Forage species preferred by camels (Camelus dromedarius) and their nutritional composition in North Eastern Kenya

S G Kuria, I A Tura*, S Amboga** and H K Walaga

Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Marsabit; P.O. Box 147-60500 Marsabit, Kenya
simongkuria@yahoo.com
* Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Garissa; P.O. Box 230-70100 Garissa, Kenya
** Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Embu; P.O. Box 27-60100 Embu; Tel. +254 (68) 20116/20878; Fax +254 (68) 30064/30343; 722 445621

Abstract

A study was carried out in three locations of north eastern Kenya i.e. Saka, Kutulo and Bute to establish the forage species preferred by camels and their chemical composition in an effort to improve productivity of camels and that of the range. Different methods were used to collect data including focus group discussions, field observation of grazing camels, sampling and laboratory analysis of forage species.

The results indicated that over 90% of forage species selected by the camels during the wet season were shrubs. For 49% and 43% of the plants, camels were selecting the leaves and, leaves and tender twigs, respectively with only 6% of the plants being eaten whole in the wet season. The camels were spending between 56 and 86% of their grazing time on an average of 9 preferred plants per site. During the dry season, camels across the study sites were mainly depending on evergreen shrubs as well as collecting dry leaves of the usually preferred shrubs from the ground as grasses and herbaceous grazing materials were hardly available. The camels were mainly concentrating on leaves and twigs, spending 71% to 100% of their grazing time on an average of 7 plants per study site in the dry season. The average dry matter (DM) content of the plants was 91% while the crude protein (CP) averaged 7.2%. The neutral detergent fibre (NDF) was in the range of 35 to 79% with an average of 58% of DM. The energy content of the forage species was in the range of 2.5 to 4.4 Kcal/g of DM with an average of 3.7. The study concluded that the chemical composition of the forage species available for camels in the three study sites at the time of sampling was below the recommended level for grazing camels. The camels in the area would therefore require supplementation with both protein and energy during prolonged dry and drought periods to sustain production.

Key words: diet selection, energy, fibre, protein

Introduction

Camels are of great socio-economic importance in the lives of pastoral peoples inhabiting the arid areas of the world (Bahgat 1991). In Kenya camels have traditionally provided milk, meat, blood for subsistence and have had socio-cultural values among the pastoral communities (Field 2005). In the recent past, camel rearing is increasingly gaining commercial value in Kenya with meat camels fetching as much as US$ 700 to 800 depending on the size (Personal observation). Important as they are, camels in the arid areas of Kenya mainly depend on naturally available plants for all their nutritional requirements (Simpkin 1998, Kuria et al 2004). Data on nutritional composition of grazing resources is critical in understanding livestock production and in grazing management if productivity of grazing lands was to be maximized (Papachristou 1997). This is more crucial in the dry and drought periods when the available grazing is not of sufficient quality or quantity to meet the maintenance requirements of animals (Aganga and Mosase 2001). Information concerning the nutritional composition of plants selected by grazing camels in north eastern Kenya which hosts >50% of the 2.9 million Kenya camels (GoK 2010) is scarce. The main objective of this study therefore was to establish the chemical composition of forage species preferred by camels in the area in an effort to improve productivity of camels and that of the range for the benefit of the local pastoralists.

Methodology

Description of the study sites 

The study was carried out in three locations i.e. Saka in Garissa, Kutulo in Wajir East and Bute in Wajir North administrative districts. The community involved in the study was Somali and the study areas lie approximately between longitude 37°35’ to 40°30’E and latitude 01°00’ to 03°00'N. These locations were selected due to their relative importance with respect to nutrient sources for camels and the fact that they most of the time tend to have a high density of camels. The three districts are classified as arid, falling in ecological zones V and VI but with a few pockets of high crop production potential especially along permanent rivers. The area is generally low lying with annual rainfall ranging from 120 to 500 mm. The rainfall pattern is bimodal with peaks in April and November. The temperatures vary from 23 to 34^oC with the period between January and April being very hot (MLFD, 2003). Evaporation is high, exceeding 2,600 mm annually over most of the area. Soils in the study area varied greatly ranging from whitish sand, heavy clay, dark red calcareous clay and dusky red soils. 

