# Vegetable crop residues: an opportunity to bridge dry-season feed gaps in sub-Saharan Africa

Boko Michel Orounladji, Songdah Désiré Ouattara, Prosper Pare, Souleymane Sanogo, Der Dabire, Ollo Sib, Mohamed Habibou Assouma

► To cite this version:

Boko Michel Orounladji, Songdah Désiré Ouattara, Prosper Pare, Souleymane Sanogo, Der Dabire, et al.. Vegetable crop residues: an opportunity to bridge dry-season feed gaps in sub-Saharan Africa. Frontiers in Animal Science, 2025, 6, 14 p. 10.3389/fanim.2025.1718268. [https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05456218v1](https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05456218v1)

HAL Id: hal-05456218

Submitted on 13 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Check for updates

OPEN ACCESS

EDITED BY
Adugna Tolera,
Hawassa University, Ethiopia

REVIEWED BY
Albert Berdjour,
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
(Ghana), Ghana
Mohsen Kazemi,
University of Torbat-e Jam, Iran

*CORRESPONDENCE
Boko Michel Orounladji
 michel.orounladji@gmail.com

RECEIVED 03 October 2025
REVISED 24 November 2025
ACCEPTED 01 December 2025
PUBLISHED 22 December 2025

**CITATION**

Orounladji BM, Quattara SD, Pare P, Sanogo S, Dabire D, Sib O and Assouma MH (2025) Vegetable crop residues: an opportunity to bridge dry-season feed gaps in sub-Saharan Africa.

*Front. Anim. Sci.* **6**:1718268.

doi: 10.3389/fanim.2025.1718268

**COPYRIGHT**

© 2025 Orounladji, Quattara, Pare, Sanogo, Dabire, Sib and Assouma. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

# Vegetable crop residues: an opportunity to bridge dry-season feed gaps in sub-Saharan Africa

Boko Michel Orounladji¹*, Songdah Désiré Ouattara¹,
Prosper Pare¹, Souleymane Sanogo¹, Der Dabire¹, Ollo Sib¹,²,³
and Mohamed Habibou Assouma¹,³,⁴

¹Centre International de Recherche-Développement sur l'Elevage en Zone Subhumide, Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso, ²French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD), Research Unit on Mediterranean and Tropical Livestock Systems (UMR SELMET), Dakar, Senegal, ³Research Unit on Mediterranean and Tropical Livestock Systems (UMR SELMET), Univ Montpellier, French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD), INRAE, Institut Agro, Montpellier, France, ⁴French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD), Research Unit on Mediterranean and Tropical Livestock Systems (UMR SELMET), Nairobi, Kenya

In Burkina Faso, livestock feeding during the dry season is constrained by recurrent quantitative and qualitative deficits of available fodder biomass, a challenge further exacerbated by climate change. One promising strategy to mitigate these shortages is the use of vegetable crop residues (VCR) as supplementary fodder, particularly in areas with intensive vegetable production. This study aimed to characterize the practices of VCR utilization in the vegetable-growing region of Guiriko, in western Burkina Faso. A survey was conducted using a structured questionnaire among 243 farmers in the locality. Principal component analysis followed by hierarchical clustering was used to classify farmers according to their agricultural and livestock practices. This analysis revealed three distinct groups: market gardeners, agro-pastoralists, and livestock farmers. VCR were widely used across all groups as animal feed, with green bean haulms (GBL: 100%) and sweet potato vines (100%) being preferred by nearly all producers. Cucumber residues were also commonly used, particularly by market gardeners (p < 0.05). Most VCR were offered through open grazing, while GBL and cabbage leaves were more frequently dried prior to be stored and fed in barns, especially by agro-pastoralists. Sweet potato vines were often sold and transported to Bobo-Dioulasso for use in urban livestock systems. VCR were primarily allocated to weak livestock, lactating cows, draft animals, and calves, underscoring their functional importance in smallholder systems. These findings highlight the potential of VCR recycling as a means to alleviate dry-season fodder shortages and to support integrated crop-livestock management. Further laboratory analyses are recommended to determine the chemical composition and nutritional value of these residues, which would inform better feeding strategies, improve animal productivity, and contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions per unit of livestock product.

**KEYWORDS**

animal feeding, fodder, recycling, vegetable crop residues, dry season, Tropical West Africa, Livestock systems
# 1 Introduction

Livestock farming constitutes a significant sector in the economies of West African countries, particularly those in the Sahel, like Burkina Faso, Niger, and Mali. Contributing 44% to the regional agricultural gross domestic product (GDP), livestock plays a crucial role in poverty alleviation (Molina-Flores et al., 2020). In Burkina Faso, more than 80% of households (with 92% located in rural areas) are engaged in livestock farming, deriving all or part of their income from this activity (FAO, 2019). Livestock farming makes a substantial contribution to the national economy, accounting for 20% of the GDP and over 30% of export revenues (FAO, 2019). Livestock feed mainly depends on fodder from natural rangelands and crop residues (Hiernaux and Assouma, 2020). The use of crop residues as animal feed has been well documented in the literature, with comprehensive accounts of feeding strategies, nutritional values, and management practices across various cropping systems (Ouattara et al., 2024). Additionally, the recycling of crop residues as animal feed and manure is a key driver in the agroecological transition of agro-silvo-pastoral systems (Vall et al., 2023). Every year, livestock faces a forage resource deficit, especially during the dry season when natural pastures are reduced and provide limited nutritional value for livestock (Koutou et al., 2016; Millogo et al., 2019; Zampaligre et al., 2019; Tensaba et al., 2022). Consequently, livestock performance during this season remains low due to the poor quality of the available fodder resources (Gbenou et al., 2024a). Improving such a production system requires effective management of feeding practices, which are a crucial factor in successful livestock farming (Dimon et al., 2018). In this context, using vegetable crop residues as livestock feed could help partially address the forage deficit during this period (Fall et al., 2006; Arbouche and Arbouche, 2007; Gbenou et al., 2024b).

In Burkina Faso, particularly in the Guiriko region, vegetable farming is becoming increasingly widespread, with crops such as onions, cabbage, tomatoes, eggplant, peppers, green beans, lettuce, and potatoes (Drabo, 2016; Sebego, 2016; Ouédraogo et al., 2019). Vegetable farming is thus a key component of food security in rapidly growing urban areas and a factor regulating of endemic unemployment, which is exacerbated by rural exodus. In addition to producing fruits, vegetables, and leaves for human consumption, these crops generate residues or co-products (straw, haulms, leaves, etc.) that are used as livestock feed, especially during the dry season. The incorporation of vegetable co-products into livestock feed provides an innovative approach to diversifying feeding practices, reducing reliance on pasture resources, and lowering feed costs (El Otmani et al., 2022; Sib et al., 2018). Identifying affordable and nutritionally valuable fodder sources remains a major challenge in the livestock production systems. Agricultural waste, traditionally regarded as a by-product, offers a promising solution by improving the sustainability and efficiency of livestock production. Incorporating these by-products into ruminant diets can reduce feed costs by 10-30% and enhance performance indicators such as weight gain and milk yield by 5-20% (Kazemi, 2021, 2025). Although crop-livestock integration and the use of crop residues

are well documented, substantial knowledge gaps remain regarding the specific utilization patterns of vegetable crop residues (VCR) within mixed farming systems. In Senegal, for instance, onion leaves are collected by farmers to feed sheep (Fall et al., 2006). In Burkina Faso, studies by Sib et al. (2018) and Millogo et al. (2019) revealed the use of cabbage leaves, sweet potato vines, and zucchini residues in dairy cow feeding in the Guiriko region. Additionally, Bindelle and Buldgen (2004) reported that sweet potato vines could be incorporated into the rations of cattle, pigs, and poultry. Similarly, research conducted in Colombia demonstrated a notable increase in voluntary intake of taro leaves by pigs (Leterme et al., 2005). According to El Otmani et al. (2022), VCR constitute a promising resource for diversifying livestock feed and addressing the forage shortage during the dry season.

