Science 247 (2021) 104466

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Livestock Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/livsci

Bioeconomic evaluation of feedings strategies in the yearling beef cattle system in Mozambique

T´elis Adolfo Cumbe a,b, Amir Gil Sessim a, Fredy Andrey Lopez-Gonz´ alez´ a, Daniele Zago a, Antonia´ Mendes Paizano Alforma a,c, Júlio Otavio´ Jardim Barcellos a,* a Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), 7.712 Bento Gonçalves Ave., Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, 91540-000, Brazil b Faculty of Agricultural Science, Zambezi University (UniZambeze) P.O. Box 213, Ulongu´ `e, Tete, 2306, Mozambique c Estaçao˜ Zoot´ecnica de Angonia´ (EZA), Centro Regional da Zona Centro, Instituto de Investigaçao˜ Agraria´ de Moçambique (IIAM), Ulongu´ `e, Tete, Moçambique

HIGHLIGHTS

• Simulation is a valuable tool for the feeding management of beef cattle. • Communal cattle systems may be improved by using alternative feedstuffs. • Diets based on low-cost feeding strategies provide better economic returns.

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The application of feeding strategies (FS) to meet nutrient requirements of beef cattle grazing on native Communal during the dry season, are required to improve the productivity of production systems in tropical regions. The Feeding strategy objective of this study was to evaluate the bioeconomic effects of different FSs applied to yearling bulls in Economic analysis Mozambique, using modeling and simulations as tools to support decision making. A simple deterministic simulation model was developed, assuming initial body weight (120 kg), average daily gain (ADG), feedstuffs, and production costs as inputs. FSs were simulated for a total of 120 days within four ADG systems: 0.000 kg (S000), 0.200 kg (S200), 0.400 kg (S400), and 0.600 kg/d (S600), and three diets were simulated for the positive and maintenance ADG systems, totaling 12 FS. The effects of 12 FS combinations were analyzed and a sensitivity analysis was performed. The effect of the change in the inputs of the model (feedstuffs purchase and calf purchase price) showed the sensitivity of the model to economic parameters (Gross Margin and Net Profit). The negative ADG (-0.200 kg) system (S-200) had the highest labor cost. Corn bran, considering its availability and low cost in the studied region, is a promising feedstuff for concentrates. Effective operational cost (EOC) was higher than 99% in all FSs. S-200, S000, and FS5 within the S200 system resulted in negative net profit(NP) values. Net profit proportionally increased as ADG increased. FS12 ( rufa, corn bran, and Sesbania sesban) of S600 promoted the highest ratio (NP/total operation cost) (0.48), and consequently, the highest profitability (32.37%). In general, the simulation model shows that, in native and communal pasture beef production systems in regions of with similar production conditions, the productivity of yearling beef cattle during the dry season may be improved by applying feeding strategies.

1. Introduction systems, from intensive to extensive or subsistence systems, particularly in the African continent. Traditional livestock production systems contribute more than 70% Mozambique has a cattle herd of 1277,044 heads produced mainly in of the livelihood of poor populations in rural areas of the world (Food extensive, small-scale systems, with an average of six heads per farm and Agriculture Organization - FAO, 2014). On the other hand, the (INE, 2011). The main breeds are Landim, Angone, and Bovino de Tete, increasing demand for beef requires greater efficiencyof all production which are adapted to local production conditions (Bessa et al., 2009).

◦ * Corresponding author: Av. Bento Gonçalves, n 7.712, 91540-000, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.O.J. Barcellos). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2021.104466 Received 25 June 2020; Received in revised form 1 March 2021; Accepted 2 March 2021 Available online 11 March 2021 1871-1413/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. T.A. Cumbe et al. Livestock Science 247 (2021) 104466

However, although those systems are characterized by low numbers of supply the local meat market, and the finishedmales achieve 350-570 kg animals, they play an important role in the meat supply of that country. body weight (Otto et al., 2000). The production system is based on the communal use of native pastures, in which animals from several farmers graze on a common 2.2. Description of the simulation model pasture area, which is the feed base throughout the year (Timberlake and Reddy, 1986; Carvalheira et al., 1995). The dependence on native The model was developed using Microsoft Excel® 2016 software to pastures limits cattle growth during the dry season (May to October) due build deterministic relationships between input and output components to the quantitative and qualitative deficits, resulting in approximately of the system, aimed at illustrating the effects of intervention in the local 20% body weight (BW) losses (Dionisio, 1985). This weight loss may production system of yearling cattle grazing on native pastures in also be associated with the greater distances traveled by cattle during communal areas. These interventions were represented by changes in the dry season (17.3 km) in search for good-quality pasture areas average daily gain (ADG) during the post-weaning phase as a result of compared with the rainy season (8.0 km) (Rocha et al., 1991). There­ supplementation strategies during the dry season. Therefore, the fore, interventions in such systems by feeding supplements during the composition of the total diet of each simulated feeding strategy as dry season are essential to improve their bioeconomic efficiency. How­ determined according to final body weight (Eq. 1). ever, feed supplements, which are typically based on grains, are BWf = BWi + (ADG × SDs) (1) expensive for those low-income small farmers, who, therefore, seek local supplementation alternatives, such as multifunctional (Franzel Where, (i) BWf: finalbody weight (kg); (ii) BWi: initial body weight et al., 2014). (kg); (iii) ADG: average daily gain (kg/d); (iv) SDs: simulation days, 120 Several authors have described the use of alternative feedstuffs as days. The model inputs were initial BW, ADG, live weight gains, feed­ supplements, including and sepium, to stuffs, and production cost. The outputs were economic indicators. compensate for the nutritional deficiencies experienced during the dry Five systems based on varying average daily gains (ADG) during the season (Abdulrazak et al., 1997; Quigley et al., 2009; Ojo et al., 2014; post weaning period were evaluated: (1) BW loss of 0.200 kg/d (S-200); Gusha et al., 2015; Gusha et al., 2017). Pimentel et al. (2011) showed (2) BW maintenance, 0.000 kg/d ADG (S000); (3) 0.200 kg/d ADG that beef cattle grazing on native pastures and supplemented with local (S200); (4) 0.400 kg/d ADG (S400); and (5) 0.600 kg/d ADG (S600) and alternative feedstuffs (, native pastures, and Leucaena pallida) (Fig. 1). These systems were based on the typical production conditions may potentially achieve daily weight gains of 0.400 kg/d under the of the studied area and on beef-cattle production literature (Pimentel production conditions of the district of Angonia,´ Mozambique. et al., 2011; Kavishe et al., 2017). The S-200 system was based on the Chakoma et al. (2016b) concluded that supplementation with results of Dionisio (1985), who observed BW losses of approximately Mucuna pruriens during the dry season allowed positive gross margin to 20% during the dry season with no feeding intervention in Mozambique. be obtained due to the low cost of this protein source. Tinga et al. (2014) The model consists of three components: (1) herd structure, represented showed that the supplementation of locally-produced urea-molasses by weaned calves; (2) feeding and (3) economics. blocks (manufactured from the blend of water, molasses, urea, salt, in­ dustrial cement and corn bran) provided greater economic returns of 2.3. Herd structure component 80% compared to non-supplemented animals. Alternative feedstuffs, such as the of perennial trees combined with pastures (Leucaena The model considered male calves derived from a breeding system, leucocephala + C4 tropical pastures) proved to be more profitable than of which the mating season is between January and March and the annual crops (Bowen et al., 2016). calving season between October and December (Fig. 2) (Uaila, 1999). Although many studies have been published on the impact of sup­ Calves were 7- to 9-months old at weaning in July, still during the dry plementation on beef cattle performance, it is essential to evaluate its season. After weaning, an intervention was applied in the system, using relative economic impacts, particularly taking into account the lack of dietary supplementation strategies for 120 days (July-October). information available on beef cattle production systems based on The bioeconomic effect of the applied feeding strategies was simu­ communal areas and local pastures. Therefore, the objective of this lated considering a herd of 50 calves with 120-kg initial BW (Nhan­ study was to evaluate the bioeconomic aspects of different feeding tumbo, 1985; Carvalheira et al., 1995). The initial weight was assumed strategies applied during the dry season in production systems with from the average weight of the selected calves after weaning, the age different average daily gain (ADG) targets of yearling beef bulls using differences considered between weaners did not influencethe analysis of deterministic modeling and simulation. the systems (Fig. 2). After the supplementation period, yearling bulls were sold to local farmers for finishing. 2. Material and methods 2.4. Animal feeding component: Feedstuffs 2.1. Study area The feedstuffs included (Table 1) in the diets formulated to achieve The study was based on the beef cattle production systems of the the pre-definedADG of each feeding system were those available in the district of Angonia,´ located in the extreme North-Northeast of Tete studied region. In all systems, grass was the main ◦ ◦ Province, at 14 39’ South and 34 14’ East. The climate of the region is feedstuff, as it is commonly used by the local farmers (Nhantumbo, ◦ humid tropical, with 18-22 C average annual temperature, 70% relative 1985). The selection of these feedstuffs type was based on expert opinion humidity, and with 1100-1200 mm average annual rainfall. The rainy and our observation. season typically occurs between November and April, and the dry season The chemical composition of the feedstuffs is shown in Table 1. Diets between May and October (MOÇAMBIQUE, 2014). The predominant were formulated using the Supercrac Software for beef cattle (TD Soft­ vegetation consists of Hyparrhenia spp., Hyparrhenia dissoluta, Andropo­ ware, 2010), and the nutritional requirements of yearling bulls of the gon spp., and Heteropogon contortus grasses (Timberlake and Jordao,˜ NRC - Beef Cattle (NRC, 1996). Energy content (total digestible nutri­ 1985). ents, TDN) was estimated using Eqs. 2 and 3 for roughages and con­ Crops are the main regional economic activity, and it is typically centrates, respectively (Cappelle et al., 2001). practiced manually on small farms by most of the household members. TDN (%) = [ 2.49 + (1.0167 × OMD)] (2) The main food crops are corn and common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). This area traditionally rears beef cattle, with the herd estimated at TDN (%) = [5.60 + (0.8646 × OMD)] (3) 21,000 head (MOÇAMBIQUE, 2014). Beef cattle are produced mainly to

