasing the temperature and/or time of heating could lead to improvement in the feed’s protein quality. This could be a subject for further research to ensure that the yielded tella is of acceptable quality.

3. Substitution of wheat and barley straw with teff straw in the dairy cow rations could improve the metabolisable energy and crude protein supply. According to Feedipedia (2016), teff straw contains more metabolisable energy and from the proximate analysis, it was found that the feed is a slightly richer source of crude protein in comparison to wheat and barley straw. For further research, the in vitro degradability and digestibility of the two feeds could be compared. Given differences in physical structure of both resources, animal preferences (or refusal) and voluntary intake also should be considered.

4. The farmer cooperatives should be strengthened and their scope extended to feed sourcing rather than limitation to the transportation and marketing of the farmers’ milk. This could limit the impact of feed price fluctuations most especially with regard to the agro-industrial by-products as observed in Hagere Selam where the price of wheat bran, purchased in bulk from factories in Mekelle by the cooperative, remained stable between July and August. Since noug seed cake has been found to be a very important feed for ration optimisation, the cooperatives could be the channel of access to the feed other than the current situation where different farmers source the feedstuff individually.

45

REFERENCES

Abrha, S. W. (2014). Cactus Pear (Opuntia ficus-indica L.) in Tigray, North Ethiopia: History, potential and challenges (Review paper). Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 4, 226-229. AGP-LMD (2013). Agricultural Growth Project-Livestock Market Development: Value chain analysis for Ethiopia. Expanding livestock markets for the small-holder producers. United States Agency for International Development. Retrieved on 12th February, 2016 from, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/AGP- LMD%20Value%20Chain%20Analysis.pdf

AHDB Dairy: Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (2016). Nutrient requirements. Accessed on 16th March, 2016 from www.ahdb.org.uk

Ahmed, M.A.M., Ehui, S. and Assefa, Y., (2003). Dairy Development in Ethiopia. InWEnt, IFPRI, NEPAD, CTA Conference: Successes in African Agriculture, Pretoria, South Africa, Conference Paper No. 6. doi: 10.1.1.198.6755

Andualem, D., Negesse, T. and Tolera, A. (2015). Biomass yield, chemical composition and in vitro organic matter digestibility of stinging nettle (Urtica simensis) from four locations at three stages of maturity. Livestock Research for Rural Development Vol. 27, Article #159.

AOAC (1990). Official methods of analysis (15th ed.) Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC, AOAC International. Asheber, S.A. (2010). Mitigating drought: Policy impact evaluation. A case of Tigray region, Ethiopia. MSc thesis, University of Twente, 88 pp. Retrieved on 26th March, 2016, from https://www.itc.nl/library/papers_2010/msc/gsim/asheber.pdf

Ashebir, G., Birhanu, A. and Gugsa, T. (2016). Status of Artificial Insemination in Tigray Regional State, “Constraints and Acceptability under Field Condition”. Journal of dairy, veterinary & animal research 3(3), 00078. doi: 10.15406/jdvar.2016.03.00078

Assaminew, S. and Ashenafi, M. (2015). Feed formulation and feeding impact on the performance of dairy cows in Central Highland of Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development Vol. 27, Article #73. Retrieved on 30th January, 2016 from, http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd27/4/assa27073.html

46

Ayele, G., Jabbar, M.A., Teklewold, H., Mulugeta, E. and Kebede, G. (2006). Seasonal and inter- market differences in prices of small ruminants in Ethiopia. Journal of Food Products Marketing (USA) 12, 59-77. Retrieved on 18th November, 2015 from http://www.efdinitiative.org/sites/default/files/2_0.pdf

Ayenew, Y. (2008). Characterization and analysis of the urban and peri-urban dairy production systems in the North western Ethiopian highlands. PhD thesis, University of Natural resources and applied sciences, Vienna, Austria, 103 pp.

Ayenew, Y.A., Wurziger, M., Tegegne, A. and Zollitsch, W. (2007). Urban and peri-urban farming systems and utilization of the natural resources in the North Ethiopian Highlands. Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development, Tropentag. Retrieved on 16th April, 2016, from http://hdl.handle.net/10568/29018

Ayenew, Y.A., Wurzinger, M., Tegegne, A. and Zollitsch, W. (2009). Handling, processing and marketing of milk in the North western Ethiopian highlands. Livestock Research for Rural Development Vol. 21, Article #97. Retrieved on 7th March, 2016 from, http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/7/ayen21097.htm

Aysheshim, B., Beyene, F. and Eshetu, M. (2015). Handling, processing and marketing of cow milk in urban and peri-urban area of Dangila town, western Amhara region, Ethiopia. Global Journal of Food Science and Technology 3, 159-174. Retrieved on 22nd November, 2015 from http://www.globalscienceresearchjournals.org/

Belwal, R. and Tefesse, Y. (2010). A study of the impact of orthodox Christians’ fasting on demand for biscuits in Ethiopia. African Journal of Marketing Management. 2, 10-17. Retrieved on 25th March, 2016 from http://www.academicjournals.org/ajmm

Bishu, K. G. (2014). Risk management and the potential of cattle insurance in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Published PhD Thesis, University College Cork, Ireland. 224 pp. Retrieved on 17th May, 2016 from https://cora.ucc.ie/

Blair, R. (2011). Nutrition and feeding of organic cattle. Oxfordshire, UK, CABI, 285 pp.

