quick scan of uganda’s forage sub-sector - wur

Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, November 2019

ii

Quick Scan of Uganda’s Forage Sub-Sector

Netherlands East African Dairy Partnership (NEADAP)

Working Paper Supplement: Survey Diagrams and Questionnaire

Nairobi - November 2019

Authors: Jos Creemers (SNV Kenya / ProDairy EA Ltd)

Adolfo Alvarez Aranguiz (Wageningen UR, Livestock Research)


iii


iv

Quick Scan of Uganda’s Forage Sub-Sector

Working Paper Supplement: Survey Diagrams and Questionnaire

Netherlands East African Dairy Partnership (NEADAP) Jos Creemers - SNV Kenya Adolfo Alvarez Aranguiz - Wageningen UR, Livestock Research This Supplement is part of the Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan or Working Paper and includes the Survey Diagrams and the Questionnaire. The Working Paper describes Uganda’s forage sub-sector and looks at the current situation of available forage species and their quality, seasonality, preservation, forage seeds and planting material, fertilizer use, mechanisation, inputs and services, the forage market, education and training, innovations, environmentally sustainable forage production and policies and regulations affecting the forage sub-sector. The Working Paper identifies gaps and gives recommendations to enhance availability of quality forages. It is a reference document for the development of a Strategy Paper or Policy Brief under Theme 2: Forages and nutrition of dairy cows, of the Netherlands East African Dairy Partnership project (NEADAP). NEADAP is an initiative by the Netherlands government for learning and sharing amongst different dairy sectors and projects in East Africa.

This report can be downloaded free of charge from www.cowsoko.com/KMDP The user may copy, distribute and transmit the work and create derivative works. Third-party material that has been used in the work and to which intellectual property rights apply, may not be used without prior permission of the third party concerned. The user must specify the name as stated by the author or license holder of the work, but not in such a way as to give the impression that the work of the user or the way in which the work has been used are being endorsed. The user may not use this work for commercial purposes. NEADAP and the implementing partners SNV. Agriterra, Wageningen UR and Bles Dairies accept no liability for any damage arising from the use of the results of this research or the application of the recommendations.

http://www.cowsoko.com/KMDP


v


6

Survey Diagrams


7

1. General Constraints

Figure 1.1. “Select the five most important constraints that prevent an increase in forage production and preservation in Uganda” (Q2)

Figure 1.1. Question 2 “Select the five most important constraints that prevent an increase in forage production and

preservation in Uganda”. Awareness, knowledge and skills is the biggest hindrance to improved forage production (16%),

followed by mechanization (14%), availability of forage seeds or plant material (13%) absence of a milk market (12%) and financial

constraints (9%) (Survey Diagrams; Figure 1.1).

16%

14%

13%

12%

9%

8%

8%

6%

5%

4%4%

1%

Awareness, knowledge andskillsMechanisation

Seed/plant materialavailabilityMilk market

Financial matters

Training/education

Land availability

Food/forage cropcompetitionContractor/serviceavailability


8

Figure 1.2. “List at least three important reasons why in Uganda production of quality forages (high nutritive value) is still deficient”. (Q3)

Figure 1.2. Question 3. “List at least three important reasons why in Uganda production of quality forages (high nutritive value)

is still deficient”. Likewise, 22% of the respondents mentioned Lack of knowledge and skills as the root cause along with lack of accessibility of seeds and planting material (17%). Low level of mechanisation (11%) comes before low milk prices (10%) it can be mentioned that those respondents who answered lack of milk market (5%) also had low milk prices in mind. , Agronomic forage management practices (9%) and financial contraints (8%) of the farmers.


9

2. Forage species and research

Figure 2.1. Intensive farming system (Q4.1)

Figure 2.1, 2.2, 2.3. Question 4. “What are the three most common forage species used by dairy farmers in different farming system?” Based on the response in the questionnaire in the intensive farming system Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum)) Maize (Zea maize) and Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) respectively 31.8%, 19.7% and 10.6% are the most commonly used forages. In the system with grazing in fenced paddocks with improved pastures (semi-intensive farming system) Rhodes grass is the most used (26.9%) followed by Brachiaria ssp, Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and Natural grasses and legumes respectively 14.9%, 11.9% and 10.4%. In the Free Range-Natural grassland system (extensive farming systems) Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), Natural grasses and Brachiaria (Brachiaria ssp) 16.4%, 11.5% and 9.8% are the most commented

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

3.0%

3.0%

3.0%

3.0%

3.0%

6.1%

7.6%

10.6%

19.7%

31.8%

Brachiaria grasses

Calliandra calothyrsus

Centrosema pubescens

Sorghum drummondii

Improved grasses

Cynodon Dactylon

Desmodium spp

Legumes

Medicago sativa

Pennisetum clandistinum

Crop Residues

Natural pasture grasses

Lab lab

Chloris gayana

Zea maize

Pennisetum purpureum


10

Figure 2.2. Semi – intensive farming system (Q4.2)

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

1.5%

3.0%

3.0%

4.5%

6.0%

6.0%

7.5%

10.4%

11.9%

14.9%

26.9%

Cenchrus cilliaris

Digitaria abyssinica

Ipomoea batatas cv Mafuta

Cynodon dactylon

Stylosanthes guianensis

Glycine neonotonia wightii



Desmodium spp

Zea maize

Natural grasses & legumes

Napier grass

Brachiaria spp

Chloris gayana


11

Figure 2.3. Extensive farming system (Q4.3)

1.6%

1.6%

1.6%

1.6%

1.6%

1.6%

3.3%

3.3%

3.3%

3.3%

3.3%

3.3%

4.9%

6.6%

6.6%

6.6%

8.2%

9.8%

11.5%

16.4%

Banana leaves

Setaria splendida

Lab lab


Macroptilium atropurpureum cv. Siratro

Sporobus

Cenchrus cilliaris


Zea Maize


Cynodon dactylon

Panicum maximum




Desmodium spp

Hyparrhenia ssp

Brachiaria spp

Natural pastures

Chloris gayana


12

Figure 2.4. Intensive farming (Q5.1).

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

1.3%

2.6%

2.6%

2.6%

3.9%

3.9%

3.9%

5.3%

5.3%

6.6%

11.8%

15.8%

25.0%


Clitoria ternatea

Glyricidia sepium

Crop Residues

Setaria splendida


Azolla


Centrosema

Sorghum drummondii

Medicago sativa

Brachiaria spp


Desmodium ssp

Improved pastures

Lab lab

Natural pastures & legumes

Chloris gayana

Zea maize


Figure 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7. Question 5. “Which forage species, in order of importance, do you think give the best return for the

dairy farmer in the different farming systems?” Based on the responses given to the questionnaire (Survey Diagrams; Figure 2.4) Napier grass gives the best returns according to 25% of the respondence. Maize (Zea mays) is gaining in popularity (15.8%) as a forage crop in intensive farming systems. In Uganda the maize varieties used are the same as those used for human consumption due to the absence of forage maize varieties in the local market. In semi-intensive farming systems, responses to the questionnaire indicate that Rhodes grass (23.7%) gives the best returns for the farmers, followed by Brachiaria (15.3%), Napier grass (13.6%) and Desmodium (10.2%). (Survey Diagrams; Figure 2.5). In the extensive farming system Rhodes grass (30.6%) gives the best return for farmers followed by Brachiaria (16.3%) and Natural grass and legumes (12.2%). The Brachiaria species referred to are those occurring naturally in the pasture’s contrary to Kenya where Brachiaria is only referred t as hybrids or cultivars.


13

Figure 2.5. Semi-intensive farming systems (Q5.2).

23.7%

15.3%

13.6%

10.2%

8.5%

5.1%

8.5%

5.1%

5.1%

1.7%

1.7%

1.7%

Chloris gayana

Brachiaria ssp


Desmodium spp





Zea maize

Sorghum drummondii


Glyricidia sepium


14

Figure 2.6. Extensive farming systems (Q5.3).