Despite this existing research on crop-livestock systems and alternative feed sources, important research gaps remain in understanding how different farm types within mixed vegetable-livestock systems utilize VCR. Specifically, there is limited documentation on the management practices, utilization patterns, and farmer perceptions regarding VCR across diverse farm typologies within intensively cultivated mixed systems. Furthermore, the spatial and temporal variability of VCR availability and utilization patterns remains poorly characterized, requiring systematic documentation to inform targeted extension strategies and policy interventions. The motivation for this study stems from the need to address these specific knowledge gaps within the well-documented broader context of crop-livestock integration. While general principles of crop residue utilization are established, the heterogeneity in farming systems necessitates farm-specific understanding of VCR management practices. This is particularly important given the increasing intensification of vegetable production systems and the growing recognition of VCR as valuable feed resources that require optimized management strategies.

Therefore, this study was initiated to provide specific references on the utilization of VCR across different farm types in mixed vegetable-livestock systems of the Houet province, Burkina Faso. The general objective of this study is to characterize farm typologies and to document their specific management practices related to VCR utilization, thereby providing targeted knowledge to inform extension recommendations and sustainable intensification strategies within these mixed farming systems.

# 2 Materials and methods

## 2.1 Location and biophysical characteristics of the study area

The study was conducted in the municipality of Bama (11°23'48"N, 4°25'37"W), a peri-urban area located 25 km northwest of Bobo-Dioulasso on National Road No. 9 in the Hauts-Bassins region of western Burkina Faso (Figure 1).

This region falls within the southern Sudanese climate zone, characterized by two distinct seasons: a rainy season from mid-May to October, during which humid monsoon winds prevail; and a dry
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1
Map of the study area.</figcaption></figure>

season (approximately 7 months) from November to mid-May, which includes a cold dry period (mid-November to February) and a hot dry period (March to mid-May) (M'Bodj, 2009).

Hydrologically, the commune lies within the Kou watershed, which plays a critical role in supplying potable water to Bobo-Dioulasso. The municipality of Bama boasts one of Burkina Faso's largest freshwater reserves, the Kou Basin. This basin is crucial for various economic activities, including irrigated agriculture, vegetable farming, livestock farming, and fishing. It originates in the Pèni area, south of Bobo-Dioulasso. The commune also hosts one of the country's largest dams, the Samandèni Dam, with a capacity of 1.5 billion cubic meters of water per year.

The region's vegetation reflects the less arid climatic conditions characteristic of the southern Sudanese sector. It is home to diverse savanna types varying in size, density, and species composition. The area features shrub savannas, tree savannas, wooded savannas, open forests, gallery forests, and rupicolous formations (Fontès and Guinko, 1995).

## 2.2 Sampling and survey method

For the surveys, from an exhaustive list of vegetable farming sites within a 50 km radius around the city of Bobo-Dioulasso,

where the primary vocation is vegetable farming, eight vegetable production sites within the commune of Bama were selected for this study. The selection of the commune of Bama was guided by the following criteria: its proximity to the city of Bobo-Dioulasso for security purposes, its status as a high vegetable production area due to favourable hydrological conditions (Drabo, 2016; Ouédraogo et al., 2019), and the presence of settled Fulani pastoralists and agro-pastoralists (Zampaligre et al., 2019). Data were collected from villages within the commune of Bama where vegetable farming is widespread.

The sample size for the study survey was determined using the formula of Dagnelie (1998):

$$n = [(U1 - \alpha/2)^2 \times p(1 - p)]/(d^2)$$ $$n = 26$$

Where:

-n is the sample size per village;

-U1 - α/2 = 1,96 is the value of the standard normal variable for a probability, α = 0.05;

-d = 0.03 is the margin of error, fixed considering the desired precision;
-p = 5.1% (RGA, 2011) is the proportion of vegetable farmers in the commune of Bama

Referring to the methodology adopted by Dahouda et al. (2019), a range of representative samples was estimated by multiplying the minimum sample size by 2, then adding 3% to this value to account for unforeseen circumstances. The resulting number (N = 2n+3%(2n)) obtained is the adjusted sample size, which was N = 54. Therefore, any sample chosen between the minimum size of 26 farmers and the adjusted size of 54 per village will yield significant results.

A sample of 243 agro-pastoral vegetable farmers was interviewed across the eight villages: 29 in Badara, 28 in Bama, 33 in Banakeledaga, 27 in Banaorodougou, 32 in Diaradougou, 30 in Natema, 29 in Samandeni, and 35 in Sangoulema. The target population was exclusively active vegetable producers and livestock farmers.

## 2.3 Data collection

Data were collected from vegetable producers and livestock farmers using a digitalised questionnaire administered via smartphones. The questionnaire was initially prepared in DOCX format using Microsoft Word, then digitised on the KoboToolbox platform and deployed. After deployment, the digitised questionnaire was downloaded onto the smartphones through the KoboCollect application for field data collection (Nampa et al., 2020; Chrysostome et al., 2024). The questionnaire was designed to characterize the structure, operation, and performance of the farms over a complete agricultural cycle (with 2022 as the reference year). A detailed enumerator manual was developed to ensure full comprehension of the questionnaire items and to guide the collectors in accurately identifying and recording the information required for each response.

On the day of the survey, after obtaining informed consent from each respondent regarding the use and publication of the data, the enumerators began by collecting information on the general characteristics of the farms (farm manager's ID and contact details, information about dependants and staff, equipment, tools, and buildings for farming and livestock). This was followed by the collection of detailed data on:

- Crops (plot size, production, consumption, use of organic manure and mineral fertilisers, use of herbicides, soil coverage with crop residues or mulch in the dry season);

- Storage of agricultural by-products (quantities and storage methods for straw, tops, stalks);

- Livestock management in draft cattle, dairy cows, suckling cattle, donkeys, pigs, poultry, sheep and goat production units (number of heads/farm, grazing/zero grazing livestock, fodder distribution and feed supplementation, milk production per cow, births, sales, deaths);

- Organic fertilizer production (production method - pit manure, pen manure - location, type of biomass, and production);

- Residue distribution practices (livestock receiving VCR, distribution period);

- Perceived quality and value of residues.

