Assessment of seasonal availability and variability of rice straw as livestock feed in smallholder production systems in Ahero, Kenya

Introduction

Rice straw, a by-product of rice cultivation, holds significant potential as an alternative livestock feed, particularly for smallholder farming systems constrained by limited resources (Kaur & Singh, 2024) [11] . Despite its availability, rice straw remains underutilized in Kenya, where smallholder dairy farmers face recurring challenges in accessing affordable, nutritious feed, particularly during the dry season. Smallholder farmers face persistent challenges in accessing affordable, high-quality livestock feed, especially during the dry season (Cooke et al., 2024) [5] . Factors such as the perceived low nutritive value of rice straw, its high fiber content, and limited data on its seasonal availability and variability hinder its widespread adoption (FAO, 2017; Maclean et al., 2013) [7,12] . The Ahero Irrigation Scheme, a prominent rice-growing area in Kisumu County, provides an ideal setting to explore the potential of rice straw as a sustainable feed source. Understanding the patterns of rice straw availability and its variability could enable better utilization of this by-product, thereby addressing feed shortages, reducing agricultural waste, and supporting the livelihoods of smallholder farmers (Rossi & Srai, 2024) [23] .

Rice production is an important crop globally for food and feed, providing approximately 21% of global human per capita energy and 15% of per capita protein (Abbade et al., 2021) [1] . According to FAO (2017) [7] , rice produces waterand land-efficiently, generating food and feed from otherwise marginal land and using less water per calorie than other major crops. Rice farmers typically harvest the most productive grain and leave or burn the remaining straw as waste (Singh et al., 2021) [26] . However, rice straw has potential nutritive value as livestock feed if handled and treated properly (Abo-Donia et al., 2022) [2] . This research seeks to shed light on the seasonal dynamics of rice straw availability, the environmental and agricultural factors influencing these dynamics, and the feasibility of integrating rice straw into livestock feeding systems in Kenya's rice-producing regions.

Materials and Methods

Study Design

This study adopted a longitudinal approach to check on rice straw availability and utilization patterns as livestock fed, across seasons with a focus on Kisumu County, specifically the Ahero Irrigation Scheme, a key rice-producing area.

Sampling

A purposive sampling method was employed to select a representative sample of 0 smallholder rice farmers who also manage livestock. The sample included farmers from different sections of the Ahero irrigation scheme to account for potential variations in farming practices, soil conditions, and water access.

Data Collection

Bi-weekly surveys were conducted with farmers to document the quantities of rice straw harvested, stored, used as livestock feed, sold, or discarded. Farmer perspectives on the usability and value of rice straw as fodder will also be gathered. Key informant interviews were conducted with agricultural officers, livestock extension agents, and local leaders to provide insights into seasonal trends, management challenges, and the market dynamics affecting rice straw utilization. Field measurements with the use of a quadrant-based sampling method were used to estimate rice straw yield per hectare accurately. Environmental data, including rainfall, temperature, and soil conditions, was recorded to understand the ecological impacts on straw production.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data on rice straw volumes will be analyzed to assess seasonal trends and presented using descriptive statistics and graphical formats. Qualitative data from farmer perspectives and key informants was analyzed to identify barriers, opportunities, and trends in rice straw utilization in the rice-producing area. This comprehensive methodology ensures a detailed understanding of rice straw availability and its utilization for livestock feed in the Ahero region. The majority (85.71%) owned farms ranging between 1 and 5 acres, while 14.29% had less than 1 acre of land. There were no respondents with farms larger than 5 acres, underscoring the smallholder nature of the agricultural operations. The results of the rice farming practices are presented in Table 2. Most respondents primarily practice rice cultivation on land areas of 1-5 acres (59.41%), followed by those who cultivate rice on less than 1 acre (29.70%). Only a small percentage cultivates rice on 6-10 acres (8.91%) or more than 10 acres (1.98%). Additionally, most participants (42.57%) have more than ten years of experience in rice farming. A substantial number have been farming rice for 6-10 years (22.77%) or 1-5 years (20.79%), while a smaller percentage have less than 1 year of experience (13.86%). Moreover, IR27 was the most-grown rice variety in the area (88.89%), followed by Pishori (9.72%) and Tapki (1.39%). From Figure 1, it was observed that cattle were the most kept livestock, reported by 32.2% of respondents. Poultry followed as the second most common, with 29.4% of respondents indicating they kept poultry. Goats were kept by 24.8%, while sheep accounted for 13.6%. Notably, no respondents indicated keeping any other types of livestock beyond those mentioned. Among cattle keepers, it was observed that the Sahiwal cattle breed was the only breed kept for dairy purposes, as reported by 100% of the respondents. For poultry, respondents indicated that they exclusively kept pure indigenous chickens. Among sheep keepers, the Dorper sheep was the only breed raised in the area. Regarding goat breeds, the majority (75%) reported keeping the Small East African goat, followed by 20% who kept Galla goats, and a small proportion (5%) who kept Boer goats. From Figure 2, most respondents (44.3%) reported an average annual income of less than Ksh 10,000 from livestock farming.

