Factors influencing adoption of cattle excreta management practices for improved elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) production by smallholder dairy farmers

F Kabi and F B Bareeba

Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Makerere University, PO Box 7062 Kampala, Uganda
fredkabi@agric.mak.ac.ug

Abstract

A diagnostic survey and participatory on-farm trials were conducted among intensive dairy farmers to examine factors that influence adoption of cattle excreta management practices. Management practices of burying cattle excreta in trenches, topical application and the control, where farmers did not apply excreta were compared followed by adoptability analysis. Influence of excreta management practices on quality and quantity of elephant grass were studied.

Although 98% of the sampled households were 5-7 people or more, 72% practiced zero-grazing on 2 acres or less. Therefore, 55% of the farmers kept only 2 crossbred dairy cows arguably producing limited excreta for farm use and 78% of the farmers produced less than 10 litres of milk from each cow. Burying cattle excreta resulted in higher (P<0.05) dry matter (DM) yields of 22.4 t ha^-1 of elephant grass leaves compared to 15.1 t ha^-1 and 10.5 t ha^-1 from topical excreta application and control treatments, respectively. Although crude protein (CP g kg^-1) did not vary (P>0.05) with the different cattle excreta management practices, DM yield of elephant grass, its leaf:stem ratio and ash were superior (P<0.05) with treatments where the excreta was buried. While burying excreta improved quality and quantity of elephant grass, yields varied from farm to farm depending on the level of adoption of cattle excreta management practice. High cost, unfair division of labour among gender and lack of basic equipment such as spades and wheelbarrows to carry the excreta to elephant grass gardens affected the adoption of cattle excreta management practices. The major cost of production among zero-grazing farmers was feeds which accounted for 46.8% of total cost, followed by labour, veterinary services and equipment.

It is concluded that high costs and unfair division of labour among gender as well as lack of basic equipment to transport excreta influence the adoption of cattle excreta use by zero-grazing farmers. These results imply that interventions aimed at improving elephant grass production by smallholder dairy farmers can only be successful if basic equipments that enhance recycling the excreta and gender roles to reduce on drudgery of labour which interferes with the adoption of the cattle excreta management practice are addressed.

Key words: Adoption, cattle excreta management, Elephant grass production, smallholder dairy farmer

Introduction

Livestock in East Africa have been reported to play a valuable role in sustainable agricultural systems (Bebe 2003; Oltjen and Beckett 1996; Winrock International 1992) where together with crops they make sustainable natural resource use possible (Lekasi et al 2001; Delgado et al 1999). Haque et al (1995) reported that animal excreta plays an important role in maintaining crop-land productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa and most smallholder farmers in Uganda will continue to rely on the exploitation of this natural resource for maintaining soil fertility. With the ever increasing human population and escalating demand for foods of animal origin, sustainable elephant grass production is of paramount importance among smallholder zero-grazing (intensive dairy) farmers in peri-urban areas of Uganda.

In Uganda, elephant grass is becoming less productive both in dry matter (DM) yield and nutritive quality with successive harvesting. The decline in quality and quantity of elephant grass has been attributed to failure by the farmers to adopt sustainable livestock production practices (Katuromunda et al 2001). Lekasi et al (2001) reported that composting cattle excreta may lead to loss of large quantities of nitrogen (N) through ammonia volatilisation. This therefore, suggests that direct application of the excreta to the field of elephant grass provided it is immediately covered in trenches within the rows may be an effective way of utilizing N from the excreta. However, excreta transportation and distribution to the gardens is labour intensive and is difficult particularly on smallholder farms where mechanization is limited. Heitschmidt et al (1996), on the other hand, attributed the failure of farmers to use cattle excreta in fertilizing their gardens to the high cost of labour involved.

Hawando (1989) estimated that per capita use of inorganic fertilizer on crops in East African countries is only 1.19 kg/ha while their counterpart farmers in the Netherlands use 750 kg/ha. Low per capita use of inorganic fertilizer as well as the limited use of cattle excreta among smallholder dairy farmers in Uganda possibly explains the decreasing yields of elephant grass fodder. Moreover, there is limited literature on adoption of cattle excreta management practices by zero-grazing farmers in Uganda for sustainable elephant grass production. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess factors that influence adoption of cattle excreta management practices for improved elephant grass production among the intensive dairy farmers.