The surveys were conducted individually during the day, depending on the availability of the vegetable producers and livestock farmers.

## 2.4 Data analysis

The collected data were extracted from the Kobotoolbox platform and used to create a database in Microsoft Excel 2016. After cleaning and coding, the database was imported into the R 4.2.3 software environment (R Core Team, 2023) for statistical analysis. A typology of the farms was developed by performing a principal component analysis using the FactoMineR package (Lê et al., 2008) after identifying 16 relevant variables (Table 1). These variables were used to identify three types of farmers: market gardeners, agro-pastoralists, and livestock farmers. The structural variables included the total farm area, as well as the areas allocated to vegetable, and food crops, and the number of cattle, small ruminants, and other animals expressed in Tropical Livestock Units.

The operational variables included agroecological (e.g., draft animal power tools and animals, manure pits, fodder sheds, biodigester, bicycle) and non-agroecological (e.g., motorbike, tricycle, car, etc.) tools and equipment, the quantity of organic fertilizer used, the quantity of stored VCR such as green bean haulms and cabbage leaves, and the quantity of other crop residues (CR), including cowpea haulms and maize stover. The performance variables included milk production across the three seasons of the year. Agroecological tools and equipment refer to all tools and equipment that are socially acceptable, economically profitable, and are beneficial to the ecosystem.

A Hierarchical Ascendant Classification (HAC) was performed using the coordinates of the individuals on the first two factorial axes of the principal component analysis, allowing us to characterize homogeneous groups of farms. The means of the quantitative parameters were compared through an analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the Kruskal-Wallis test at the 5% threshold.

# 3 Results

## 3.1 Farm typology

Among the 16 variables analyzed, the area of food crops exhibited the highest explanatory power for data distribution, followed by total cultivated area, type of agricultural equipment, dairy production, and cattle numbers (Figure 2a). The proximity of these variables to the axes indicated that agroecological and non-agroecological agricultural equipment and the number of cattle was linked to Axis 1 (Figure 2b). The total cultivated area and the area of food crops are associated with Axis 2. The quantity of stored green
<table><caption>TABLE 1 Variables used for principal component analysis.</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>Unit</th><th>Calculation methods</th><th>Rationale in the analysis</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Number of cattle in the farm</td><td>TLU</td><td>Σ (n cattle) × 0.7 TLU</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Number of small ruminants</td><td>TLU</td><td>Σ (n sheep + n goats) × 0.1 TLU</td><td>The number of animals influences the quantities of feed to be stored, the quantities distributed, the quantity of organic manure produced as well as the crop yield.</td></tr><tr><td>Number of other animals</td><td>TLU</td><td>Σ (n donkey × 0.5 TLU + n pigs × 0.20 TLU + n poultry × 0.01 TLU)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Total area of the farm (market gardening, food crops, cash crops)</td><td>ha</td><td>Σ (all areas of the farm)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Area of market gardening</td><td>ha</td><td>Σ (market gardening areas)</td><td>Influence the availability of crop residues which are used as supplementary feed for livestock in the dry season.</td></tr><tr><td>Area of food crops</td><td>ha</td><td>Σ (food crop area)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Proportion of agro-ecological tools and equipment</td><td>%</td><td>Σ (agro-ecological equipment)/Σ (total producer equipment)</td><td>Reports the level of agro-ecological of the farm and the quality of feed resources distributed to livestock</td></tr><tr><td>Proportion of non-agro-ecological tools and equipment</td><td>%</td><td>Σ (non-agroecological equipment)/Σ (total producer equipment)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Quantity of organic manure used</td><td>kg</td><td>Σ (FO produced + FO purchased)</td><td>Influences crop yield and indirectly the amount of crop residues that will be available to feed livestock</td></tr><tr><td>Quantity of maize stover stored</td><td>kg</td><td>The total quantity of maize stover stored</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Quantity of cowpea tops stored</td><td>kg</td><td>The total quantity of cowpea tops stored</td><td>Report the availability of crop residues in quantity and quality, for supplementary feeding of livestock in the dry season</td></tr><tr><td>Quantity of green bean haulms stored</td><td>kg</td><td>The total quantity of green bean haulms stored</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Amount of cabbage leaves stored</td><td>kg</td><td>The total amount of stored cabbage leaves</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Quantity of milk produced per cow milked per day during the rainy season; cow cold dry season and hot dry season</td><td>(L/c/d)</td><td>The quantity of liters of milk produced per cow milked per day and per season</td><td>allow us to assess the effectiveness of nutritional intake depending on the seasons of the year.</td></tr></tbody></table>

The TLU conversion factors used are as follows: 1 cattle = 0.7 TLU, 1 donkey = 0.5 TLU, 1 small ruminant (sheep and goat) = 0.1 TLU, 1 pig = 0.20 TLU, and 1 poultry = 0.01 TLU; where TLU stands for Tropical Livestock Unit and 1 TLU = 250 kg (Le Houerou and Hoste, 1977; Jahnke et al., 1988); L/c/d: liter of milk/cow/day

bean haulms (GBL) and dairy production during the cold dry season are more strongly correlated with Axis 3.

The quantity of milk produced is highly influenced by the number of cattle and the quantity of stored vegetable crop residues. The strong negative correlation of non-agroecological equipment with Axis 1 shows that farms with a large number of such equipment have fewer animals and do not produce much milk. The typology of farms revealed three main types: market gardeners, agro-pastoralists, and livestock farmers (Figure 3).

HAC was used to project individual coordinates onto the first two principal axes. This analysis differentiated three distinct farm types: market-gardener-oriented, crop-livestock-oriented, and livestock-oriented (Figure 3). The characteristics of the different types of farmers were as follows (Table 2).

### 3.1.1 Type 1: Market gardeners

Type 1 comprises 39.91% of the surveyed individuals (Table 2). These farms are characterized by small total land areas (4.43 ± 2.7 ha) with large areas dedicated to market gardening (p < 0.05). They maintain a small bovine herd (4.41 ± 2.91 TLU) and a modest

number of small ruminants (1.63 ± 1.04 TLU). They store few crop residues, including vegetable crop residues. Additionally, they use fewer agroecological equipment (52.09 ± 13.47%) compared to other farm types. However, they use the highest amount of non-agroecological equipment (48.98 ± 15.26%), without a significant difference (p > 0.05). They also apply the largest quantity of organic manure (11360.92 ± 11773.68 kg). Market gardeners store 1074.54 kg of cabbage leaf residues.

### 3.1.2 Type 2: Agro-pastoralists

Individuals in this group represent 47.77% of the surveyed population and are characterised by operating on large total land areas (9.47 ± 9.88 ha), including substantial areas dedicated to staple crops (4.41 ± 2.88 ha) (Table 2). They have average areas of market gardening (0.95 ± 0.66 ha) and maintain an average of 3.22 ± 3.02 TLU of small ruminants and 1.058 ± 2.24 TLU of other animals. Their bovine herd averages 5.37 ± 5.15 TLU, primarily draft cattle. They use more agroecological agricultural equipment (77.20%) compared to other farm types (p < 0.05). Agro-pastoralist farmers store 515.78 kg of cabbage leaf residues.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2
Correlation between variables in the principal component analysis.</figcaption></figure>

### 3.1.3 Type 3: Livestock farmers

Livestock farmers represent only 12% of the surveyed population and have a large herd of small ruminants (3.66 ± 2.75 TLU) and cattle (16.015 ± 11.20 TLU) (Table 2). They cultivate small areas of market gardening (0.79 ± 0.4 ha) and staple crops (2.92 ± 1.29 ha), mainly for family subsistence. Livestock farmers used agroecological agricultural equipment most frequently (79.47%; p < 0.05). Moreover, they store larger quantities of cabbage leaf residues (1600 kg; p < 0.05).

## 3.2 Disposition and use of vegetable crop residues

Green bean haulms, and sweet potato vines were exclusively used as fodder by farm managers in all three groups (Figure 4d). Market gardeners predominantly recycled cucumber residues to a significantly greater extent (p < 0.05; Figure 4a). Additionally, cabbage and onion leaves, along with residues from zucchini and tomatoes, were recycled by both market gardeners and agro-pastoralists. After animals have grazed on the residues, the remaining eggplant, pepper, and chili stalks are cut and burned prior to planting the next crop.

### 3.3 Residue types and preparation methods

Eggplant stalks are primarily used in their raw state (56.5%) by market gardeners (Figure 5a). Green bean haulms are dried prior to being fed to animals by both market gardeners and agro-pastoralists. Other vegetable crop residues were used in their raw (fresh) state by all groups.

## 3.4 Residue distribution practices

Onion leaves, cucumber residues, tomato residues, and zucchini residues are distributed in the barn by some market gardeners and agro-pastoralists. Cabbage leaves are used as feed during grazing and also distributed in barns by market gardeners and agro-pastoralists (Figures 6a, b). Green bean haulms were most commonly distributed in the barn by market gardeners and agro-pastoralists. Sweet potato vines were exclusively distributed in barns by market gardeners and agro-pastoralists. Livestock farmers distributed only cabbage leaves and green bean haulms in the barn. The remaining VCR were grazed directly by livestock (Figure 6c).

## 3.5 Farmer perceptions and management practices

VCR were more valued as fodder by agro-pastoralists (50%; p < 0.05). Both market gardeners and agro-pastoralists used VCR, when stored, to feed draft cattle and weakened animals. In contrast, livestock farmers fed lactating cows, calves, and heifers with stored VCR (Table 3). The collected, transported, and stored VCR were preferably distributed in the morning (65.9%) before grazing and in the evening (61.6%) upon return from grazing by agro-pastoralists (p < 0.05). According to them, this helps livestock cope with poor grazing paths. When served in the evening, the reasons were as follows: to encourage the livestock quick return from grazing, to compensate for the limited quantity and quality of dry-season forage, and to improve night-time rumination. Market gardeners and agro-pastoralists primarily used VCR to maintain their draft animals for the upcoming rainy season.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 3
Distribution of individuals on the factorial plans of principal component analysis.</figcaption></figure>

## 3.6 Perceived quality and value of residues

Vegetable crop residues such as GBL, cabbage leaves, and sweet potato vines have received significant attention among the majority

of respondents. More than 50% of respondents, particularly market gardeners and agro-pastoralists, consider these residues to be of very high quality (Figures 7a, b). Sweet potato vines are highly regarded by market gardeners and livestock farmers (Figures 7a, c). Cucumber residues are well appreciated by market gardeners (Figure 7a). Cabbage leaves and GBL are highly valued by agro-pastoralists and livestock farmers, especially for enhancing milk yield in cows. Additionally, agro-pastoralists have a favourable view of onion leaves, particularly for poultry and ruminant feeding.

# 4 Discussion

## 4.1 Market gardening-livestock farmer types in the peri-urban areas

The selected variables for the typology revealed three distinct farmer types. The market gardeners have larger areas dedicated to vegetable crops and relatively few livestock, while the agro-pastoralists are characterised by moderate areas of both crops and livestock. As for the livestock farmers, they maintain large herds and cultivate small crop areas. Regardless of the type of farmer considered, the integration of market gardening and livestock farming offers multiple advantages. It allows for the diversification of income sources, efficient resource use, and

<table><caption>TABLE 2 Characteristics of the three producer types.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Variables</th><th rowspan="2">Unit</th><th rowspan="2">Average</th><th>Market gardeners</th><th>Agro-pastoralists</th><th>Livestock farmers</th><th rowspan="2">p-value</th></tr><tr><th>n = 97</th><th>n = 116</th><th>n = 30</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Total exploited area</td><td>ha</td><td>6.75</td><td>4.43 ± 2.7<sup>a</sup></td><td>9.47 ± 9.88<sup>b</sup></td><td>3.73 ± 2.19<sup>a</sup></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Area of food crops</td><td>ha</td><td>3.59</td><td>2.81 ± 1.77<sup>a</sup></td><td>4.41 ± 2.88<sup>b</sup></td><td>2.92 ± 1.29<sup>a</sup></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Area of market gardening</td><td>ha</td><td>1.07</td><td>1.24 ± 0.92<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.95 ± 0.66<sup>ab</sup></td><td>0.79 ± 0.4<sup>a</sup></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Number of cattle</td><td>TLU</td><td>7.17</td><td>4.41 ± 2.91<sup>a</sup></td><td>5.37 ± 5.15<sup>a</sup></td><td>16.01 ± 11.20<sup>b</sup></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Number of small ruminants</td><td>TLU</td><td>2.94</td><td>1.63 ± 1.04<sup>a</sup></td><td>3.22 ± 3.02<sup>b</sup></td><td>3.66 ± 2.75<sup>b</sup></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Number of other animals</td><td>TLU</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.33 ± 0.30<sup>a</sup></td><td>1.058 ± 2.24<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.51 ± 0.43<sup>ab</sup></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Agro-ecological equipment</td><td>%</td><td>67.58</td><td>52.09 ± 13.47<sup>a</sup></td><td>77.20 ± 10.07<sup>b</sup></td><td>79.47 ± 11.31<sup>b</sup></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Non-agro ecological equipment</td><td>%</td><td>34.68</td><td>48.98 ± 15.26<sup>b</sup></td><td>24.71 ± 7.88<sup>a</sup></td><td>22.80 ± 9.41<sup>a</sup></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Quantity of organic manure used</td><td>kg</td><td>10368.07</td><td>11360.92 ± 11773.68</td><td>9674.84 ± 6896.97</td><td>9842.23 ± 6895.18</td><td>0.524</td></tr><tr><td>Quantity of maize stover stored</td><td>kg</td><td>810.47</td><td>439.41 ± 195.48</td><td>868.78 ± 827.27</td><td>803.73 ± 474.91</td><td>0.073</td></tr><tr><td>Quantity of cowpea tops stored</td><td>kg</td><td>318.57</td><td>343.27 ± 257.04</td><td>324.14 ± 397.06</td><td>242.55 ± 157.02</td><td>0.432</td></tr><tr><td>Quantity of green bean haulms stored</td><td>kg</td><td>613.53</td><td>645.02 ± 581.14</td><td>467.36 ± 360.55</td><td>920.75 ± 537.74</td><td>0.063</td></tr><tr><td>Amount of stored cabbage leaves</td><td>kg</td><td>885.33</td><td>1074.54 ± 1048.26<sup>ab</sup></td><td>515.78 ± 490.78<sup>a</sup></td><td>1600 ± 1083.2<sup>b</sup></td><td>0.034</td></tr><tr><td>Quantity of milk per cow milked per day in rainy season</td><td>L/c/d</td><td>1.19</td><td>1.24 ± 0.92</td><td>0.95 ± 0.66</td><td>1.39 ± 0.4</td><td>0.461</td></tr><tr><td>Quantity of milk per cow milked per day in cold dry season</td><td>L/c/d</td><td>1.02</td><td>1</td><td>0.75 ± 0.2</td><td>1.33 ± 0.8</td><td>0.261</td></tr><tr><td>Quantity of milk per cow milked per day in hot dry season</td><td>L/c/d</td><td>0.95</td><td>1</td><td>0.6</td><td>1.25 ± 0.96</td><td>0.313</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>n, number of respondents; (a, b): on the same line, values marked with different letters are significantly different; ha, hectare; TLU, Tropical Livestock Unit = one bovine weighing 250kg live weight. L/c/d, liter of milk/cow/day; kg, kilogram; %, percentage</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4
Becoming of vegetable crop residues. (a) Market gardeners; (b) Agropastoralists; (c) Livestock farmers; (d) Overall. Cab_lea, Cabbage leaves; Gre_bea_lea, Green bean haulms; Oni_lea, Onion leaves; Zuc_res, Zucchini residues; Cuc_res, Cucumber residues; Tom_res, Tomato residues; Pep...</figcaption></figure>