2 T.A. Cumbe et al. Livestock Science 247 (2021) 104466

Fig. 1. Systems (S-200, S000, S200, S400 and S600) considered in the simulation model and final body weight in each systems.

Fig. 2. Management and assumptions considered for simulated systems (S-200, S000, S200, S400 and S600) based on average daily gain of yearling beef bulls; (W): Weaning; (S): Selling. The model simulation was started from the second year.

Where, OMD (%) is organic matter digestibility. feed costs were calculated according to the prices prevailing between Three feeding strategies (FS) were simulated for each of the four June and September, 2018, in the region of Angonia.´ positive ADG systems, totaling 12 FS (Table 2). The S-200 system was Total production cycles of 10 years were considered for considered the control treatment, as it was not submitted to any inter­ L. leucocephala (1), G. sepium (2), S. sesban (3), M. oleifera (4); and of 3 vention. Each FS was based on feedstuffs availability in the region, years for C. cajan. A 5% annual productivity reduction was calculated in nutritional characteristics, previous knowledge of the use and the costs order to avoid overestimating pasture DM productivity during the pro­ of the feedstuffs included in each ADG system (S000, S200, S400, and duction cycles. M. oleifera hay production was established as 120 kg per S600). 1000 kg of fresh shoots (Mendieta-Araica et al., 2011). In the model, the total body weights gains of yearling bulls were To capture the uncertainty of the dry matter productivity of the -24.00 kg (S-200); 0.00 kg (S000); 24 kg (S200); 48 kg (S400); and 72.00 on the simulation model, the average values of the forages kg (S600) (Table 2). Among positive average daily gain systems, the productivity were varied to ± Standard Deviation (SD). This variation lowest and highest H. rufa intakes were obtained with FS7 (0.575 kg was reflectedin the feedstuffs costs of these forages. With these costs, the DM/d) and FS5 (1.8 kg DM/d), respectively. Corn bran was one of the gross margin (GM) was determined considering these SD of forage most frequent feedstuff included in the FSs. ADG efficiencywas similar productivity. among FS applied in each ADG system. The crude protein intake (Fig. 3) ranged from 141.8 g/d (S-200) to 2.5.2. Labor cost and economic indicators 573.2 g/d (S600). In general, the ratio between concentrate and The labor costs of the evaluated systems (S-200, S000, S200, S400, roughage percentages in the total diet (Fig. 4) increased as ADG and S600) (Table 4), assumed, due to the different H. rufa intake levels increased. among the systems, that the number of labor hours required varied as a function of daily pasture DM intake in each system. At a DM intake of 1.8 2.5. Economic component kg DM of H. rufa (FS5), a total of 8 man-hours (0.225 kg DM/h/head/d) was assumed (Pimentel et al., 2011). 2.5.1. Feedstuff cost of each feeding strategy Based on a minimum monthly wage of USD 66.81 (WageIndicator, The feedstuff cost of each FS was calculated based on two criteria: 1 - 2019), daily labor cost of 8 hours of work was set as USD 2.23, resulting feedstuff (on DM basis) price in the local markets, and 2 - pasture in an hourly labor cost of USD 0.278/d for a total of 50 heads/d. implementation cost. The cost of implementing 1 ha of pasture included The cost matrix applied to calculate the economic indicators was the costs related to tillage, sowing (including the number of additional based on the studies of Lopes et al. (2011); Silva et al. (2014), and seedlings to be planted, rate, number of seeds/kg), local Sartorello et al. (2018). However, in order to represent the simulated labor, and fertilization with cattle compost, and reflected local condi­ system, the following items were included in the variable costs: (1) calf tions. Pasture maintenance cost per production cycle and its respective purchase cost; (2) total diet cost (TDC); (3) stockman labor cost; (4) productivity (kg DM/ha) were also considered (Table 3). Production and health intervention cost, which included communal dipping; and (5)

3 T.A. Cumbe et al. Livestock Science 247 (2021) 104466

Table 1 other variable costs, resulting in the effective operational cost (EOC). Chemical composition (on dry matter basis) of the feedstuffs used to simulate the Fixed costs included the depreciation of the equipment used for pasture feeding strategies (FS) for yearling beef bulls. cutting and transport and of the facilities. Depreciation was calculated Feedstuff DM CP Ca P TDN References according to Eq. 4, considering a 5-year life for pasture cutting equip­ (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) ment, a 2-year life for cut pasture transport, and a 10-year life for the a Cajanus cajan 31.80 19.00 0.72 0.18 63.19 (Heuze´ et al., facilities (pens). The residual value was considered as 0.0%. 2016a) / a ´ Vp Vl × SDs Gliricidia 25.30 22.30 1.19 0.23 74.37 (Heuze and D = (4) sepium Tran, 2015a) 365 days **Hyparrhenia 31.10 7.10 0.38 0.17 54.45 (Heuze´ et al., rufa 2015b) Where: D - depreciation; Vp: asset purchase value; SDs: simulation a ´ Leucaena 29.90 23.30 0.11 0.21 74.17 (Heuze and days; and Vl: life. The calculation was based on a total number of 50 leucacephala Tran, 2015b) animals. a Manihot 22.50 24.90 0.119 0.37 62.48 (Heuze´ and The other equations used to determine the economic indicators are as esculenta Tran, 2016) b Moringa 91.20 26.60 2.56 0.33 74.98 (Heuze´ et al., follows: oleifera 2016b) a Mucuna 24.70 16.00 0.10 0.19 66.75 (Heuze´ et al., ✓ Concentrate cost (CC), in percentage, is the ratio between concen­ pruriens 2015c) trate cost (the sum of all concentrated feed costs intake during the a Sesbania 26.00 24.40 1.59 0.33 81.39 (Heuze´ et al., sesban 2015a) simulation period) and total diet cost (TDC) in each feeding strategy. c Mucuna 90.80 27.70 0.19 0.43 84.71 (Heuze´ et al., CC CC(%) = × 100% pruriens 2015c) TDC (5) Urea 100.00 287.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (INRA, CIRAD, AFZ 2017) c Zea mays 90.00 8.00 0.04 0.29 82.29 (Heuze´ et al., 2017) ✓ Total diet cost (TDC) represent the total cost of dry matter intake in Limestone 100.00 0.00 38.5 0.00 0.00 (Campos, each feeding strategy, in USD per simulations days (SDs). 1980 quoted by Sousa, TDC = kg DMI/SDs × price/kg feedstuff (6) 1985) d Corn bran 88.70 11.90 0.47 0.34 76.00 (Heuz´e et al., 2016c) ✓ Feeding cost (FC) was considered as the sum of total diet cost (TDC) a Aerial parts; and labor cost (LC), in USD. b Hay; FC = TDC + LC c Grain; (7) d Corn byproduct, containing the pericarp, tip, and some starch particles, derived from the milling of dry corn grains, which are one of the main compo­ nents of the diet of the population of Mozambique; ✓ Effective operational cost (EOC), represents the sum of all variable ** Native pasture; DM: dry matter; CP: crude protein; Ca: calcium; P: phos­ costs used in the model, in USD. phorus; TDN: total digestible nutrients. EOC = (Price / kg BW × BWi) + FC + HIC + OC (8)

Table 2 Total diet, total body weight gain (TWG), dry matter intake (DMI) and feed efficiencyin different systems (S-200, S000, S200, S400 and S600) based on average daily gain (ADG) in yearling beef bulls.