CGIAR Systemwide Livestock Programme (2011). Ethiopia feed composition database. ILRI lab data. Retrieved on 3rd March, 2016 from https://vslp.org/ssafeed

Chebo, C. and Alemayehu, K. (2012). Trends of cattle genetic improvement programs in Ethiopia: Challenges and opportunities. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 24, Article #109. Retrieved 7th March, 2016, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/7/cheb24109.htm

47

Colmenero, J.J.O and Broderick, G.A. (2006). Effect of Dietary Crude Protein Concentration on Milk Production and Nitrogen Utilization in Lactating Dairy Cows. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 1704–1712.

CSIRO (2007). Nutrient requirements of domesticated ruminants. Collingwood, Australia: Csiro Publishing. 296 pp.

Dejene, M., Bediye, S., Alemu, D., Kitaw, G., Kehaliw, A., Assefa, G. and Tadesse, G. (2014). Livestock Feed Marketing in Ethiopia: Challenges and Opportunities for Livestock Development. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology A 4, 155-168. Available at www.davidpublishing.com/

Demeke, S (2007). Comparative nutritive value of Atella and industrial brewers grains in chicken starter ration in Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 19, Article #8. Retrieved on 26th March, 2016 from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/1/deme19008.htm

Desta, B.K. (2002). Analyses of dairy cattle breeding practices in selected areas of Ethiopia. PhD thesis, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 164 pp. Retrieved on 21st December, 2015 from, http://edoc.hu-berlin.de/dissertationen/desta-kelay-belihu-2002-07-25/PDF/Desta.pdf

Dinka, H. (2012). Reproductive performance of crossbred dairy cows under smallholder condition in Ethiopia. International Journal of Livestock Production 3, 25-28. doi: 10.5897/IJLP11.055

EC (1992). Determination of crude fiber. Official Journal of the European Communities L344, 35-37

ESAP (Ethiopian Society of Animal Production) (2003). Challenges and opportunities of livestock marketing in Ethiopia in Jobre, Y. and Gebru, G. (eds.) Proc. 10th Annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production, Addis Ababa. August 22-24 2002. ESAP. 407 pp.

FAO (2012). Balanced feeding for improving livestock productivity: Increase in milk production and nutrient use efficiency and decrease in methane emission. Animal Production and Health Paper No. 173. Rome, Italy.

Feedipedia (2016). Animal feeds resources information system. Accessed on 22nd March, 2016 from http://www.feedipedia.org/

Gadeyne, F., De Kuyck, K., Van Ranst, G., De Neve, N., Vlaeminck, B., and Fievez, V. (2016). Effect of changes in lipid classes during wilting and ensiling of red clover using two silage additives on in vitro ruminal biohydrogenation. Journal of Agricultural Science 154, 553-566.

48

Gebreegziabher, K. and Tadesse, T. (2014). Risk perception and management in smallholder dairy farming in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Journal of Risk Research 17, 367-381. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2013.815648

Gebrekidan, T., Zeleke, M., Gangwar, S.K. and Aklilu, H. (2012). Socio-economic characteristics and purpose of keeping dairy cattle in central zone of Tigray, northern Ethiopia. International Journal of Advanced Biological Research, 2, 256-265. Retrieved on 18th February, 2016, from http://www.scienceandnature.org/

Gebrekidane, T., Bhardwaj, K.R. and Gangwar, S. K. (2014). ‘Constraints and Opportunities of Urban and Peri-urban Dairy Production in Central Tigray of Northern Ethiopia’, in Maheshwari, B., Purohit, R., Malano, H., Singh, V.P. and Amerasinghe, P. (eds). The Security of water, food, energy and liveability of Cities: Challenges and opportunities for peri-urban futures. Vol. 71 of the series Water science and technology library. Dordrecht: Springer, 291-299.

Gebrekrustos, M., Aferaa, B. and Tasse, H. (2012). Prevalence of mastitis and its relationship with risk factors in smallholder dairy farms in and around Mekelle. REDVET 13(9).

Gebremedhin, B., Hirpa, A. and Berhe, K. (2009). Feed marketing in Ethiopia: Results of rapid market appraisal. Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopian farmers project Working Paper 15. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

Gebremedhin, B., Hoekstra, D. and Jemaneh, S. (2007). Heading towards commercialisation? The case of live animal marketing in Ethiopia, Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopian Farmers, project working paper 5, ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved on 1st July, 2015 from, https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/573

Haile, G. (2009). Impact of the global economic crisis on LDC’s productive capacities and trade prospects: Threats and opportunities. A case study, the dairy sector in Ethiopia. Least developed countries ministerial conference; Vienna, Austria.

Harris Jr., B. (1992). Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. Dairy Production Guide, Circular 594, Florida, USA.

Hassim, H.A., Lourenco, M. Goh, Y.M., Baars, J.J.P and Fievez, V. (2012). Rumen degradation of oil palm fronds is improved through pre-digestion with white rot fungi but not through supplementation with yeast or enzymes. Canadian journal of animal science 92, 79-87

49

Heuzé, V. and Tran G. (2016). Barley distillery by-products. Feedipedia. Retrieved on 18th March, 2016 from http://www.feedipedia.org/node/4266

Holloway, G., Nicholson, C., Delgado, C., Staal, S. and Ehui, S. (2000). How to make a milk market: A case study from the Ethiopian highlands. Socio-economics and Policy Research Working Paper 28. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved on: 4th March, 2016, from http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNACM084.pdf

Jacobs, J. and Hargreaves, A. (eds.) (2002). Feeding dairy cows: a manual for use in the Target 10 Nutrition Program. 3rd Ed. Melbourne, Australia. Department of Natural Resources and Environment

Jouany, J.P. (ed.) (1991). Rumen microbial metabolism and ruminant digestion. INRA, Paris cedex 07, France, QUAE, 374 pp.