Materials and methods

Study area and exploratory survey

Participatory action oriented research was adopted and conducted in five parishes (Komamboga, Kikaya, Kawempe II, Mpererwe and Kyebando) of Kawempe division in Uganda. Emphasis was placed on parishes with high intensity of smallholder zero-grazing farms. An exploratory survey was conducted in the selected parishes with the assistance of local council staff and parish chiefs in order to identify smallholder farmers practicing zero-grazing and growing their own elephant grass fodder.

Focus group discussions

A focus group discussion with the stakeholders including the local chiefs, opinion leaders and farmers was conducted at the home of one of the farmers in Mpererwe parish. A checklist was developed in order to keep track of the topics for discussion and exploration with the focus group. The focus group was designed to aid the researchers in understanding the community perception of sustainable elephant grass production through recycling cattle excreta, division of labour among the gender, availability of land, basic farm equipment and livestock productivity as well as services available to farmers and their access. Disaggregated data on gender roles, gender needs, ownership of livestock, access to land resources, control and decision making in addition to the livestock activity profile was collected during the focus group discussions.

The focus group identified two farmers to be trained as field technician. These two farmers were competent in both the local language and English and had a good knowledge of the geography of Kawempe division. The two farmers were trained by the researchers for two months as field technicians. The field technicians later participated in training the farmers particularly in record keeping and aspects of cattle excreta management.

Farm visits

The local chiefs guided the researchers in visiting all the 55 zero-grazing farmers who participated in the focus group discussion in their home parishes. Direct observation (visiting each homestead, cow pens, crops and fodder fields), discussions (walking and talking) and informal interviews with the farmers was done in order to understand the problems the individual farmers faced as well as exploring opportunities that existed for improvement in elephant grass production under zero-grazing. Perceptions (indigenous knowledge) of all the farmers visited were documented during the visit. The zero-grazing farmers' most pressing needs were identified. Data on elephant grass productivity was collected to corroborate the observations in the focus group discussion.

Description of the farmers sampling procedure

After training, the technicians were each given a new bicycle for ease of movement to the different farmers in the division. Thirty six zero-grazing farmers were sampled from the population of 55 farmers earlier visited for subsequent intensive contacts and on farm trial on excreta management for sustainable elephant grass production and factors affecting adoption of the excreta management practices. The farmers sampled had a piece of land where elephant grass could be grown. The field technicians were involved in the distribution of the stationery to the sampled farmers for record keeping. At this stage, again the local chiefs, researchers and the field technicians were involved in moving to the sampled farmers to ensure that their animals were still in lactation and of similar parity.

Participatory on-farm trials

Improved elephant grass planting materials obtained from Makerere University Agricultural Research Institute Kabanyolo was distributed to the participating farmers. The elephant grass was planted at the same time for all the treatment in 10 x 20 m² plots at spacing of 1 m between rows and 0.3 m within rows. On-farm trials involved the researchers together with farmers testing the three practices (treatments) of elephant grass production earlier cited in the exploratory survey. These included 1) fresh cattle excreta covered in dug trenches between elephant grass rows 2) cattle excreta applied on top soils between the elephant grass rows and 3) a control where no excreta was applied to elephant grass which is a common practice by the farmers. A combination of cow urine and dung constituted the excreta. The excreta contaminated with the dried elephant grass bedding was weighed once a month before scrubbing it to the soak pit. The excreta was scrubbed off the floor with large quantities of water used to clean the cow shed. About 80 litres of excreta per cow per day (8 buckets of slurry equivalent to 4.2 kg DM of faecal matter) were scooped from the soak pit after stirring which ensured that homogeneous excreta was carried to the gardens. At 8 00 h and 17 00 h every day the excreta was transported to the elephant grass gardens. While 4 buckets of excreta were placed in dug trenches which were covered immediately, the other 4 buckets were placed on top soil without digging trenches.