30.6%

16.3%

12.2%

8.2%

8.2%

6.1%

4.1%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

2.0%

Chloris gayana

Brachiaria ssp


Desmodium spp

Hyparrhenia ssp


Panicum ssp


Sorghum drummondii

Cenchrus cilliaris



Cynodon dactylon



15

Figure 2.7a. The 3 farming systems combined (Q 5.4).

Intensive0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Pen

nis

etu

m p

urp

ure

um

Zea

mai

ze

Ch

lori

s ga

yan

a

Nat

ura

l gra

sse

s &

legu

mes

Imp

rove

d p

astu

res

Lab

lab

Bra

chia

ria

spp

Pen

nis

etu

m c

lan

dis

tin

um

Des

mo

diu

m s

sp

Cen

tro

sem

a p

ub

esc

ens

Sorg

hu

m d

rum

mo

nd

ii

Med

icag

o s

ativ

a

Cal

lian

dra

cal

oth

yrsu

s

Clit

ori

a te

rnat

ea

Gly

rici

dia

sep

ium

Cro

p R

esid

ues

Seta

ria

sple

nd

ida

Styl

osa

nth

es g

uia

ne

nsi

s

Azo

lla

Ipo

mo

ea

bat

atas

cv

Maf

uta

Gly

cin

e n

eon

oto

nia

wig

hti

i

Hyp

arrh

enia

ssp

Pan

icu

m s

sp

Cen

chru

s ci

lliar

is

Cyn

od

on

dac

tylo

n

Intensive Semi Intensive Extensive


16

Fig.2.8. Intensive farming system (Q6.1).

Figure 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11. Question 6. “What are the main constraints for forage production in the dairy farming systems and for commercial forage producers?” In the intensive farming system, land availability (17.1%) and high cost of production/financial constraints (17.1%) are major constraint for forage production in Uganda. Mechanization is also perceived as a constraint (11.4%) (Fig.2.8). In semi-intensive farming systems, knowledge and skills, mechanization and availability, accessibility and affordability of forage seeds are equally (17.1%) seen as a major constraint. Followed by land availability (11.4%) In extensive farming systems, high cost of production/financial constraints (19.4%), mechanization (16.7%), knowledge and skills (16.7%), and availability, accessibility and affordability of forage seeds (16.7%) are all considered to be constraints (Figure 2.9, Figure 2.10). For commercial forage producers, according to the results of the questionnaire, the major constraint for forage production is seen as the market being inadequate, not ready, for commercially produced forages as well as the low level of mechanization in the sector (respectively 24.3% and 24.3%) followed by availability, accessibility and affordability of forage seeds (13.5%) (Fiigure 2.11)

17.1%

17.1%

11.4%

8.6%

8.6%

8.6%

8.6%

5.7%

5.7%

2.9%

2.9%

2.9%

Land availability

Financial constraints/accessibility - High production cost

Mechanization

Skilled Labour

Knowledge and skills

Access to quality inputs and services

Seed quality, accessibility, availability, affordability,awareness

Low milk price

Water management

Forage management practices

Forage crop diseases

Preservation technology and knowledge


17


17.1%

17.1%

17.1%

11.4%

8.6%

5.7%

5.7%

5.7%

2.9%

2.9%

2.9%

2.9%


Mechanization

Seed quality, accessibility, availability, affordability,…

Land availability

Skilled Labour

Climate change



Soil fertility

Low milk price

Forage management practices

Limited forage storage facilities


18


19.4%

16.7%

16.7%

16.7%

11.1%

8.3%

5.6%

2.8%

2.8%


Mechanization


Seed quality, accessibility, availability, affordability, awareness

Forage & pasture management practices

Climate change

Preservation technology and knowledge

Herd size

Traditional farming system.


19

Figure 2.11. Commercial Forage Producers (Q6.4).

24.3%

24.3%

13.5%

10.8%

5.4%

5.4%

5.4%

5.4%

2.7%

2.7%

Inadequate (forage) market availability/ accessibility

Mechanization

Seed quality, accessibility, availability, affordability, awareness


Land availability

Lack of storage fascilities



Forage pests & diseases

Seasonal milk price


20

Figure 2.12. Intensive farming systems (Q7.1).

Figure 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15. Question 7. ” What new forage species (energy/protein rich) do you think can be introduced

in the dairy farming systems?” Figure 2.15 (Survey Diagrams) provides an overview of the three farming systems (intensive, semi-intensive and extensive) and the species the respondents found promising. The Figure shows that in intensive farming systems Calliandra (19.4%) and Lucerne, Maize and Lab lab all at (12.9%) are promising forage crops. Lucerne is seen as a crop with potential in intensive farming systems as well despite often discouraging results in practical situations. In the semi-intensive and extensive farming systems Desmodium (10.3% & 10.8%) Brachiaria (10.8 & 5.1%) , Rhodes (12.8% & 8.1%) and Natural grass and legumes (12.8% & 10.8%) are the most promising forage crop in these 2 systems.

19.4%

12.9%

12.9%

12.9%

9.7%

6.5%

3.2%

3.2%

3.2%

3.2%

3.2%

3.2%

3.2%

3.2%


Medicago sativa

Zea Maize

Lab lab

Sorghum drummondii


Azolla


Trifolium ssp.

Desmodium ssp.

Panicum maximum

Glycine ssp.

Cenchrus celiaris

Eragrostis teff


21


10.8%

10.8%

8.1%

8.1%

8.1%

8.1%

5.4%

5.4%

5.4%

5.4%

5.4%

2.7%

2.7%

2.7%

2.7%

2.7%

2.7%

2.7%

Desmodium ssp.

Brachiaria ssp.

Chloris gayana

Natural pasture grasses and legumes

Glycine ssp.

Zea Maize




Lab lab

Stylosanthes ssp.

Trifolium ssp.

Arachis pintoi

Glyricidia sepium

Medicago sativa


Sorghum bicolor (var. sudanese)

Cenchrus celiaris


22


12.8%

12.8%

10.3%

7.7%

7.7%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

2.6%

2.6%

2.6%

2.6%

2.6%

Chloris gayana

Natural pasture grasses and legumes

Desmodium ssp


Stylosanthes ssp.

Brachiaria ssp.


Glycine ssp.


Panicum maximum

Cenchrus celiaris

Glyricidia sepium

Medicago sativa

Arachis pintoi


Morus alba

Sesbania sesban


23

Figure 2.15. Overall of 3 farming systems (Q7.4).

Intensive0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

Cal

lian

dra

cal

oth

yrsu

s

Med

icag

o s

ativ

a

Lab

lab

Zea

mai

ze

Sorg

hu

m d

rum

mo

nd

ii

Ipo

mo

ea

bat

atas

cv

Maf

uta

Des

mo

diu

m s

sp

Cen

tro

sem

a p

ub

esc

ens

Gly

cin

e ss

p.

Pan

icu

m m

axim

um

Cen

chru

s ce

liari

s

Trif

oliu

m s

sp.

Erag

rost

is t

eff

Azo

lla

Ch

lori

s ga

yan

a

Nat

ura

l pas

ture

gra

sses

an

d le

gum

es

Sorg

hu

m b

ico

lor

(var

su

dan

ese)

Styl

osa

nth

es s

sp.

Bra

chia

ria

ssp

.

Pen

nis

etu

m p

urp

ure

um

Gly

rici

dia

sep

ium

Ara

chis

pin

toi

Pen

nis

etu

m c

lan

dis

tin

um

Mo

rus

alb

a

Sesb

ania

se

sban

Intensive Semi intensive Extensive


24

Figure 2.15. Overall of semi-intensive and extensive farming systems (Q7.4a).