Effa, K., Wondatir, Z., Dessie, T. and Haile, A. (2011) Genetic and environmental trends in the long-term dairy cattle genetic improvement programmes in the central tropical highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Cell and Animal Biology 5, 96-104. Retrieved on 12th March, 2016 from http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/JCAB

Ketema, H. and Tsehay, R. (1995). ‘Dairy production systems in Ethiopia’, in Kurwijila, L.R., Henriksen, J., Aboud, A.O.O. and Kifaro, G.C. (eds.). Strategies for market orientation of small scale milk producers and their organisations. FAO. Retrieved on 25th June, 2015 from http://www.fao.org/3/a-x5661e/index.html

Land O'Lakes, Inc. (2010). The next stage in dairy development for Ethiopia; Dairy Value Chains, End Markets and Food Security. Retrieved on 25th June, 2015, from https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/Dairy%20Industry%20Developmen t%20Assessment_0.pdf

Lee, S. D., Kennard, R. O. and Kayouli C. (1998). Manual of Smallholder Milk Production in the South Pacific. FAO. Lemma, T., Tegegne, A., Puskur, R., Hoekstra, D. (2008). ‘Moving Ethiopian smallholder dairy along a sustainable commercialization path: missing links in the innovation systems’, in Smallholder dairy production in Ethiopia: challenges and future prospects. Proc. workshop jointly organized by SIDA/SAREC and Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Addis Ababa University, Adama, Ethiopia, August 16-17, 2008. Addis Ababa.

50

Lima-Orozco, R., Van Daele, I., Álvarez-Hernández, U. and Fievez, V. (2014). Combined conservation of jack bean and velvet bean with sorghum: evaluation of lab-scale silages and in vitro assessment of their nutritive value. Journal of Agricultural Science 152, 967-980.

Linn, J. (2003). Energy in the 2001 NRC: Understanding the system. Proc. of the Minnesota Dairy Health Conference, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.foragelab.com/Media/NRC2001.pdf on 12th April, 2016.

Lukuyu, B., Gachuiri, C.K., Lukuyu, M.N., Lusweti, C., and Mwendia, S. (eds). (2012). Feeding dairy cattle in East Africa. East Africa Dairy Development Project (EADD), Nairobi, Kenya.

McCann J. (1995). People of the Plow. An Agricultural History of Ethiopia, 1880-1990. Madison, USA: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Meconen, A.T. (2014). Improved forage production and utilization in eastern zone of Tigray, northern Ethiopia. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Mekelle.

Mengistu, A. (2006). Feed resources in Ethiopia. Retrieved on 23rd December, 2015, from http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ilri/x5548e/x5548e03.htm

Moehn, S., Atakora, J. and Ball, R.O. (2005). Using Net Energy for Diet Formulation: Potential for the Canadian Pig Industry. Advances in Pork Production 16, 119–129. Retrieved from on 16th April, 2016, from http://www.prairieswine.com/

Moran, J. (2005). Tropical dairy farming: feeding management for smallholder dairy farmers in the humid tropics. Collingwood, Australia. Landlinks press, 295 pp.

National Research Council (2001). Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th ed. Washington DC (USA), National academy press, 381 pp.

Ngigi, M., Ahmed, M.A., Ehui, S., and Assefa, Y. (2005). ‘Smallholder Dairying in Eastern Africa’, in Haggblade, S. and Hazell, P.B.R. (eds.) (2010). Successes in African agriculture: lessons for the future. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Baltimore, MD. John Hopkins University Press. pp 209-261

Osuji, P. O., Nsahlai, I. V. and Khalili, H. (1993). Feed evaluation. ILCA Manual 5. ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Pandey, G. S. and Voskuil, G.C.J. (2011). Manual on improved feeding of dairy cattle by smallholder farmers. Golden valley agricultural research trust, Lusaka, Zambia.

51

Ishler, V., Heinrichs, J. and Varga, G. (1996). From Feed to Milk: Understanding Rumen Function. Pennsylvania State University, Extension circular 422. University Park, PA.

Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (QDAFF) [2013]. Feed intake, Technical note N03. Retrieved on 18th February, 2016 from http://dairyinfo.biz/

Radostits, O.M., Gay, C.C., Hinhcliff, K.W. and Constable, P.D. (2006). Veterinary Medicine: A Text book of diseases of cattle, horses, sheep, pigs and goats. 10th Ed., Edinburgh, Saunders.

Reynal, S.M. and Broderick, G.A. (2005). Effect of dietary level of rumen-degraded protein on production and nitrogen metabolism in lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 88, 4045-4064

Sahlu, Y., Simane, B. and Bishaw, Z. (2008). ‘The farmer-based seed production and marketing scheme: lessons learnt’, in: Thijssen, M., Bishaw, Z., Beshir, A. and de Boef, W. Farmers, seeds and varieties: Supporting informal seed supply in Ethiopia. Wageningen International, the Netherlands. pp 33-47. Retrieved on 9th February, 2016 from, http://edepot.wur.nl/18448

Seleshe, S., Jo, C. and Lee, M. (2014). Meat consumption culture in Ethiopia. Korean Journal for Food Sciences and Animal resources 34, 7-13. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2014.34.1.7

Shreve, B., Thiex, N. and Wolf, M. (2006). National Forage Testing Association Reference Method: Dry Matter by Oven Drying for 3 hours at 105 °C. NFTA Reference Methods. National Forage Testing Association, Omaha, NB.

