Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:46:17.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

POTENTIAL AND CONSTRAINTS OF LITTLE BAG SILAGE FOR SMALLHOLDERS-RESULTS AND EXPERIENCES FROM HONDURAS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2009

CHRISTOPH REIBER ,
RAINER SCHULTZE-KRAFT ,
MICHAEL PETERS  and
VOLKER HOFFMANN
CHRISTOPH REIBER*
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Production and Agroecology in the Tropics and Subtropics, Department of Biodiversity and Land Rehabilitation (380c), University of Hohenheim, D-70593 Stuttgart, Germany
RAINER SCHULTZE-KRAFT
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Production and Agroecology in the Tropics and Subtropics, Department of Biodiversity and Land Rehabilitation (380c), University of Hohenheim, D-70593 Stuttgart, Germany
MICHAEL PETERS
Affiliation:
International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), A.A. 6713, Cali, Colombia
VOLKER HOFFMANN
Affiliation:
Institute of Social Sciences of the Agricultural Sector, Department of Agricultural Communication and Extension (430a), University of Hohenheim, D-70593 Stuttgart, Germany
*
†Corresponding author. chreiber@gmx.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Little bag silage (LBS) is seen as a low-cost alternative suitable for resource-poor smallholders to alleviate dry-season feed constraints. Within a research project carried out by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture and partners in Honduras, LBS was tested and its use encouraged during farmer training and field days. The present study highlights the most relevant technological and socio-economic potential and constraints of LBS. Surveys and experimental results revealed great vulnerability of plastic bags to pests, particularly rodents, accompanied by high spoilage losses. The main constraints to wider adoption include availability of i) suitable and affordable plastic bags, and ii) appropriate chopping equipment and storage facilities on smallholder farms. LBS proved to be useful and could play an important role in participatory research and extension activities, as a demonstration, experimentation and learning tool that can be used to get small-scale silage novices started with a low-risk technology.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 209 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ashbell, G., Kipnis, T., Titterton, M., Hen, Y., Azrieli, A. and Weinberg, Z. G. (2001). Examination of a technology for silage making in plastic bags. Animal Feed Science and Technology 91: 213–222.Google Scholar
Bryman, A. (2004). Social Research Methods, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chin, F. Y. (2001). Silage production and techniques in Malaysia. In Forage Development in Southeast Asia: Strategies and Impacts. 7th Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Grazing and Feed Resources, Manado, Indonesia, 2–7 July 2001 (Eds Moog, F. A., Reynolds, S. G. and Maaruf, K.). Available online at www.fao.org/ag/Agp/agpc/doc/Proceedings/manado/chap26.htm (Accessed 15 January 2009).Google Scholar
DLG (Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft) (2004). Grobfutterbewertung. Teil A-DLG-Schlüssel zur Bewertung von Grünfutter, Silage und Heu mit Hilfe der Sinnenbewertung. DLG-Information 1/2004. Frankfurt a.M. (Germany): DLG e.V.-Ausschuss für Futterkonservierung.Google Scholar
Forristal, P. D. and O'Kiely, P. (2005). Update on technologies for producing and feeding silage. In Silage Production and Utilization. Proceedings of the XIVth International Silage Conference, a Satellite Workshop of the XXth International Grassland Congress, Belfast, July 2005, 83–96. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Fresco, L. O. and Steinfeld, H. (1998). A food security perspective to livestock and the environment. In Livestock and the Environment. Proceedings of the International Conference on Livestock and the Environment, Wageningen, the Netherlands, 16–20 June 1997, 5–12. Wageningen: International Agricultural Centre.Google Scholar
Froemert, R. W. (1991). Training in the development of feed resources. In Feeding Dairy Cows in the Tropics. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 86, 236–244 (Eds Speedy, A. and Sansoucy, R.). Rome: FAO. Available online at http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/t0413e/T0413E23.htm#ch23 (Accessed 15 January 2009).Google Scholar
Fujisaka, S., Holmann, F., Peters, M., Schmidt, A., White, D., Burgos, C., Ordóñez, J. C., Mena, M., Posas, M., Cruz, H., Davis, C. and Hincapié, B. (2005). Estrategias para minimizar la escasez de forrajes en zonas con sequías prolongadas en Honduras y Nicaragua. Pasturas Tropicales 27:73–92.Google Scholar
González, G. and Rodríguez, A. A. (2003). Effect of storage method on fermentation characteristics, aerobic stability, and forage intake of tropical grasses ensiled in round bales. Journal of Dairy Science 86: 926–933.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lane, I. R. (2000). Little bag silage. In Silage Making in the Tropics with Particular Emphasis on Smallholders. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper No. 161, 79–83 (Ed L. ‘t Mannetje). Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Lentes, P., Holmann, F., Peters, M., White, D. and Cruz, H. (2006). Management and farm characteristics that favour or impede efficient resource use in dual-purpose cattle systems in Central America. In Tropical Grasses and Legumes: Optimizing Genetic Diversity for Multipurpose Use, 170–186 (CIAT, Annual Report 2005, Project IP-5). Cali (Colombia): CIAT.Google Scholar
