1. Feed for livestock in urban and peri-
urban areas in Uganda
Jan Erik Lindberg
C. Katongole, R. Lumu, L. Kasule,
J. Nambi-Kasozi, F. Bereeba, M.
Presto and E. Ivarsson

2. Background
 Livestock keeping is increasing in Kampala
– Attributed to rapid population growth and
urbanization
 Need to increase food production
– To improve food security
– To improve nutrition of rural and urban poor
 Increasing demand for livestock products

3. Background
 Lack of feed is the main constraint for
smallholder livestock production in Uganda
– Purchase of feeds is not an option
 By-products from food crops and food waste
are potential feed resources
 Exists locally
 Limited knowledge on nutritional properties

4. Aim
 To get more insight into farmers knowledge of the
nutritional quality of available feed resources.
 To identify and nutritionally classify available feed
resources in peri-urban and urban areas of Kampala.
 To produce a data-base with chemical composition
of selected feeds, and their predicted energy and
nutritive value.

5. Methodology
Stakeholders’ workshop
 Held at Makerere University (July, 2011)
 Attended by farmers, parish chiefs, extension
workers & local leaders
 Discussions on project objectives, activity plan,
dissemination strategy, selection of project sites
(parishes) for data collection

6. Methodology
Focus group discussions (FGDs)
 1 FGD per division (6 farmers, 1 extension workers
& 2 local leaders)
Questionnaire interviews
 120 households (4 divisions)
 Kawempe (32), Makindye (24), Nakawa (34), Rubaga (30)
 Indigenous knowledge on nutritional quality
 Available cattle, pig and chicken feed resources

7. Methodology
Collection of feed samples
 Most commonly used feed resources in cattle, pig
and chicken production
Nutritional quality evaluation
 Chemical composition, in vitro digestibility and
rumen degradability

8. Key findings
 Constraints to livestock production
Constraint Rank
Feed scarcity 1st
Diseases 2nd
High cost of feeds 3rd
High cost of drugs 4th
Space limitation 5th
Poor quality feeds 6th
Expensive labour 7th
Conflict with neighbours 8th
 High cost of feed was ranked
highly by chicken farmers:
 Chicken production depends on
concentrate feeds, which are
expensive.
 As a cost-saving strategy
many mix their own feeds:
 The feeds did not conform to
recommended nutrient levels.
• Lower in protein and energy
• Higher in fibre and ash

9. Key findings
 Coping strategies to feed scarcity
Coping strategy Rank
Change feed resources based on
availability and cost
1st
Purchase feed ingredients in bulk 2nd
Use crop/food wastes 3rd
Reduce herd size 4th
Forages in open access lands 5th
Grow fodder 6th
Resort to free-roaming 7th
 Strategies deal with
the constraint of feed
scarcity on a day-by-
day basis.
 Strategies are not
sustainable.

10. Key findings
 Major feed resources used
% of responses
Cattle Pigs Chickens
Banana peels 100 86.8 23.4
Elephant (Napier) grass 74.1 - -
Open access forages 43.1 23.7 10.1
Sweet potato vines 34.5 39.5 2.1
Brewer’s waste 20.7 2.6 -
Sweet potato peels 13.8 26.3 -
Maize bran 3.9 30.0 65.9
Left-over food - 67.5 4.3
Own-mixed feed - - 65.9
 Banana peels for
dairy cattle rations
 Use of elephant grass
is affected by:
• Access to land
• Poor agronomic
practices
• Napier stunt disease
 Left-over food is
vital for pig production
 Concerns over
contamination risks

11. Key findings
 Indigenous knowledge for judging nutritional quality
Cattle Pigs Chickens
Resistance to diseases yes yes yes
Rate of growth/body condition produced yes yes yes
Amount of feed taken in yes yes yes
Not too firm or watery faeces yes yes -
Extent to which a feed is liked by the animals yes - -
Amount of faeces produced yes - -
Litter size produced - yes -
Amount of lean on the carcass - yes -
Number of eggs laid - - yes
Number of eggs with broken shells - - yes

12. Key findings
 Despite the indigenous
knowledge
 Farmers put more importance on
availability and cost:
 They perceived banana peels to be of low
nutritional quality, but they were the most
commonly used feed resource.
 They were aware that adding banana
peels to chickens feeds compromises the
quality, but continue to use it in the feed.
 They perceived brewer’s waste to be of
excellent nutritional quality, but it was not
used by many because of cost.

13. Recommendations
To ensure better and more efficient utilization of
available feed resources;
 Encourage farmers to adopt coping strategies
that can deal with the challenge of feed
scarcity more sustainably.
 Sensitize the farmers on the importance of
nutritional quality.
 Training in feed formulation.

14. Acknowledgements
 Swedish ministry of Foreign Affairs for the
funding
 Farmers in Kampala

15. Thank you for Listening!