All aspects of farmers' practices, such as milk sold and that consumed by the household and calves, cost of feeds, labour, farm tools used and veterinary services were recorded. Dates of planting, fodder cutting frequency, the stem:leaf ratio of elephant grass produced under the different excreta management practices, weeding, manure application and labour involved were recorded. A literate member of the sampled household was useful in recording the data but in some few households that had no literate member, the field technicians were involved in record entry.

Experimental design

Three replications for each treatment were used at each farm in a repeated measures design and the study lasted for six months. The farms represented a random sample from the population of farms where cattle excreta use for sustainable elephant grass production was of potential interest. Three treatments were compared at each of the 36 farms to establish the quality and quantity of elephant grass produced under the conditions as encountered by the zero-grazing farms. The design enabled the researchers to perform adoptability analysis on the three treatments on all the farms.

Chemical analysis

Samples of elephant grass from the three treatments were analysed for dry matter (DM) in a forced-draught oven by drying samples at 60 ⁰C to constant weight (AOAC 1990). Ash and organic matter (OM) were determined by ashing the samples in a muffle furnace at 550 ⁰C for 8 h and crude protein (CP = N x 6.25) by Kjeldahl procedure (AOAC 1990).

Statistical analysis

The data obtained from the questionnaire was analysed using SPSS (1999) statistical package. Percentages totals and means on selected variables were determined using descriptive statistics. Adoptability analysis was conducted by plotting each treatment mean yield against the site mean yields (the average yield of all treatments in a given field) according to Mutsaers et al (1997). Disaggregated data on gender roles, gender needs, ownership, and access to resources, control and decision making as well as the livestock activity profile was analysed using the Harvard Analytical Framework (March et al 1999). The quality and quantity of elephant grass produced under the different cattle excreta management practices were analysed according to the general linear models (GLM) using the statistical analysis systems (SAS 1990) procedure as described by Littell et al (1996).
 

Results and discussion

The majority of the sampled farmers (72%) practiced zero-grazing on 2 acres or less as shown in Figure 1.

Ninety eight percent of the households were 5-7 people or more as shown in Figure 2.

The small land size and high household population has resulted in a natural intensive crop/livestock production system in the division which does not depend on use of inorganic fertilizer (Bahiigwa et al 2005). However, Delgado et al (1999) contend that livestock excreta is a vital natural resource for conservation of soil fertility. Therefore, sustainable production of elephant grass in the intensive production system in Uganda will heavily depend on exploitation of this natural resource. The 4.2 kg DM of excreta produced per cow per day in this study was consistent with earlier results by Herbert (1983) which indicated that a 500 kg dairy cow produces 1500 kg DM of faeces mixed with beddings per year. Following the suggested rate of manure dressing of up to 2.5 t ha^-1 yr^-1 by Webster and Wilson (1980) and the recommended stocking rate of one zero-grazing cow per hectare, it is apparent that land was a limiting factor to the zero-grazing farmers in Kawempe division and limited the availability of cattle excreta for recycling to elephant grass gardens.

Constraints and opportunities of using cattle manure

Because of the limitation of land, 55% of the farmers kept 2 crossbred Friesian dairy cattle or less (Figure 3).

However, 42% of the farmers with bigger land sizes kept 3 to 5 heads of cattle but 78% of the farmers produced less than 10 litres of milk per animal per day (Figure 4) and possibly had limited elephant grass fodder and excreta for farm use.

Insufficient basal elephant grass feed was identified as the major factor affecting milk production and cattle excreta production since both milk and excreta production depends on feed intake (Omar et al 1999). Farmers kept the animals even when they produced so little milk under intensive conditions possibly because of the added advantage of cattle excreta as a soil amendment in the intensive farming system.

Farmers reported adding other ingredients such as pepper, ash and other herbs such as Tithonia diversifolia to the excreta slurry in soak pits to enhance its efficiency as both fertilizer and botanical insecticide. However, most soak pits were exposed to direct sunshine and were not covered. This meant that the quality of such excreta was lowered because of N loss as a result of ammonia volatilization as evidenced by the ambient ammonia smell at the zero-grazing units.

Record keeping

Of the farmers involved in the study, 22% (Figure 5) had not yet adopted record keeping as part of their routine farm operations before this research intervention.