Results and Discussion

Livestock Ownership and Breeds

This was followed by 28.6% who earned between Ksh 50,000 and 100,000, while 27.1% reported earnings in the range of Ksh 10,000 to 50,000. Crop residues and pasture were the primary sources of livestock feed, used by 55.2% and 42.4% of respondents (Figure 4), respectively. Conserved forages were reported as a feed source by 1.6% of respondents, while purchased feed was the least utilized, at just 0.8%. Most respondents (67.1%) reported utilizing rice by-products as livestock feed, while the remaining 32.9% did not use rice by-products for this purpose.

Use of Rice By-products and Seasonal Variation in Feed Availability

Rice By-product used as livestock feed Rice straw (Table 3) was the most used rice by-product as livestock feed, reported by 71.2% of respondents, followed by broken rice at 25.76% and rice bran at 3.03%. Notably, no respondent reported using rice germ as livestock feed. The main uses of rice straw among respondents were baling (34.65%) and mulching (30.69%). About 17.82% incorporated it into the soil, while 10.89% burned it (Figure 5). A smaller proportion (4.95%) sold rice straw, and only 0.99% used it for silage. This indicates limited adoption of value-added practices like silage production. Most respondents practiced extensive grazing on communal land (50%) and tethering (47.14%) as their main production systems in both dry and wet seasons, with only a small proportion (2.86%) practicing semi-zero grazing (Table 4). Additionally, all respondents (100%) unanimously agreed that feed availability varies significantly across different seasons. When asked about their current methods of livestock feed storage, respondents indicated that they primarily used haystacks, with no one reporting the use of barns or silos. Additionally, respondents stated they faced no challenges in feed conservation as they did not practice it. Moreover, none of the respondents used concentrates, minerals, or vitamins as supplements for their dairy cattle. Awareness of value addition for crop residues was slightly lower, with 54.26% of respondents indicating they were not aware, compared to 45.71% who were aware (Table 5). Despite this, nearly half (48.57%) of respondents reported using value-addition techniques. Among these, drying was the predominant method, employed by 97.06%, while grinding was minimally used (2.94%). This highlights a significant reliance on drying for enhancing crop residue utilization. The results of the feed supplements used during the dry season are presented in Table 6. Among the respondents, grasses were the most frequently used feed supplement during the dry season, reported by 52.11%, followed by crop residues at 45.07% and conserved hay at 2.82%. No respondents reported using concentrates or agro-industrial by-products. Rice straw and dry maize stover were reported as the only crop residues utilized as feed supplements during the dry season, with 56.86% of respondents indicating the use of rice straw and 43.14% reporting the use of dry maize stover.