Shewangizaw, A. (2014). Assessment of feed formulation and feeding practices for urban and peri- urban dairy cows around Holetta, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, Addis Ababa University, 76 pp.

Sileshi, Z., Tegegne, A., and Tsadik, G.T. (2003). Water resources for livestock in Ethiopia: Implications for research and development. Retrieved on 15th October, 2015, from http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/iwtconppr/h032450.htm

Smith, O.B. and Olaloku, E.A. (1998). Peri-urban livestock production systems in Sub Saharan Africa, Cities feeding people series. Report 24. Retrieved on 15th October, 2015 from https://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/22320/1/108521.pdf

Tadesse, A. & T. Yayneshet, T (2011). Comparative chemical composition evaluation of local brewery and liquor by-products made from different ingredients. Journal of the Drylands 4, 307-309.

Tadesse, G., Bekelle, D. and Singh, B. (2012). Prevalence and Clinico-Pathology of Ketosis in Dairy Cows in Tigray Region of Ethiopia. Momona Ethiopian Journal of Science 4, 115-120

52

Tegegne, A., Gebremedhin, B., Hoekstra, D., Belay, B. and Mekasha, Y. (2013). Smallholder dairy production and marketing systems in Ethiopia: IPMS experiences and opportunities for market-oriented development. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 31. Nairobi: ILRI. Retrieved on 1st July, 2015 from, http://hdl.handle.net/10568/27914

Tegegne, A., Mekasha, Y., Tadesse, M. and Yami, A. (2000). ‘Market oriented urban and peri-urban Systems’, in van Veenhuizen R. (ed.) (2006). Cities farming for the future, urban agriculture for green and productive cities. RUAF foundation, IDRC and IIRR publishing, 367-370.

Tekalign, E. (2014). Forage seed systems in Ethiopia: A scoping study. ILRI project report. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). Retrieved on 1st July, 2015 from, http://hdl.handle.net/10568/65142

Tesfay, G. (2014). Dairy Cattle Production System in Central Zone of Tigray: in The Case of Aksum and Adwa. Global Journal of Animal Scientific Research 2, 151-158.

Tesfay, Y. (2010). Feed Resources Availability in Tigray Region, Northern Ethiopia, for Production of Export Quality Meat and Livestock. Example from Selected Woredas in Tigray Regional State. Consultation Report Submitted to the Ethiopian Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Standards and Meat Marketing Program, 87 pp.

Tesfay, Y., Gebrelibanos, A., Woldemariam, S. and Tilahun, H. (2016). Feed resources availability, utilization and marketing in central and eastern Tigray, northern Ethiopia. LIVES Working Paper 11. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya.

Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B. and Lewis, B.A. (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583-3597

Walstra, P., Wouters, J.T.M. and Geurts, T.J. (2006). Dairy science and Technology, 2nd Ed. Boca raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, 763 pp.

Washington State University [WSU] (2008). Veterinary medicine extension: Ag animal health spotlight. Accessed on 9th February, 2016 from http://vetextension.wsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2015/03/HEATSTRESS-JULY- 2008_UpdateJune2015.pdf

Wildman, K. and Briggs, P. (2012). Ethiopia: The Bradt travel guide. 6th Ed. Chalfont St Peter, England: Bradt tavel guides Ltd,

53

Yilma, Z., Guernebleich, E. and Sebsibe, A. (2011). A Review of the Ethiopian Dairy Sector. Ed. Fombad, R. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Sub Regional Office for Eastern Africa (FAO/SFE), Addis Ababa. Retrieved on 7th June, 2015 from, http://www.fao.org/3/a-aq291e.pdf

54

APPENDIX

Appendix 1: The survey questionnaire

Questionnaire for available feed resources and feeding practices under smallholder dairy farming in Tigray region

Part 1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Name of respondent ______1.2. Sex: ______1.3 Household head ______1.4 Age (years): ______. 1. Male 2. Female 1.5 Woreda: ______, 1.6 Kebele: ______; 1.7. Tabia: ______

Part 2. Household (HH) Characteristics 1. Family size, sex, age, education level, household status and occupation of the HH characteristics Name Sex Age Education Status in the Occupation 1=M (Years) level household (Code 3) 2=F (Code 1) (Code 2)

Code 1: 1=Illiterate 2=Reading & writing 3=Primary (1-8) 4=Secondary (9-12) 5=Diploma 6=Degree & above

Code 2: 1=Head of the household 2=Spouse 3=Children 4=Relatives 5=Hired labour 6=Others (specify)

Code 3: 1=Farmer 2=Government employee 3=Private employee 4=Livestock sector business 5=Other business 6=Student 7=Retired person 8=Others

2. What about labour division in your dairy farm in preparation of feed materials, feeding of d/t category dairy cattle, and cleaning of troughs ______

55

3. Landholding of the household for different purposes

S.N. Types of landholding Own Rent Total Remark 1 Cow barn (m2)

2 Farm land for crop cultivation with rain fed system (ha) 3 Land for forage cultivation (ha)

4 Irrigation land for crop/vegetable cultivation land (ha) 5 Private grazing land

3.1 Do you have exercising areas for your animals? 1= Yes 2= No

3.2 If No, what is the reason? 1=Shortage of land 2=Lack of awareness on the importance of the exercising area 3=Others (specify) 3.3 If Yes in 3.1, what is the size of the exercising area? ……………………….m²