Semi intensive0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%

10.0%12.0%14.0%

Des

mo

diu

m s

sp

Bra

chia

ria

ssp

.

Ch

lori

s ga

yan

a

Nat

ura

l pas

ture

gra

sses

an

d…

Gly

cin

e ss

p.

Zea

mai

ze

Cen

tro

sem

a p

ub

esc

ens

Styl

osa

nth

es s

sp.

Cal

lian

dra

cal

oth

yrsu

s

Pen

nis

etu

m c

lan

dis

tin

um

Lab

lab

Cen

chru

s ce

liari

s

Pen

nis

etu

m p

urp

ure

um

Gly

rici

dia

sep

ium

Med

icag

o s

ativ

a

Ara

chis

pin

toi

Trif

oliu

m s

sp.

Sorg

hu

m b

ico

lor

(var

su

dan

ese)

Pan

icu

m m

axim

um

Mo

rus

alb

a

Sesb

ania

se

sban

Sorg

hu

m d

rum

mo

nd

ii

Ipo

mo

ea

bat

atas

cv

Maf

uta

Erag

rost

is t

eff

Azo

lla

Semi intensive Extensive


25

5. Preservation of forage crops

Figure 5.1. Intensive farming systems (Q8.1)

Figure 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4. Question 8. “What are the three most common forage preservation methods used in the dairy farming systems and by commercial forage producers?” The response to the question shows that, overall in the 3 farming systems and commercial fodder production, hay making is the most common way of forage preservation while ensiling is increasingly important in intensive (45%) and semi-intensive (39%). Standing hay is used in grazing systems as an intervention to overcome with periods of scarcity.

45%

40%

13%

2%

Ensiling

Drying (Hay)

Haylage

No preservation method


26

Figure 5.2. Semi-intensive farming systems (Q8.2)

39%

28%

23%

10%

Ensiling

Drying (hay)


Haylage


27

Figure 5.3. Extensive farming sytems (Q8.3)

65%

31%

4%


Drying (hay)

Ensiling


28


45%

37%

10%

5%

3%

Drying (hay)

Ensiling

Don’t know

Haylage



29

Figure 5.5. Question 9. “List at least three most common causes for post-harvest losses in the forage production and preservation chain?”

21%20%

16%

13%

9%

6%5%

4%

2% 2% 1%

Lack of storage fascilities (incl. silo's pits and bunkers) Lack of good agricultural practicesFermentation Harvesting stageLack of skills, knowledge and expertise WeatherMachinery Pest InvasionLabour issues Poor logistics

Figure 5.5. Question 9. “List at least three most common causes for post-harvest losses in the forage production and

preservation chain?” According to the respondents poor storage of hay (dry place) and silage bunkers (21%), lack of good agricultural practices during crop production causes major post-harvest losses (20%) and fermentation (16%) (Anaerobic conditions for silage) are the other important causes of losses (Fig. 5.5).


30

Figure 5.6. Question 10. “What farming practices can dairy farmers adopt to prevent or reduce harvest and post harvesting losses?”

Figure 5.6. Question 10. “What farming practices can dairy farmers adopt to prevent or reduce harvest and post harvesting

losses?” The respondents rated right harvesting stage (26%), applying good practices during crop management (24%) and better storage (21%) as the key factors to reduce post-harvest losses (Figure 5.6).

26%

24%

21%

16%

11%

3%

Harvesting time Management practices from seeding to feeding

Storage Lack of knowledge on conservation process.

Mechanization Pest control


31

Figure 5.7. Intensive farming systems (Q11.1).

Figure 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10. Question 11. “Which other conservation methods or technologies do you think could be

introduced in the current dairy farming systems?” Silage making is particularly seen as a potential method to improve intensive farming systems (44%). For more extensive farming systems, grass management is an important option (55)% for extensive farming systems and (18%) for semi-intensive farming systems. For commercial forage producers, silage making (50%) and hay (30%) are the preferred options (Fig. 5.7-5.10).

44%

32%

16%

4% 4%

Silage Hay making Drying & Pelleting Compaction of nutrient blocks Centralized forage banks


32


43%

25%

18%

11%

4%

Silage making Hay making Grass management: paddocking, rotational grazing Drying & Pelleting Haylage


33


55%

23%

14%

9%

Grass management Hay making Silage making Haylage


34


50%

31%

8% 8%4%

Silage making Hay making

Commercial feed centers (PMR and TMR) Drying and pelleting

Compaction of nutrient blocks


35

Figure 5.11a. Intensive farming systems (Q12.1)

Figure 5.11a, 5.11b, 5.12a, 5.12b, 5.13a, 5.13b. Question 12. “Which forage crops and preservation technologies are best

suited to reduce the problem of seasonality?” In intensive farming systems, Napier, maize and Brachiaria are the prefered forage crops (29%, 26%, 13%). Silage making is the prefered preservation method (67%) and hay coming second (28%). Hay is the preferred option for Rhodes grass and other natural pasture grasses incl. legumes. In semi-intensive grazing systems, Napier, Rhodes, legumes and maize (23%, 17%, 14%, 14%) are the prefered forage crops. Silage making is also here the prefered way of preservation 52% and hay (43%). In extensive systems Rhodes gras, Brachiaria and mixed pastures ( 23%, 14%, 14%are the prefered forage crops. Haymaking (29%), Rotational grazing (24%) and standing hay (23%) ways to manage seasonality

29%

26%

13%

10% 10%

6%

3% 3%

Napier Maize Brachiaria Chloris Gayana Sorghum Alfalfa Hay Storage Caliandra


36

Figure 5.11b. Intensive farming systems (Q12.1)

67%

28%

5%

Silage

Hay

Haylage


37

Figure 5.12a. Semi-intensive farming systems (Q12.2).

23%

17%

14% 14%

11%

9%

6%

3% 3%

Napier Chlorisgayana

Legumes Maize Brachiaria Sorghum Kikuyu grass Cabbage Sweet PotatoVines


38

Figure 5.12b. Semi intensive farming systems (Q12.2).

52%43%

4%

Silage

Hay

Haylage


39

Figure 5.13a. Extensive farming systems (Q12.3).

23%

14% 14%

9% 9% 9% 9%

5% 5% 5%

Chlorisgayana

Brachiaria MixedPasture

Napier Desmodium Stylo Glycine Maize Kikuyu grass Panicum


40

Figure 5.13b. Extensive farming systems (Q12.3).

18%

29%

6%

23%

24%

Silage

Hay

Haylage

Standing hay

Rotational grazing


41

Figure 5.14. Future development of commercial fodder production (Q13).

7.8%

3.5% 2.6%

7.8%

0.9%

3.5%9.6%

8.7%

4.3%

3.5%

8.7%7.0%

8.7% 7.8%

15.7%

K A R A M O J A N O R T H E R N A N D E A S T E R N

C E N T R A L ( R U R A L ) C E N T R A L ( P E R I -U R B A N K A M P A L A )

S O U T H - W E S T E R N A N D M I D - W E S T E R N

Unlikely Maybe Very Likely

Figure 5.14. Question 13.” Where do you think commercial forage production will be developed in the future?” The respondents indicated that forage production is likely to develop in South-Western and Mid-Western parts of Uganda (15.7%) and Central (8.7%). The Northern and Eastern regions were less favored for forage crops (7.0%). In the urban and peri urban areas, commercial forage production is not expected to develop in the future due to the land pressure in these areas (Figure 5.14).


42

Figure 5.15. Future development of commercial milk production (Q14)

Figure 5.16. Question 15 “Which measures need to be taken - at various levels e.g. farm, policy, seed supply, mechanisation - to improve the quality or forages?” The most important measure mentioned to improve the quality of forages was the quality and supply of forage seeds (access, availability) (30.6%). Enhancement of mechanisation from seed to feed (24%) was also raised as a measure to improve forage quality (Survey Diagrams; Figure 5.16).