Discussion

The findings of this study offer valuable insights into the demographic characteristics, farming practices, and utilization of rice straw as livestock feed among smallholder farmers in Kenya's Ahero region. These results are consistent with previous research, thereby providing a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in the region.

The demographic analysis revealed a predominance of male respondents (62.86%), with a significant portion in the age group of 45-54 years (39.18%), indicating that middle-aged men are the primary decision-makers in the agricultural sector. The limited representation of younger individuals aged 18-34 years (16.96%) highlights a potential gap in youth engagement in farming activities. This aligns with the findings of Makate & Mango, (2017) [14] who observed a similar trend of low youth participation in agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, attributing it to migration to urban areas for education or non-agricultural employment. Bringing young people into farming operations helps enhance sustainability in smallholder systems (Zulu et al., 2021) [30] . Furthermore, the educational background of respondents showed that most had attained primary or secondary education (70.85%), which is essential for understanding and adopting improved agricultural practices. However, the low percentage of respondents with a college or university education (8.57%) suggests a need for greater emphasis on educational opportunities. This finding supports Mucheru-Muna et al. (2021) [16] who indicated that while basic education is common among rural farmers, it limits their ability to adopt more advanced agricultural innovations. In line with Njenga et al. (2021) [18] who reported that middleaged men dominate agricultural decision-making, and Okello et al. (2024) [20] who emphasized the challenges of low tertiary education in improving agricultural productivity, these findings underscore the need for targeted interventions in education to enhance farming practices in the region.

The study population is entirely dependent on farming, agriculture, or livestock as their main occupation. Most respondents own small farms ranging between 1-5 acres (85.71%), underscoring the smallholder nature of agricultural operations in the region. Rice cultivation is a significant activity, with most farmers cultivating rice on 1-5 acres (84.29%) and having substantial experience in rice farming, with many having farmed rice for over ten years (24.29%). The IR27 variety is the most-grown rice variety (88.89%), reflecting its adaptation to local conditions. These findings are consistent with the observations of Devendra & Leng, who reported that rice straw is often the most accessible by-product for smallholder farmers in Asian and African regions. The predominant use of rice straw over other by-products such as rice bran (67.54% vs. 19.30%) highlights its importance as a readily available feed resource (Singh & Patel, 2022) [27] . Cattle are the most kept livestock (32.2%), followed by poultry (29.4%), goats (24.8%), and sheep (13.6%). The preference for specific breeds, such as Sahiwal cattle for dairy, indigenous chickens, Dorper sheep, and Small East African goats, indicates a reliance on locally adapted livestock breeds that meet environmental conditions and market demands (Ahmad et al.,2024) [4] . Most respondents reported an annual income of less than KS [26,22] . This reliance on crop residues, particularly rice straw (71.21%), underscores its importance as a feed source during the dry season when natural forage is scarce (Saharan et al., 2024). These findings are in line with Afzal et al. (2024) [3] and Sharma et al. (2024) [5] , who identified the high fibre content and low nutritive value of rice straw as barriers to its widespread adoption. Farms need to learn about ammoniation and value-addition techniques which can make their livestock feed better (Kabinda et al., 2022) [10] . Farmers use traditional drying techniques more often than other methods (97.06%) even though they need training to learn innovative options such as urea treatment and ensilage practices (Madzingira et al., 2021) [13] . Seasonal variability significantly impacts feed availability, with all respondents acknowledging this challenge. Extensive grazing on communal land (50%) and tethering (47.14%) are predominant production systems, reflecting practices noted by the (FAO, 2019) [8] on livestock management in Kenya. The reliance on haystacks for feed storage, without barns or silos, highlights inadequate infrastructure for feed conservation. This agrees with the findings of Mburu, (2015) [15] who identify storage alternatives like barns and silos as key successful practices. Additionally, the lack of supplements such as concentrates, minerals, and vitamins, as observed by Njarui et al. (2016) [17] , underscores missed opportunities to improve livestock nutrition and productivity. Awareness of value addition for crop residues is relatively low, with 54.26% of respondents unaware of such practices. Despite this, nearly half (48.57%) of the farmers engage in value addition, predominantly through drying (97.06%), which is the simplest and most cost-effective method. This finding aligns with Thornton and Herrero (2010) [28] , who noted that drying is the most used technique among smallholder farmers due to its accessibility and low cost. Similarly, Hilmiati et al. (2024) [9] observed that drying is widespread in resource-limited systems, but advanced techniques like ensiling or urea treatment are underutilized due to low awareness and resource constraints. Van Soest (2006) [29] emphasized that while methods such as alkali treatment could significantly enhance the nutritive value of crop residues, limited farmer awareness and training restrict their adoption. These observations suggest a considerable opportunity to improve the adoption of advanced value-addition techniques by addressing knowledge gaps and providing targeted extension programs (Prasara & Gheewala, 2017) [21] . Finally, by building awareness and demonstrating the benefits of enhanced practices as suggested by Dejene et al. (2014) [6] , farmers could optimize the use of crop residues, increasing their value for livestock feed and other uses.