Different methods were used to gather information depending on the kind of data needed. These included focus group discussions (FGD) which comprised of 12-15 purposively selected experienced camel keepers per site. For purposes of sampling, these camel keepers helped the research team to identify the forage species preferred by camels in wet and dry seasons. Ranking of the identified species was done based on perceived importance by the respondents. The other methods used in this study were field observation of grazing camels, sampling of highest ranking preferred forage species and laboratory analysis. Field observation of grazing camels was done to confirm/verify the forage species identified during the FGD before taking the samples as recommended by Schwartz (1989). The feeding observations were done for five randomly selected camel herds per site with five randomly selected camels being observed per herd, thus a total of 75 camels for the three sites. The selection ensured that the camel herds were grazing in different sub-sites within the main sites. These observations were conducted between 0700 and 1000 hours when the camels were actively grazing and the selected camels did not include any newly acquired camel that would not be familiar with the grazing area. Each camel was observed for 15 minutes, recording the number of complete bites made by the camel on various forage species and also the plant parts eaten by the camels. The end of a bite was marked by the time the camel raised its head for purposes of chewing. The researchers doing the observations were accompanied by two experienced local camel herders who knew all the plants in vernacular for quick identification and recording.  

In preparation for sampling, the forage species were ranked based on the sum of bite counts made on a particular species by different camels in different sub-sites. This ranking suggested the order of forage species preference by grazing camels. On the basis of bite counts, the top 7 to 11 forage species were sampled in each site such that 7, 11 and 9 were sampled in Saka, Kutulo and Bute, respectively in the wet season. During the dry season 7, 5 and 8 species were sampled in Saka, Kutulo and Bute, respectively. The samples were composite and the sampling targeted the forage parts that were being eaten by the grazing camels during the field observations. Fresh weight of the samples was taken and the samples were then sun dried for five (5) days and packed for laboratory analysis. In the dry season, the plant species diversity was low as expected and thus, only 5 to 8 plant samples were taken in each site. In the laboratory, dry matter of the samples was determined at 60°c and 105°c. The samples were oven dried at 60°C for 2 days, weighed and ground. The second level dry matter was determined by drying the ground samples further at 105°c overnight. Crude protein was analyzed using the standard Kjeldahl procedure described in AOAC (1995). The fibre components were analyzed according to the Van Soest et al (1991) procedure while energy was assessed using Bob calorimetry method. Duplicate samples were analyzed for each forage species followed by computation of the means.  

The experimental design was a Completely Randomized Design (CRD) within a factorial arrangement. The two factors were site and season where the site had three levels: Saka, Kutulo and Bute while the season had two levels i.e. dry and wet. The GLM procedure of SAS (2003) was used to test the differences between bite counts for the various forage species. The LSmeans bite counts for each forage species by the different camels and the corresponding standard errors were computed and tabulated indicating the level of significance i.e. p. Descriptive statistics were done in Windows based SPSS (2008) for the nutritional composition data with no differentiation between sites and seasons since the sample size was small. Mean values for the various nutritional components were calculated together with the corresponding standard errors and presented in tabular form.

Results and Discussion

Forages preferred by camels in dry and wet seasons 

Preferred forages during dry and wet seasons in Saka, Kutulo and Bute were identified by respondents as presented in the following Tables 1, 2 and 3. Note that the vernacular names are all in Somali language and the forage species are not arranged in order of preference. 

Total bite counts for each forage species by all the observed camels per site were summed up and percentages of the overall bite counts computed for each species. The LSmeans bite counts for the various forage species were also computed. The percentages of overall bite counts and LSmeans are presented in Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. 

Overall, the difference in bite counts between the various plants was significant (p<0.05) in all the sites and seasons. Standard errors were higher than the mean values where the number of observations was few whereas with one observation, the means were not computed at all.

The high overall bite counts registered by camels in Bute and Kutulo may be attributed to good forage condition and high abundance compared to Saka in agreement with an earlier study by Kuria et al (2005). The high number of bite counts in Bute and Kutulo suggests a high feed intake by the grazing camels as observed by Gihad et al (1989). In these two sites therefore, camels concentrated on browsing and the movement was minimal (Kassily 2002) compared to Saka where camels were spending considerable time walking around in search of better pastures. It is also not lost that over 90% of forage species selected by the camels during the wet season were shrubs. This observation concurred with the reports of Wangoi (1994), Rutagwenda et al (1990), Field (1995) and Abbas et al (1995) indicating that camels preferred predominantly browse/shrubs at 96% of the total in wet season. Compared to grasses, shrubs are usually lower in fibre and ash but higher in dry matter and CP making them more palatable in agreement with El Shaer and Gihad (1994). The high palatability also partly explains the high bite counts registered by the camels during the wet season.  During the dry season, camels across the sites were mainly dependent on evergreen shrubs as well as collecting dry leaves of the usually preferred shrubs from the ground as grasses and herbaceous grazing materials were very scarce. Wangoi (1984) had earlier observed that the percentage of browse/shrubs in the diet of camels declined in the dry season as the shrubs shed off the leaves.  