This is consistent with the earlier observations by Heitschmidt et al (1996) that sustainable practices of farming can only be adopted if they are socially or economically appropriate under the prevailing farming conditions. For those farmers who kept records, 39% kept them in form of visitors' book that had limited relevance for improved farm management and productivity. Conversely, only 3% of the farmers kept records for farm management purposes. The farmers who kept records on cash flow, labour records, breeding records and feed supply evidently had better milk yields per cow. Better milk production is a valuable indicator of excreta production since it has been demonstrated that the feed composition and intake of dairy cattle has significant influence on the quality and quantity of milk as well as the excreta produced (Sørensen et al 2003).

By the end of the study, all the sampled zero-grazing farmers had adopted record keeping as a normal farm routine emphasizing improvement of farm management in a way that was not only simple and interesting but also economically appropriate. However, although the 22% of the farmers who had not adopted record keeping practice before the intervention updated their record books provided by this study, they still had their cow record charts provided by Heifer Project International (HPI) not filled yet. Unused record charts indicated that there was need for change of farmers' attitude, use of simple but effective records and provision of visible incentives beyond stationery for records to be kept by smallholder farmers. Possibly Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) could promote record keeping among farmers, to whom they distribute free dairy cows, by offering premium prices for the subsequent heifers delivered after the mandatory heifer has been passed on to the benefactor. This will not only act as an incentive to promote record keeping but will also uphold distribution of high-grade heifers with a proven track-record of milk and excreta production.

Adoption of animal waste recycling technologies

Adoptability analysis indicated that elephant grass yields varied across different farms under the various cattle excreta management practices (Figure 6) despite the fact that all the farms applied excreta of similar N content of 1.69±0.1% and uniformly harvested elephant grass at not less than 8 weeks intervals.

The regression slope of treatment yield on site mean yields was steeper with cattle excreta buried compared to topical application and the control. This was possibly due to reduced N volatilisation from the buried cattle excreta (Snijders et al 1992) resulting in efficient N utilisation by the elephant grass. However, the elephant grass yield differences among zero-grazing farmers with the different excreta management practices were greater as the farmers' overall yield levels increased across the farms. This reflected the overall growing conditions and possibly the method of farm operation such as timely weeding, harvesting, timely cattle excreta application by the farmers and availability of implements used in handling and transportation of excreta to the elephant grass fields. Timeliness of excreta application possibly synchronized mineral N availability and plant demand such that the peak N release from the excreta coincided with peak plant N requirement as earlier observed by Lekasi et al (2001). Additionally, timely weeding is very important because N from the excreta applied before weeding and vegetative regrowth of elephant grass may promote weed growth rather than supporting elephant grass growth. Therefore, results of this study indicated that limited availability of labour and basic equipment such as the wheelbarrow and spades at the different farms influence the adoptability of the cattle excreta burying practice.

Quality and quantity of elephant grass

The chemical composition, treatment yields and morphological fractions as indicators of quality and quantity of elephant grass in response to the different cattle excreta management practices are presented in Table 1.

The CP content of elephant grass did not vary (P>0.05) with the different cattle excreta management practices and was comparable to values reported by Katuromunda et al (2001) but was higher than values of 78 g CP kg^-1 DM observed by Shem et al (2003) in wild elephant grass. However, the yields of elephant grass leaves, stems, leaf:stem ratio, CP and ash varied (P<0.05) with the excreta management practices and were superior in the covered treatment. The highest leaf:stem ratio, ash and CP yield in the treatment where cattle excreta was buried indicated that the practice of covering cattle manure and urine does not only improve on the quantity of elephant grass produced but also on the quality of fodder harvested per unit area.