Conclusion

The study highlights the critical role of rice straw as a livestock feed in smallholder production systems in Kenya's Ahero region, especially during periods of forage scarcity. However, the findings also point to challenges such as limited youth engagement in farming, low educational attainment, and inadequate infrastructure for feed conservation storage and supplementation. Rice straw burning practice increases greenhouse gas emissions that have a direct effect on the environment, contributing towards climate change. Addressing these challenges through targeted education, infrastructure development, and the promotion of valueaddition techniques can enhance the sustainability and productivity of smallholder farming systems. Future research should focus on developing and disseminating affordable technologies for processing rice straw to improve its nutritional value, thereby supporting smallholder farmers in making the most of this readily available resource.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgmentThe authors are grateful to Kilimo Trust (KT) for financial support. We acknowledge technical support from the Animal Sciences Department at Egerton University, on questionnaire administration.

References

1. Abbade EB. Estimating the potential for nutrition and energy production derived from maize (Zea mays L.) and rice (Oryza sativa L.) losses in Brazil. Waste Manag. 2021;134:170-176.
2. Abo-Donia FM, Ahmed El-Shora M, Abd-Elaziz Riad W, Basuony Elgamal N, Abdel-Menaem El-Hamady W. Improve the nutritional value and utilization of rice straw via an ensiling process with different sources of energy and nitrogen enrichment. J Appl Anim Res. 2022;50(1):333-341.
3. Afzal M, Muhammad S, Tan D, Kaleem S, Khattak AA, Wang X, et al. The Effects of Heavy Metal Pollution on Soil Nitrogen Transformation and Rice Volatile Organic Compounds under Different Water Management Practices. Plants. 2024;13(6):871.
4. Ahmad N, Yuan H, Zhu Z, Chu T, Liu J, Song Y. Pakistan sheep industry its constrains and future trends. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2024;56(9):399.
5. Cooke AS, Machekano H, Gwiriri LC, Tinsley JH, Silva GM, Nyamukondiwa C, et al. The nutritional feed gap: Seasonal variations in ruminant nutrition and knowledge gaps in relation to food security in Southern Africa. Food Sec. 2024:1-28.
6. Hilmiati N, Ilham N, Nulik J, Rohaeni ES, deRosari B, Basuki T, et al. Smallholder Cattle Development in Indonesia: Learning from the Past for an OutcomeOriented Development Model. J Int J Def Eng. 2024;19(1):169-184.
7. Kabinda J, Madzimure J, Murungweni C, Mpofu IDT. Significance of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) as a feed resource towards small-ruminant animal production in Southern Africa: a review. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2022;54(2):106.
8. Kaur A, Singh R. Rice straw: status, management and strategies for sustainable development with special emphasis on the Northern India and governmentsupported initiatives. Clean Technol Environ Policy. 2024:1-33.
9. Madzingira O, Hepute V, Mwenda EN, Kandiwa Mushonga B, Mupangwa JF. Nutritional assessment of three baled rice straw varieties intended for use as ruminant feed in Namibia. Cogent Food Agric. 2021;7(1):1950402.
10. Makate C, Mango N. Diversity amongst farm households and achievements from multi-stakeholder innovation platform approach: lessons from Balaka Malawi. Agric Food Sec. 2017;6:1-15.
