Forage needs in pig value chains: The Ugandan case

Danilo Pezo

Workshop on forage and fodder tree selection for future challenges —

Linking genebanks to forage use, Addis Ababa, 16-20 March 2015

Outline of the presentation

Supply and demand of livestock products: some projections

Pig production systems in Uganda Feeding strategies in smallholder pig farms in

Uganda How to incorporate forage crops in smallholder

pig systems in Uganda? Nutritional limitations while using forages for pig

feeding

Livestock Production to 2050: TRENDS

GLOBAL TRENDS: The Livestock Revolution

• Livestock demand and production are increasing rapidly in developing countries, and will continue to rise (with some differences for commodities)

• Global per capita consumption 2% in meat, 61% milk,

• 2000 less consumption of ASF in Africa than EC, but in 2050 this will be reversed

J. Smith, 2014

Changes in per capita consumption of pork in Africa and Southeast Asia

FAOSTAT Gateway, 2015

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

kg

/year

Per capita consumption of pork

Uganda

Southern

Eastern

Southeast Asia

% change in consumption of animal products:2000–2030

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Milk Beef Mutton Pork Poultrymeat

Eggs

China

Russia

Brazil

India

SSA

High income

843%

%

J. Smith, 2014

Projections of livestock production increases at global level: 2000–2050

In half a century, total livestock commodity production is projected to increase by 92%:

+ 106% for monogastric meat (pig and poultry) and poultry eggs

+ 88% for ruminant meat (cow, sheep, goat, camel, water buffalo)

+ 85% for milk

With large regional differencesHerrero et al. 2014

Changes in cattle and pig population in Africa

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Milio

ns

Cattle population

Eastern Africa Africa

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Millio

ns

Pig population

Eastern Africa Africa

FAOSTAT Gateway, 2015

% change in production of animal products:2000–2030

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Milk Beef Mutton Pork Poultrymeat

Eggs

China

Russia

Brazil

India

SSA

High income

%

J. Smith, 2014

Monogastric production systems in Africa are in rapid transition to industrial

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2050 2000 2050 2000 2050

smallholder

industrial

Europe Latin America Africa/Middle East

Herrero et al. 2014

Over 30% of African

monogastric

production will still be

smallholder in 2050

Trajectories of growth for the livestock sector

Strong growthIntensifying and making increasingly market oriented, often transforming smallholder systems

Fragile growthWhere remoteness, marginal land resources or agro climatic vulnerability restricts intensification

High growthwith externalitiesIntensified livestock systems with diverse challenges, including the environment and human health

J. Smith, 2014

Farm

Systems:Breeding

Growing/Fattening

Inputs and Services

Pig breeder

Vet / Animal Prod extension services

Agrovet / feed shop owners

Feed manufacturers and suppliers

Transporters of inputs

Post-farmLive-pig traders

Transporters

Slaughterers

Pork Butchers

Pork processors-large and medium

Supermarkets/ restaurants

Consumers

Actors in a typical pork value chain

Constraints in smallholder pig production systems in Sub-Saharan Africa

Feeds and feeding (Seasonality, poor quality of feeds)

Disease control measurements (parasites, viral & bacterial infections)

Genetics & breeding (Inbreeding, poor quality animals)

Husbandry and management (deficient corrals, if available)

Poor management of excreta (pollution, could lead to social conflicts)

Human and Cultural Capitals

Pezo and Waiswa, 2012

Constraints in smallholder pig production systems in Sub-Saharan Africa

Technology transfer bias (mostly focused on males, although women manage the pigs)

Limited knowledge on new options for improving productivity and profit

Poor access to information services (technology, markets)

Absence of organizational strategies to achieve economies of scale

Sector largely ignored by policy makers

Limited access to credit

Social & Financial Capitals

Pezo and Waiswa, 2012

Management Systems

Semi-intensive/Intensive**

Tethered

Scavenging

Op

po

rtu

nit

ies

for

pla

nte

d

fora

ges

**In large scale intensive (industrial) systems MAY BE NOT

Type of management, as a function of value chain domain in three districts of Uganda