Machin, D. H. (2000). The potential use of tropical silage for livestock production, with special reference to smallholders. In Silage Making in the Tropics with Particular Emphasis on Smallholders. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper No. 161, 71–78 (Ed Mannetje, L. ‘t). Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Mannetje, L. ‘t (2000). The future of silage making in the tropics. In Silage Making in the Tropics with Particular Emphasis on Smallholders. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper No. 161, 169–171 (Ed Mannetje, L. ‘t). Rome (Italy): FAO.Google Scholar
McNamara, K., O'Kiely, P., Whelan, J., Forristal, P. D. and Lenehan, J. J. (2002). Simulated damage to the plastic stretch-film surrounding baled silage and its effects on conservation characteristic. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 41: 29–41.Google Scholar
McEniry, J., O'Kiely, P., Clipson, N. J. W., Forristal, P. D. and Doyle, E. M. (2007). The relative impacts of wilting, chopping, compaction and air infiltration on the conservation characteristics of ensiled grass. Grass and Forage Science 62:470–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muck, R. E., Moser, L. E. and Pitt, R. E. (2003). Postharvest factors affecting ensiling. In Silage Science and Technology, 251–304 (Eds Buxton, D. R., Muck, R. E. and Harrison, J. H.). Madison (WI, USA): American Society of Agronomy Inc., Crop Science Society of America Inc., Soil Science of America Inc.Google Scholar
Muck, R. E. and Holmes, B. J. (2006). Bag silo densities and losses. Transactions of the ASABE 49:1277–1284.Google Scholar
Otieno, K., Onim, J. F. M. and Mathuva, M. N. (1990). A gunny-bag ensiling technique for small-scale farmers in Western Kenya. In Utilization of Research Results on Forage and Agricultural By-product Materials as Animal Feed Resources in Africa. Proceedings of the First Joint Workshop held in Lilongwe, Malawi, 5–9 December, 1988, 664–685 (Eds Dzowela, B. H., Said, A. N., Wendem-Agenehu, A. and Kategile, J. A.). Addis Ababa (Ethiopia): ILCA.Google Scholar
Paillat, J. M. and Gaillard, F. (2001). Air-tightness of wrapped bales and resistance of polythene stretch film under tropical and temperate conditions. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 79:15–22.Google Scholar
Pariyar, D. (2005). Oat cultivation and small-bag silage for household income generation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Fodder Oats, Fodder Technology Packages and Small Farm Income Generation, Kathmandu, Nepal, 8–11 March 2005, 164–168 (Eds Pariyar, D., Suttie, J. and Reynolds, S. G.). Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Poathong, S. and Phaikaew, C. (2001). Silage production practices and techniques in Thailand. In Forage development in Southeast Asia: Strategies and impacts. Seventh Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Grazing and Feed Resources, Manado, Indonesia, 2–7 July 2001 (Eds Moog, F. A., Reynolds, S. G. and Maaruf, K.). Available online at www.fao.org/ag/Agp/agpc/doc/Proceedings/manado/chap28.htm (Accessed 15 January 2009).Google Scholar
Rangnekar, D. V. (2000). Some observation on non-adoption of silage making in central and western India. In Silage Making in the Tropics with Particular Emphasis on Smallholders. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper No. 161, 11–13 (Ed Mannetje, L. ‘t). Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Shariffah Noorhani, S. S., Aini, A. and Idris, A. B. (2000). Sila-wrapped grass silage production using the small bale system (SBS) for feeding of goats and sheep. In Silage Making in the Tropics with Particular Emphasis on Smallholders. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper No. 161, 141 (Ed Mannetje, L. ‘t). Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Snijders, P. J. M. and Wouters, A. P. (2000). Silage quality and losses associated with ensiling Napier grass, Columbus grass and maize stover under smallholder conditions in Kenya. In Silage Making in the Tropics with Particular Emphasis on Smallholders. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper No. 161, 55–57 (Ed Mannetje, L. ‘t). Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Titterton, M., Mhere, O., Maasdorp, B., Kipnis, T., Ashbell, G., Smith, T. and Weinberg, Z. (2002). Ensiling of tropical forages with particular reference to African Livestock systems. Forage production and conservation for dry season feeding of smallholder dairy cattle in the semi-arid region of Southern Africa. Paper presented at the XIIIth International Silage Conference SAC, Auchincrive, Ayr, Scotland, 11–13 September 2002.Google Scholar
Wagner, A. and Büscher, W. (2005). Compression characteristics of wilted grass. Agricultural Engineering International, CIGR Ejournal. Manuscript IT 05 007. Vol. VII.Google Scholar
Weissbach, F. (2002). Grundlagen und Praxis der Produktion guter Grassilagen. In Bericht zum 8. Alpenländischen Expertenforum – Zeitgemäße Futterkonservierung, 1–5. Gumpenstein, Austria: Bundesanstalt für alpenländische Landwirtschaft.Google Scholar
Wilkins, R. J. (2005). Silage: a global perspective. In Grasslands. Developments, opportunities, perspectives, 111–132 (Eds Reynolds, S. and Frame, J.). Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M., Bolsen, K. K. and Lin, C. J. (2003). History of silage. In Silage Science and Technology, 1–30 (Eds Buxton, D. R., Muck, R. E. and Harrison, J. H.). Madison (WI, USA): American Society of Agronomy Inc., Crop Science Society of America Inc., Soil Science of America Inc.Google Scholar
Williams, A. G. (1994). The permeability and porosity of grass silage as affected by dry matter. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 59:133–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar