↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of feed resources, feeding practices and coping strategies to feed scarcity by smallholder urban dairy producers in Jimma town, Ethiopia

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of feed resources, feeding practices and coping strategies to feed scarcity by smallholder urban dairy producers in Jimma town, Ethiopia
Published in
SpringerPlus, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2417-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Belay Duguma, Geert Paul Jules Janssens

Abstract

Smallholder dairy production is increasingly becoming popular in Jimma town. However, feed shortage is a major constraint to dairy production. The objectives of this study was to assess feed resources, feeding practices and farmers' perceived causes of feed shortage and coping strategies to feed scarcity in smallholder dairy producers in Jimma town, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. A total of 54 randomly selected dairy farmers were interviewed using a pre-tested structured questionnaire and through direct observations. Twenty major feed types used by dairy farmers were identified and categorized into five classes: natural pasture grazing, green feeds, hay, concentrate (commercial mix and agro-industrial by-products) and non-conventional feed resources. Green feeds-fresh or succulent grasses and legumes (mean rank = 0.361), concentrate (0.256), hay (0.198), non-conventional feeds (0.115) and natural pasture grazing (0.070) were ranked as the main feed resources in that order of importance. Green feed (94.4 % of the respondents) was found to be the main basal diet of dairy cattle. Overall, wheat bran (85.2 % of the respondents), commercial concentrate (55.6 %), noug (Guizotia abyssinica) cake (20.4 %), cotton seed cake (7.4 %) and molasses (7.4 %) were the main concentrate supplements used (P > 0.05). Local brew waste (attela) (77.8 % of the respondents), bean and pea hulls (42.6 %) enset (Ensete ventricosum) leaf and pseudo-stem (37 %), sugarcane tops (33.3 %), banana leaf and stem/stover (16.7 %) and papaya stem (16.7 %) were the dominant non-conventional feed resources in the surveyed area (P > 0.05). About 79.6, 7.4, 1.9 and 11.1 % of the farmers used zero-, semi-zero-, and the combination of zero- and semi-zero- and free-grazing systems, respectively. Most farmers (90.7 %) offered concentrate supplements to milking cows. However, supplementation did not consider milk yield, physiological status and condition of cows. All the farmers (100 %) offered common salt to their cattle as mineral supplement. The majority (98.1 %) of the farmers experience feed shortage in the dry season. Land scarcity (55.6 % of the respondents) was reported as the most important cause of feed scarcity followed by a combination of land scarcity and poor feed availability (42.2 %). Increasing use of agro-industrial by-products and commercial concentrate mix (87 % of the respondents), increasing use of hay (74.1 %), increasing use of non-conventional feeds (50 %), purchasing green feeds (19.8 %) and reducing herd size (2.7 %) were the strategies adopted for coping with feed scarcity. From results of this study, it could be concluded that to ensure sustainable availability of dairy cattle feed in the surveyed area, technological, technical and institutional innovations would be vital.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 188 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Researcher 15 8%
Lecturer 8 4%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 71 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 76 40%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 12 6%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 78 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,465,704
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,262
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,288
of 352,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#154
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.