Presented by Ben Lukuyu, Gregory Sikumba, Isabelle Baltenweck and Alice Njehu, October 2013

1. Costs and benefits analysis of feed technologies promoted
by the East Africa Dairy Development Project (EADD)
Study conducted in Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya
Ben Lukuyu, Gregory Sikumba, Isabelle Baltenweck
and Alice Njehu
October 2013

2. IntroductionIntroduction
• The broad objective of the study was to determine the profitability of feed technologies
being promoted by EADD in Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda to assist farmers to make
informed decisions. Knowledge of enterprise’s profitability will enhance the promotion
of feeds and various technologies in the sites and guide the dissemination strategy of
the EADD project.
 In East Africa, feed availability often affects livestock productivity and continues to
be a major challenge on smallholder farms.
 Small scale farmers often feed dairy cattle herds at maintenance levels only which
leads to low herd productivity.
 It has been shown that farmers who adopt new technologies can increase the
financial benefits through increased biophysical productivity or through reduced
input costs (Franzel, 2003)
 Feeds and feeding contributes 60 – 70% of the total cost of milk production in East
Africa (EADD, 2010)
 The East Africa Dairy Development (EADD) Project is promoting various feed
technologies to improve milk production on small-scale dairy farms in Kenya,
Uganda and Rwanda.
ILRI, 2012

3. Feed technologies surveyed
Tube silage making
Hay making
Tube silage tube
Above ground silage making
Mixing home made rations
Chopping fodder maize
ILRI, 2012
Plastic tank silage

4. Mucuna pruriens Medicago sativa (Lucerne) Calliandra calothyrsus
Improved pastures (Rhodes grass) Desmodium intortum (green leaf) Pennisetum purpureum (Napier grass)
Zea mays (Maize as Food and Feed)Lablab purpureus (L.)Avena sativa (common oats)
ILRI, 2012

5. The study approach
ILRI, 2012

6. Number of feed technologies sampled
in Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda
Country Fodder Hay Silage Pastures Home-made
ration
Kenya 164 20 17 88 27
Uganda 109 9 9 37 11
Rwanda 112 5 11 79 2
Total 385 34 37 201 40
Data was collected for each feed technology using personal digital assistant (PDA).
Collection of data was done through a one-on-one interview by administering a
structured questionnaire which was entered directly into the PDAs. Data on
production cost, area under fodder, yield and revenue was collected and analyzed.
A database was created using the Census and Survey Processing System (Cs Pro).
Data collectionData collection
ILRI, 2012

7. Fodder adopters’ profile
*other include employment in private enterprises, businesses, civil service, retired, NGO.
• Overall, farmers in the three countries had grown livestock fodder for more than 5 years. Farmers in Olkalou, Kenya had
more experience in growing fodder than farmers in the other hubs. Farming was the main occupation among the sampled
farmers in Kenya (65%).
Cows feeding on improved grass
ILRI, 2012
Country Hub Number
of
farmers
Age Farming
experience
(yrs)
Gender (%) Occupation (%)
male female farmer Other
Olkalou 35 56.3 10.4 85.7 5.7 71.4 22.9
Longisa 12 45.0 7.6 83.3 16.7 58.3 41.7
Kenya Siongiroi 23 41.2 4.0 91.3 8.7 52.2 47.8
Metkei 27 50.3 5.1 81.5 18.5 66.7 33.3
Kabiyet 28 44.5 3.9 100.0 0.0 75.0 25.0
Litein 21 47.8 5.5 95.2 4.8 52.4 47.6
Total 146 48.4 6.2 89.7 8.2 64.4 34.2
Bubusi 31 55.2 5.3 74.2 25.8 71.0 29.0
Uganda Masaka 38 52.3 6.0 68.4 31.6 57.9 39.5
Mukono 23 49.1 6.9 82.6 17.4 91.3 8.7
Total 92 52.4 6.0 73.9 26.1 70.7 28.3
Rwamagana 52 47.9 5.6 80.8 19.2 88.5 9.6
Rwanda Gatsibo 25 53.2 5.7 80.0 20.0 92.0 8.0
Nyagatare 24 49.1 5.5 95.8 4.2 79.2 12.5
Total 101 49.5 5.6 84.2 15.8 87.1 9.9

8. Average land size, proportion of land
under fodder and dairy cattle kept
Hub N Land size under
fodder
Proportion of land
under fodder
Dairy cattle kept
Olkalou 36 10.9 11.4 8.4
Longisa 12 5.6 14.9 5.8
Kenya Siongiroi 24 5.8 17.6 6.6
Metkei 29 6.6 12.4 8.2
Kabiyet 31 5.3 11.7 6.0
Litein 31 5.4 7.4 6.8
Total 163 6.9 12.1 7.2
Bubusi 38 7.5 10.7 3.9
Uganda Masaka 40 5.1 11.9 2.3
Mukono 28 8.0 8.1 6.6
Total 106 6.7 10.5 4.1
Rwamagana 53 10.1 14.0 5.6
Rwanda Gatsibo 30 17.9 14.9 10.7
Nyagatare 27 30.1 10.7 16.3
Total 110 17.1 13.4 9.6
• Farmers in Rwanda had on average more land under fodder (17 acres) compared to Kenya
and Uganda with 7 acres of land under fodder. Relative to the total land size, land under
fodder was 12%, 11% and 13% for Kenya Uganda and Rwanda respectively.
ILRI, 2012