S-200 S000 S200 S400 S600 ADG: -0.200 kg/d ADG: 0.000 kg/d ADG: 0.200 kg/d ADG: 0.400 kg/d ADG: 0.600 kg/d

NI FS1 FS2 FS3 FS4 FS5 FS6 FS7 FS8 FS9 FS10 FS11 FS12

Total weight gain (kg/head/SDs) -24.00 0.00 24.00 48.00 72.00 Feedstuffs DMI (kg/d) DMI (kg/d) DMI (kg/d) DMI (kg/d) DMI (kg/d) a Cajanus cajan ------0.365 ------a ------1.255 0.973 - - - - **Hyparrhenia rufa D 1.997 1.150 1.450 1.460 1.250 1.800 1.435 0.575 0.582 0.626 1.600 0.800 0.850 a Leucaena leucocephala - - 0.350 ------1.000 - a Manihot esculenta - - - 0.340 ------Moringa oleifera, hay ------0.225 - - - - a Mucuna pruriens - 0.650 - - 0.550 ------a Sesbania sesban ------1.174 - - 1.490 Mucuna pruriens, grain ------1.259 0.600 - Urea - - - - - 0.032 ------Zea mays, grain - - - - - 1.071 - 1.320 1.320 1.232 - 1.230 - Limestone - - - - - 0.003 - - - - 0.027 0.038 - Corn bran - 0.170 0.180 0.240 1.070 - 1.118 - - - 1.000 - 1.345 Total intake (kg DMI/head/SDs) 239.64 236.4 237.6 244.8 344.4 348.72 350.16 374.4 374.4 363.84 466.32 440.16 442.2 C ADG Efficiency -0.100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.070 0.069 0.069 0.128 0.128 0.132 0.154 0.178 0.163

a Aerial parts; C Calculated as the ratio between ADG and total DMI per head; D Based on total dry matter intake (DMI) in S000; NI: no intervention; FS: feeding strategy; DM: dry matter; SDs: simulation days; ** Native pasture; SDs: simulation days.

4 T.A. Cumbe et al. Livestock Science 247 (2021) 104466

Fig. 3. Dry matter intake (% BW) and crude protein intake (g) in each ADG system (S-200, S000, S200, S400 and S600).

Fig. 4. Roughage and concentrate percentages of the total diets used in the simulated feed strategies (FS) in each ADG system (S-200, S000, S200, S400 and S600).

Where, FC: feeding cost; BW: body weight (kg); BWi: initial body weight (kg); HIC: health intervention cost (payment of communal dip­ ✓ Gross Margin (GM) was calculated as revenue minus effective oper­ ping bats); OC: other variables costs. ational costs (EOC), in USD.

✓ Total operational cost (TOC) was calculated as the sum of effective Gross margin = Revenue EOC (12) operational cost and depreciation, in USD. = + TOC EOC depreciation (9) ✓ Net profit was calculated as revenue minus total operational costs (TOC), in USD.

✓ Effective operational cost (EOC) in percentage, was calculated as the Net profit = Revenue TOC (13) ratio between effective operational cost (EOC) and total operational cost (TOC). ✓ Profitability was calculated as a ratio between net profit and reve­ EOC EOC (%) = × 100% nue, in %. TOC (10) (Revenue TOC) Prof itability (%) = × 100% Revenue (14) ✓ Revenue was measured multiplying the final body weight (BWf) by the price per kg body weight (BW), in USD. / = × Revenue BWf sales price kg BW (11) Calf purchase and yearling bull sales price was the same (USD 1.21/

5 T.A. Cumbe et al. Livestock Science 247 (2021) 104466

Table 3 Average annual production (kg DM), cost of pasture implementation or maintenance during the entire production cycle (CPIM), and cost (kg/DM) of the feedstuffs used to formulate diets for yearling beef bulls. Feedstuffs Yield CPIMf CostP References (kg DM/ha) USD/ha USD/ kg DM Per cycle SD Per total cycles

a Cajanus cajan 6468.9 3414.7 18452.4 500.00 0.027 (1, 2, 3, 4) a Gliricidia sepium 5258.1 3352.9 42197.0 1020.97 0.024 (2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 34) **Hyparrhenia rufa ------a Leucaena leucacephala 9004.7 5680.7 72265.1 769.35 0.011 (2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 31, 32) a Manihot esculenta 5179.7 1560.3 10359.3 346.77 0.033 (5, 11, 12, 13) Moringa oleifera, hay 8899.3 5023.8 32711.1 1314.52 0.040 (14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 33) a Mucuna pruriens 6249.6 3124.5 - 395.16 0.063 (21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27) a Sesbania sesban 7185.4 6134.5 57664.7 625.00 0.010 (2, 10, 29, 30) Mucuna pruriens, grain 1770.5 427.8 - 298.39 0.169 (9, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28) Urea - - - - 0.718 Local markets Zea mays, grain - - - - 0.169 Limestone - - - - 0.323 Corn bran - - - - 0.032

a Aerial parts; ** Native pasture; f The calculation of CPIM considered cycle production differences between perennial and annual forages p The cost calculation for each feedstuff was CPIM/yield per entire cycle for the perennial forages. For annual forages, it was CPIM/yield per cycle; DM: dry matter; SD: Standard Deviation. Currency rate: USD 1 = MZN 62.00 on November 29, 2018 (BM, 2018). 1: (Bahar, 1981); 2: (Dzowela et al., 1997); 3: (Rao et al., 2003); 4: (Costa et al., 2013); 5: (Wong and Sharundin, 1986); 6: (Cobbina and Atta-Krah, 1992); 7: (Barreto and Fernandes, 2001); 8: (Barnes, 1995); 9: (Kiwia et al., 2009); 10: (Casanova-Lugo et al., 2014); 11: (Islami and Howeler, 2016); 12: (FAO, 2013); 13: (Limsila et al., 2002); 14: (Mendieta-Araica et al., 2013); 15: (Sanchez´ et al., 2006); 16: (Foidl et al., 2001); 17: (Ledea-Rodríguez et al., 2018) 19: (Gonzalez-Gonz´ alez´ and Crespo-Lopez,´ 2016); 20: (Zheng et al., 2016); 21: (Asongwed-Awa and Onana, 2002); 22: (Eilitta¨ et al., 2003); 23: (Fujii et al., 1991); 24: (Odhiambo et al., 2010); 25: (Carsky et al., 2001); 26: (Wang et al., 2009); 27: (Sanwal et al., 2016); 28: (Chakoma et al., 2016a); 29: (El-Morsy, 2009); 30: (Heering, 1995); 31: (Guevarra et al., 1978); 32: (Drumond and Ribaski, 2010); 33: (Sanchez´ et al., 2006) and 34: (Speedy, 1995).