rational management of waste. This combination can be seen as a strategy to minimise economic losses in an environment marked by economic uncertainties (such as the volatility of agricultural prices) and significant climatic risks. Primarily, it serves as a strategy to mitigate risks and offset losses in one activity through gains or savings (particularly in the form of livestock) derived from another production line. The typology observed in this study is consistent with that of Orounladji et al. (2024). However, their study examined farmers in a broader agro-silvo-pastoral context, whereas our research specifically focuses on market gardeners.

## 4.2 Feeding strategies in the peri-urban farms

The availability and utilization of VCR in market gardening-livestock production systems offer potential benefits, such as reduced livestock feeding costs, agricultural waste management, and adaptation to seasonal constraints. Thus, harvested and stored VCR are selectively distributed to certain livestock categories (milk-

producing, fattening, draft, or weakened animals), with distribution times strategically chosen. In the Bama municipality, the level of VCR utilization in animal feed depends on crop type and farming type. Crops like eggplant, bell pepper, and chili stems are grazed directly in the fields. Indeed, Bangala Mada et al. (2015) emphasized the importance of understanding the vegetative cycle to determine when specific crops are likely to produce residues, typically towards the end of the vegetative cycle, during harvest. According to the interviewed farmers, the vegetative cycle of eggplants, peppers, and chili peppers ranges from six months to over a year, provided they are adequately watered and fertilized. Consequently, water scarcity leads farmers to leave these crops for direct grazing, which explains the low proportion of fiber-rich VCR used as fodder.

Cabbage emerges as the most cultivated crop in the study area, a finding corroborated by Ouédraogo et al. (2019) across urban, semi-urban, and rural settings in the Hauts Bassins region. This suggests that cabbage residues generated at harvest may be quantitatively significant. Hence, cabbage leaves are predominantly used as fodder in the study area, consistent with findings by Sib et al. (2018), who highlighted the use of cabbage leaves as high-quality fodder in dairy cattle feeding
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 5
Practices of using vegetable crop residues as fodder. (a) Market gardeners; (b) Agropastoralists; (c) Livestock farmers; (d) Overall. Cab_lea, Cabbage leaves; Gre_bea_lea, Green bean haulms; Oni_lea, Onion leaves; Zuc_res, Zucchini residues; Cuc_res, Cucumber residues; Tom_res, Tomato residues; Pep ste, Pepper stems; Loc_egg ste, Local eggplant stems; Chi ste, Chili pepper stems; Swe pot vin, Sweet potato vines; Egg ste, Eggplant stems.</figcaption></figure>

among dairy farmers around Bobo-Dioulasso. Millogo et al. (2019) further revealed that cabbage leaves are highly valued by animals due to their high nitrogen content and good nutritional quality, forming a common component of all rations. The crude protein, ether extract, total ash, acid detergent fiber and neutral detergent fiber contents were 11.9, 1.9, 8.8, 23.1 and 25.6%; 10.3, 0.5, 7.0, 16.1 and 19.6% (DM basis) in green cabbage and red cabbage, respectively. Gross energy (MJ/kg DM) in green cabbage (16.6) was higher than that observed in red cabbage (14.1). The red and green cabbage waste had higher net gas production (73 and 71 ml/g DM/12h) compared to the lettuce and cauliflower vegetable waste (51 and 48 ml/g DM/12h respectively). Similarly, metabolizable energy values were significantly higher for cabbage wastes (≈12 MJ/kg DM) compared with lettuce and cauliflower (≈9 MJ/kg DM). I. *In vitro* DM and OM digestibility of green and red cabbage waste was significantly higher than in lettuce and cauliflower. Leafy vegetable waste (green cabbage, red cabbage) is an excellent source of nutrients which can potentially be used after drying as an animal feed to reduce animal feeding costs and consequently increase farmers' profits. This would also help in waste

management and the reduction of environmental pollution (Mahgoub et al., 2018). Mustafa and Baurhoo (2018) further reported that dried cabbage leaf residues (DCLR) contained 12.1% ash, 14.0% crude protein, 18.9%NDF, 16.9%ADF, 2.0% fat and 4.0 Mcal/kg gross energy. The authors also observed that DCLR were rich in minerals (Ca, P, Mg, Na), fatty acids and amino acids.

Green bean haulms, on the other hand, are primarily used to feed animals. In Senegal, they are entirely recovered and constitute a national market commodity. Furthermore, Fall et al. (2006) indicated that green bean haulms quantities produced in the Senegal River Valley are transported to Dakar for urban livestock feeding. According to various farmer perceptions, VCR are either valued as animal feed or recycled into soil for parcel fertilization. Green bean haulms were highly regarded due to their high nitrogen content and popularity among animals.