Since the quality of cattle excreta is said to be influenced by the feed quality, quantity and how it is applied to the soil (Sørensen et al 2003), zero-grazing farmers need to bury the excreta for sustainable elephant grass production. The lower leaf yield observed in the topical excreta application treatments (Table 1) were possibly due to loss of N in form of ammonia to the environment by volatilization. These results are in corroboration with reports by Sørensen et al (2003) that up to 40% of N may be lost from uncovered excreta to the environment by volatilization leading to air pollution. The elephant grass leaf yield of 22.4 t ha^-1 in the treatment where the excreta was covered was superior to that obtained in the topical and control treatments. However, topical application of the excreta resulted in elephant grass yields that were comparable with values reported by Katuromunda et al (2001) when the fodder was intercropped with Centrocema, Desmodium or Siratro to enable biological N fixation in the soil. This suggests that the fertilizer value of cattle excreta when buried results in better elephant grass yield than when legumes are used to fix N in the soil. This is attributed to the fact that while a considerable proportion of N in cattle excreta is present in organic form, that may mineralize gradually, it is more efficiently used by plants owing to presence of several nutrients in the excreta (Chadwick et al 2000).

Major costs of production in the zero-grazing

The major costs of production in the zero-grazing enterprise as revealed by records kept by farmers in Kawempe division are shown in Table 2.

The results indicated that the major production cost of zero-grazing was providing feeds to the animals. The 46.8% monthly average expenditure on feed observed in this study was consistent with reports by Pond et al (1995) that in ruminants, feeds represent 50% of total production costs. Therefore, it is imperative to ensure sustainable elephant grass production through use of buried cattle excreta to reduce on the cost of bought feeds.

Labour was the second most expensive input among the zero-grazing farmers. High labour costs explains the variability in the adoption of the cattle excreta management practices and clarifies the variability in yield of elephant grass among farmers using similar treatment (Figure 6). Therefore, labour costs among zero-grazing farmers could be offset if appropriate technologies that are labour saving such as mechanised elephant grass choppers are adopted. However, the 2.3% monthly expenditure on equipment indicated that the zero-grazing farmers in Kawempe division still heavily depended on man power. While family size of 5-7 (Figure 2) may favour providing labour for zero-grazing, most of the household members particularly the children and men were found to be committed to other activities such as studying or other business out side the family. This left the burden of zero-grazing mostly to the women.

Gender analysis

Results on gender roles as defined by livestock production profile, reproductive roles and community roles are presented in Table 3.

Farmers reported that zero-grazing was more labour intensive compared to other livestock enterprises. Division of labour in the family was reported to be according to interest, experience, expertise, strength, and whether one is occupied with other jobs or not. Women, boys and hired labour particularly of boys were found to be increasingly managing the animals. The children were mostly involved in planting fodder but also did other activities such as fetching of water, cutting elephant grass and milking. The men were getting less involved in zero-grazing activities for the reason that they did not spend most of the time at home. The unfair division of labour in the different farms also explained the variability in the adoption of cattle excreta use but was exacerbated by the low mechanization level.

Results on ownership, access, control of resources and decision making at the farm are presented in Table 4.

While the men owned and controlled the major resource of production in form of land, women had access to and were involved in decision making in zero-grazing activities. The results also indicated that every one in the family was a beneficiary of products of zero-grazing. Results showing several activities, location, duration and frequency of managing cattle excreta for sustainable elephant grass production by gender are presented in Table 5.

The women and the hired labour were the dominant force in all the zero grazing activities that use cattle excreta. This further indicates that the unfair division of labour greatly influenced poor adoption of cattle excreta management practices among the zero-grazing farmers.
 

Conclusion

• Burying cattle excreta improved on the quantity and quality of elephant grass production.
  
  
• However, the major factors influencing adoption of cattle excreta management practices for improved elephant grass production were the high cost of labour, the unfair division of labour among the gender and lack of basic equipment such as spades and wheelbarrows to handle the excreta.
  
  
• These results demonstrate that there is need for intervention in zero-grazing that considers use of basic tools on the farm to reduce on drudgery and high cost associated with manual labour which interferes with the adoption of cattle excreta management practices for improved elephant grass production.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the financial support of Network of Uganda Researchers and Research Users (NURRU) in collaboration with the Department of Animal Science, Makerere University. Special thanks also goes to Mr. Katongole Constantine for his tremendous efforts offered during the research. The input of Mr. Kasujja Fred and Sebatindira Philemon as field technicians is greatly honoured.
 