3. Results Table 4 Labor costs of the simulated average daily gain systems (S-200, S000, S200, S400 Sensitivity analysis and economic performance of the feeding and S600) based on communal grazing of yearling beef bulls. strategies Feeding DMIp Seasonal labor Labor costs Feeding strategies were submitted to sensitivity analysis by strategies hours/d kg/d (h) J USD (heads/ USD (head/ decreasing and increasing calf purchase price per kg BW and feedstuff d) SDs) purchase price. The reduction of both prices resulted in both positive gross margin and net profit,while their increase resulted in negative net NI 1.997 8.99 2.474 5.94 FS1 1.15 5.11 1.423 3.42 profitin the S000 system and in FS4 and FS5, and negative gross margin FS2 1.45 6.44 1.794 4.31 in all FS of the S000 and of FS5 of the S200 system (Table 5). FS3 1.46 6.49 1.806 4.34 The simulated ADG loss (S-200) and ADG maintenance (S000) sys­ FS4 1.25 5.56 1.546 3.71 tems, independently of FS, resulted in economic losses, as shown by the FS5 1.8 8.00 2.227 5.35 FS6 1.435 6.38 1.775 4.26 negative gross margin values, as well FS5 within the S200 system FS7 0.575 2.56 0.711 1.71 (Table 6). On the other hand, positive gross margins were obtained in FS8 0.582 2.59 0.72 1.73 the S400 and S600 systems, with the highest value (USD 76.47) deter­ FS9 0.626 2.78 0.774 1.86 mined with FS12 (Table 6). Net profitvalues presented similar behavior FS10 1.6 7.11 1.979 4.75 as gross margin values because net profit calculation only subtracted FS11 0.8 3.56 0.99 2.38 FS12 0.85 3.78 1.052 2.52 equipment depreciation costs from the gross margin. The net profit to total operational cost ratio indicated the best FS NI: no intervention; FS: feeding strategy; DMIp: dry matter intake of native within each simulated ADG system. The best ratio (0.48) was obtained pasture; h: hour; d: day; SDs: simulation days J with FS12 within the S600 system or a 48% benefitper USD invested in for a total of 50 heads and seasonal payment. Currency rate: USD 1 = MZN 62.00 on November 29, 2018 (BM, 2018). feed, and, consequently, FS12 presented the highest profitability (32.27%) (Table 6). The ADG loss and maintenance systems (S-200 and S000, respectively) and FS5 within the S200 system were the least kg BW) for all systems, except for the sales price of S-200 yearling bulls, profitable, as shown by net profit to TOC ratios lower than 1. which was lower (USD 0.81/kg BW) (Chakoma et al., 2016a). Price was Total operational cost per kg of final BW decreased as final BW determined based on the exchange rate of USD 1 = MT 62.00 (BM, increased in ADG systems evaluated, as shown by the highest and lowest 2018). The diet supply in all feeding strategies did not involve any cost. TOC values obtained in the S-200 (USD 1.60) and S600 (USD 0.82) ADG For this, family labor was assumed, as it constitutes one of the main systems, respectively. Effective operational costs (EOC) represented assets of the farmers (Cumbe et al., 2017). over 99% of the production costs of the evaluated systems (Table 6). Total diet cost (Table 6) increased as ADG increased up to 400 g/ 2.6. Sensitivity analysis d (S400), except in the S600 system. The lowest total diet cost was USD 1.14 (FS2) and the highest, USD 41.07 (FS11). However, the S600 sys­ A sensitivity analysis was carried out by increasing and decreasing tem had with the highest TDC, except when FS12 was applied, was feedstuffs and calf purchase prices by 10% in the simulation model. This similar (USD 7.08) to that obtained with FS4 in the S200 ADG system analysis was performed in order to understand the reliability of the (USD 8.32). simulation model, in relation to the output indicators, with emphasis on Concentrate costs (CC) (Table 6) represented the highest proportion the values of gross margin and net profit.

6 T.A. Cumbe et al. Livestock Science 247 (2021) 104466

Table 5 Sensitivity of the simulation model to change in feedstuffs purchase price and calf purchase price per kg BW in different systems (S-200, S000, S200, S400 and S600) based on average daily gain (ADG) in yearling beef bulls. Feeding strategies (FS) Gross Margin (USD/animal) Net Profit (USD/animal)

Systems -10% Actuals +10% -10% Actuals +10%

S-200 NI -60.09 -74.68 -89.27 -61.15 -75.74 -90.33 FS1 5.14 -10.02 -25.17 3.85 -11.30 -26.46 S000 FS2 8.26 -6.45 -21.15 6.96 -7.74 -22.45 FS3 7.19 -7.63 -22.46 5.89 -8.93 -23.75 FS4 31.40 15.98 0.55 30.12 14.69 -0.74 S200 FS5 14.06 -3.11 -20.28 12.79 -4.38 -21.56 FS6 33.39 18.24 3.09 32.09 16.94 1.79 FS7 41.34 23.56 5.79 40.04 22.26 4.49 S400 FS8 40.91 23.09 5.27 39.61 21.79 3.97 FS9 44.76 27.38 10.00 43.46 26.08 8.71 FS10 68.47 50.82 33.18 67.20 49.55 31.91 S600 FS11 61.19 42.47 23.75 59.89 41.16 22.45 FS12 91.78 76.47 61.17 90.48 75.18 59.87

NI: no intervention

Table 6 Feed costs and economic benefits of feeding strategies per animal in different systems (S-200, S000, S200, S400 and S600) based on average daily gain (ADG) in yearling beef bulls.

S-200 S000 S200 S400 S600

Variables Unit ADG: -0.200 kg/ ADG: 0.000 kg/d ADG: 0.200 kg/d ADG: 0.400 kg/d ADG: 0.600 kg/d d NI FS1 FS2 FS3 FS4 FS5 FS6 FS7 FS8 FS9 FS10 FS11 FS12

TDC (kg DM/SDs) USD 0.00 5.59 1.14 2.30 8.32 25.67 5.52 31.66 32.11 27.71 30.38 41.07 7.08 CC % 0.00 11.77 60.91 40.48 49.81 100.00 78.48 88.77 89.36 94.67 100.00 96.89 73.52 FC USD 5.94 9.00 5.45 6.63 12.03 31.02 9.78 33.37 33.84 29.57 35.13 43.45 9.61 FC/kg TWG USD -0.25 - - - 0.50 1.29 0.41 0.70 0.71 0.62 0.43 0.58 0.10 A EOC/kg TWG USD -0.29 - - - 0.42 0.269 0.32 0.272 0.67 0.22 0.48 0.49 0.43 A TOC/kg TWG USD -0.33 - - - 0.60 1.39 0.50 0.72 0.73 0.64 0.52 0.64 0.17 TOC/kg BWf USD 1.60 1.30 1.27 1.28 1.11 1.24 1.09 1.077 1.080 1.05 0.95 1.00 0.82 EOC USD 152.10 155.18 151.61 152.79 158.22 177.30 155.95 179.66 180.14 175.84 181.43 189.79 155.78 EOC % 99.31 99.18 99.15 99.16 99.19 99.29 99.17 99.28 99.28 99.27 99.30 99.32 99.17 TOC USD 153.16 156.47 152.91 154.09 159.50 178.58 157.25 180.96 181.14 177.14 182.71 191.09 157.08 B Revenue USD 77.42 145.16 174.19 203.23 232.26 Revenue/TOC 0.51 0.93 0.95 0.94 1.09 0.98 1.11 1.123 1.120 1.15 1.27 1.22 1.48 Gross Margin USD -74.68 -10.02 -6.45 -7.63 15.98 -3.11 18.24 23.56 23.09 27.38 50.82 42.47 76.47 Net profit USD -75.74 -11.30 -7.74 -8.93 14.69 -4.38 16.94 22.26 21.79 26.08 49.55 41.16 75.18 Net profit/TOC -0.49 -0.07 -0.05 -0.06 0.09 -0.02 0.11 0.123 0.120 0.15 0.27 0.22 0.48 Profitability % -97.83 -7.79 -5.34 -6.15 8.43 -2.52 9.72 10.95 10.17 12.83 21.33 17.72 32.37

NI: no intervention; TDC: total diet cost; CC: concentrate cost; FC: feeding cost (TDC + labor cost); FS: feeding strategy; TWG: total body weight gain; EOC: effective operational cost; TOC: total operational cost; SDs: simulation days; DM: dry matter A Does not include calf purchase cost; BWf: final body weight; ADG: Average daily gain B Revenue values were based on the sales price of USD 1.21/kg BW. Currency rate: USD 1 = MZN 62.00 on November 29, 2018. of TDC, except for FS1 (11.77%) and FS3 (40.48 %) of the S000 ADG to the high GM (with increases ranging from 0.00% to 16.47%), while system. However, high CC proportions of the TDC did not necessarily with the decrease of this forage it was observed a decrease of the GM that result in higher TDC values. For instance, within the S400 system, the vary from 0.00% to 49.40% in systems with FS interventions. TDC of FS9 was USD 27.71 and represented 94.67% of the CC, whereas in FS7, TDC was USD 31.66, and represented only 88.77% of the CC. 4. Discussion Feeding cost (FC) is the most important cost in the management of feeding strategies, as it includes both labor and total diet costs. In the One of the parameters typically used to evaluate the performance of present model, FC ranged between USD 5.45 (FS2) and USD 43.45 beef production systems is live weight target at a given age or produc­ (FS11), as shown in Table 6. Feeding cost per kg of final body weight tion phase (Lesosky et al., 2013). Initial BW and ADG desired should be (FC/kg BWf) was calculated for the systems which ADG were different determined before supplements are fed, as these parameters will define from zero (S-200, S200, S400, and S600), with the lowest values ob­ the live performance and economic targets of the production system tained with FS12 (USD 0.10) and the highest with FS5 (USD 1.29). These (Poppi et al., 2018). The purpose of using ADG as an input of the results indicate that, within the same ADG system, lower feeding costs simulation model evaluated in the present study was to emphasize its per kg of weight gain suggest higher efficiency of the ingredients importance in the management of beef cattle production systems. included in this FS. Production systems aimed at selling yearling bulls for finishing Taking into account the uncertainty of the variations in the pro­ cannot be solely based on natural pastures, whereby seasonal produc­ ductivity of the forages (Table 7), it can be seen that the greater or lesser tion often causes BW loss (Meyreles et al., 1977; Murungweni et al., production of the forage influences the economic results of the feeding 2004; Quigley et al., 2009). Under such situations, feeding interventions strategies (FS). This can be observed by the variations in the gross are required, and their economic effects need to be evaluated. margin (GM). The increase in the forage productivity benefitsthe FS due Body weight maintenance production systems (S000 in the present

