forage production in ethiopia - 197.156.72.153:8080

Alemayehu Mengism

Ethiopian Society of Animal Projection AdHis Ababa, Ethiopia

t J

I

#

FORAGE PRODUCTION IN ETHIOPIA I IMPLICATIONS ] PRODUCTION

About the Author

Alemayehu 'Mengistu is a specialist for pasture and forage and rangeland assessment and improvement with over two decades o f experience. He first worked with the Ethiopian Swedish (SIDA) Comprehensive Agricultural Rural Development Project (ARDU-ex- CADU) previously based m Arsi. He then spent nearly twenty years working for the Ministry o f Agriculture, Animal & Fishery Resources and Development Department where he was coordinator o f the Fourth Livestock Development Project (FLDP). Alemayehu has been involved and worked with universities, colleges, research institutions, training, development and extension organizations as lecturer, researcher, development and extension advisor.

The author was a pioneer and founder o f the Forage Net Work for Ethiopia (FNE). He served as chairman o f the network and Editor o f the Newsletter for many years.

Alemayehu has also worked as pasture and forage and range consultant for the World Bank, African Development Bank and M/O, FAO, ILCA (now ILRI), SIDA, DANIDA, FINIDA, NGO's and International and National Consulting firms.

Alemayehu is the author o f two major books entitled:(i) Conservation Based Forage Development for Ethiopia, 1997, Ethiopia, ii) The Borana and the 1991-92 Drought: A Rangeland and Livestock Resource Study, 1998, Ethiopia.

He also published many research, training, development and extension manuals, articles, papers, studies and project documents, etc.

As author o f this book, Alemayehu suggests that research, training, development and extension professionals should compile and publish their accumulated knowledge and experience through ESAP to assist livestock development in Ethiopia.

F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w ith Im p l ic a tio n s fo r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

FORAGE PRODUCTION IN ETHIOPIA:A CASE STUDY WITH IMPLICATIONS FOR LIVESTOCK

PRODUCTION

ALEMAYEHU MENGISTU

Ethiopian Society of Animal Production Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

A le m a ye h u M e n g is t u , 2002 I

F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s fo r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

Published by:Ethiopian Society of Animal Production PO Box 80019, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

© Alemayehu Mengistu, August 2002

Author's Address

Alemayehu Mengistu Pasture/Forage/Range Development Consultant

AndVisiting Assistant Professor at Department of Biology,

Addis Ababa University,PO Box 62291 Addis Ababa

Ethiopia Tel. + 251-1-184415 Fax + 251-1-624546

E-mail: [email protected] or

[email protected]

A la m a ye h u M e n g is t u , 2002 I I

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c t io n

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents................................................................................................................................. Ill

Foreword................................................................................................................................................. V

Acknowledgement...............................................................................................................................VI

PREFACE................................................................................................................................................... VII

Abbreviations..................................................................................................................................... VIII

I. OVERVIEW OF LIVESTOCK FEEDING IN ETHIOPIA................................................................ 1

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1Agro-Ecological Zones o f Ethiopia.................................................................................. 2Seasonal Constraints to Forage Production.................................................................... 3Integration o f Livestock and Cropping Systems............................................................ 3Improved Forage Species....................................................................................................4

II. INTEGRATION OF LIVESTOCK AND CROPPING SYSTEMS IN Ethiopia............................. 7

Dominant Cropping Systems in Livestock Producing Areas......................................7Opportunities for Integrating Livestock and Cropping Systems................................7Key Principles........................................................................................................................8Impact o f Increased Crop Productivity on Livestock Feeding................................... 9Financial Impact o f Integrated Farming Systems.’....................................................10

III. IMPROVED FORAGE EXPERIENCE IN OTHER COUNTRIES........................... ,....................13

Australia................................................................................................................................ 13New Zealand........................................................................... ........... ................................. 17South-East Asia...................................................................................................................17Caribbean..............................................................................................................................18

I ,IV. IMPROVED FORAGE PRODUCTION STRATEGIES............................................'j....................19

Backyard Forage Production............................................................................................19Undersowing and Interplanting...................... ................................................................21Contour Forage Strips....................................................................................................... 23Forage Crop Production....................................................................................................25Agroforestry.........................................................................................................................26Oversowing Common Grazing Areas............................................................................ 28Stock Exclusion Areas/Forage Banks............................................................................29Permanent Pastures................................................................................................ .........32Roadside Sowing................................................................................................................ 32Aerial Sowing...................................................................................................................... 33Summary.............................................................................................................................. 34