11. Mucheru-Muna MW, Ada MA, Mugwe JN, Mairura FS, Mugi-Ngenga E, Zingore S, et al. Socio-economic predictors, soil fertility knowledge domains and strategies for sustainable maize intensification in Embu County, Kenya. Heliyon. 2021;7(2).
12. Njarui DMG, Gichangi EM, Gatheru M, et al. Enhancing livestock productivity through improved feeding practices in semi-arid areas of Kenya. Int J Agric Sci. 2016;8(4):134-142.
13. Njenga MW, Mugwe JN, Mogaka H, Nyabuga G, Kiboi M, Ngetich F, et al. Communication factors influencing adoption of soil and water conservation technologies in the dry zones of Tharaka-Nithi County, Kenya. Heliyon. 2021;7(10).
14. Okoye OC, Wang Y, Gao L, Wu Y, Li X, Sun J, Jiang J. The performance of lactic acid bacteria in silage production: A review of modern biotechnology for silage improvement. Microbiol Res. 2023;266:2023.
15. Okello D, Mshenga P, Saidi M, Juma F, Maria S, Egeru A, Gogo E. Entrepreneurship education in East, West and North Africa Higher Education Institutions (HEIs): mapping agripreneurship curriculum and lecturers' competencies. Discov Educ. 2024;3(1):100.
16. Prasara-A J, Gheewala SH. Sustainable utilization of rice residues in Southeast Asia: technologies, policies and the climate change mitigation potential. J Clean Prod. 2017;164:1422-1436.
17. Romasanta RR, Sander BO, Gaihre YK, Alberto MC, Gummert M, Quilty J, et al. How does burning of rice straw affect CH4 and N2O emissions? A comparative experiment of different on-field straw management practices. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2017;239:143-153.
18. Rossi LA, Srai JS. Configuring circular by-product supply networks through public-private partnerships-A case study of rice straw stubble agri-waste in Punjab. J Clean Prod. 2024;468:143093.
19. Saharan BS, Dhanda D, Mandal NK, Kumar R, Sharma D, Sadh PK, et al. Microbial contributions to sustainable paddy straw utilization for economic gain and environmental conservation. Curr Res Microb Sci. 2024;100264.
20. Sharma S, Pappu A, Asolekar SR. Sustainable recycling of paddy straw through the development of short-fibrereinforced composites: exploring gainful utilization of agricultural waste. Clean Technol Environ Policy. 2024;26(1):109-127.
21. Singh G, Gupta MK, Chaurasiya S, Sharma VS, Pimenov DY. Rice straw burning: a review on its global prevalence and the sustainable alternatives for its effective mitigation. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2021;28(25):32125-32155.
22. Singh R, Patel M. Effective utilization of rice straw in value-added by-products: A systematic review of the state of the art and future perspectives. Biomass Bioenergy. 2022;159:106411.
23. Thornton PK, Herrero M. The inter-linkages between global food security and livestock. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2010;2(5-6):299-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.09.003
24. Van Soest PJ. Rice straw, the role of silica and treatments to improve quality. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2006;130(34):137-171.
25. Zulu LC, Djenontin IN, Grabowski P. From diagnosis to action: Understanding youth strengths and hurdles and using decision-making tools to foster youth-inclusive sustainable agriculture intensification. J Rural Stud. 2021;82:196-209.