7 T.A. Cumbe et al. Livestock Science 247 (2021) 104466

Table 7 higher investments are needed. Although reporting different absolute Gross margin per animal of feeding strategies (FS) considering the uncertainty of values, several authors (Lopes et al., 2008; Shi et al., 2014) also observed productivity of dry matter of forages in different systems (S-200, S000, S200, that the feeding costs increases with BWG. However, it should be noted S400 and S600) based on average daily gain (ADG) in yearling beef bulls. that FS12 promoted the highest ADG (0.600 kg) at the lowest FC/kg Feeding + Standard Actuals - Standard TWG, highlighting the opportunity to achieve high BWG with cheap strategies (FS) Deviation Deviation feedstuffs, in agreement with Gusha et al. (2015), who stated that the Systems % of USD USD USD % of strategic supplementation with alternative feedstuffs may reduce costs change change and increase profitability. However, it must be taken into account that S-200 NI 0.00 -74.68 -74.68 -74.68 0.00 total diet cost depends on the price of each feedstuff per kg of DM and its FS1 16.47 -8.37 -10.02 -14.97 49.40 nutritional content, aiming at supplying the daily nutritional re­ S000 FS2 2.79 -6.27 -6.45 -7.21 11.78 quirements to achieve that desired ADG. FS3 4.19 -7.31 -7.63 -8.22 7.73 Priyanti et al. (2010), evaluating different feeding strategies, ob­ FS4 8.70 17.37 15.98 11.78 26.28 S200 FS5 0.00 -3.11 -3.11 -3.11 0.00 tained an ADG of 0.418 kg/d at a cost of USD 10.93/kg with FS6 2.25 18.65 18.24 16.91 7.29 L. leucocephala supplementation and 0.428 kg/d at USD 8.76/kg with FS7 5.90 24.95 23.56 17.27 26.70 supplementation of bran of rice + copra flour in yearling calves in S400 FS8 6.63 24.62 23.09 16.55 28.32 Indonesia. Compared to the results of Priyanti et al. (2010), the costs of FS9 2.52 28.07 27.38 18.71 31.67 FS10 9.80 55.80 50.82 42.67 16.04 all FS simulated in the present study to achieve similar ADG (S400) were S600 FS11 6.76 45.34 42.47 36.39 14.32 65% higher. On the other hand, the relatively lower total diet cost (TDC) FS12 1.14 77.34 76.47 65.47 14.38 of FS12 (USD 7.08) to achieve higher ADG (0.600 kg/d) may be NI: no intervention explained by the differences in feedstuff cost/kg or by the high pro­ ductivity of Sesbania sesban. Furthermore, although the cost of USD 19.18 calculated to achieve 0.200 kg ADG by Priyanti et al. (2010) is study) are typical in beef-cattle production systems in tropical regions comparable to that of FS5 (USD 25.67), it is still much higher than that during the dry season, as previously reported by Tinga and Chimba­ of the other FS applied to obtain the same ADG (FS4 and FS6), which lambala (2016) in the southern region of Mozambique, as well as by TDC were lower than USD 8.5. This comparison shows that FS5 is not Quigley et al. (2009) in Indonesia and Franco et al. (2018). economically feasible, and, therefore, it is not recommended under the Systems aiming at positive body weight gains may allow achieving conditions of this study. better economic gains (Gonzalez´ et al., 2003; Quigley et al., 2009; The analysis of the simulated FS shows that higher ADG targets Radrizzani and Nasca, 2014; Chakoma et al., 2016b). In addition, high promote better economic benefitsper kg WG, as indicated by the lower body weight gain (BWG) targets may allow the intensification of beef feeding cost, and both total and effective operational costs per kg of total cattle production systems and provide sales advantages due to the added weight gain. In pre-established production systems, these results are value of marketing heavier yearlings at the end of the dry season, even more important, as only feeding management is required. particularly under the conditions of Mozambique. The reduction of total operational costs per kg BW as ADG increases Feeding strategies may allow achieving BWG targets by supplying indicates higher ADGs maximize the use of inputs, providing higher the nutritional requirements of growing cattle during periods when profits. Since family labor accounts for the largest proportion the pastures contain low energy and protein levels (Poppi et al., 2018). The effective operational cost, the fixed costs of the simulated production supplementation of energy- and protein-rich supplements increased the systems were low. productivity of beef cattle grazing on H. rufa in communal areas during The negative and low gross margin and net profitcalculated for the the dry season (Nouel and Combellas, 1999), when this pasture is not simulated BW loss (S-200) and BW maintenance (S000) systems, able to supply not even the maintenance requirements of post-weaning respectively, which were based on extensive grazing in native pastures beef cattle. in communal areas, indicate that such systems are not profitable and Concentrates accounted for the highest proportion of the total diets require interventions to generate economic benefitsin the medium term due to the low nutritional value of the native pasture on which the (Lopes et al., 2008). simulation was based. However, in the study of Angel et al. (2018), In general, higher net profitto total operational cost ratios (NP/TOC) native pastures represented 84.9% of DM intake, and a protein and were obtained as ADG increased, differently from Shi et al. (2014), who energy supplement was separately fed in corrals. Those results empha­ calculated NP/TOC ratios of 2.71, 3.84, and 4.61 for ADGs of 1.72, 1.60, size that the worse is forage quality, the greater is the need of supple­ and 1.40 kg/d, respectively. In the present simulation, NP/TOC ratios mentation to achieve positive ADG or to maintain it. were proportional to gross margin and profitability as equal feedstuff Although the concentrate proportion of the total diet was similar prices were assumed for the diets of all simulated FSs. among the three FS simulated for each ADG system, the composition of The highest profitabilitywas obtained with FS12, followed by FS10, the total diet was different. In particular, the FS12 indicate that indicating the potential of the feedstuffs used in these FS. For instance, roughage type may promote higher ADG. The simulated FS strategies the concentrate fed in FS10 consisted of M. pruriens grains, which, ac­ including corn bran promoted higher BWG, suggesting that it is the best cording to Chakoma et al. (2016b), allows good economic returns due to feedstuff option for supplementation, in agreement with Chingala et al. its low cost and high nutritional value. This is widely distributed (2017) who reported that, in similar beef production systems in Malawi, in Mozambique (Cassani et al., 2016), where it an important source of 86% of the farmers mentioned the use of corn bran as supplement. nutrients in traditional cattle production systems. Average daily gain efficiency depended on the feedstuff nutritional The high profitability of FS12 was related to the inclusion of levels in this simulation, as previously observed by Quigley et al. (2009) perennial forages and corn bran. Bowen et al. (2016), in Northern when evaluating different feeding strategies for yearling cattle in Australia, observed that beef production systems based on perennial Indonesia. As feeding cost accounts for most of the total production cost, L. leucocephala pasture were more profitablethan those based on annual farmers tend to choose the cheapest feeding intervention strategy for crops. This may be attributed to the low cost of perennial pastures, yearling cattle. However, other aspects should be taken into account, where production is maximized during a long productive cycle, and such the physical effort required to feed the animals, considering family underscores that the supply of supplements is beneficialin the long term labor. (Bennison et al., 1997). In addition, the inclusion of corn bran in FS12 The proportional increase in feeding costs per kg of total weight gain, promoted high profitability due to its low cost (Mlay et al., 2005; except for FS12, demonstrates that, in order to achieve higher BWG, Kavishe et al., 2017). This result corroborates the findingsof Tahir et al.