9.57%

2.61%0.87%

6.09%

0.87%

2.61%

12.17%

6.09%

4.35%

2.61%

7.83%

5.22%

13.04%

9.57%

16.52%

K A R A M O J A N O R T H E R N A N D E A S T E R N

C E N T R A L ( R U R A L ) C E N T R A L ( P E R I -U R B A N K A M P A L A )

S O U T H - W E S T E R N A N D M I D - W E S T E R N


Figure 5.15. Question 14. “Where do you think commercial milk production will be developed in the future?”

The respondents indicated that in 3 areas, South Western and Mid Western, Central and Peri-Urban Kampala (16.5%, 13.0% and 9.6%), commercial milk production will continue to grow or develop in the future.


43

Figure 5.16. Which measures need to be taken to improve the quality of forages (Q15)

31%

29%

21%

19%

Policy

Knowledge & technology transfer

Agronomic practices

Seed

Figure 5.16. Question 15. “Which measures need to be taken to improve the quality of forages?” The respondents indicated that measures need to be taken at policy level (31%), knowledge and technology transfer (29%), agronomic practices (21%) and forage seed 19 (%) Fig 5.16


44

6. Seeds, planting material and fertilizer use.

Figure 6.1. In your opinion,what is the availability of the listed seeds/plant material in the market (Q16)

Figure 6.1. Question 16. “In your opinion, what is the availability of the listed seeds/plant material in the market? “ The respondents of the questionnaire have a general low opinion about the availability of forage seeds varieties. The planting material/seeds most easily accessible are Napier grass (planting material), maize, Brachiaria, and Desmodium varieties. With Rhodes grass and Calliandra seeds being perceived as fairly (medium) available. Availability of forage crops seeds is low (64%), with less than 10% of the respondents mentioning forage crop seeds/planting material being easily available and accessible. (Figure 6.1).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low availability Medium availability High availability


45

Figure 6.2. What are the reasons for low availability of seeds in the market (Q17)

31%

25%

13%

10%

6%

6%

3%

3%3%

Lack of knowledge/awareness by the farmersSeed production and multiplication companiesHigh costs of improved forage seedsPoor market and marketing strategies of forage seedInformal market supplies seedsLow quality of forage seeds therefor low demandCost of forage productionMajority of farmers are still dependent on natural mixed pasturesCompetition with food crops

Figure 6.2. Question 17.” What are reasons for low availability of seeds in the market (incl. new varieties or species not yet

registered in Uganda)?” The reasons the respondents of the questionnaire gave for the low availability of seeds are (i) lack of knowledge and awareness of the farmer about the benefit of forage crops (31%), (ii) absence of seed production and multiplication companies in Uganda (25%), and (iii) high cost of improved forage seeds (13%) (Figure 6.2).


46

Figure 6.3. How would you increase the availability of seed/plant material (Q18)

Figure 6.3. Question 18.” How would you increase the availability of seed/plant material?”

Based on the survey, the most needed action is (i) changing the government policies and regulations on forage seeds and planting material, e.g. simplify the importation, testing and registration processes (39%), (ii) encouragement of international seed producers to enter the Ugandan market with forage seeds (31%) and (iii) increase awareness and knowledge among farmers about the value of forage seeds and planting material (19%) (Figure 6.3).

39%

31%

19%

11%

Influence Policy/regulations

Encourage involvement of seedproducers

Knowledge (e.g. forage supply vs animalrequirements)

Network /market/commerce


47

Figure 6.4. How would you engage dairy farmers to useimproved forage seeds/plant material for planting (Q19).

Figure 6.4, Question 19. “How would you engage dairy farmers to use improved forage seeds/plant material for planting?” To encourage farmers to use the improved forage seeds in the future, respondents agreed that training of farmers in all farming systems (respectively 92%, 61%, 52%) will be necessary to reap the benefits of improved seeds/plant material (Figure 6.4).

92%

61%52%

4%

13%

20%

4%

9%8%

9%

4%

12%

4% 8%

INTENSIVE SEMI INTENSIVE EXTENSIVE

Mechanization

Creation of fodder seed banks at sub county and district level.

Marketing

Demonstration plots

Increase seed availability

Others

Awareness creation through education/extension/training


48

Figure 6.5. Which measures need to be taken to improve the quality of forages (Q20)

4%

96%

No, not necessary

Yes

Figure 6.5, Question 20.” When improved forage seeds/plant material are available to benefit farmers, do farmers need to improve agricultural practices at the same time? If so list agricultural practices that are limiting quality forage production.”

The figure 6.5 shows 96% of all respondents answered that agricultural practices need to be improved for forage production. Respondents mentioned in general that agronmic practices needed to improve and more specific soil testing, soil and water conservation, land preparation, manure application, planting, weeding, fertilizer application, cutting stage, mechanization and storage fascilities all needed improvement


49

7. Mechanisation

Figure 7.1. What is the mechanisation level for forage production and preservation in intensive farming systems (Q21)

Figure 7.1. Question 21. What is the mechanisation level for forage production and preservation for the intensive farming systems?

Respondents indicated that the mechanization level with the small holder farmers is low irrespective of the forage crop the farmers are growing.

13%

16%

13%

19%17%

5%

4%

6%

1%

2%2%

0% 1% 0% 1%

Low Medium High


50

Figure 7.2. What is the mechanisation level for forage production and preservation for rural dairy farmers (Q22).

Figure 7.2. Question 22. What is the mechanisation level for forage production and preservation for the medium and large scale dairy farmers? The mechanisation level on medium and large-scale farms is considered very low irrespective of the crops grown as the overall picture.

73%

95%

68%

95%86%

18%

5%

18%

5%

9%9%

0%

14%

0%5%

Low(%) Medium(%) High(%)


51

Figure 7.4. What do you think is the main mechanisation problem that is currently hindering the production, quality and utilization of forages on dairy farms (Q23)

Figure 7.4. Question 23. “What do you think is the main mechanisation problem that is currently hindering the production, quality and utilization of forages on dairy farms?” According to the survey, lack of appropriate machinery in terms of type and scale is seen by the respondents as the largest constraint for intensive mechanisation (from planting to harvesting to feeding out) ( more then 42%). Cost of mechanisation is rated second for all farming systems (> 10.0%). (Figure 7.4).

Intensive

Extensive

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Intensive Semi intensive Extensive Commercial fodder producers


52

Figure 7.5. Whould you prefer to promote on-farm mechanisation or use of skilled contractors with appropriate machinery in different dairy systems (Q24).

32%23%

32%

32%

36%

41%

36% 41%

27%

I N T E N S I V E S E M I I N T E N S I V E E X T E N S I V E

On-farm mechanization Skilled Contractors Both

Figure 7.5. Question 24.” Would you prefer to promote on-farm mechanisation or use of skilled contractors with appropriate

machinery in different dairy systems?” While there is a demand for skilled contractors, on-farm mechanisation is also seen as a future solution to reduce the burden of an often-heavy workload on the farms and shortage of labour. (Figure 7.5).


53

Figure 7.6. What solutions do you suggest for enhanced mechanization of forage production and preservation in small holder, medium and large-scale dairy farms (Q25).

21%

15%

4% 4% 4%2%

15%

13%

13%

9%

0%

0%

S C A L E D M A C H I N E R Y A N D

E Q U I P M E N T

T R A I N I N G , S K I L L S A N D

D E M O N S T A R T I O N

E N A B L E C O N T R A C T O R S

F I N A N C I N G W O R K I N G I N C O O P E R A T I V E S

E M P L O Y M E N T O P P O R T U N I T I E S

Intensive Semi intensive & extensive

Figure 7.6. Question 25. ” What solutions do you suggest for enhanced mechanisation of forage production and preservation in small holder, medium and large scale dairy farms?” The respondents rated the option of scaled the machinery as another solution to enhanced forage production in Uganda (21% for SHF and 15% for M&LHF). Training and skills development is nearly the same 15% for SH and 13% for M&LHF. The importance and need of skilled contractors in small holder systems lower (4%) than in medium and large farms (13%) (Figure 7.6).