9. Sources of planting material in Kenya,
Uganda and Rwanda
• Napier grass planting materials,
splits/cuttings, were sourced mainly from
other farmers in the three countries.
• Farmers in Kenya also sourced Napier
grass planting materials from own
propagation as well.
• Calliandra calothyrsus seeds were
sourced from other farmers in Kenya
and Uganda, while in Rwanda seeds
were mainly sourced from research
organizations.
• Farmers growing Zea mays (fodder
maize), Avena sativa (common oats)
and Medicago sativa (Lucerne) in Kenya
mainly purchased the planting seeds.
ILRI, 2012

10. Annual cost of fodder production per
acre in Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda
Gross margin=Revenues (fodder yields) X market price - Costs (planting
materials, fertilizer/manure, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, labor, any
other cost).
• In all fodder types surveyed, labor constitutes the
largest component of the fodder production total
variable costs across the three countries
• Leguminous fodder, especially Calliandra
calothyrsus in Uganda and Rwanda, Medicago
sativa (Lucerne) in Kenya and Napier in Rwanda
showed the highest margin of return.
• Across the three countries on average Uganda
had the lowest variable costs of production of all
fodder grown with the highest gross margins
followed by Rwanda. Kenya and Rwanda showed
that the costs of growing fodder were high.
ILRI, 2012

11. Silage (1)
Country N
Conservation method
Tube silage Pit silage Plastic tank Above ground
Kenya 17 6 (35%) 6 (35%) 2 (12%) 3 (18%)
Uganda 9 3 (33%) 3 (33%) 0 3 (33%)
Rwanda 11 1 (9%) 10 (91%) 0 0
Total 37 10 (27%) 19 (51%) 2 (5%) 6 (16%)
Method used to conserve silage
Source of fodder used to prepare silage
• Silage was mainly prepared from Napier grass
and fodder maize in Kenya and Uganda.
Farmers in Rwanda mainly used fodder
maize.
• All silage made was used on farm.
• The most common method of silage making
was tube and pit silage in all the countries
under study.
• Plastic tanks and above ground silage making
were not used by farmers sampled in Rwanda.
In Uganda, plastic tanks were not used for
silage making.
• Other *sources of fodder include a mix of two or more fodder types namely napier, calliandra, mucuna, rhodes grass, maize stover, sweet
• potatoto vines ILRI, 2012
Pit silage

12. Silage
Cost (US$ /acre/year) of making silage in Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda.
• In Uganda and Kenya, cost of
ensiled materials constitutes the
major component of the cost of
silage production.
• Costs of labour and ensiling
materials constitute the major
component of the cost of silage in
Rwanda.
• On average silage production cost
in Rwanda are very high with
farmers making losses (if they
were to sell the end product).
ILRI, 2012
Mixing with molasses
Laying the
polyethene
sheeting

13. Hay (1)
ILRI, 2012
Box baling
Loose hay
Country N
Conservation method
Machine Bailing Box Bailing Loose Hay Years of experience
Kenya 20 2 (10%) 9(45%) 9 (45%) 3.1
Uganda 9 0 (0%) 4 (44%) 5 (56%) 3.1
Rwanda 5 0(0%) 1 (20%) 4 (80%) 2.8
Total 34 2 (6%) 14 (41%) 18 (53%) 3.0
All hay made was used on farm. The most common method of hay making was loose hay in all
the countries under study. Box bailing was also very common in Kenya and Uganda. Machine
bailing was only found in Kenya. Refer to table below for details
Method used to conserve Hay
Source of fodder used to prepare silage
Other sources of
fodder include Oats,
Kikuyu grass, sudan
grass, coach grass
etc
Most faremrs used Rhodes grass to make hay in Kenya and Rwanda. In Uganda the most
common pasture that was used to make hay was other (Oats, Kikuyu grass, sudan grass and
coach grass).

14. ILRI, 2012
Hay (2)
• On average farmers in Kenya
produced more hay than the
rest of the countries under
study.
• The computations on gross
margins showed that small
scale farmers in all the three
countries made huge losses
in hay making. This is
attributed to high cost of
planting materials and
variable costs.
• Farmers in the surveyed
farms are realizing losses in
hay making. This may be why
very few farmers produce hay
at the current market price.
Hence, it makes more sense
to buy than to process on
farm.
ILRI, 2012
Hay bailer machine
Country Average number of bales
(14 kg/bale)
Kenya 64
Uganda 13
Rwanda 4
Average number of hay bales produced/ farmer /year