A le m a ye h u M e n g is t u , 2002 I I I

Fo r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c t io n

V. FORAGE SPECIES............................................................................................................................. 37

Principles for Selection and Testing...............................................................................37Species with Proven Capability....................................................................................... 38

VI. IMPROVED FORAGE UTILISATION STRATEGIES...................................................................41

Dairy Production.................................................................................................................45Forage Conservation..........................................................................................................46

VII. FORAGE SEED PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION............................................................. 49

Importation of Initial Seed ............................................................................................... 49Contract Seed Production..................................................................................................50Seed Harvesting, Cleaning and Storage........................................................................52Seed Distribution.................................................................................................................55

VIII. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS...............................................................................................57

Farmer Participation at all Stages....................................................................................57Strong Institutional Support............................................................................................. 58A Planning Approach to Implementation......................................................................59Motivated Technicians Located throughout the Project Area...................................60Integration with Other Activities..................................................................................... 61Initial Importation of Improved Forage Seed............................................................... 61Financing Mechanisms...................................................................................................... 62Secure Land Tenure...........................................................................................................62Monitoring and Evaluation............................................................................................... 63

IX. FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FORAGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.......... 67

Introduction..................... .....................................................................................................67Public Sector Investment and Recurrent Costs............................................................ 68Farm-Level Investment and Recurrent Costs...............................................................70Selection of Forage Development Strategies................................................................ 71Benefits from Forage Development and Rates o f Return......................................... 72Forage Production and Utilization Models................................................................... 73Financial and Economic Rates o f Return from Forage Projects..............................76

LIST OF ANNEXES...................................................... .".........................................................................79

ANNEX 1: Species Description and Characteristics.................................................. 81ANNEX 2: Animal Performance of Improved Forage.............................................. 95ANNEX 3: Inoculation of Legumes..........................................................................107ANNEX 4: Model Contract for Supply o f Pasture/Forage Seed ........................108

BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................... 109

A le m a ye h u M e n g is t u , 2002 XV


FOREWORD

As part of its mission, the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP) promotes the publication and dissemination of knowledge in research and development of animal production in Ethiopia. This publication is the third of its kind that ESAP promoted and produced.

The rising demand for high quality animal products both for the domestic and export markets calls for more inputs into the production process, particularly in the provision of improved level of feeding. This becomes even more important in view of the need in Ethiopia for gradual transformation of the predominantly low-input and subsistent agriculture towards one of market-oriented to increase the contribution of livestock resources to the livelihood of their owners, and hence to the national economy. The challenge is to identify and develop viable options for increased production and utilisation of quality feeds in the major production systems. The Fourth Livestock Development Project (FLDP) of the Ministry of Agriculture had demonstrated a series of alternative strategies in improved forage production over large parts of Ethiopian highlands. FLDP was the first of its kind in Ethiopia in implementing extensive forage development interventions specifically to the smallholder mixed crop-livestock farmers of the highlands, and in so doing it generated valuable lessons for similar livestock development programmes. However, the experience in FLDP have not been comprehensively reviewed and reported in a form suitable for widespread distribution and readership. This publication contributes to meeting this objective.

The author of this publication has accumulated extensive experience in research, training and development of forage production in Ethiopia. He had also been involved in the planning, development and management of the FLDP at the national level. His contribution of this publication is, therefore, highly commendable.

This book is designed to serve needs in basic research, training and extension of improved forage production of mainly the highland mixed smallholder production systems as well as high-potential mid-altitude agricultural areas with emphasis to livestock -crop integration and natural resource management. Apart from discussions on suitable strategies for improved forage production and utilisation, this publication provides review of prevailing livestock feeding practices in Ethiopia, suggests opportunities for better livestock-crop integration and presents brief descriptions of relevant experiences in other countries.

ESAP appreciates the kind offer of the author for granting permission to publish this study to help disseminate available knowledge in improved forage production, and calls for similar contributions in other areas of animal production in Ethiopia from experienced researchers, trainers and development practitioners.

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication are entirely those of the author and do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of ESAP. Further queries can be directed to the author.

Workneh Ayalew, Ph.D.President, ESAP

A le m a ye h u M e n g ris tu , 2002 V

F o r a g e Pr o d u c t io n in E th io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w ith Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k Pr o d u c t io n

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The fieldwork and early on-farm trials, which provide much of the information for this study, were conducted by staff from the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture under the Animal Nutrition and Forage Production Program of the Fourth Livestock Development Project. The study was also conducted in collaboration with Alan Robertson and the financial analysis was made by Philip Young. In addition, Berhanu Shiferaw, Hadera Gebru, Tegegnwork Haile, David Young and Shane Colville-Stewart also contributed to the publication. Thanks also go to Ato Gebre Kirstos Worku for his encouragement.