Specific forage species sampled in each site in wet and dry seasons 

The full details of preferred forage species sampled per site are presented in Tables 10 and 11 for wet and dry seasons, respectively. 

For 49% and 43% of the plants, camels were selecting the leaves and, leaves and tender twigs, respectively with only 6% of the plants being eaten whole in the wet season. The camels were spending between 56 and 86% of their grazing time on an average of 9 preferred plants (mainly shrubs) in each site during the wet season suggesting the importance of the plants in terms of meeting the daily nutritional requirements of the camels. This observation was the same as that by Stares et al (1992) that camels were mainly browsers, spending over 80% of their feeding time on dicotyledons. During the dry season, the camels were mainly concentrating on leaves and twigs with only one plant being eaten whole. Fruits too were not available during the season and the camels were depending on an average of 7 plants for their daily nutritional requirements in the three sites, spending 71% to 100% of their grazing time on the plants.

Nutrient composition of the plants 

All the 20 forage samples taken during the dry season and the 7 taken from Saka during the wet season were analyzed for the nutritional composition. The samples from Kutulo and Bute in the wet season were not analyzed for the nutritional composition due to unavoidable circumstances. The DM of the plants was in the range of 87 to 93% (average = 91) while the CP ranged from 3.7 to 13.2% (average = 7.2). The NDF was in the range of 35 to 79% with an average of 58% of DM. The energy content of the forage species was in the range of 2.5 to 4.4 Kcal/g of DM with an average of 3.7. An important observation was that while the variation in chemical composition between individual plants in terms of CP, NDF and Energy appeared wide, the DM varied very little, agreeing with the findings by Breman and Kessler (1995), Bakshi and Wadhwa (2004). The DM was quite high and this can be explained by the late stage of maturity when the samples were taken (Laudadio and Hammadi 2009). The results of descriptive analysis are presented in Table 12. 

The CP content of the forage species was much lower than what had been reported by Kuria et al (2005) for the forage species preferred by camels in the upper eastern Kenya (12.1±3.7%). This variation may have resulted from the fact that most of the samples analyzed in the current study had been taken during a dry season when ordinarily the CP would be expected to be low (Abbas et al 1995, Stares et al 1992, Field 1995). In the study by Kuria et al (2005), there was a good mixture of wet and dry season samples. This may also suggest that the forages in upper eastern Kenya are generally higher in CP than those in the north eastern Kenya. The CP reported in this study was lower than what was reported for forages commonly eaten by camels wherever they exist in the world (Wilson 1989). Further, the average CP in the present study was within the range reported much earlier by APRU (1978) in Botswana (5.3 – 11.6%) and El Shaer and Gihad (1994) that is, 6.2 – 13.2%. Protein requirements in ruminants include that of the microbial population (maintenance) and for production (Hutson et al 1981). The microbial requirements are met at 6 – 8% CP while the animal requirements for production (milk yield, growth etc) are met at 8 – 20% CP in the diet (Milford and Haydock 1965, Huston et al 1981, Kearl 1982). This essentially means that the camels were only getting CP enough to cover the microbial requirements suggesting that they were suffering of protein deficiency.   

The average NDF content of the forage species was above the 35 – 40% which is the range described as normal for nutritious fodders by El Shaer and Gihad (1994). Normally, the CP declines with the dryness of forages whereas the fibre fraction increases as reflected by the high NDF content in the current study (Kayongo 1986, Field 1995 and Abbas et al 1995). Furthermore, El Shaer and Gihad (1994) observed that the higher the NDF content of forages, the lower the neutral detergent solubles which includes starches, sugars, fats and CP and the results of this study concurs with this observation. Noting that NDF is the major determinant of the overall forage quality and digestibility and has a direct effect on animal performance (Linn 2004, Osuga et al 2008, Bakshi and Wadhwa 2004), it means the high NDF in the current study was expected to adversely affect the performance of camels in the study area. There were however no obvious signs of poor performance perhaps due to the high capacity of camels to utilize fibrous feed material by retaining it in the rumen for longer period to allow digestion in agreement with Lechner-Doll et al (1990). Fattah et al (1999) and Kempton (2007) further observed that camels can efficiently digest low quality roughages because of the wide range of ruminal microflora which can adapt to a range of forages, active rumination, and high levels of urea recycling. Degan et al (1987) observed that camels extract more energy from the food they consume compared to sheep.     