In the study area, few market gardening residues were stored. The quantity of stored VCR depended on their valuation rather than the number of animals. Similar results were reported by Erenstein et al. (2011) in India, who found that the quantity of
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 6
Forms of utilization of vegetable crop residues in animal feeding. (a) Market gardeners; (b) Agropastoralists; (c) Livestock farmers; (d) Overall. Cab_lea, Cabbage leaves; Gre_bea_lea, Green bean haulms; Oni_lea, Onion leaves; Zuc_res, Zucchini residues; Cuc_res, Cucumber residues; Tom_res, Tomato residues; Pepste, Pepper stems; Loc_egg ste, Local eggplant stems; Chi ste, Chili pepper stems; Swe pot vin, Sweet potato vines; Egg ste, Eggplant stems.</figcaption></figure>

<table><caption>TABLE 3 Practices of distributing vegetable crop residues to animals.</caption><thead><tr><th>Practices</th><th>Market gardeners (%)</th><th>Agro-pastoralists (%)</th><th>Livestock farmers (%)</th><th>p-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Livestock receiving VCR</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>VCR as fodder</td><td>38.9</td><td>50</td><td>11.1</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td>Weakened livestock</td><td>31.7</td><td>47.2</td><td>21.1</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Suckling cows</td><td>30.7</td><td>34.7</td><td>34.7</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Draft cattle</td><td>30.1</td><td>54.5</td><td>15.4</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Calves/calves</td><td>20.6</td><td>34.5</td><td>80.0</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Other livestock</td><td>25.3</td><td>53.2</td><td>21.5</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Distribution period</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Morning</td><td>25.6</td><td>65.9</td><td>8.5</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Evening</td><td>21.9</td><td>61.6</td><td>16.4</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>At any time</td><td>28.2</td><td>53.8</td><td>17.9</td><td>0.29</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 7
Appreciation of vegetable crop residues. (a) Market gardeners; (b) Agropastoralists; (c) Livestock farmers; (d) Overall. Cab_lea, Cabbage leaves; Gre_bea_lea, Green bean haulms; Oni_lea, Onion leaves; Zuc_res, Zucchini residues; Cuc_res, Cucumber residues; Tom_res, Tomato residues; Pep ste, Pepper stems; Loc_egg ste, Local eggplant stems; Chi ste, Chili pepper stems; Swe pot vin, Sweet potato vines; Egg ste, Eggplant stems.</figcaption></figure>

cereal straws used by farmers depended on their preferences, household labor, crop production levels, access to alternative biomass resources, livestock management practices, and biomass demand. In this study, appreciation also conditioned the quantity of certain VCR stored. Notably, the most appreciated VCR (GBL) was the most stored by farm managers across different classes without significant differences. This occurred because farmers lacked the time or resources in terms of equipment to collect all VCR. Consequently, they harvested only a portion, leaving the remainder in the fields for grazing. When animals were entrusted to Fulani herders, these residues were used as pasture. In contrast, most of the produced sweet potato vines were sold and transported to Bobo-Dioulasso for use in urban livestock systems.

## 4.3 Challenges and adaptive strategies in feeding

Although the availability and utilization of VCR in market gardening-livestock production systems offer potential benefits, it

requires proper planning, efficient management, and technical knowledge to maximize benefits and overcome associated challenges.

The use of non-agroecological equipment can be justified by the need to ensure irrigation and maintenance of large cultivated plots and transportation of highly perishable market garden products due to inadequate storage facilities. The harvest period for VCR may coincide with the establishment of market garden plots, leading to a shortage of labor and time needed to manage both activities.

Agro-pastoralists predominantly own small ruminants and other animals (poultry, pigs, donkeys) in addition to cattle. They often sell animals to finance seed expenses for market gardening and the establishment of market garden plots. Small ruminants, which multiply rapidly, are easily sold to meet such expenses. Studies by Vall et al. (2011) and Koutou et al. (2016) confirm this finding, indicating that livestock serves as a standing savings and provides draft animals among agro-pastoralists. Furthermore, animal manure's role as an organic fertilizer is increasingly prominent due to rising chemical fertilizer prices.

Livestock farmers, with smaller areas of both staple and market gardening, utilize minimal animal fodder and rely on manure sales.
They do not own land and lack the workforce to manage both livestock and market gardening activities. However, they possess a large number of cattle and small ruminants, utilizing all VCR for animal feed. Studies by Koutou et al. (2017) have revealed that the number of animals determines their social status among livestock farmers, providing milk for both market and household consumption.

However, some market gardeners and agro-pastoralist farmers believe that cabbage leaves may be unsuitable for animals. They argue that intensive fertilizer and pesticide applications in cabbage cultivation make the leaves unsuitable for animal feed. Studies by Son et al. (2017) and Soko et al. (2018) have highlighted low levels of farmer education resulting in misunderstanding of pesticide usage instructions on packaging, leading to excessive and sometimes inappropriate use of phytosanitary products. Conversely, some farmers reported that fresh green bean haulms and cabbage leaves can cause diarrhea in animals.

## 4.4 Study limitations and contributions

This study did not estimate the overall quantity, availability, or potential contribution of vegetable wastes and by-products to the national feed balance. A national-scale estimation would enhance the accuracy of the country's feed balance assessment, following the methodology proposed by Mottet and Assouma (2024), and thereby provide stronger support to the agricultural early-warning system. It also did not evaluate the nutritional quality of these fodders, which constrains the depth and practical applicability of the results; this represents a key limitation. Accordingly, the present work should be viewed as an initial exploratory analysis that offers a broad overview of current practices in the utilisation of vegetable crop residues within the study area. A subsequent study will assess the nutritional value of these residues and will propose and test appropriate feeding rations.

Some vegetable wastes and by-products are highly perishable due to their high moisture content. Although the study indicates that certain by-products are stored prior to feeding, it does not document the storage methods or the duration of storage. We recognise this lack of detailed information on storage practices as an additional limitation.

Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable insights into the use of vegetable crop residues as animal feed resources in mixed crop-livestock systems in Burkina Faso. It addresses a timely and relevant issue, as feed availability in quantity and quality during the dry season remain major constraints to livestock production across sub-Saharan Africa. The study also identifies three distinct farm types and documents their management practices for vegetable crop residues, highlighting that residues such as green bean haulms, cabbage leaves, and sweet potato vines are particularly valued for feeding key animal groups.

## 5 Conclusion

This study establishes a clear typology of mixed market gardening-livestock farms in the Bama municipality, identifying

three distinct operational profiles: (i) market gardeners with extensive vegetable plots and relatively few animals, (ii) agro-pastoralists combining diverse livestock with both staple and vegetable crop production, and (iii) livestock farmers with large herds but minimal crop cultivation.

Across all farm types, vegetable crop residues (VCR) were systematically used as fodder, though their modes of utilization varied. Green bean haulms emerged as the most valued and widely used residue across all systems, particularly in barn feeding. Sweet potato vines were also highly appreciated, especially by market gardeners and livestock farmers. Eggplant stems were typically grazed fresh in the field. Cabbage leaves and green bean haulms were the most frequently stored residues and were notably used to support lactating cows.

The findings underscore the significant role of VCR in alleviating dry-season fodder shortages and improving nutrient cycling in mixed farming systems. They also reveal strong complementarities between vegetable production and livestock feeding strategies. Understanding these dynamics offers new opportunities for promoting circular resource use and enhancing the resilience and productivity of crop-livestock systems in West Africa. Further research on the nutritional composition of these residues would help optimize their use in livestock diets while contributing to climate-smart agriculture.

## Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

## Ethics statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants [OR participants legal guardian/next of kin] provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

## Author contributions

BO: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SO: Data curation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing. PP: Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. SS: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. DD: Validation, Writing – review & editing. OS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. HA: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
## Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This project has received funding from the 'Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in (Agro-)Sylvopastoral Ecosystems in the Sahelian CILSS States' (CaSSECS) project, funded by the European Union (DeSIRA programme, Grant Agreement No. FOOD/2019/410-169). Additional funding was provided by the 'Projet de Recherche et Innovation pour des Systèmes agro-pastoraux productifs, résilients et sains en Afrique de l'Ouest' (PRISMA) project, funded by LuxDev as part of the European Union's DeSIRA initiative (Agreement BKF/801.222807-CIRAD).

## Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the valuable contributions of the data collectors and participating farmers. This study was made possible through the support of the “Carbon Sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions in (agro) Sylvopastoral Ecosystems in the sahelian CILSS States” (CaSSECS) regional project funded by the European Union.

## References

Arbouche, H., and Arbouche, H. S. (2007.). Valorisation des résidus de la récolte du melon "jaune canari" pour l'alimentation du bétail : Influence de la zone de culture. *Livestock Res. Rural Dev.* 19, 7. Available online at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/10/arbo19139.htm (Accessed September 8, 2024).

Bangala Mada, D.-B., Kanyanga Mpoy, P., Kabamba Ngombe, N., and Masimango Ndyanabo, T. (2015). Nécessité d'une gestion des résidus agricoles et agro-industriels à Kinshasa. *Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci.* 9, 22-34. doi: 10.4314/ijbcs.v9i4.41

Bindelle, J., and Buldgen, A. (2004). Utilisation des plantes à tubercules ou à racines tubéreuses en alimentation animale. *Troupeaux Cultures Des. Tropiques* 4, 47-50. Available online at: https://explore.lib.uliege.be/permalink/32ULG_INST/1okoll2/ alma9919889042902321 (Accessed September 8, 2024).

Chrysostome, C. A. A. M., Orounladji, B. M., Behingan, M. B., and Akouèdegni, G. (2024). Multivariate analyses of morphobiometric traits: a tool for Goliath chicken selection programs in Benin. *Sci. Afr.* 23, e02115. doi: 10.1016/j.sciaf.2024.e02115

Core Team, R. (2023). *R: A language and environment for statistical computing* (Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing). Available online at: https://www.R-project.org/ (Accessed July 16, 2024).

Dagnelie, P. (1998). "Statistique théorique et appliquée. Tome," in *1 : Statistique descriptive et bases de l'inference statistique*, vol. 2. (De Boeck Supérieur, Paris).

Dahouda, M., Amoussa, S., Dossa, L., Kiki, P., and Houessou, S. (2019). Les stratégies d'utilisation des ressources alimentaires locales par les caprins dans quatre communes du Bénin. *Rev. Intern Des. Sci. Appliquées* 2, 23-33.

Dimon, E., Idrissou, Y., Soulé, A. H., Assani, A., Assogba, B. C. G., Toukourou, Y., et al. (2018). Synthèse des connaissances sur la valorisation des légumineuses fourragères dans l'alimentation des ruminants au Bénin. *Bull. la Recherche Agronomique du Bénin (BRAB)* 84, 42-51.

Drabo, A. R. (2016). *Culture maraîchère urbaine et périurbaine de la ville de Bobo-Dioulasso : Introduction et promotion des variétés hybrides performantes de Tomate : Lycopersican esculentum Mill. (Var. Assila F1), de concombre : Cucumis sativus Linné. (Var. Darina F1) et Courgette : Cucurbita pepa Linné. (Var. Clarita F1)*. Mémoire de fin de cycle en Ingénorat (Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso: Université polytechnique de Bobo-dioulasso (UPB). Institut de Développement Rural (IDR), 71.

El Otmani, S., Boulaich, H., Chentouf, M., and Chebli, Y. (2022). Evaluation of the chemical composition of agricultural by-products in the Northern Morocco: Case of strawberries, raspberries, beans, chickpeas, and faba beans by-products. *Afr. Mediterr. Agric. J. - Al Awamia* 136, 97-111. doi: 10.34874/IMIST.PRSM/AFRIMED-I136.34831

## Conflict of interest

The authors declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

## Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

## Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Erenstein, O., Samaddar, A., Teufel, N., and Blümmel, M. (2011). The paradox of limited maize stover use in India's smallholder crop-livestock systems. *Exp. Agric.* 47, 677-704. doi: 10.1017/S0014479711000433

Fall, S. T., Fall, A. S., Cissé, I., Badiane, A., Fall, C. A., and Diao, M. B. (2006). Intégration horticulture – élevage dans les systèmes agricoles urbains de la zone des Niayes (Sénégal). *Bull. l'APAD* 19, 1-18. doi: 10.4000/apad.444

FAO (2019). *Food & Agriculture Organisation. Le devenir de l'élevage au Burkina Faso* (Rome: Défis et opportunités face aux incertitudes), 56.

Fontès, J., and Guinko, S. (1995). *Carte de la végétation et de l'occupation du sol du Burkina Faso : Notice explicative* (Projet Campus: Ministère de la coopération française), 67p.

Gbenou, G. X., Assouma, M. H., Bastianelli, D., Kiendrebeogo, T., Bonnal, L., Zampaligre, N., et al. (2024a). Enteric methane emissions from zebu cattle are influenced by seasonal variations in rangeland fodder quality and intake. *Animal* 18, 101320. doi: 10.1016/j.animal.2024.101320

Gbenou, G. X., Assouma, M. H., Bastianelli, D., Kiendrebeogo, T., Bonnal, L., Zampaligre, N., et al. (2024b). Supplementing zebu cattle with crop co-products helps to reduce enteric emissions in West Africa. *Arch. Anim. Nutr.* 78, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/1745039X.2024.2356326

Hiernaux, P., and Assouma, M. H. (2020). Adapting pastoral breeding to global changes in West and Central tropical Africa: Review of ecological views. *Rev. d'élevage médecine vétérinaire Des. pays tropicaux* 73, 149-159. doi: 10.19182/remvt.31893

Jahnke, H. E., Tacher, G., Kiel, P., and Rojat, D. (1988). Livestock production in tropical Africa, with special reference to the tsetse-affected zone. Livestock production in tsetse-affected areas of Africa pp 3-pp21.