Part 3. Livestock holding size

1. Dairy cattle holding and their composition

S.N. Category of animals Number Breed

1 Milking cow(s)

2 Dry cows which is/are pregnant

3 Dry cows which is/are not pregnant

4 Pregnant heifer(s)

5 Female calf/calves pre-weaning age (0-4 months)

6 Female calf/calves pre-weaning age (5-12 months)

7 Heifers (12 months till its calving period)

8 Male calf/calves pre-weaning age (0-4 months)

9 Male calf/calves pre-weaning age (5-12 months)

10 Bull > 1 year

56

Part 4. Major available feed resources

1 Major available feed resources, their sources and purchasing prices in different months (July- December)

Code 1: 1= Cultivated from (made at) own farm 2= purchased from local market 3= Purchased from cooperatives 4= purchased from retailers; 5= Purchased from neighbours 6= Purchased from feed mills 7=Others, please specify it: ______

Code 2: 1= Surplus 2= Moderate 3= Critical shortage

S.N. Feed types July August September October November December c Source Price/ Level ofSource Price/ Level ofSource Price/ Level ofSource Price/ Level ofSource Price/ Level ofSource Price/ Level of (code Kg availab (code Kg availab (code kg availab (code kg availab (code kg availab (code kg availab 1) (ETB) ility 1) (ETB) ility 1) (ETB) ility 1) (ETB) ility 1) (ETB) ility 1) (ETB) ility (code2) (code2) (code2) (code2) (code2) (code2) 1 Wheat straw 2 Barley straw 3 Teff straw 4 Dry maize stover 5 Dry sorghum stover 6 Grass hay 7 Alfalfa 8 Elephant grass 9 Green maize stover

57

10 Cactus cladode 11 Wheat bran 12 Mix of wheat bran & middlings Cont’d part of major available feed resources, their sources and purchasing prices in different months (July - December)

Code 1: 1= Cultivated from (made at) own farm 2= purchased from local market 3= Purchased from cooperatives 4= purchased from retailers; 5= Purchased from neighbours 6= Purchased from feed mills 7=Others, please specify it: ______Code 2: 1= Surplus 2= Moderate 3= Critical shortage Feed types July August September October November December

Source Price/ Source Price/ Source Price/ Source Price/ Source Price/ Source Price/ Level of (code kg Level of(code kg Level of(code kg Level of(code kg Level of(code kg Level of(code kg availab 1) (ETB) availab 1) (ETB) availab 1) (ETB) availab 1) (ETB) availab 1) (ETB) availab 1) (ETB) ility ility ility ility ility ility (code2) (code2) (code2) (code2) (code2) (code2)

13 Conc. mix 14 Atella 15 Noug cake 16 Cotton seed cake 17 Screenings of Wheat & barley grains 18 Screenings of pulses(peas,

58

beans etc) 19 Molasses 20 Urea-molasses blocks 21 Limestone 22 Salt 23 If others specify it:

59

1 Major available feed resources, their sources and purchasing prices in different months (from January - June) Code 1: 1= Cultivated from (made at) own farm 2= purchased from local market 3= Purchased from cooperatives 4= purchased from retailers; 5= Purchased from neighbors 6= Purchased from feed mills 7=Others, please specify it: ______

Code 2: 1= Surplus 2= Moderate 3= Critical shortage

S.N. Feed types January February March April May June c Source Price/ Level ofSource Price/ Level ofSource Price/ Level ofSource Price/ Level ofSource Price/ Level ofSource Price/ Level of (code Kg availab (code Kg availab (code kg availab (code kg availab (code kg availab (code kg availab 1) (ETB) ility 1) (ETB) ility 1) (ETB) ility 1) (ETB) ility 1) (ETB) ility 1) (ETB) ility (code2) (code2) (code2) (code2) (code2) (code2) 1 Wheat straw 2 Barley straw 3 Teff straw 4 Dry maize stover 5 Dry sorghum stover 6 Grass hay 7 Alfalfa 8 Elephant grass 9 Green maize stover 10 Cactus cladode

60

11 Wheat bran 12 Mix of wheat bran & middlings Cont’d part of major available feed resources, their sources and purchasing prices in different months (from January - June) Code 1: 1= Cultivated from (made at) own farm 2= purchased from local market 3= Purchased from cooperatives 4= purchased from retailers; 5= Purchased from neighbours 6= Purchased from feed mills 7=Others, please specify it: ______Code 2: 1= Surplus 2= Moderate 3= Critical shortage Feed types January February March April May June Source Price/ Source Price/ Source Price/ Source Price/ Source Price/ Source Price/ Level of (code kg Level of(code kg Level of(code kg Level of(code kg Level of(code kg Level of(code kg availab 1) (ETB) availab 1) (ETB) availab 1) (ETB) availab 1) (ETB) availab 1) (ETB) availab 1) (ETB) ility ility ility ility ility ility (code2) (code2) (code2) (code2) (code2) (code2)

13 Conc. mix 14 Atella 15 Noug cake 16 Cotton seed cake 17 Screenings of Wheat & barley grains 18 Screenings of pulses(peas, beans etc) 19 Molasses

61

20 Urea-molasses blocks 21 Limestone 22 Salt 23 If others specify it:

62

1. Do you have feed resources which are sufficient enough to feed for all your animals throughout the year? 1= Yes 2= No 2. If your answer above is No, in which months do you face critical shortage? ______What coping mechanisms do you exercise to tackle the feed shortage periods? ______

3. From the feedstuffs mentioned in the table above, list down the feedstuffs which are available in sufficient quantity in your locality but which are not utilised efficiently as feed for your animals and state your reason why these feeds are not utilized. What should be done to utilize the feed to the maximum level as a dairy cattle feed?