Pig managementRural – rural

(n = 170)

Rural-

urban

(n = 90)

Urban-

urban

(n = 80)

Tethering 66 40 13

Housed

Housed raised

floor5 6 25

Housed not

raised floor 16 37 61

Free-range/Scavenging 17 18 1

Ouma et al, 2014

Feeding Strategies - Seasonality

Relative availability of feeds along the year in smallholder pig farms in Mukono

Ouma et al, 2014

Feeding Strategies - Diversity

Types of feeds used in different periods of the year in Kamuli

Ouma et al, 2014

Use of fodder sources in smallholder pig systems in Uganda, as a function of VC domain

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Amaranthus Banana peels Cassava leaves Elephant grass Fruit peels Other grasses Sweet potatovines

Yam leaves

RR

RU

UU

and weeds

ILRI/SPVCD, unpublished data

Use of fodder sources in smallholder pig systems in Uganda, as a function of animal category

ILRI/SPVCD, unpublished data

Labor distribution for feed collection

Pezo et al, 2014

How to incorporate forage crops in smallholder pig systems in Uganda?

Planting forages – Limited land(Rural: 1.4 – 3.3 acres; Urban: 1.4 – 1.8 acres;

most don’t have area dedicated to forages)

Forages have to be inter-cropped or as hedgerows

For what group of animals?• Breeding stock, less for growers, &

fatteners• NOT for piglets and weaners (limited

intake and fiber digestion capacity)

Which forages should we focus?

Those with at least similar quality than the crop residues commonly used. Those able to produce when crop residues are not available.

Nutritive value of crop residues used for feeding pigs

Fraction/Nutrient

Sweet potatovines*

Cassava leaves*

Cocoyam leaves*

Amaranthusspp.**

CP, % 16.5 24.9 24.4 19.9

DE, MJ kg-1

DM12.7 12.4 10.4 11.3

Ca, g/kg-1 9.5 11.9 3.3 3.2

P, g/kg-1 2.9 3.7 5.6 2.5

Methionine, % CP

1.1 1.0 ? ?

Lysine, % CP 3.6 ? ? ?

Anti-quality factor

Tannins, anti-trypsin factor

Hydrocyanicglucoside

Oxalate saponins

*Feedipedia, 2015; **ILRI/SPVCD unpublished data

Nutritive value of some legumes for feeding pigs

SpeciesCP

%

Tannins

g kg-1 DM

Lysine

g kg-1 DM

Methionine

g kg-1 DMDegradability

%

Cratyliaargentea

25.7 7.6 14.3 4.2 38.6

Leucaenadiversifolia

23.6 49.4 13.2 3.7 41.9

Clitoriaternatea

19.0 5.0 8.4 2.9 --**

Lablabpurpureus

20.3 7.8 8.5 2.6 --**

Vignaunguiculata

24.3 1.8 8.5 2.5 52.1

Heinritz et al., 2012

** Not available, but could be around 50%

Other tropical forages evaluated for pig feeding

Trichantera gigantea (Ly et al., 2001; Leterme et al., 2005)

Morus alba (Leterme et al., 2005; Chiv Phiny et al., 2003; ChivPhiny et al., 2010; Ty Chhay et al., 2010; Ly & Pok Samkol, 2014

Desmanthus virgatus (Ly & Pok Samkol, 2001)

D. velutinum, F. macrophylla, Cannavalia brasiliensis, Centrosema brasilianum, S. guyanensis (Heinritz et al., 2012)

Nutritional limitations while using forages for pigs

High fiber content, limits voluntary intake

Low energy density, along with limited gut capacity does not allow pigs to cover energy requirements

Requirement of essential amino acids by pigs

Presence of toxic or inhibitory factors

Lectins in soybean and Amaranthus cruentus

Tannins in several legumes (herbaceous and shrubs)

Saponins in B. brizantha, B. decumbens, Amaranthushypochondriacus

Phytates and oxalates in S. sphacelata, Vigna unguiculata, Lablab purpureus.

Kabirizzi & Zzewa, 2014

The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is

given to ILRI.

better lives through livestock

ilri.org

Thank you!