References

AOAC 1990 Official Methods of Analysis, 15^th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC

Bahiigwa G, Rigby D and Woodhouse P 2005 Right target, wrong mechanism? Agricultural modernization and poverty reduction in Uganda. World Development, 33:481-496

Bebe B O 2003 Herd dynamics of smallholder dairy in Kenya highlands.PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands, 155 pp

Chadwick D R, John F, Pain B P, Chambers B J and Williams J 2000 Plant uptake of nitrogen from the organic nitrogen fraction of animal manures: a laboratory experiment. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 134:159-168

Delgado C L, Rosegrant M W, Steinfeld H, Ehui S and Courbois C 1999 Livestock to 2020: The Next Food Revolution . 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment. Discussion paper No. 28. Washington D.C.: International Food policy research Institute/ Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations/ International Livestock Research Institute http://www.ifpri.org/2020/dp/dp28.pdf or ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/nonfao/lead/x6155e/x6155e00.pdf

Haque I, Powell M J and Ehui K S 1995 Improved crop-Livestock production strategies for sustainable soil management in tropical Africa. In: R Lal and B A Steward (editors), Advances in soil science and soil management. Experimental basis for sustainability and environmental quality. CRC Lewis Publishers Boca Raton London, pp 293-345

Hawando T 1989 Increasing agricultural production in Ethiopia through improved soil, water and crop management practices. In: Towards a Food and Nutrition strategy, Proceedings of a National Workshop on Food strategies for Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, pp 243-275

Heitschmidt R K, Short R E and Grings E E 1996 Ecosystems, sustainability, and animal agriculture. Journal of Animal Science, 74:1395-1405 http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/74/6/1395

Herbert R F 1983 Krall manure. In: The Bulletin of Agricultural Research in Botswana. 1. Department of Agricultural Research, ministry of Agriculture, Gabarone, Botswana

Katuromunda S, Sabiiti E N and Bareeba F B 2001 Sustainable Pennisetum purpureum fodder production in the peri-urban smallholder crop-livestoc production systems of Uganda. African Crop Science Journal, 5:559-564

Lekasi J K, Tanner J C, Kimani S K and Harris P J C 2001 Manure management in the Kenya highlands: practices and potential. HDRA Kenilworth UK

Littell R C, Milliken G A, Stroup W W and Wolfinger R D 1996 SAS System for Mixed Models, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. NC, USA, 633 pp

March C, Smyth I and Mukhopadhyay M 1999 A guide to gender-analysis frameworks, Oxfam Skills and Practices Series, GBP 6.95; USD 11.95, Oxfam GB, 274 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7DZ, United Kingdom, 144 pp

Mutsaers H J W, Weber G K, Walker P and Fischer N M 1997 A field guide for on-farm experimentation. IITA/CTA/ISNAR, 235 pp

Oltjen J W and Beckett J L 1996 Role of ruminant livestock in sustainable agricultural systems. Journal of Animal Science, 74:1406-1409 http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/74/6/1406

Omar S S, Shayo C M, Udén P 1999 Voluntary intake and digestibility of mulberry (Morus alba) diets by growing goats. Tropical Grasslands, 33:177-181

Pond W G, Church D C and Pond K R 1995 Basic Animal Nutrition and Feeding (4^th edition). John Wiley & Sons, New York

SAS 1990 Statistical Analysis System, User's Guide, vols. 1 and 2, version 6, 4^th edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, USA

Shem M N, Mtengeti E J, Luaga M, Ichinohe T and Fujihara T 2003 Feeding value of wild Napier grass (Pennisetum macrourum) for cattle supplemented with protein and /or energy rich supplements. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 108:15-24

Snijders P J M, Orodho A B and Wouters A P 1992 Effect of manure application methods on yield and quality of napier grass. KARI, Naivasha

Sørensen P, Weisbjerg M R and Lund P 2003 Dietary effect on the composition and plant utilisation of nitrogen in dairy cattle manure. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 141:79-91

SPSS^® Base 10.0 User's Guide 1999 SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL

Webster C C and Wilson P N 1980 Agriculture in the tropics. 2^nd edition ELBS and Longman's, London, pp 212-213

Winrock International 1992 Assessment of Animal Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Morrilton Arkansas: Winrock International, 125 pp

Received 7 November 2006; Accepted 12 December 2006; Published 8 February 2007

Go to top