8 T.A. Cumbe et al. Livestock Science 247 (2021) 104466

(2002), who compared the economic results of the inclusion of 30% Barnes, P., 1995. Dry-matter herbage productivity and aspects of chemical-composition corn, or rice bran in the diet of dairy cows, and concluded that in 4 forage shrub at a subhumid site in ghana. Agroforest. Syst. 31, 223–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00712075. corn provided the best economic returns due to its low cost. This in­ Barreto, A.C., Fernandes, M.F., 2001. Cultivo de Gliricidia sepium e Leucaena leucocephala dicates the potential of corn bran as an alternative supplemental feed­ em alamedas visando a melhoria dos solos dos tabuleiros costeiros. Pesq. Agropec. – stuff in cattle production systems. Bras. 36, 1287 1293. Bennison, J.J., Barton, D., Jaitner, J., 1997. The Production Objectives and Feeding The high net profits calculated for the feeding strategies applied to Strategies of Livestock Owners in The Gambia: Implications for Policy achieve 600 g/d ADG demonstrate to the farmers the benefits of inten­ Makers. Agric. Syst. 55, 425–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00002- sifying their beef cattle production systems, particularly considering 4. Bessa, I., Pinheiro, I., Matola, M., Dzama, K., Rocha, A., Alexandrino, P., 2009. Genetic that Mozambique has limited resources, such as commercial feeds, and diversity and relationships among indigenous Mozambican cattle breeds. S. Afr. J. that more than 40% of the beef consumed in urban centers is imported Anim. Sci. 39, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v39i1.43548. ˆ ´ (Vernooij et al., 2016). BM (Banco de Moçambique), 2018. Mercado cambial - Taxas de cambio medias de referˆencia em meticais do dia. http://www.bancomoc.mz/fm_mercadosmmi.aspx? Although Poppi et al. (2018) state that supplementation should be id=10 (accessed 11 November 2018). used as a last resort, in beef cattle production systems based on Bowen, M.K., Chudleigh, F., Buck, S., Hopkins, K., 2016. Productivity and profitabilityof communal farming and family labor (Mmbengwa et al., 2015) as forage options for beef production in the subtropics of northern Australia. Anim. – simulated in the present study, it may improve productivity during Prod. Sci. 58, 332 342. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN16180. Cappelle, E.R., Valadares Filho, S.C., Silva, J.F.C., Cecon, P.R., 2001. Estimativas do valor seasons when insufficient pasture production is expected. energetico´ a partir de características químicas e bromatologicas´ dos alimentos. Rev. The overall results obtained with the simulation model suggest that Bras. Zootec. 30, 1837–1856. the choice of the feeding strategy depends on the feedstuffs available in a Carsky, R.J., Oyewole, B., Tian, G., 2001. Effect of phosphorus application in legume cover crop rotation on subsequent maize in the savanna zone of West Africa. Nutr. specific region and on the production system on each farm. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 59, 151–159. Carvalheira, J.G.V, Blake, R.W., Pollak, E.J., Van Soest, P.V, 1995. Comparison of 5. Conclusions Landim and Africander cattle in southern Mozambique : I . Body weights and growth. J. Anim. Sci. 73, 3519–3526. https://doi.org/10.2527/1995.73123519x. Casanova-Lugo, F., Petit-Aldana, J., Solorio-Sanchez,´ F.J., Parsons, D., Ramírez- The evaluated simulation model may be used as a tool to support Avil´es, L., 2014. Forage yield and quality of Leucaena leucocephala andGuazuma decision making by the farmers to plan interventions in beef cattle ulmifolia in mixed and pure banks systems in Yucatan. . Agroforest. Syst. 88, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-013-9652-7. production systems. Among the feedstuffs evaluated, corn bran, com­ Cassani, E., Cilia, R., Laguna, J., Barichella, M., Contin, M., Cereda, E., Isaias, I.U., bined with other feedstuffs, increased the profitability of the simulated Sparvoli, F., Akpalu, A., Budu, K.O., Scarpa, M.T., Pezzoli, G., 2016. Mucuna pruriens ’ systems. This simulation indicates that it is possible to improve the for Parkinson s disease: Low-cost preparation method, laboratory measures and pharmacokinetics profile. J. Neurol. Sci. 365, 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. economic results of systems based on native pastures in communal areas jns.2016.04.001. by feeding the cattle with alternative feedstuff supplements. However, Chakoma, I., Gwiriri, L.C., Manyawu, G., Dube, S., Shumba, M., Gora, A., 2016a. Forage under those conditions, no supplementation or using it only for body seed production and trade as a pathway out of poverty in the smallholder sector: lessons from the Zimbabwe Crop Livestock Integration for Food Security (ZimCLIFS) weight maintenance results in economic losses. project. African J. Range Forage Sci. 33, 181–184. https://doi.org/10.2989/ 10220119.2016.1173097. CRediT authorship contribution statement Chakoma, I., Manyawu, G., Gwiriri, L.C., Moyo, S., Dube, S., Imbayarwo-Chikosi, V.E., Halimani, T.E., Chakoma, C., Maasdorp, B.V, Buwu, V., 2016b. Promoting the use of home-mixed supplements as alternatives to commercial supplements in smallholder Telis´ Adolfo Cumbe: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodol­ beef production systems in the subhumid region of Zimbabwe. African African J. ogy, Writing – original draft. Amir Gil Sessim: Methodology, Formal Range Forage Sci. 33, 165–171. https://doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2016.1207706. – ´ ´ Chingala, G., Mapiye, C., Raffrenato, E., Hoffman, L., Dzama, K., 2017. Determinants of analysis, Writing original draft. Fredy Andrey Lopez-Gonzalez: smallholder farmers’ perceptions of impact of climate change on beef production in Methodology, Writing – original draft. Daniele Zago: Writing – review Malawi. Clim. Change 142, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-1924-1. & editing. Antonia´ Mendes Paizano Alforma: Methodology, Data Cobbina, J., Atta-Krah, A.N., 1992. Forage productivity of Gliricidia acessions on a ´ tropical alfisol soil in Nigeria. Trop. 26, 248–254. curtion, Validation. Júlio Otavio Jardim Barcellos: Conceptualization, Costa, N., de, L., Townsend, C.R., Magalhaes,˜ J.A., Pereira, R.G., de, A., 2013. Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Supervision. Produtividade de genotipos´ de guandu (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) em Porto Velho. Rondonia.ˆ PUBVET 7. https://doi.org/10.22256/pubvet.v7n2.1490. Cumbe, T.A., Barcellos, J.O.J., P´erez, A.A.S., Gonzales, F.A.., Sessim, A.., ALBI, A.M.V, Declaration of Competing Interest 2017. Caracterizaçao˜ zootecnica´ da produçao˜ de bovinos de corte em Moçambique. Desafios Da Pecuaria´ Do Amanha.˜ NESPro, Porto Alegre, pp. 1–172. Dionisio, A.C., 1985. Evoluçao˜ da produçao˜ pecuaria´ na província popular de None. Moçambique com especial enfaseˆ para bovinos de corte. Trabalhos apresentados no Seminaro´ de Produçao˜ Animal. INIA, Maputo, pp. 1–63. Acknowledgements Drumond, M.A., Ribaski, J., 2010. Leucena (Leucaena leucocephala): leguminosa de uso múltiplo para o semiarido´ brasileiro. Comunicado Tecnico,´ Petrolina, PE. Dzowela, B.H., Hove, L., Maasdorp, B.V., Mafongoya, P.L., 1997. Recent work on the This study was supported in part by the Minist´erio da Cienciaˆ e establishment, production and utilization of multipurpose trees as a feed resource in Tecnologia, Ensino Superior e Tecnico´ Profissional (MCTESTP) - Zimbabwe. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 69, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401 Mozambique. (97)81618-5. Eilitta,¨ M., Sollenberger, L.E., Littell, R.C., Harrington, L.W., 2003. On-farm experiments with maize-mucuna systems in the Los Tuxtlas region of Veracruz, southern Mexico. References II. Mucuna variety evaluation and subsequent maize grain yield. Exp. Agric. 39, 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479702001114. El-Morsy, M.H.M., 2009. Influence of cutting height and spacing on Sesbania Abdulrazak, S.A., Muinga, R.W., Thorpe, W., Orskov, E.R., 1997. Supplementation with (Sesbania aegyptiaca [Poir]) productivity under hyper-arid conditions in El-kharga Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena leucocephala on voluntary food intake, digestibility, oasis, El-wadi El-gaded. Egypt. Int. J. Plant Prod. 3, 77–84. https://doi.org/ rumen fermentation and live weight of crossbred steers offered Zea mays stover. 10.22069/IJPP.2012.643. Livest. Prod. Sci. 49, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(97)00018-3. FAO, 2014. Livestock and Animal Production. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/e Angel, J.L.G., Zambrano, C., Parra, N., 2018. Efecto de la inclusion´ de harina del follaje n/animal_production.html (accessed 23 March 2019). moringa oleífera en suplemento para mautes mestizos a pastoreo. https://www.en FAO, 2013. Save and grow: cassava - A guide to sustainable production intensification. gormix.com/ganaderia-carne/articulos/efecto-inclusion-harina-follaje-t42507.htm Rome. (accessed 8 January 2019). Foidl, N., Makkar, H.P.S., Becker, K., 2001. The Potential of Moringa Oleifera for Asongwed-awa, A., Onana, J., 2002. Variability in productivity of Mucuna pruriens Agricultural and Industrial Uses. What Development Potential for Moringa Products? varieties in a semi-arid environment. In: Jamin, J.Y., Seiny Boukar, L., F.C. (Eds.), Dar Es Salaam. October 20th - November 2nd. Dar Es Salaam. Savanes Africaines : Des Espaces En Mutation, Des Acteurs Face a` de Nouveaux D´efis. Franco, G.L., Vedovatto, M., D’Oliveira, M.C., Neto, I.M.C., Morais, M.da G., Diogo, J.M. Prasac, Tchad - CIRAD, France., Maroua, Cameroun, pp. 1–6. da S., 2018. Effect of frequency of protein-energetic supplementation on the Bahar, F.A., 1981. Cultural practices for pigen pea (Cajanus cajan. (L.) Millsp.) as forage, performance and ingestive behavior of Nellore calves kept in a tropical pasture in the green manure, and grain crops. PhD Thesis. University Of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

