Research Results - (PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

Table 3. Results from the supplementary feeding trial in terms of daily intake of range forage,
liveweight gain per animal (kg), the cost per kg gained (dirhams), the marketvalue of the weight
gain (at 13 dh per kg), and the profit per animal (dirhams).
Supplementary Feeding Treatments
control N suppl E suppl N + E suppl
average daily intake, range (g/kg metab. wt) 79.4g 70.2 50.3 56.5
average daily intake, range (g/head) 754g 688 518 593
total daily intakerange + suppI (g/head) 754g 738 818 843
weight change (4 mo) 1.5kg 3.9 7.2 7.8
cost per kg gain 6.4dh 4.8 9.6 10.0
cost of weight gain 9.6dh 22.2' 69.1 78.0
value of weight gain 19.5dh 50.7 93.4 101.4
profit per animal 9.9dh 28.5 24.3 23.4
*Thecost per kg gain is 4.8 dirhams at the government's subsidized price for sunflower cake, which
translates into a profit of 32 dirhams per animal.
The analysis presented in table 3 consti- the total diet. The daily intake per kg of fourtutes
a preliminary stage; a publication on this month weight gain was 502,189,114, and 108g
trial is being prepared by Dr. Hamid Narjisse as for the control, sunflower, barley, and barley
the senior author. At first glance it would plus sunflower treatments, respectively.
appear that for small ruminants grazing summer-autumn
rangeland on the Moroccan steppe, Perhaps the most important component
energy is the main nutritional constraint. How- of this study is the preliminary economic analyever,
the barley supplement of 300 g/head/day sis. Providing a 50 g/head/day supplement of
which affords additional energy in the diet, sunflower cake gave a profit of 28.5 dirhams per
reflected in a compensatory drop in intake from animal based on the weight gain for this treatthe
rangeland of about 236 g/day, contains ment, or 18.6 dirhams more than the profit from
significant protein content in addition to the an animal in the control group. [The profit
carbohydrate, and thus it becomes difficult to differential would be greater if subsidized prices
isolate a specific energy effect in the diet. At an were used in the analysis.] This analysis is very
estimated 10% protein content, the barley simple and fails to take into account other costs
supplement of 300 g included 30 g of protein, of providing supplementary feed apart from the
whereas the sunflower cake contained only 13 g purchase of the supplements, such as feed
of protein supplement per day. The combina- storage and feeding costs. Although the barley
tion of barley plus sunflower cake provided a supplement gave the greatest weight gain over
total of 43 g of protein supplement per day. The the four-month trial, it was not the most profitprincipal
effect of the protein and barley supple- able strategy due to the relatively high price of
ments seemed to be an increase in digestibility barley grain. The experiment clearly demonof
the range forage, with a more efficient use of strates, however, the biological benefit of a
107