54

8. Inputs and services

Fig 8.1. What is your perception of the quality of the input suppliers and service providers in relation to forages? (Q26)

Figure 8.1. Question 26.”” What is your perception of the quality of the input suppliers and service providers in relation to

forages, on a scale of 1 - 5 (1 = poor, 5 = excellent)?” The perception of the quality of the input suppliers and service providers ranges from poor to below average. Services like supply of mechanization, agricultural contractors and feed laboratories are perceived as either low or not existing. Supply of seeds, training and inputs for silage making is perceived as below average to average. (Figure 8.1).

10%14%

43%

29%

48%

62%

52%

52%

29% 57%

29%

14%

33% 24% 14%

10%

14%10%

5%

10%

5%

5%

5%2% 1%

Seed/plant materialsupply

Training and advisory Mechanisationservices

Supply of inputs forsilage making

Agriculturalcontractors

Laboratories for feedtesting

Poor Below average Average Above average Excellent


55

Fig. 8.2. Which services, according to you, are missing in the Uganda forage market? (Q27)

Figure 8.2. Question 27 ”Which services, according to you, are missing in the Ugandan forage market?” Inadequate education/training and extention service was mentioned by (31%) of te respondents as missing in the Uganda forage market followed by lack of a quality feed lab and of feed standards ( 22%), Mechanisation services (19%), quality inputs and quality service providers (13%), regulations by government (6%).

31%

22%

19%

13%

6%3% 3% 3%


56

Fig 8.3. What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages? (Q28)

Figure 8.3. Question 28 “What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages?” To improve seed and plant material supply 50% of the respondents believe a seed certification system for forage seeds need to be put in place. Better accessibility and handling/ storage followed with 14% of the respondents giving these as required improvements.

50%

14%

14%

9%

9%

4%

Seed/plant material supply

Certification

Accessibility

Handling/storage

Affordability

Availability

Awareness


57


Figure 8.4. Question 28 “What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages?” To improve training and advisory 58% of the respondents answered extention service to the farmers needs improvement so there will be continueity in training. . Better linkages followed with 21% and farmers organisations with 16% of the respondents giving these as required improvements. (Fig 8.4)

58%21%

16%

5%

Training and Advisory

Extension/Continous training

Linkages

Farmer Organistion

Field Days/Demonstartions


58


Figure 8.5. Question 28 “What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages?” To improve mechanisation services 24%

answered contract services need to be available. Affordability (24%) and condition of machinery and Building local expertise followed with 19% of the respondents giving these as required improvements.(Figure 8.5)

24%

24%

19%

19%

9%

5%

Mechanisation services

Contract Services

Affordability

Condition of machinery

Build local expertise/operators

Partnerships

Financial Support


59


Figure 8.6. Question 28 “What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages?” To improve input supply 35% answered availability has of farm inputs needs to be better. While the inputs need to be standardized mentioned (22%) and 18% answered that the inputs need to be affordable. Followed by mechanisation 13%. (Fig 8.6)

35%

22%

18%

13%

4%

4%4%

Input Supply

Availability

Standardization

Affordability

Mechanisation

Alternatives

Consistency

Service Providers


60


Figure 8.7. Question 28 “What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages?” To improve contracting services 34% answered technical skills are required. While (22%) mentioned the contracting services need to be available and the same 22% mentioned registration of contracting services, recognising the services as an official business. (Fig 8.7)

34%

22%

22%

11%

11%

Contracting Services

Technical Skills

Availabilty

Registration

Affordability

Reliability


61


Figure 8.8. Question 28 “What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages?” To improve feed testing 59% answered

availability as the concern. (23%) mentioned lacal technicians need to be trained. (Fig. 8.8)

59%23%

6%

6%

6%

Feed Testing Labs

Availability

Local Technicians

Accuracy

Regulation

Farmer Sensitization


62

9. Forage market

Fig 9.1. What kind of forages can you find nowadays being offered for sale in the market ? (Q29)

Figure 9.1. Question 29.” What kind of forages can you find nowadays being offered for sale in the market (e.g. fresh/green

forages, imported forages, grass hay, wheat straw, silage, etc.)?” According to the respondents of the questionnaire, hay (46%) is the main product in the market, followed by silage (26%) and fresh cut forages (14%). (Fig. 9.1).

46%

26%

14%

6%

3% 3% 3%

Hay (grass) Silage Fresh cut forages Imported forages Sweetpotatovines silage

Straw By-products


63

Figure 9.2. How would you define the actual forage market? (Q30)

Figure 9.2. Question 30.” How would you define the actual forage market (e.g. seasonal, opportunistic, formal/informal, quality

control, standards, etc.)?” Forage trading is carried out through mainly informal channels. The informal channel includes farmers and small traders who directly buy from small producers – even the localized trading of fresh forage (e.g. Napier grass and grass cut along the roadside) between one farmer and another – and it is the dominant channel of forage trade. The formal channel comprises traders, and agro vets that purchase forage from medium- and large-scale producers and directly deliver the forage to dairy farmers. The respondents in the questionnaire defined the Ugandan forage market mainly as seasonal (57%) and informal (24%) (Figure 9.2).

57%

24%

9%

5%

5%

Seasonal Informal Opportunistic Not existing in rural areas No quality control


64

Figure 9.3. What opportunities are there in the commercialization of forages? (Q31.1)

Figure 9.3, Question 31.1. ” What opportunities and bottlenecks are there in the commercialization of forages? (List at least three in order of importance) The biggest opportunity the respondents see is the readily available and growing forage market (47%) while 17% of the respondents mentioned that there are good opportunities for commercial forage contractors and seasonality and climate change is mentioned by (10%) as an opportunity.

47%

17%

10%

7%

7%

3%

3%3%

3% Available market

Commercial forage contractors (nocompetition, raw materials)

Seasonality and Climate change

Availability of land

Adoption of improved breeds

Ability to sell on a check-off systemthrough cooperatives

Forage production gives high margins

Fertile soils

Willing, able and progressive dairyfarmers


65

Figure 9.4. What bottlenecks are there in the commercialization of forages? (Q31.2)

34%

13%

13%

10%

10%

7%

7%

3%3% Mechanization/equipments (cost,

availability, quality)

Available knowledge and skills

Seasonal market

Seasonal changes in climate

Seed: (Availability/quality/varieties)

Financing

Lack of standards (quality control,regulations)

Land availability

Willingness to adopt change

Figure 9.4. Question 31.2 ” What bottlenecks are there in the commercialization of forages? (List at least three in order of importance)”. The biggest bottleneck the respondents see in the commercialization of forages is the availability, cost and quality of mechanization of forage production (34%). Lack of knowledge and skills in entioned and the seasonality of the forage market are mentioned by (13%) of respondents.


66

Figure 9.5. Yield (Q32.1)

29%

25%

21%

9%

4%

4%

4%4%

Better management practices (inclsoilfertility)

Use improved varieties

Adopting new technoligices to preparesilage and hay

Storage of the forage

Irrigation

Soil testing & Feed standards

Edudation/training

Upscaling

Figure 9.5, 9.6. Question 32. ” What improvements and changes need to be made by commercial forage producers to improve

forage production in terms of yield and quality?” Q 32 and 33 which are presented at the end of the questionnaire, are presented here under the heading forage quality. According to the survey, the most effective improvements to increase forage yield are related with better management practices (29%), use of improved forage varieties (25%) and adopting new technologies to prepare silage and hay (21%) (Survey Diagrams; Figure 9.5). Forage quality is seen by the respondents as an important point to be addressed. This can be achieved through introduction of new forage species and varieties, but if not well managed it will not be effective. Equally better management of current forages in the market will be effective as well. The respondents to the questionnaire indicated that to improve forage quality, commercial forage producers need to implement better forage crop management practices (38%), followed better soil testing and feed standard facilities (25%) and feed by the use of improved/new varieties (21%). When a new species is introduced, this may require an extra investment if different machinery is required for planting and/or harvesting of particular forage crop (Figure 9.6).