9 T.A. Cumbe et al. Livestock Science 247 (2021) 104466

dry season. Semina: Ciˆencias Agrarias´ 39, 2555–2564. https://doi.org/10.5433/ Mendieta-Araica, B., Sporndly,¨ R., Reyes-Sanchez,´ N., Sporndly,¨ E., 2011. Moringa 1679-0359.2018v39n6p2555. (Moringa oleifera) leaf meal as a source of protein in locally produced concentrates Franzel, S., Carsan, S., Lukuyu, B., Sinja, J., Wambugu, C., 2014. Fodder trees for for dairy cows fed low protein diets in tropical areas. Livest. Sci. 137, 10–17. https:// improving livestock productivity and smallholder livelihoods in Africa. Curr. Opin. doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2010.09.021. Environ. Sustain. 6, 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.11.008. Meyreles, L., Macleod, N.A., Preston, T.R., 1977. Cassava forage as a protein supplement Fujii, Y., Shibuya, T., Yasuda, T., 1991. L-3,4-Dihydroxyphenylalanine as an in sugar cane diets for cattle effect of different levels on growth and rumen Allelochemical Candidate from Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC. var. utilis. Agric. Bioi. fermentation. Trop. Anim. Prod. 2, 73–80. Chem. 55, 617–618. https://doi.org/10.1080/00021369.1991.10870627. Mlay, P.S., Pereka, A.E., Balthazary, S.T., Phiri, E.C.J., Hvelplund, T., Madsen, J., 2005. Gonzalez-gonz´ alez,´ C.E., Crespo-lopez,´ G.J., 2016. Response of Moringa oleifera Lam to The effect of maize bran or maize bran mixed with sunflower cake on the fertilization strategies on lixiviated ferralitic red soil. Pastos y Forraje 39, 173–177. performance of smallholder dairy cows in urban and peri-urban area in Morogoro. Gonzalez,´ D., Quintero-moreno, A., Palomares, R., Rojas, N., Araujo, O., Soto, G., 2003. Tanzania. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 17. Use of Gliricidia sepium in Feed Supplementation of Crossbred Heifers and its Effect Mmbengwa, V., Nyhodo, B., Myeki, L., Ngethu, X., Schlkwyk, H., 2015. Communal on Growth and the Onset of Puberty. Rev. Científica, FCV-LUZ XII 45–52. livestock farming in South Africa: Does this farming system create jobs for poverty Guevarra, A.B., Whitney, A.S., Thompson, J.R., 1978. Influenceof intra row spacing and stricken rural areas? SYLWAN 159, 176–192. cutting regimes on the growth and gield of leucaena. Agronomy Journal 1035–1037. MOÇAMBIQUE, 2014. Perfil do distrito de Angonia´ província de Tete. Ministerio´ da https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1978.00021962007000060034x. Administraçao˜ Estatal. Maputo, Moçambique. Gusha, J., Chiuta, T., Katsande, S., Zvinorova, P.I., Kagande, S.M., 2017. Performance of Murungweni, C., Mabuku, O., Manyawu, G.J., 2004. Mucuna, lablab and Paprika calyx as cattle reared on rangelands supplemented with farm-formulated diets during the dry substitutes for commercial protein sources used in dairy and pen-fattening diets by season in Zimbabwe. Anim. Prod. Sci. 57, 1163–1169. https://doi.org/10.1071/ smallholder farmers of Zimbabwe. In: Whitbread, Anthony M, Pengelly, B.C. (Eds.), AN15900. Tropical Legumes for Sustainable Farming Systems in Southern Africa and Australia. Gusha, J., Katsande, S., Zvinorova, P.I., Halimani, T.E., Chiuta, T., 2015. Performance of ACIAR, Canberra, pp. 126–135. growing cattle on poor-quality rangelands supplemented with farm-formulated Nhantumbo, G.E., 1985. Algumas consideraçoes˜ sobre a bovinocultura e criaçao˜ de protein supplements in Zimbabwe. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. (Berl). 99, pequenos ruminantes na Angonia´ e em Marara, in: Trabalhos apresentados no 905–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12303. seminario´ de Produçao˜ Animal. INIA, Maputo, pp. 115–121. Heering, J.H., 1995. The effect of cutting height and frequency on the forage, wood and NRC - NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, 1996. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 7th seed production of six Sesbania sesban accessions - Productivity of Sesbania sesban ed. National Academy Press, Washington. accessions under irrigated conditions. Agroforest. Syst. 30, 341–350. Nouel, G., Combellas, J., 1999. Live weight gain of growing cattle offered maize meal or Heuze,´ V., Thiollet, H., Tran, G., Delagarde, R., Bastianelli, F., Lebas, F., 2016a. Pigeon citrus pulp as supplements to diets based on poultry litter and restricted grazing of pea (Cajanus cajan) forage Description. http://www.feedipedia.org/node/22444 low quality pastures. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 11. (accessed 16 December 2017). Odhiambo, J.J., Ogola, J.B., Madzivhandila, T., 2010. Effect of green manure legume - Heuze,´ V., Tran, G., 2016. Cassava leaves and foliage. https://www.feedipedia.org/nod maize rotation on maize grain yield and weed infestation levels. African J. Agric. e/528 (accessed 17 December 2017). Res. 5, 618–625. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR09.394. Heuze,´ V., Tran, G., 2015a. Gliricidia (Gliricidia sepium) . https://www.feedipedia.org Ojo, V.O.A., Aina, A.B.J., Fasae, O.A., Oni, A.O., Aderinboye, R.Y., Dele, P.A., Idowu, O. /node/552 (accessed 17 December 2017). J., Adelusi, O.O., Shittu, O.O., Okeniyi, F.A., Jolaosho, A.O., 2014. Effects of Heuze,´ V., Tran, G., 2015b. Leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala). https://www.feedipedia. supplementing Leucaena leucocephala and conserved forages from natural pasture on org/node/282 (accessed 17 December 2017). the performance of grazing calves. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 46, 197–202. https:// Heuze,´ V., Tran, G., Bastianelli, D., Lebas, F., 2015a. Sesban (Sesbania sesban) . https: doi.org/10.1007/s11250-013-0476-2. //www.feedipedia.org/node/253 (accessed 17 December 2017). Otto, F., Vilela, F., Harun, M., Taylor, G., Baggasse, P., Bogin, E., 2000. Biochemical Heuze,´ V., Tran, G., Hassoun, P., Bastianelli, D., Lebas, F., 2016b. Moringa (Moringa blood profile of angoni cattle in Mozambique. Isr. J. Vet. Med. 55, 1–9. oleifera) . http://www.feedipedia.org/node/124 (accessed 17 December 2017). Pimentel, P., Vilela, F., Nguluve, D.W., Muir, J., Jos´e, A., 2011. Supplementary feeding Heuze,´ V., Tran, G., Hassoun, P., Lebas, F., 2015b. Jaragua (Hyparrhenia rufa) . https: increases live weight gain of angoni cattle during the dry season in Mozambique. //www.feedipedia.org/node/426 (accessed 17 December 2017). Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 23. Heuze,´ V., Tran, G., Hassoun, P., Renaudeau, D., Bastianelli, D., 2015c. Velvet bean Poppi, D.P., Quigley, S.P., Da Silva, T.A., Mclennan, S.R., 2018. Challenges of beef cattle (Mucuna pruriens). https://www.feedipedia.org/node/270 (accessed 17 December production from tropical pastures. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 47, e20160419 https://doi. 2017). org/10.1590/rbz4720160419. Heuze,´ V., Tran, G., Lebas, F., 2017. Maize grain. https://www.feedipedia.org/node/556 Priyanti, A., Quigley, S., Marsetyo, Pamungkas, D., Dahlanuddin, Budisantoso, E., (accessed 17 December 2017). Poppi, D., 2010. Economic analysis of on-farm feeding strategies to increase post- Heuze,´ V., Tran, G., Sauvant, D., Lebas, F., 2016c. Maize bran and hominy feed. https: weaning live weight gain of Bali calves. The 5th International Seminar on Tropical //www.feedipedia.org/node/712 (accessed 17 December 2017). Animal Production. Community Empowerment and Tropical Animal Industry, INE, 2011. Censo Agro-Pecuario´ CAP 2009-2010: Resultados preliminares - Yogyakarta, Indonesia, pp. 702–708. Moçambique. Quigley, S., Poppi, D., Budisantoso, E., Dahlanuddin, Marseto, McLennan, S., INRA, CIRAD, AFZ, 2017. Tables of composition and nutritional value of feed materials: Pamungkas, D., Panjaitan, T., Priyanti, A., 2009. Strategies to increase growth of pigs poultry, cattle, , , rabbits, horses and salmonids. https://www.feedta weaned Bali calves. In: Alian Center for International Agricultural Research. bles.com/ (accessed 16 October 2018). Canberra, Australia. Islami, T., Howeler, R.H., 2016. Cassava Forages Production for Animal Feeds in Cassava Radrizzani, A., Nasca, J.A., 2014. The effect of Leucaena leucocephala on beef production Based System. J. Adv. Agric. Technol. 3, 3–6. https://doi.org/ and its toxicity in the Chaco Region of Argentina. Trop. Grasslands 2, 127–129. 10.18178/joaat.3.2.85-88. https://doi.org/10.17138/TGFT(2)127-129. Kavishe, I.B., Chenyambuga, S.W., Dierenfeld, E.S., 2017. Effects of replacing maize bran Rao, S.C., Phillips, W.A., Mayeux, H.S., Phatak, S.C., 2003. Potential grain and forage with sun dried sisal wastes in supplementary diets on growth performance of production of early maturing pigeonpea in the Southern Great Plains. Crop Sci 43, growing beef cattle. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 19. 2212–2217. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2003.2212. Kiwia, A., Imo, M., Jama, B., Okalebo, J.R., 2009. Coppicing improved fallows are Rocha, A., Starkey, P., Dionisio, A.C., 1991. Cattle production and utilisation in profitablefor maize production in striga infested soils of western Kenya. Agroforest. smailhoider farming systems in southern Mozambique. Agric. Syst. 37, 55–75. Syst. 76, 455–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9221-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-521X(91)90047-E. Ledea-Rodríguez, J.L., Rosell-Alonso, G., Benítez-Jímenez, D.G., Crucito-ARIAS, R., Ray- Sanchez,´ N.R., Ledin, S., Ledin, I., 2006. Biomass production and chemical composition Ramírez, J, V Nuviola-P´erez, Y., Reyes-Perez,´ J.J., 2018. Forage yield and its of Moringa oleifera under different management regimes in . Agroforest. components according to the cutting frequency of Moringa oleifera, cultivar Criolla. Syst. 66, 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-005-8847-y. Agron. Mesoam 29, 425–431. https://doi.org/10.15517/ma.v29i2.30436. Sanwal, C.S., Kumar, R., Anwar, R., Bhardwaj, S., 2016. Performance of Mucuna prurience Lesosky, M., Dumas, S., Conradie, I., Graham, I., Jennings, A., Thumbi, S., Toye, P., under Chirpine (Pinus roxburghii) Plantation of Mid Hills of Western Himalayas. Agri. Mark, B., Bronsvoort, D.C., 2013. A live weight–heart girth relationship for accurate Res. & Tech.: Open Access J. 1, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.19080/ dosing of east African shorthorn zebu cattle. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 45, 311–316. ARTOAJ.2016.01.555560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-012-0220-3. Sartorello, G.L., Bastos, J.P.S.T., Gameiro, A.H., 2018. Development of a calculation Limsila, A., Tungsakul, S., Sarawat, P., Watananonta, W., Boonsing, A., Howeler, R.H., model and production cost index for feedlot beef cattle. Revista Brasileira de Pichitporn, S., 2002. Cassava leaf production research in Thailand. In: Cassava Zootecnia Brazilian 47, e20170215. https://doi.org/10.1590/rbz472017021. Research and Devel-Opment in Asia: Exploring new opportunities for an ancient Shi, F.H., Fang, L., Meng, Q.X., Wu, H., Du, J.P., Xie, X.X., Ren, L.P., Zhou, Z.M., Zhou, B., crop. Proceedings of the Seventh Regional Workshop held in. Bangkok, Thailand, 2014. Effects of Partial or Total Replacement of Maize with Alternative Feed Source pp. 472–480. on Digestibility, Growth Performance, Blood Metabolites and Economics in Limousin Lopes, L.S., Ladeira, M.M., Machado, Neto, O.R., Da silveira, A.R.M.C., Reis, R.P., Crossbred Cattle. Asian Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 27, 1443–1451. https://doi.org/10.5713/ Campos, F.R., 2011. Viabilidade economicaˆ da terminaçao˜ de novilhos Nelore e Red ajas.2014.14057. Norte em confinamento na regiao˜ de Lavras-MG. Cienc.ˆ Agrotec. 35, 774–780. Silva, A.H.G., Restle, J., Missio, R.L., Bilego, U.O., Fernandes, J.J.R., Rezende, P.L.P., Lopes, M.A., Santos, G.dos, Magalhaes,˜ G.P., Lopes, N.M., 2008. Efeito do ganho de peso Silva, R.M., Pereira, M.L.R., Lino, F.A., 2014. Milheto em substituiçao˜ ao milho na na terminaçao˜ em confinamentode bovios de corte. R. Bras. Agrociˆencia 14, dieta de novilhos confinados.Semina: Ciˆencias Agrarias´ 35, 2077–2094. https://doi. 135–141. org/10.5433/1679-0359.2014v35n4p2077. Mendieta-Araica, B., Sporndly,¨ E., Reyes-Sanchez,´ N., Salmeron-Miranda,´ F., Halling, M., Sousa, J.C., 1985. Formulaçao˜ de Misturas Minerais para Bovi nos de Corte. 2013. Biomass production and chemical composition of Moringa oleifera under Speedy, A., 1995. Gliricidia sepium. In: Speedy, A. (Ed.), Tropical Feeds and Feeding different planting densities and levels of nitrogen fertilization. Agroforest. Syst. 87, Systems. FAO, pp. 253–256. 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9525-5.