SN Type of available feedstuffs Solutions to be enable efficient which are not utilized efficiently Reason for not utilizing it utilization of the feed as a dairy cattle feed 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Part 5 Forage cultivation and supplementation 1. Do you cultivate forages for your animal? 1= Yes 2= No 2. If your answer is No for Q1, state your reason? 1= shortage of land 2= unavailability sufficient water 3= lack of awareness 4= unavailability forage seeds/planting materials 5= if others specify it: ______3. If you cultivate forages, which forages and how much area (m2) do you cultivate? 1= Alfalfa: _____m2 2= elephant grass: _____m2 3= cow pea: _____m2 4= Desho grass 5= Sesbania: _____m2 6= Leucaena: ___m2 7= Vetch: ___m2 7= others (specify): ______

63

4. How much biomass do you get per harvest from your specific forage per unit of land or per plant? ______

5. Do you practice intercropping of forages in your crop cultivation land? If your answer is yes which combination of crop and forages do you cultivate? ______6. How much yield (kg) of forages do you get per unit of cultivated land? ______6.1 What is your observation in terms of your crop yield and soil fertility? ______

7. Which forage species do you prefer for your lactating cow? ______

8. Which forage species are more adaptable to your locality? ______

9. What criteria do you use for adopting cultivation of a particular species of forage? 1= Biomass yield 2= Adaptability to local conditions 3= Nutritive value 4= Others______10. What are the main challenges related to forage cultivation in your locality? ______

11. What are the opportunities and what intervention should be made to expand for forage cultivation in your locality? ______

Part 6: Feeding practices of dairy cattle

1. Do you practice feeding of dairy cattle based on their physiological status? 1= Yes 2= No 2. If No for Q1, what is your reason? ______

3. What are the major feed ingredients and their quantities given/day for a cow during early lactation? ______

64

4. What are the major feed ingredients and their quantities given/day for a cow during mid lactation? ______

5. What are the major feed ingredients and their quantities given/day for a cow during late lactation? ______

6. What are the major feed ingredients and their quantities given/day for a pregnant cow during dry period? ______

7. What are the major feed ingredients and their quantities given/day for a pregnant cow two weeks to delivery period (transition or close up period)? ______

8. What are the major nutritional/metabolic disorders which occurred in the last year in your dairy cattle herd + can you indicate at which physiological stage the problems occurred? And, what might be the probable causes and what solutions did you take to overcome the challenges?

SN Category of the Physiological status Type of Causes Solutions animal of the animal nutritional/met undertaken abolic disorder

9. Do you feed colostrum for your calf after birth? 1= Yes 2= No If Yes, how much colostrum do you give a calf during the first 24 hours after birth? ______

10. If your answer is No for Q9, state you reason why you didn’t supplement colostrum for your calf? ______

11. How do you feed colostrum to the calves? 1= Bucket, 2= Nipple bottle 3=Direct suckling from its dam

65

12. If the cow dies or if insufficient amount of colostrum is produced by the cow after calving, what do you provide in replacement/complement of colostrum for the calf and how is it prepared? ______

13. How much milk do you provide per day for your calf? 1= 0-1 months old calf _____ litres 2= 1-2 months old calf _____ litres 3= 2-3 months old calf _____litres 4= 3-4 months old calf _____ litres 5= > 5 months old calf _____ litres

14. What materials do you use for milk feeding for your calf? 1= Bucket, 2= Nipple bottle 3=Direct suckling from its dam

15. What is the base for determining the quantity of milk to be provided for your calf? 1 = weight 2= age 3= I don’t have any idea 4= if others (specify) ______

16. For how long do you supplement milk to the calves? ______months

17. What is the weaning age of the calves? ______months

18. What is the trend of the quantity of milk supplementation to the calves till weaning? 1= Increasing 2= Decreasing 3= Steady 4= I don’t know 5= Others (specify) ______

19. How much roughages (indicate the quantity of different roughage sources) do the calves intake at weaning age? ______

20. How much concentrate (indicate the quantity of each ingredient in the mix) do the calves intake at weaning age? ______

21. Which feedstuffs do you supplement before weaning and at what age do you start the supplementation? ______

22. What are the major feed ingredients and their quantities given/day for a calf from weaning to its heifer age? ______

23. What are the major feed ingredients and their quantities given/day for a heifer till its calving period? ______

24. How many times, per day, do you provide roughage for milking cows? 1= four times 2= three times 3= two times 4= once

25. In which times of the day do you provide roughage for milking cows? ______

26. How many times, per day, do you provide concentrate for the milking cows? 1= four times 2= three times 3= two times 4= once

66

27. In which times of the day do you provide concentrate for milking cows? ______

28. How many times per day do you provide roughage to a dry pregnant cow? 1= four times 2= three times 3= two times 4= once

29. In which times of the day do you provide roughage for dry pregnant cows? ______

30. How many times per day do you provide concentrate to a dry pregnant cow? 1= four times 2= three times 3= two times 4= once