15. Home-made feed rations (1)
Farmer combination of feed home-made rations in Kenya, Uganda and
Rwanda
Key: E=Energy source feed, M=Mineral sources, P=proteins source feed/by
products, O=others. *Added either dairy meal, yeast and poultry waste to the
formulation
• Majority of farmers (19/27) in Kenya incorporated
energy, protein sources and mineral supplements in
the home made ration. Category ‘other’ included
farmers who added commercially prepared dairy
ration to fodder sources energy and either protein
source feed or mineral supplements.
• The home made ration is intended to substitute
dairy meal to reduce cost of feed supplementation
due to high cost of dairy meal which is about USD
0.07/kg. The agony is most farmers don’t know
how to make a complete home made ration and as
well as understand the rationale of ration
formulation.
• The cost of home made ration ranged from USD
29.2 -34.5 per bag in Rwanda and Kenya
respectively. Compared to dairy meal (USD
4.9/bag), home made ration is expensive though
the main reason is because farmers add dairy meal
to their ration and don’t know how to make a
complete ration with the least cost combination of
available feed. Farmers need to be trained in ration
formulation using the cheapest feed sources.
Energy sources of feed include: maize bran, wheat bran, maize germ, rice
bran, pollard, maize grain ,maize stover, barley, oats, molasses. Protein
sources include: brewers’ waste, sunflower, cotton seed cake, fish meal,
calliandra, sesbania, lucaenia, rhodes grass, soya, desmodium, lucern, gluten,
bone meal*. Mineral sources:Limestone/DCP, mineral salts, vitamin premix,
Home based feed mixing
ILRI, 2012

16. Home-made feed rations
Animal types fed with the
home made rations
• Only two farmers in Kenya fed the ration to all
cattle types.
ILRI, 2012
In Rwanda and Uganda all
rations are fed to only lactating
cattle. Some farmers in Kenya
feed all cattle a small amount
of rations.

17. A summary of the cost and benefits of
technologies promoted by EADD
ILRI, 2012
Item Pennisetum
purpureum
(Napier
grass)
Zea mays
(Maize as
Food and
Feed)
Calliandra
calothyrsus
Medicago
sativa
(Lucerne
Lablab
purpureus
(L.)
Desmodium
intortum
(green leaf)
Returns
Yield per acre per year (tons) 34 14 14 4 2 17
Price per ton (US$) 15 42 361 324 241 241
Gross output (US$) 507 602 5092 1221 521 4018
Variable costs/acre
Planting materials 27 16 496 63 38 132
Fertilizer/manure 102 55 60 117 0 44
Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides 1 3 0 2 31 2
Labour 232 160 254 307 270 233
Other cost 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Cost 363 233 312 488 339 410
Gross Margin 145 369 4780 732 183 3608

18. A summary
ILRI, 2012
• The most common fodder type Napier grass had the highest yield per acre
(15.9 t/acre) but recorded the lowest gross margins. This may due to its
lowest price per ton ($53) compared to the rest of the fodder types. The low
gross margins are therefore driven by low sale price.
• Overall, labour constitutes the highest cost of production for all technologies
promoted
• The cost of planting materials especially forage seeds comprised the second
highest component of the cost of production for fodder shrubs and
herbaceous legumes. This may be due to high cost of seed, inaccessibility
and government restrictions in the forage seed delivery system.
• Overall, relative to the total land size farmer commit a low proportion of land
to fodder production in all surveyed countries (12%, 11% and 13% in Kenya,
Uganda and Rwanda respectively).

19. A summary
ILRI, 2012
• Loose hay and box baling are the most common methods of making hay in all
countries. Machine baling is only found in Kenya. The computations on gross
margins showed that farmers in all three countries made huge losses in hay
making. This is attributed to high cost of planting materials and variable costs.
This may explains the low average number (4-64) of bales produced per farm
per year in all countries and also why few farmers make hay on farms at the
current market price.
• Labour and cost of ensiling materials comprise the highest cost of silage
making. The additional high cost of transport in Rwanda contributed to
farmers making loses.
• In Rwanda and Kenya, home made rations are more costly than commercial
concentrate (dairy meal) . This may because farmers lack knowledge on least
cost combination of available feeds e.g. some farmers add dairy meal to their
rations negating the rationale of compounding home made rations.

20. Important implications for
EADD
ILRI, 2012
• There is need to promote and train farmers in profitable ration
formulations that are cheap and could substitute dairy meal to
reduce the cost of feed supplementation on farms .
• Need to focus on areas that increase cost of feed production in
given areas such as cost of labour, ensiling materials, planting
materials etc. We therefore need to assess whether
mechanization would be profitable and could help bring costs
down, alternative cheaper ensiling materials, innovative ways
of making forage seed available cheaply etc.

21. Important implications for
EADD
ILRI, 2012
• For some technologies and in particular hay making, these
results show that small scale processing is not profitable so
EADD should consider promoting hay making at group level or
larger scale
• Need to sensitize farmers to increase areas committed to
improved forages with a view of increasing quantities of high
quality fodder on farms
• Overall improved extension focusing on feed cost benefit
analysis of the fodder crops grown in the areas can increase
gross margins

22. ILRI, 2012