Similar to the CP requirements, the energy requirements by camels constitute maintenance including requirements for movement while feeding and, the requirement for production (Wilson 1989). The average energy content of forages in this study (3.7 MJ/Kg DM) was below the range reported earlier for browse species commonly eaten by camels in the world (4 to 8 MJ/Kg DM) by Wilson (1989). It was however interesting to note that the energy level was within the range reported by Wilson (1989) for dry season grasses (2 to 8 MJ/Kg of DM). Wilson (1989) estimated the daily energy requirements for maintenance to between 36 and 54 MJ d^-1 depending on the live weight which in this case ranged between 300 to 500kg. Coppock et al (1986) had earlier estimated the maintenance energy requirements for camels in Turkana, Kenya to be 76.7 MJ d^-1 while Kempton (2007) put the maintenance requirements for a 450 kg camel at 37 MJ a day. Comparing this with what the camels of similar live weight in the current study were getting that is, 29.6 MJ d^-1, camels in north eastern Kenya were suffering maintenance energy shortfall which has negative implication on milk production of the camels in agreement with Coppock et al (1986). The energy required by a camel to produce 1 l of milk is equivalent to 10% of the maintenance requirements suggesting that if the situation when the sampling was done persisted for long, the camels would have fast declined in body condition.

Conclusion

• Overall, the chemical composition of the forage species available for camels in the three study sites at the time of sampling was below the recommended level for grazing camels and was therefore expected to have a negative impact on the dry matter intake, dry matter digestibility and productive performance of the camels. It is strongly recommended camels in the study area be supplemented with protein and energy at times of prolonged dry spells and drought to sustain production.

Acknowledgements

The team wishes to sincerely thank the Director KARI and the coordination unit of the Kenya Arid and Semi Arid Lands Research Project and in particular Dr. David Miano Mwangi for the financial support. The team also treasures the cooperation by camel pastoralists in Garissa and Wajir during the field data collection. The pastoralists unconditionally allowed their camels to be used for the study during the field grazing observations.

References

Abbas A M, Mousa H M, Lechner-Doll M and Engelhardt W 1995 Nutritional value of plants selected by camels (Camelus dromedarius) in the Butana area of Sudan. Journal of Animal Physiology and Nutrition. 74: 1-8.  

Aganga A A and Mosase K W 2001 Tannin content, nutritive value and dry matter digestibility of Lonchocarpus capassa, Ziziphus mucronata, Sclerocarya birrea, Kirkia acuminate and Rhus lancea seed. Animal Feed Science and technology. 91: 107-113. 

AOAC 1995 Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis, Washington, DC. 

APRU (Animal Production Research Unit) 1978 Annual Report. Ministry of Agriculture, Gaborone, Botswana.  

Bahgat M E 1991 A comparative study on apparaent digestibility and nutritive value of some desert plants and common feeds consumed by goats and camels (Camelus dromedarius). Indian Veterinary Journal 68: 639-647. 

Bakshi M P S and Wadhwa M 2004 Evaluation of forest tree leaves of semi-hilly arid region as livestock feed, Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Sciences 17: 777-783. 

Breman H and Kessler J J 1995 Woody plants in agro-ecosystems of semi-arid regions with emphasis on the Sahelian countries, AB DLO, Wageningen.    

Coppock D L, Swift D M and Ellis J E 1986 Seasonal nutritional characteristics of livestock diets in a nomadic pastoral ecosystem. Journal of Applied Ecology 23:585-595.  

Degan A A, Elias E and Kam M 1987 A preliminary report on the enrgy intake and growth rate of early weaned camel (Camelus dromedarius) calves. Animal Production Journal 45: 301 – 306.  

El Shaer H M and Gihad E A 1994 Halophytes as animal feeds in Egyptian deserts (Ed: Squires, VR, Ayoub AT). “Halpphytes as a resource for livestock and rehabilitation of degraded lands, 281 – 284”, Kluwer Academic Publishers. 

Fattah A M, Amer H, Ghoenim M A, Warda M and Megahed Y 1999 Response of one humped camel (Camelus dromedarius) to intravenous glucagons injection and to infusion of glucose and volatile fatty acids, and the kinetics of glucagons disappearance from the blood. Journal of veterinary medicine 46: 473–481.    

Field C R 1995 Camel nutrition. Range Management Handbook of Kenya Volume III, 8 (Ed: Evans JO, Simpkin SP, Atkins DJ). Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Development and Marketing, Nairobi, Kenya.   

Field C R 2005 Where there is no development agency: A manual for pastoralists and their promoters, NR International, Aylesford, Kent, UK. 