31. In which times of the day do you provide concentrate for dry pregnant cows? ______

32. How many times, per day do you provide roughage to a heifer? 1= four times 2= three times 3= two times 4= once

33. In which times of the day do you provide roughage to a heifer? ______

34. How many times per day do you provide concentrate to a heifer? 1= four times 2= three times 3= two times 4= once

35. In which times of the day do you provide concentrate to a heifer? ______

36. How many times per day do you provide roughage to a calf? 1= four times 2= three times 3= two times 4= once

37. In which times of the day do you provide roughages to a calf? ______

38. How many times per day do you provide concentrate to a calf? 1= four times 2= three times 3= two times 4= once

39. In which times of the day do you provide concentrate to a calf? ______

40. What is the base for determining the frequency of feeding for the different categories of animals? State your reasons ______

41. How do you feed the available feedstuffs to the different categories of animals? Do you provide it separately or mixed? If so, explain how you feed the different feedstuffs for the different categories of animals ______

67

Part 7: Feed conservation methods

1. Do you practice feed conservation techniques? If No, state your reason ______

2. If your answer is yes for Q1, which feed conservation method do you practice? 1= Hay making 2= silage making 3= others (specify) ______

3. If you practice hay making, at which stage of growth do you harvest your grass? 1= early blooming stage 2= mid blooming stage 3= full blooming stage 4= after seed setting 5= others (specify) ______

4. What are the determinant factors for setting the harvesting stage? 1= Nutritive value 2= biomass production 3= both 4= I don’t know 5= others (specify) ______

5. During which months do you harvest the grass for hay making? ______

6. How many times per annum do you practice hay making and in which months? ______

7. How many quintals of hay do you collect per annum? ______

8. For how many months the collected hay will sufficient feed your animals? ______

9. What are the major challenges related to hay making? ______

10. Do you practice silage making? If No, why? 1= Lack of facilities 2= Lack of knowledge 3= unavailability of fodder material 4= others (specify): ______

11. If you practice silage making, which fodder materials do you use? 1= Green maize 2= Sorghum 3= Green grass 4= others (specify)

12. What quantity of fodder do you ensile at a time? ______

13. How many times do you ensile per annum? ______

14. How many quintal of green fodder do you ensile per year? ______

15. For how many months do you store the ensiled material? ______

16. Do you prefer dry conservation methods than ensiling methods? Justify your reasons ______

68

Part 8: Urea treatment

1. Do you practice urea treatment of straw? If No, state your reasons? 1= Higher price of urea 2= High price or unavailability of plastic sheet 3= Lack of knowledge 4= others (specify) ______

2. If you practice urea treatment, which straw type do you use? 1= Wheat 2= Teff 3= Barley 4= Sorghum stover 5= maize stover 6= if others, specify it: ______

3. Which straw type do you prefer for urea treatment? Rank them accordingly by preference (1,2,3…6) 1= Wheat: ___, 2=Teff: ___, 3= Barley: ___, 4=Sorghum stover: ___, 5= Maize stover: ___, 6=other: ___

4. What criteria do you use to prioritize the straw types to be treated with urea treatment techniques? 1= availability of the material 2= easiness of the material for compacting during urea treatment 3= their effectiveness in improving the feed quality 4= others (specify) ______

5. What are the dimensions of the pit used for urea treatment? Length ___m, Width __ m, Height ___m

6. If you treat straw how much straw do you treat at a time? ______quintal

7. What is the ratio of urea & water used to treat 1 quintal of straw? _____ kg urea & ____ litres of water

8. For how long time do you ensile urea treated straw before opening? ______

9. What problem did you observe in feeding of urea treated straw for your animal? 1= animals do not adapt it easily 2= death of animals due to urea toxicity 3= loss of urea treated straw due to mould development during opening of the silo pit 4= if others specify it

10. What are the main challenges for urea treatment technology? 1= higher prices of inputs (urea & plastic sheet) 2= unavailability of inputs, 3= time consuming 4= tedious work for its preparation 5= health problems for operator due to ammonia gas inhalation during opening of the treated straw from the pits 6= termites problem 7= It is not economically feasible 8= if others specify it:______

Part 9: Urea Molasses block

1. Do you prepare urea molasses blocks (UMB)? If No, state your reasons? 1= Higher price of urea 2= higher price of molasses 3= higher price of oil seed cakes 4= unavailability of molasses 5= Unavailability oil seed cakes 6= unavailability of mould 7= Lack of knowledge 8= others (specify) ______

69

2. If you prepare urea molasses blocks, which ingredients and how much is their proportion? S.N. Ingredient types Amount (kg) 1 Molasses 2 Urea fertiliser 3 Wheat bran 4 Wheat middlings 5 Noug cake 6 Cotton seed cake 7 Salt 8 Limestone 9 Cement 10 Cactus fruits 11 Others (specify)

3. What are the bases for determining the ratio of the ingredients in preparation of UMB? 1= availability of materials 2= cost effectiveness 3= nutritive values 4= hardness of the block 5= others (specify): ______

4. UMB weight, produced numbers of UMB and number of animals supplemented

SN Estimated weight of a Number of UMBs Category of animal to Number of animals to be block produced per year be supplemented supplemented per year 1 2 3 4

5. Estimated weight of a block and how many animals and days will be used

SN Estimated Unit cost for Number of Duration of licking Number of Increase in milk weight of a producing a animals licking on hours/day per days with production per block block a block animal animals cow/day licking UMB (litres) 1 2 3

6. Which weight of UMB category do you prefer to prepare for the animals? State the reasons ______

7. Do you supplement one UMB per animal or do you use a UMB for many animals? If you supplement one UMB for many animals for how long per day will they have access for licking and how long does it last? ______