67

Figure 9.6. Quality (Q31.2)

38%

25%

17%

8%

4%

4%4%

Better management practices (incl soilfertility)

Soil testing & Feed standards

Use improved varieties

Irrigation

Available land

Storage fascilities

Mechanisation


68

Figure 9.7a. What affects production levels and cost price of raw milk mostly: the quality of forages or of compounded feeds? (Q33)

56%

13%

13%

6%

6%

6%

Quality of forages

Climate change

Compounded feeds

Animal Diseases

Type of forage species

Storage of forages

Figure 9.7, Question 33.” What affects production levels and cost price of raw milk mostly: the quality of forages or of

compounded feeds (please explain)?” Give three examples of good quality forage crops Fifty six percent of the respondents indicated that forages in the ration of dairy cows affect production level and cost of production the most. The influence on production level and costs of production of climate change and compounded feeds (each 13%) was considerable smaller. As examples the respondents gave maize (24%), Rhodes grass (21%) Fodder Sorghum and Napier grass (each 10%) (Figure 9.7a 9.7b).


69

Figure 9.7b. Give three examples of good quality forage crops (Q33)

24%22%

10% 10%7% 7%

5% 5% 5% 2% 2%


70

Figure 9.8. The opportunity of on farm forage production in agro-forestry systems? (Q34.1)

65%

23%

12%

Good Opportunity

Some Opportunity

No Opportunity

Figure 9.8, Question 34.1. “What is your opinion on the opportunity of on farm forage production in agro-forestry systems?” 88% of the respondents see opportunities (65% good and 23% some) for forage production on farm in

combination with agro forestry systems.


71

Figure 9.9.The opportunity of commercial forage crop production in agro-forestry systems? (Q34.2)

38%

31%

31%

Good Opportunity

Some Opportunity

No Opportunity

Figure 9.9, Question 34.2. “What is your opinion on the opportunity of commercial forage crop production in agro-forestry systems? 69% of the respondents believe that forage production in agro-forestry systems can be commercialized. 38% responded that this is well possible while 31% responded it will somehow be possible.


72

10. Education and training

Figure 10.1. What is the availability and quality of education and training on forage production, preservation and inclusion of dairy cow ration formulation in the country? (Q35)

Figure 10.1. Question 35.” What is the availability and quality of education and training on forage production, preservation

and inclusion of dairy cow ration formulation in the country?” Among the respondents of the questionnaire, (i) 42% answered that availability of training is limited, (ii) 42% described the availability as very low to low (iii) Only 16% described the availability of the training as good. (Figure 10.1).

42%

37%

16%

5%

Limited Very low Generally good Low


73

Figure 10.2. What knowledge and skills are lacking in regard to forage production and preservation? (Q36)

Figure 10.2. Question 36.” What knowledge and skills are lacking in regard to forage production and preservation?”

Agricultural skills and best farming practices (from seed to feed incl. mechanization) is considered by 44% of the respondents as the key missing skill causing the gap in forage production and preservation in Uganda; 20% indicated that there is lack of knowledge and skills about preservation technology and methods. (Figure 10.2).

44%

20%

10%

7%

7%

7%

3% 2%

Agricultural skills and best practicesfrom seed to feed (incl. machinery)

Preservation methods and technology

Storage methods

Business skills

Total diet ration formulation

How to engagement of youths andwomen

Fodder seed selection and production,

Artificial drying systems


74

Figure 10.3. Who should provide this training? (Q37)

Figure 10.3. Question 37.” Who should provide this training?”

According to the survey, this training should be provided by either (i) government extension workers (41%), (ii) Non-governmental organizations (20%), or (iii) private sector players (9%), (Figure 10.3).

41%

20%

9%

7%

7%

4%

4%

4%

2%

2%

Government extension workers(NAADS)

NGO's

Private sector players

Farmer cooperatives/associations

Skilled lead farmers

Fodder seed companies

NARO-NaLIRRI

Agricultural & Forage contractors

Dairy practical training farms

Milk buyers/processors


75

Figure 10.4. Who should be trained? (Q38)

Figure 10.4. Question 38.” Who should be trained?” According to the survey, all the stakeholders involved in forage production need to be trained. These were rated as follows: (i) ) training and extension staff (18.7%), (ii) farmers (16.8%), (iii) agricultural contractors, commercial forage producers and farm workers (15.9%), (iv) dairy nutritionists (14.0%). (Figure 10.4).

18.7%

16.8%

15.9% 15.9% 15.9%

14.0%

2.8%

Trainers andextension staff

Farmers Agriculturalcontractors

Commercialfodder

producers

Farm workers Dairynutrionists

Private sectorplayers


76

11. Environmentally sustainable forage production

Fig 11.1. How do you rate the effect on the environment of current agricultural practices as regards forage production and preservation? (Q39)

Figure 11.1. Question 39” How do you rate the effect on the environment of current agricultural practices as regards forage production and preservation? Respondents consider that the effect of current practices of forage production and preservation on the environment is either neutral (35%), negative (35%) and positive (30%) (Figure 11.1).

35%

30%

35%

Negative Positive Neutral


77

Fig. 11.2. What is in your opinion the contribution of current forage production and preservation towards an environmentally sustainable dairy industry? (Q40)

55%35%

10%

Positive Neutral Negative

Figure 11.2. Question 40.” What is in your opinion the contribution of current forage production and preservation towards an

environmentally sustainable dairy industry?” According to the respondents 35% the contribution of current forage production practices as neutral, whereas 55% consider that current practices contribute positively towards a sustainable dairy industry (Figure 11.2).


78

Fig. 11.3 Which good practices, interventions would you recommend as regards the forage sub-sector to reduce the (negative) impact on the environment? (Q41)

Figure 11.3. Question 41 Which good practices, interventions would you recommend as regards the forage sub-sector to reduce the (negative) impact on the environment? The use of high quality forages was the option chosen by 28% of the responders, followed by improved manure management and grazing management (16%) (Figure 11.3).

28%

16% 16%

12%

8% 8% 8%

4%

High qualityforages

Improvedmanure

management

Grazingmanagement

Agroforestry Pastureimprovement

Landpreparation

Use of legumesin farm plan

Balancedfeeding


79

Fig 11.4 What other recommendation do you have – beyond forage production and preservation - for reduced environmental footprint of the Ugandan dairy industry? (Q42)

#

Afforestation & Incorporation of trees in forage production systems 5

Use of Biogas & manure management and decomposition 5

Establishe closed circular dairy systems to effectively recycle waste. 2

A strict breeding policy..... a proper rearing-fertility approach at dairy farms 1

Adopting intensive zero grazing practices 1

Creation of awareness amongest various stakeholders about climate change. 1

Dairy cooperatives should be supported financially. 1

Good perservation methods that produce quality silage for quality dairy products 1

Improving dairy cattle feed utilisation efficiency 1

Introduce new forage varieties 1

Manage stocking cattle rates on farms 1

Policies governing environment should be put in place 1

Forage improvement loans be introduced to dairy farmers. 1

Protocols on animal health& use antibiotics/medicines 1

Figure 11.4. Question 42.” What other recommendation do you have – beyond forage production and preservation - for reduced environmental footprint for the Ugandan dairy industry?” The three main recommendations the respondents gave to reduce the environmental footprint of the dairy industry in Uganda were (i) Encourage tree planting and afforestation (21.7%), (ii) installing and producing biogas at the farm level (21.7%), and (iii) recycle waste more effectively (8.7%) (Figure 11.4).