Kazemi, M. (2021). An investigation on chemical/mineral compositions, ruminal microbial fermentation, and feeding value of some leaves as alternative forages for finishing goats during the dry season. *AMB Expr* 11 (76), 1-13. doi: 10.1186/s13568-021-01238-0

Kazemi, M. (2025). Recycling agricultural waste: sustainable solutions for enhancing livestock nutrition. *Vet Med. Sci.* 11, e70321. doi: 10.1002/vms3.70321

Koutou, M., Sangaré, M., Havard, M., Toillier, A., Sanogo, L., Thombiano, T., et al. (2016). Sources de revenus et besoins d'accompagnement des exploitations agricoles familiales en zone cotonnière ouest du Burkina Faso. *BASE* 20 (1), 42-56. doi: 10.25518/1780-4507.12648
Koutou, M., Sangaré, M., Havard, M., Toillier, A., Sanogo, L., Thombiano, T., et al. (2017). Sources de revenus et besoins d'accompagnement des exploitations agricoles familiales en zone cotonnière ouest du Burkina Faso. *Agron Afric* 28, 13–24. doi: 10.25518/1780-4507.12648

Lê, S., Josse, J., and Husson, F. (2008). FactoMineR : an R package for multivariate analysis. *J. Stat. Software* 25 (1), 1–18. doi: 10.18637/jss.v025.i01

Le Houerou, H. N., and Hoste, C. H. (1977). Rangeland production and annual rainfall relations in the Mediterranean Basin and in the African Sahelo Sudanian zone. *Rangel. Ecol. Manag./J. Range Manage. Arch.* 30, 181–189.

Leterme, P., Londoño, A. M., Estrada, F., Souffrant, W. B., and Buldgen, A. (2005). Chemical composition, nutritive value and voluntary intake of tropical tree foliage and cocoyam in pigs. *J. Sci. Food Agric.* 85, 1725–1732. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2177

M'Bodj, M. (2009). *Dècentralisation et gestion des ressources en eau : Cas de la commune de Bama* (Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso: Institut International d'Ingénierie de l'Eau et de l'Environnement (2IE), 121p.

Mahgoub, O., Kadim, I. T., Eltahir, Y., Al-Lawatia, S., and Al-Ismaili, A. M. (2018). Nutritional value of vegetable wastes as livestock feed. *Sultan Qaboos Univ. J. Sci.* 23, 78–84. doi: 10.24200/squjs.vol23iss2pp78-84

Millogo, V., Sissao, M., Sidibe-Anago, A. G., Amoussou, T. O., and Ouedraogo, G. A. (2019). Effet d'une complémentation valorisant les ressources localement disponibles sur les performances de production laitière des vaches en vue de réduire l'intervalle vélage-vélage en zone périurbaine de Bobo-Dioulasso au Burkina Faso. *J. Appl. Biosci.* 142, 14529–14539. doi: 10.4314/jab.v142i1.11

Molina-Flores, B., Manzano-Baena, P., and Coulibaly, M. D. (2020). The role of livestock in food security, poverty reduction and wealth creation in West Africa. *Accra. FAO*, 260. doi: 10.4060/ca8385en

Mottet, A., and Assouma, M. H. (2024). The feed balances sheet: a tool for planning the use of resources and enhancing resilience in tropical grazing livestock. *Front. Anim. Sci.* 5. doi: 10.3389/fanim.2024.1354728

Mustafa, A. F., and Baurhoo, B. (2018). Evaluation of dried vegetable residues for poultry: III Effects of feeding cabbage leaf residues on laying performance, egg quality, and apparent total tract digestibility. *J. Appl. Poultry Res.* 27, 145–151. doi: 10.3382/japr/pfx031

Nampa, I. W., Mudita, I. W., Riwu Kaho, N. P. L. B., Widinugraheni, S., and Lasarus Natonis, R. (2020). The koboCollect for research data collection and management (An experience in researching the socio-economic impact of blood disease in banana). *SOCA: J Sosial Ekon Pertan* 14, 545. doi: 10.24843/SOCA.2020.v14.i03.p15

Orounladji, B. M., Sib, O., Berre, D., Assouma, M. H., Dabiré, D., Sanogo, S., et al. (2024). Cross-examination of agroecology and viability in agro-sylvo-pastoral systems in Western Burkina Faso. *Agroecol Sustain. Food Syst* 48, 581–609. doi: 10.1080/21683565.2024.2307902

Ouattara, S. D., Orounladji, B. M., Sanogo, S., Dabiré, D., Diomandé, D., Sib, O., et al. (2024). Valorisation des résidus de cultures pour l'alimentation du bétail au Burkina Faso: perception des agropasteurs et pratiques d'utilisation. *Rev. Elev Med. Vet. Pays Trop.* 77, 37012. doi: 10.19182/remvt.37012

Ouédraogo, R. A., Kambiré, F. C., Kestemont, M.-P., and Bielders, C. L. (2019). Caractériser la diversité des exploitations maraîchères de la région de Bobo-Dioulasso au Burkina Faso pour faciliter leur transition agroécologique. *Cahiers Agricult* 28, 20. doi: 10.1051/cagri/2019021

RGA (2011). *Rapport général du module maraîchage* (RGA: Bureau Central du Recensement General de l'Agriculture Phase 2), 318p.

Sebego, R. C. I. (2016). *Etude des stratégies d'adaptation des ma'akhersface aux changements climatiques au Burkina Faso: cas de Bobo Dioulasso, Ouagadougou et Ouahigouya* (Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso: Université polytechnique de Bobo Dioulasso (UPB), 82p.

Sib, O., Bougouma-Yameogo, V. M. C., Blanchard, M., Gonzalez-Garcia, E., and Vall, E. (2018). Production laitière à l'Ouest du Burkina Faso dans un contexte d'émergence de laiteries : Diversité des pratiques d'élevage et propositions d'amélioration. *Rev. d'élevage médecine vétérinaire Des pays tropicaux* 70, 81–91. doi: 10.19182/remvt.31521

Soko, J. J. (2018). Agricultural pesticide use in Malawi. *Journal of Health & Pollution.* 8 (20), 181201. doi: 10.5696/2156-9614-8.20.181201

Son, D., Somda, I., Legreve, A., and Schiffers, B. (2017). Pratiques phytosanitaires des producteurs de tomates du Burkina Faso et risques pour la santé et l'environnement. *Cahiers Agricult* 26, 25005. doi: 10.1051/cagri/2017010

Tensaba, R. S., Kiema, A., and Zongo, M. (2022). Evaluation d'une démarche participative d'insertion des cultures fourragères dans deux villages sites de la Région du Centre-Nord du Burkina Faso. *Afrique Sci.* 3, 41–54.

Vall, E., Koutou, M., Blanchard, M., Coulibaly, K., A. Diallo, M., and Andrieu, N. (2011). "Intégration agriculture-élevage et intensification écologique dans les systèmes agrosylvopastoraux de l'Ouest du Burkina Faso, province du Tuy," in *Partenariat, modélisation, expérimentations : quelles leçons pour la conception de l'innovation et l'intensification écologique?* (Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso), 12. Available online at: https://hal.science/hal-00718613 (Accessed October 12, 2024).

Vall, E., Orounladji, B. M., Berre, D., Assouma, M. H., Dabiré, D., Sanogo, S., et al. (2023). Crop livestock synergies and by products recycling: major factors for agroecology in West African agro sylvo pastoral systems. *Agron. Sustain. Dev.* 43, 70. doi: 10.1007/s13593-023-00908-6

Zampaligre, N., Savadogo, I., and Sangare, M. (2019). Analyses des paramètres démographiques et zootechniques du cheptel bovin des élevages péri-urbains laitiers de la ville de Bobo-Dioulasso à l'Ouest du Burkina Faso. *Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci.* 13, 441. doi: 10.4314/ijbcs.v13i1.35