I am especially grateful for the support o f my wife Alemtsehay and for my daughters Saron and Edom, who bore with me through out the preparation and completion o f this publication.

The author wishes to express his gratitude to those people who have contributed and provided encouragement towards the realization o f this publication. Finally, the author extends its acknowledgement to the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production for making the publication o f this study possible.

A le m a ye h u M e n g is t u , 2002 V I

F o r a g e P r o d u c tio n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w ith Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c t io n

PREFACE

This study reviews the Animal Nutrition and Forage Production Program of the Fourth Livestock Development Project (FLDP) implemented in Ethiopia between 1987 and 1994 with finance from the World Bank, and the Government of Ethiopia. The study discusses the main technical, institutional, economic, and farmer centered issues, which were central to the success o f the forage production program. It outlines appropriate strategies and policies for the integration of improved forage production into farming systems in Ethiopia. The objectives of this program were to increase the quantity and quality o f forage produced and to reduce the incidence and impact of soil degradation.

Rapid population growth and land degradation is decreasing the area available for livestock grazing in Ethiopia. This results in overgrazing of nonarable areas, which exacerbates the land degradation cycle. This trend can be productively reversed by developing and implementing sustainable farming systems, which integrate livestock, and cropping systems to increase the quantity and quality of ruminant forage.

Conservation-based improved forage production provides the means to reduce the impact o f livestock on increasingly limited and degraded resources. The study analyses the principal biological, technical, economic and institutional issues and summarises the opportunities and constraints for wider adoption of improved forage production and use It outlines strategies for sustainable forage and browse production from integrated farming systems.

The financial and economic benefits from increased forage production are substantial. They are not limited to just increased animal production, because if implemented correctly, the forage development strategies discussed in this paper impact on many aspects o f whole farm systems. For example, the use of multipurpose tree legumes results in increased production o f forage, fuel wood, building materials, nitrogen for crop production, honey production, and even materials for the construction of local agricultural implements. In addition, forage production increases food crop production through reduced soil erosion and improved soil structure. In this regard, increased dung production is important in the overall fuel and nutrient balance. Improved forage production must be part of an integrated agricultural production system if Ethiopia is to overcome declining animal and food crop production.

Alemayehu MengistuAddis Ababa, EthiopiaAugust, 2002

A le m a ye h u M e n g is t u , 2 002 V I I

F o r a g e Pr o d u c t io n n E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w ith Im p l ic a t io n s f o r L w e s t o c k Pr o d u c t io n

ABBREVIATIONS

AEZ Agro-Ecological ZoneAFRDMD Animal and Fishery Resources Development Main DepartmentARDU Arsi Rural Development ProjectCADU Chilalo Agricultural Development ProjectCP Crude ProteinDM Dry MatterESAP Ethiopian Society o f Animal ProductionFLDP Fourth Livestock Development ProjectILCA International Livestock Center for AfricaM&E Monitoring and EvaluationM/O Ministry o f AgricultureTLU Tropical Livestock Unit

A le m a y e h u M e n g is t u , 2002 V I I I


I. OVERVIEW OF LIVESTOCK FEEDING IN ETHIOPIA

Introduction

Livestock production contributes up to 80 percent of farmers' income in Ethiopia and about 20 percent of agricultural GDP. Ethiopia has the largest livestock population of any country in Africa. Nutritional factors are the binding constraint to sustaining livestock production in Ethiopia. Uncontrolled grazing of increasingly scarce common areas has contributed to the degradation of many range and pasture lands. Degradation in the form of soil erosion, deforestation, and declining soil structure and fertility has a social and economic cost which nations and individuals cannot afford. Simple biological solutions to these problems have been developed by the Animal Nutrition and Forage Production Program of the Fourth Livestock Development Project (FLDP) in Ethiopia. The solutions are readily adopted by farmers and pastoralists, and are economically viable. Most importantly, improved forage production provides a source of protein, which greatly increases the productivity from crop by-products, a valuable energy source for ruminants.