80

Fig. 11.5. Are there any regulations/policy requirements in place that you are aware of to reduce the environmental impact of livestock production systems? (Q43)

Regulations in place National Environmental Management Act

Environment Impact Assessment Regulation.

Uganda national climate change policy,carbon footprint policy

Regulations at regional level

United Nations Convention on climate change(UNCCC)

Figure 11.5. Question 43.” Are there any regulations/policy requirements in place that you are aware of to reduce the environmental impact of livestock production systems (national or County level)?” The majority of the respondents (53%) mention that there are regulations/policy requirements in place to reduce the environmental impact of livestock production systems on either regional or at national level (Figure 11.5).

53%

32%

10%

5%

Yes None Not sure Don't know


81

Fig. 11.6. Question 44. In your opinion, how likely do you think farmers/commercial forage producers will adopt practices that will contribute to a better environment, but may require an investment? What will trigger them? (Q44)

Figure 11.6. Question 44.” In your opinion, how likely do you think farmers/commercial forage producers will adopt practices

that will contribute to a better environment, but may require an investment? What will trigger them?” For farmers to adopt and implement practices that will contribute to a better environment the respondents believe that farmers would do so if they are being sensitized about the subject (26%). Other considerations included (i) increasing awareness by training and educating farmers (17.4%), good milk prices (17.4%) and economic incentives (13%) (Figure 11.6).

26%

17% 17%

13%

9%

4% 4% 4% 4%

Sensitization Training andeducation

Good milkprices

(qualitybased)

Economicincentive

Policy andregulation

Management Technologiesin fodder

production.

Capacitybuilding

Unlikely


82

12. Innovations

Fig. 12.1. During the past 5 years, you may have observed some of the innovations that are listed below. Please confirm by rating their impact (Q45).

Figure 12.1. Question 45. ”During the past 5 years, you may have observed some of the innovations that are listed below. Please confirm by rating their impact (high, low, or not observed)”. A total of 16 different innovative activities were listed in the questionnaire and the respondents were asked to rate the impact of each innovation. Those considered as having a high impact were the following: (i) introduction of baled/packed silage (> 60%), (ii) improved silage practices (>60%) and (iii) new fodder maize/sorghum varieties (>60%), (iv) use of conservation agriculture (50%) hay production (50%), (v) improved hay production (50%). (Figure 12.1).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Nutrition Lab facilities

Digital knowledge transfer (apps)

Ration calculation tools

Standards for forage market

Intensification

Agric. Contractors Services

New legume species

Mechanization

New grass species

Shrubs/tree forages

Training / Skills

Improved hay production

Conservation agriculture

New fodder maize/sorghum varieties

Improved silage practices

Baled/packed silages

High Impact Low Impact Not Observed


83

Fig. 12.2. Which other innovations would you like to add Please indicate their impact (high/low) (Q46)

Compounded feeds with maize grains or their agro-industrial by-products as the main ingredient

High

Increase in agroforestry trees High

Total diet ration balancing Low

Soft loans to adapt to climate change Low

Farm mapping and paddocking Low

Protein extraction from forage Low

Training in permaculture and sustainable agriculture High

Figure 12.2. Question 46. ”Which other innovations would you like to add Please indicate their impact (high/low).”

The respondents consider that the production and use of compounded feeds with maize grain or the agro-industrial by-products of maize processing would have a high impact on the dairy sector. Others mentioned increase the use of agroforestry trees and training farmers in permaculture and sustainable agricultural practices would have a high impact (Figure 12.2).


84

Fig. 12.3. What aspects need to be considered before a new intervention is introduced or put into action? Please rate from 1 - 5 and explain (1 = low importance, 5 = high importance) (Q48).

Figure 12.3. Question 48.” What aspects need to be considered before a new intervention is introduced or put into action?

Please rate from 1 - 5 and explain (1 = low importance, 5 = high importance) According to the survey, all proposed aspects (policy, market, technology, knowledge and skills, finance, social/cultural behavior) need to be considered, especially with attention to finance, knowledge and markets (Fig 12.3).

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

Policy Market Technology Knowledge/skills Finance Social/Culturalbehaviour

Low Below average Average Above average High


85

Questionnaire Introduction This questionnaire is one of the tools that is used for the (dairy) Forage Quick Scans for Kenya, Uganda

and Ethiopia, referred to in the covering letter. This is a project under the Netherlands East African Dairy

Partnership (NEADAP) that includes Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda.

In Uganda it is administered by SNV’s The Inclusive Dairy Enterprise (TIDE). TIDE is funded by the

Netherlands Embassy in Uganda. The questionnaire focuses on the current status of forage crops

availability, production and preservation practices, technologies, and innovations. This includes forages

produced and preserved by the farmer, by commercial forage producers and agricultural contractors.

The questionnaire further deliberates on relevant aspects that impact on the forage sub-sector, such as

knowledge and skills level, market needs and demands by different farming systems, agro-ecology,

availability of land and appropriate seeds, mechanization level/needs, and other factors that impact on

the performance of the forage sub-sector and – through it – on the dairy sector.

The questionnaire is designed for administration in Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda. Please provide the

following information as requested in the pages below for Uganda only. The questionnaire, if so desired,

allows you to answer part of the questions, exit and continue later from where you left.

The answers to the questionnaire do not need to reflect the policies of the company/organization you

work for and will be treated confidential.

The farming systems used in the questionnaire are based on different forage crops, grasses and how

these forage crops are managed, used and/or fed in the different dairy farming systems. Other forage

crops, like sorghum, maize or lucerne may be used across the 3 systems as a cut and carry crop or in a

fully mechanized system.

The first farming system is the intensive/crop-livestock system (like zero grazing and semi-zero grazing).

This system – irrespective of farm size – is based on cut and carry fresh or preserved fodder crops, grown

by the farmers themselves.

The second system is semi intensive (grazing)- improved pasture is a system were particularly pasture

grasses are used as forage crops either in a stall-fed system or a paddock system with cows grazing day

and night or part of the day.

The third system: extensive grazing (e.g ranching and pastoral) is contrary to the other 2 systems making

use of the natural vegetation. This system is an extensive livestock management system characterized by

a small number (<1) of Livestock Units (LU) per ha.

For further explanation: Intensive and semi intensive are crop-livestock based system while extensive are

livestock based systems.


86

For any questions and submission of any other relevant reports or documents that you wish to share with

us to consider for the Quick Scan, please contact:

Kimbugwe Paul – SNV Uganda, Tel: +256 772 441146, Email: [email protected]

Rinus van Klinken - Project Manager-TIDE, Tel: +256 758 200793, Email: [email protected]

Jos Creemers - Senior Dairy Advisor, SNV/ProDairy EA LTD, Email: [email protected]

Nancy Kimaiyo - Data Analyst SNV Kenya, Email: [email protected]

1. Please enter your email address

Email Address

General 2. Select the five most important constraints that prevent an increase in forage production and preservation in Uganda.

Forage policies

Land tenure systems

Land availability

Milk market

Seed/plant material availability

Awareness, knowledge and skills

Training/education

Mechanisation

Food/forage crop competition

Contractor/service availability

Financial matters

Logistic-transportation-infrastructure

3. List at least three important reasons why in Uganda production of quality Forages (high nutritive value) is deficient.

1

2 3

Other


87

Forage Species

4. What are the three most common forage species used by dairy farmers in different farming systems (Intensive, Semi intensive and Extensive)?

Intensive (Zero Grazing/Semi zero grazing)

Semi Intensive (Grazing on improved fenced pastures)

Extensive (Rangeland/Natural grassland)

5. Which forage species, in order of importance, do you think give the best return for the dairy farmer in the different farming systems?