8. Have you observed any changes in your animals in the intake of roughages due to supplementation of the UMB? If so how was the change of roughage intake? 1= increased 2= reduced 3= steady 4= I don’t know

70

9. If you don’t prepare UMB, do you purchase UMB from other supplier? If so from whom do you purchase, how much does a unit cost and which weight category is most prepared by the supplier? ______

10. Do you think that supplementation of UMB for your animal is cost effective? 1= Yes 2= NO

11. What are the main challenges in preparation and supplementation of UMB? ______

Part 10: Watering of dairy cattle

1. What are the major water sources? River Dam/pond Borehole /well Spring Pipe water Rain water Other Specify)

Dry season

Wet season

2. Where is the nearest water source available for your animal during wet season? 1. At home 2. <1Km 3. 1-5 Km 4.> 5 Km

3. Where is the nearest water source available for your animal during dry season? 1. At home 2. <1Km 3. 1-5 Km 4.> 5 Km

4. What is the watering frequency you practice during the wet season per day? 1 = Freely available 2 = Four times 3= Thrice 4= Twice 5= Once 6= Once in 2 days 7= Other (specify) ______

5. What is the watering frequency you practice during the dry season per day? 1 = Freely available 2 = Four times 3= Thrice 4= Twice 5= Once 6= Once in 2 days 7= Other (specify) ______

6. What are the bases for determining the amount of water to be provided for a particular category of animal? 1= Level of milk production 2= Physiological status 3= age of the animal 4= season 5= others: ______

7. Do you think that the amount of water you are providing for your animal is sufficient enough? If not, what is the reason for not providing the required amount of water? ______

8. Have you observed any difference in milk production of cows due to variation in the amount of water consumed? If so could you explain it: ______

71

9. What materials do you use for watering of your animal? 1= Bucket 2= wide circular plastic container 3 = watering troughs made from concrete 4= If others specify it: ______

10. Amount of water provided for different categories of cattle? S.N. Category of animals Amount of water Amount of water provided per day (litre) provided per day (litre) during wet season during dry season

1 Milking cow(s)

2 Dry cow(s) which is/are pregnant

3 Dry cow(s) which is/are not pregnant

4 Pregnant heifer(s)

5 Female calf/calves pre-weaning age (0-4 months)

6 Female calf/calves post-weaning age (5-12 months)

7 Heifers (12 months till calving period)

8 Male calf/calves pre-weaning age (0-4 months)

9 Male calf/calves post-weaning age (5-12 months)

10 Bull(s) > 1 year

72

Appendix 2: Measured concentrations of volatile fatty acids produced by the feed samples after different durations of in vitro rumen incubation

Volatile fatty acids (µmol) Incubation Noug seed cake Wheat bran Atella (Hagere Selam) Atella (Agula) time (hours) A P B A P B A P B A P B 2 112.16 80.05 16.63 96.93 63.79 13.39 98.93 74.46 12.30 94.36 71.31 11.78 4 151.40 99.50 19.10 85.62 83.66 15.44 120.72 74.70 13.09 106.97 80.64 16.60 6 254.16 153.70 33.86 112.03 100.67 22.61 159.80 108.40 27.58 151.62 92.26 22.06 10 406.85 260.76 59.33 350.55 224.36 74.87 252.39 138.42 46.04 227.56 133.68 42.88 12 910.77 586.90 135.27 618.21 436.93 131.57 490.74 277.68 93.80 457.99 271.05 92.38 24 652.13 397.80 106.10 558.07 366.62 156.83 425.39 245.84 102.49 337.30 232.54 117.89 48 733.50 478.77 137.55 677.24 423.62 183.64 589.35 324.52 148.61 606.55 359.91 172.98 72 838.31 484.34 140.52 662.95 368.20 171.11 724.24 364.78 164.75 735.66 405.79 207.68 A = Acetic acid, P = Propionic acid, B = Butyric acid

73

Appendix 3: Proportion of fermentable carbohydrates relative to the total dry matter for the different feed samples over 72 hours in vitro rumen incubation. Proportion of fermentable carbohydrates Incubation time (hours) NSC WB Atella-Hagere Selam Atella-Agula 2 0.0731 0.0608 0.0641 0.0613 4 0.0937 0.0649 0.0797 0.0715 6 0.2266 0.0836 0.1048 0.0933 10 0.2548 0.2348 0.1565 0.1448 12 0.2865 0.2136 0.1754 0.1607 24 0.4089 0.4012 0.2839 0.2610 48 0.5422 0.4757 0.3924 0.4252 72 0.5196 0.4450 0.4596 0.5044

Appendix 4: Crude protein content of the feed samples following different intervals of rumen incubation and (abomasum) small intestine digestion of rumen by-pass protein Crude protein content (g/100 g sample) Incubation time (hours) NSC WB Atella-Hagere Selam Atella-Agula 0 42.25 14.65 17.59 14.49 2 25.92 15.20 18.93 16.13 4 36.94 13.81 18.88 17.16 6 36.88 14.38 17.84 12.83 10 43.48 13.80 21.16 16.45 12 48.04 13.43 19.72 17.73 24 38.14 11.27 22.06 24.78 48 11.76 8.77 25.08 37.03 72 24.62 7.58 30.32 35.50 12* 8.40 n/a 6.68 5.92 12* – Residue from the 12hour rumen degradability incubation samples further incubated to determine abomasal and intestinal digestibility n/a = not detected

74