Increasing populations and declining land productivity results in increasing demand for arable land in much of Ethiopia. This increasing demand for cropping land to produce food for humans reduces the amount of land available for natural grazing and forage production. Livestock numbers have increased to meet the demand for draught animals resulting from increased cropping activity. These conflicting developments place an unsustainable demand on land resources, which is compounded by the transport of nutrients away from fields in the form of grain, crop residues and dung used for fuel. Soil fertility and structure is declining resulting in decreased productivity, erosion and general degradation of the natural resources upon productivity, erosion and general degradation of the natural resources upon which most East African economies depend. The positive aspect of increased intensity of sustainable cropping systems is an increased supply of crop by-products. These present a valuable source of energy, which, if supplemented with protein from improved forages, provide an economic and productive ration for ruminant livestock. By using multipurpose browse legumes in forage strategies, additional fuelwood is produced to substitute for dung fuel, which can then be returned to the soil to maintain crop and forage productivity. Thus integration of livestock and cropping systems is essential for sustainable natural resource management improved livestock productivity.

Sustainable livestock and crop production in Ethiopia is dependent on dramatic changes in livestock management systems. The key components of

A le m a ye h u M e n g is t u , 2002 1


these changes are a shift towards more intensive feeding systems, with more emphasis on cut-and-carry feeding, and a gradual shift away from uncontrolled grazing, particularly on uplands and sloping areas. This may need to be combined with decreasing livestock populations in some areas - perhaps associated with small-scale mechanisation of cropping systems, which currently rely on animal draught power for cultivation. The use of woody leguminous species in agroforestry, alley cropping or browse coppice systems is one of the key elements of sustainable agricultural systems in Ethiopia. Legumes are especially emphasised because of their multipurpose utility, and their dual roles in animal nutrition and the maintenance or improvement of soil fertility and hence crop production.

The FLDP was a five-year program designed to address these issues in Ethiopia. Its main objective was to improve livestock and agricultural production in Ethiopia through increasing the efficiency of resource utilisation at farm level. Increasing foreign exchange earnings and decreasing land degradation through increasing live animal and hide and skins exports and through import substitution of dairy products are also important objectives. The project commenced in 1988 and achieved significant success with its Animal Nutrition and Forage Production Program. The objectives of this program were to:

• increase the supply of forage for ruminant livestock;• conserve soil on arable land and catchment areas;• increase meat and milk production by increasing the quantity and quality of livestock

feed;• increase manure production;• increase draught power for cropping; and• increase fuelwood and other tree products.

FLDP successfully developed and implemented a number of forage production and animal-feeding strategies, which were integrated with cropping systems and in almost all cases, avoided displacement of arable crops. The key strategies were complementary to arable cropping - something, which increased their acceptance by farmers. The strategies were designed with farmers and demonstrated on farms to increase the spontaneous adoption of key strategies. Because of the diverse growing conditions and farming systems in Ethiopia, a range of strategies and species mixes were developed and implemented for the major agro-ecological zones.

Agro-Ecological Zones of Ethiopia

The agricultural and livestock production potential of Ethiopia is determined by soils and agro-ecological zones. Most soils in Ethiopia can sustain some form of improved forage production. Agro-ecological zones (AEZ)

A le m a ye h u M e n jr is tu , 2002 2

F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E th io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w ith Im p l ic a tio n s fo r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

determine what species can be used and what forage strategies can be used to integrate livestock and cropping systems. The major factors considered in determining AEZ are:

• length of growing period - a function of rainfall, evapotranspiration, soil water storing capacity and meteorological hazards;

• thermal zone - a function of temperatures prevailing during the growing season and closely related to altitude; and

• landscape - a function of aspect, soil type and slope.There are about nine principal AEZs where livestock and cropping

systems are environmentally and economically suited to forage production (AACM, 1987). These are combinations of length of growing period and thermal zone classes, which can be summarised as follows;

Length of Growing Period Thermal Zone (Altitude)

During the latter part of the dry season livestock feed is normally in short supply and is also of poor quality. Residues from cereals (wheat, teff, millet and sorghum for example) are the main source of forage but these are low in protein and have poor digestibility. Removing them from the fields also reduce organic matter content in the soil which degrades soil structure and increases the erodibility of cropped land. The production of adequate quantities of good quality dry season forages to supplement crop residues and pasture roughages is the only way to economically overcome the dry season constraints affecting livestock production in Ethiopia. The use of deep rooted perennials such as browse legumes reduce the impact of the dry season because browse species have root systems which better able to exploit soil water reserves than forage species (Alemayehu M., 1988).

Because of growing pressure on land resources from increasing populations and greater cropping intensity, forage crops can only be produced in sufficient quantities if livestock and cropping systems are integrated. Livestock and cropping systems can be integrated in a number of ways, including:

LII 9 1 - 1 5 0 daysLIII 1 5 1 -2 1 0 daysLIV 211 -2 7 0 days

T2 500 - 1300 meters T3 1300 - 2000 meters T4 2000 - 3000 meters

Seasonal Constraints to Forage Production

Integration of Livestock and Cropping Systems

A le m a y e h u M e n g is t u , 2002 3


Agroforestry Where trees and shrubs producing browse or forage pods are integrated with cropping systems;

Intercropping Where crops for human consumption are undersown or intercropped with forage legumes; and

Ley Farming Where crops for human consumption are relayed or rotated with forage legumes.