6. What are the main constraints for forage production in the dairy farming systems and for commercial forage producers?




Commercial Forage Producers


88

7. What new forage species (energy/protein rich) do you think can be introduced in the dairy farming systems?





89

Forage Preservation 8. What are the three most common forage preservation methods used in the dairy farming systems and by commercial fodder producers?





9. List at least three most common causes for post-harvest losses in the forage production and preservation chain?

1.

2.

Others

10. What farming practices can dairy farmers adopt to prevent or reduce harvest and post harvesting losses?


90

11. Which other conservation methods or technologies do you think could be introduced in the current dairy farming systems?





12. Which forage crops (mention three) and preservation technologies (mention three) are best suited to reduce the problem of seasonality?





91

13. Where do you think commercial forage production will be developed in theFuture?


Karamoja Why Northern and Eastern Why

Central (Rural) Why

Central (Peri-Urban Kampala) Why

South-Western and Mid-Western Why

14. Where do you think commercial milk production will be developed in the future?


Karamoja Why

Northern and Eastern Why Central (Rural) Why

Central (Peri-Urban Kampala) Why

South-Western and Mid-Western Why


92

15. Which measures need to be taken - at various levels e.g. farm, policy, seed supply,

mechanization- to improve the quality or forages?EADAP Forage Quick Scan-Uganda


93

Forage-Seeds or Plant Material 16. In your opinion, what is the availability of the listed seeds/plant material in the market?

Low availability Medium availability High availability

Kikuyu grass

Napier grass

Boma Rhodes

grass Brachiaria grass

Fodder Sorghum

Fodder Maize

Oats

Vetch

Lucerne

Sesbania

Calliandra

Leucaena

Tree Lucerne

Desmodium

African Foxtail

Masaai Love grass

Others (please indicate the availability(low, high or medium))


94

17. What are reasons for low availability of seeds in the market (incl. new varieties or species not yet

registered in Uganda)? If different per forage crops as listed in Q.16, please explain.

18. How would you increase the availability of seed/plant material? If different per forage crops as listed in Q.16, please explain.

19. How would you engage dairy farmers to use improved forage seeds/plant material for planting?




20. When improved forage seeds/plant material are available to benefit farmers, do farmers need to improve

agricultural practices at the same time? If so list agricultural practices that are limiting quality forage production.

o No, not necessary o If Yes,what other practices (name three) on the farm do you think should be improved when seed/plan material is

improved


95

Mechanization of Forage Production

The following questions refer to the scale of dairy farms in relation to the level of mechanization. 21. What is the mechanisation level for forage production and preservation for the urban and peri-urban dairy farmers?

Low Medium High

Maize and Sorghum Why

Boma Rhodes, Kikuyu, Star grass, Why

Napier grass and Brachiaria Why

Lucern and Oats Why

Rangeland/Natural grassland Why


96

22. What is the mechanisation level for forage production and preservation for the rural-based dairy farmers?

Low Medium High

Maize and Sorghum

Why

Boma Rhodes, Kikuyu, Star grass,

Why

Napier grass and Brachiaria

Why

Lucern and Oats

Why

Rangeland/Natural grassland

Why

23. What do you think is the main mechanization problem that is currently hindering the production, quality and utilization of forages on dairy farms?




Commercial fodder producers


97

24. Would you prefer to promote on-farm mechanization or use of skilled contractors with appropriate machinery in different dairy systems?

On-farm mechanization Skilled Contractors Both

Intensive (Zero

grazing/semi zero

Grazing)

Semi Intensive

(Grazing on

improved fenced

pastures)

Extensive (Range

land/Natural

grassland)

25. What solutions do you suggest for enhanced mechanization of forage production and preservation in small holder, medium and large scale dairy farms?

Small holder dairy farms

Medium and large scale dairy farms


98

Service Providers and Input Suppliers

26. What is your perception of the quality of the input suppliers and service providers in relation to forages, on a scale of 1 - 5 (1 = poor, 5 = excellent)?

1 2 3 4 5

Seed/plant

material supply

Training and

advisory Mechanisation

services Supply of inputs

for silage making

(plastic, inoculant, others)

Agricultural

Contractors Laboratories for feed testing

27. Which services, according to you, are missing in the Ugandan forage market?

28. What improvements (maximum three) are required at the level of input suppliers and service providers to achieve improved availability and quality of forages?

Seed/plant material supply

Training and advisory

Mechanisation services

Supply of inputs for silage making (plastic, inoculant, others)

Agricultural contractors

Laboratories for feed testing


99

Forage Market.

29. What kind of forages can you find nowadays being offered for sale in the market (e.g. fresh/green forages, imported forages, grass hay, wheat straw, silage, etc.)?

30. How would you define the actual forage market (e.g. seasonal, opportunistic, formal/informal, quality control, standards, etc.)?

31. What opportunities and bottlenecks are there in the commercialisation of forages?(List at least three in order of importance)

Opportunities

Bottlenecks

32. What improvements and changes need to be made by commercial forage producers to improve forage production in terms of yield and quality?

Quality

Yield

33. What affects production levels and cost price of raw milk mostly: the quality of forages or of compounded feeds? Give three examples of good quality forage crops available.

34. What is your opinion on the opportunity of forage production in agro-forestry systems? (e.g collection of biomasses, drying and pelleting)

On-farm (Give three examples) As a forage crop for commercialisation (Give three examples)


100

Education and Training 35. What is the availability of education and training on forage and quality of production, preservation and inclusion of dairy cow ration formulation in the country 36. What knowledge and skills are lacking in regards to forage production and preservation? (Mention three)

37. Who should provide this training? (Mention three)

38. Who should be trained?

Farmers Commercial fodder producers

Training and extension staff Farm workers

Agricultural contractors Dairy nutrionists

Other (please specify)

IDE/NEADAP Forage Quick Scan-Uganda


101

Environmental Footprint

39. How do you rate the effect on the environment of current agricultural practices as regards forage

production and preservation?


40. Are you aware of greenhouse gas emissions on farms?

No

If yes, name three types of greenhouse gases. 41. What is in your opinion the contribution of current forage production and preservation towards an environmentally sustainable dairy industry?


42. Which good practices, interventions would you recommend as regards the forage sub-sector to reduce

the (negative) impact of greenhouse gases on the environment? 43. What other recommendation do you have – beyond forage production and preservation - for

reduced environmental footprint of the Ugandan dairy industry?

44. Are there any regulations/policy requirements in place that you are aware of to reduce the

environmental impact particularly of greenhouse gases of livestock production systems (National or

Regional level)? 45. In your opinion, how likely do you think farmers/commercial fodder producers will adopt practices that

will contribute to a better environment, e.g. reduce Greenhouse gas emission, but may require an

investment? What will trigger them?


102

Innovations 46. During the past 5 years you may have observed some of the innovations that are listed below. Please confirm by rating their impact (high, low, or not observed)

High Impact Low Impact Not Observed

New legume

species

New grass species

New fodder

maize/sorghum

varieties

Shrubs/tree

forages

Improved silage

practices

Improved hay

production

Baled/packed

silages

Standards for

forage market

Intensification

Mechanization

Nutrition Lab

facilities

Agric. Contractors

Services

Digital knowledge

transfer (apps)

Ration calculation

tools

Training / Skills

Conservation

agriculture

Uganda Forage Sub-Sector Quick Scan – Working Paper Supplement - NEADAP, October 2019

103

47. Which other innovations would you like to add? Please indicate their impact (high or low).

48. What aspects need to be considered before a new intervention is introduced or put into action? Please rate from 1 - 5 and explain (1 = low importance, 5 = high importance)

1 2 3 4 5

Policy

Please explain

Market

Please explain

Technology

Please explain

Knowledge/skills

Please explain

Finance

Please explain

Social/Cultural behaviour

Please explain

quick scan of uganda’s forage sub-sector - wur

Documents