10 T.A. Cumbe et al. Livestock Science 247 (2021) 104466

Tahir, M.I., Khalique, A., Pasha, T.N., Bhatti, J.A., 2002. Comparative evaluation of Uaila, R.D., 1999. An outlook for animal production in Mozambique with brief emphasis maize bran, wheat bran and rice bran on milk production of Holstein Friesian cattle. on dry season feeding strategies for cattle, in: Strategies for dry season feeding of Int. J. Agric. Biol. 4, 559–560. animals in central and southern africa. FAO, Harare. Zimbabwe. TD Software, 2010. Super Crac Bovinos de Corte 4.9. Vernooij, A., Dos Anjos, M., Mierlo, J., 2016. Livestock Development in the Zambezi Timberlake, J., Jordao,˜ C., 1985. Animal feed resources for small-scale livestock Valley, Mozambique: Poultry. Dairy and Beef Production, Wageningen, Netherlands. producers - Proceedings of the second PANESA workshop, held in Nairobi, Kenya. WageIndicator, 2019. Salario´ Mínimo em Moçambique, a partir de 01-04-2018 a 31-03- Inventory of Feed Resources for Small - Scale Livestock Production in Mozambique. 2019 . Meusalario.org/Mocambique. https://meusalario. FAO. Nairobi, pp. 1–10. org/mocambique/salario/salario-minimo/(accessed 19 March 2019). Timberlake, J.R., Reddy, S.J., 1986. Potentil pasture pouctivity an livestock carrying Wang, Q., Klassen, W., Li, Y., Codallo, M., 2009. Cover crops and organic mulch to ´ capacity over Mozambique. Serie´ Terra e Agua, Maputo, Moçambique. improve tomato yields and soil fertility. Agron. J. 101, 345–351. https://doi.org/ Tinga, B., Chimbalambala, A., Cala, A., Faftine, O., 2014. Maneio Animal : Relatorio´ 10.2134/agronj2008.0103. t´ecnico sobre analise´ do efeito de blocos de ureia-melaço no ganho de peso em Wong, C.C., Sharundin, M.A.M., 1986. Forage productivity of three fodder shrubs in bovinos nos distritos de Xai-Xai e Chicualacuala. Maputo, Moçambique. Malaysia. MARDI Res. Bull 14, 178–188. Tinga, B.I., Chimbalambala, A.H., 2016. Improved dry season feed supplementation for Zheng, Y., Zhang, Y., Wu, J., 2016. Yield and quality of Moringa oleifera under different small scale cattle production in Mozambique. Dyn. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2, 10–16. planting densities and cutting heights in southwest China. Ind. Crops Prod. 91, 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.06.032.

11