Gihad E A, El-Gallad T T, Sooud A E, Abou El-Nasr H M and Farid M F A 1989 Feed and water intake, digestibility and nitrogen utilization by camels compared to sheep and goats fed on low protein desert by-products. Options Méditerranéennes (CIHEAM). Série A(2): 75-81. 

Government of Kenya 2010 Human population and housing census report, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Finance and Planning, Nairobi, Kenya. 

Hutson J E, Rector B S, Merrill L B, Engdahl B S 1981 Nutritional value of range plants in the Edwards plateau region of Texas. Texas Agricultural Experimental Station, Bull B-1357, College station, USA. 

Kassily F N 2002 Forage quality and camel feeding patterns in central Baringo, Kenya. Livestock Production Science 78: 175-182. 

Kayongo M H 1986 In: Integrated Project for Arid Lands Technical Report E-8, UNESCO, Nairobi Kenya. 

Kearl L C 1982 Nutrient requirements of ruminants in developing countries. Utah Agricultural Experimental Station, Logan, Utah, USA. 

Lechner-Doll M, Rutagwenda T, Shwartz H J, Schultka W, Von Engelhardt W 1990 Seasonal changes of ingesta mean retention time and fore stomach fluid volume in indigenous camels, cattle, sheep and goats grazing a bush thorn savannah pasture in Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge, 115: 409-420. 

Kempton T J 2007 Nutrition, diet, feed and feeding the racing camel. Media Room: ScientificArticles. http://www.stanceequine.com/mediaroom_detail.php?Nutrition-of-the- 

Kuria S G, Wahome R G, Gachuiri C K and Wanyoike M M 2004 Evaluation of forages as mineral sources for camels in western marsabit, Kenya. South African Journal of Animal Science 34(3).

Kuria S G, Wanyoike M M, Gachuiri C K and Wahome R G 2005 Nutritive value of important range forage species for camels in Marsabit District, Kenya. Tropical and Sub-tropical Agroecosystems Journal 5: 14-24.  

Laudadio V, Dario M and Hammadi M 2009 Nutritional composition of three fodder species browsed by camels (Camelus dromedarius) on arid area of Tunisia. Tropical Animal Health and Production Journal 41: 1219-1224.     

Linn J 2004 Forage fibre analysis – what does it mean? In: Nutrition management guides. University of Minnesota and Paul Windshiti, Hubbard Daily Services, USA.  

Milford R and Haydock K P 1965 The nutritive value of protein in sub-tropical pasture species grown in southaest Queensland. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 5: 13-27.  

Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development 2003. Department of Animal Production Annual Report, Nairobi Kenya.   

Osuga I M, Wambui C C, Abdulrazak S A, Ichinohe T and Fujihara T 2008 Evaluation of nutritive value and palatability of goats and sheep of selected brwose foliages from semi-arid area of Kenya. Animal Science Journal 79: 582-589. 

Papachristou T G 1997 Foraging behavior of goats and sheep on Mediterranean Kermes oak shrublands. Small Ruminant Research 24: 85-93.  

Rutangwenda T, Lechner-Doll M, Shwartz H J, Schultka W and Von Engelhardt W 1990 Dietary preferences and degradability of forage on a semi-arid thornbush savannah by indigenous ruminants, camels and donkeys. Animal Feed Science and Technology 31: 179-192.  

Schwartz H J 1989 Produktionsleistung und produktivität von Dromedaren (Camelus dromedarius). In: Tierhaltung im Sahel. Göttinger Beiträge zur Land-und Forstwirtschaft in den Tropen und Subtropen 51: 171 ff.  

Simpkin S P 1998 The effects of breed and management on milk yield of camels in Kenya. PhD Thesis, University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. 

Stares J E S, Said A N and Kategile J A (eds) 1992 The complementarity of feed resources for animal production in Africa. Proceedings of the joint feed resources networks workshop held in Gaborone, Botswana 4-8 March 1991. Animal Feeds Research Network. ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa Ethiopia. 430 pp. 

Statistical Analysis System Users Guide. 2003. Statistics Version 6 Edition, SAS Inst, Inc, Cary, NC, USA. 

Statistical Package for Social Sciences 2008. SPSS for Windows release 17.01 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, LA) 

Van Soest P J, Robertson J B and Lewis B A 1991 Methods of dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3583-3597.   

Wangoi E M 1984 The trophic relations and habitat adaptability of livestock in the Central part of Rendille land in Kenya. A PhD Thesis, Department of Range Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.  

Wilson R T 1989 The nutritional requirements of camel. Options Méditerranéennes-Série Séminaires n. ° 2 – 1989: 171-179

Received 22 March 2012; Accepted 6 May 2012; Published 1 August 2012

Go to top