Increasing the intensity of cropping through agroforestry, intercropping or ley farming requires careful management of soil structure and soil fertility if productivity is to be sustained. Animal waste and agricultural by-products are important soil conditioners and sources of nutrients. Unless they are returned to the cropped soil, nutrient transfers will rapidly decrease soil productivity and increase the risks of soil degradation. Feeding tethered or kraaled animals in fields returns nutrients to the soil ready for subsequent crops. The use of multipurpose browse trees and shrubs increases fuelwood resources available to farming households - decreasing the need to use dung as fuel and increasing the availability of dung for use as fertiliser. The use of legume forages frequently increases soil nitrogen available for food crops because of their ability to fix nitrogen. Finally, improved legume forage and browse species provide a sustainable source of protein which enhances the ruminant livestock productivity from crop residues high in energy. There is thus a resource stabilising cycle of integrated livestock and cropping systems which can be started with improved forage and browse legumes or broken without them. Work in much of Africa demonstrates that intercropping legumes and cereals increases the productivity and sustainability of farming systems and improves the quantity and quality of livestock feed available from such systems.

Improved Forage Species

Many indigenous forage species in Ethiopia have low productivity or low digestibility, which reduces their usefulness for livestock nutrition. Leguminous species selected for their productivity, palatability, and ability to withstand managed grazing can significantly increase livestock production. There are many leguminous forage and browse species suited to Ethiopia, and these are discussed in Chapter V and detailed in Annex 1. Many of the tropical species originate from the Caribbean and Central America, and many of the temperate species originate from the Mediterranean and West Asia. Improved grasses, many of African origin, have greater palatability and productivity than other indigenous species and are therefore desirable additions to pastures and common grazing



areas. Because most forage production strategies involve integration of forage and crop production systems, potentially rampant species are not generally recommended except where they are to be used exclusively for non-arable grazing areas.


F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n



II. INTEGRATION OF LIVESTOCK AND CROPPING SYSTEMS INETHIOPIA

Dominant Cropping Systems in Livestock Producing Areas

More than 75 percent of Ethiopia's livestock population is found in the mixed farming areas of the highland and middle altitude zones. The AEZs, which support mixed livestock and cropping systems, have three dominant cropping systems (AACM, 1987). In lowland areas, below 2000 m altitude, valley mixed agriculture supports rainfed cereals (maize, sorghum, teff), and tree crop production. Livestock provide meat and milk in these areas as well as draught power. In middle altitudes, between 2000 and 2400m, horticulture-livestock (hoe culture) and some plough culture complexes support enset (false banana - Ensete vetricosum), root crops, tree crops, and rainfed crops (including sorghum, teff, chickpea and maize). Livestock are important sources of meat, milk and transport, and provide draught power. High altitudes, above 2400m, support a highland mixed crop-livestock complex, which includes rainfed cereals and pulses (including barely, maize, wheat, horsebean and vetch) and places importance on cattle as a source of milk and draught power.

Opportunities for Integrating Livestock and Cropping Systems

Rainfed cereal and tree cropping systems in lowland areas present significant opportunities for integrating forage and crop food production. Longer growing periods and suitable thermal and soil conditions in much of this area enable undersowing and intercropping strategies to be adopted successfully. A broad range of suitable forage legume species exist and have been successfully demonstrated and adopted throughout this zone in Ethiopia. Alley cropping with browse legumes and contour forage strips are also appropriate in this zone - combining conservation cropping with production of forage of browse as well as other tree products (fuelwood, timber and honey for example). Intensification of cropping systems through agroforestry and intercropping or undersowing offer significant increases in productivity and sustainability in lowland areas.

Undersowing and intercropping strategies used in lowland farming systems are also suited to middle altitude systems. Tree crops can also be undersown with sprawling leguminous forages, which maintain soil structure and fertility as well as producing forage. Permanent pastures and stock exclusion areas developed for improved forage production reduce grazing pressure on cropped areas and, where browse legumes are used, provide an alternative fuel source which releases dung resources for fertilisation of cropped areas. Forage


F o r a g e P r o d u c tio n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s fo r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

strip and alley cropping strategies are also' suited to middle altitude cropping systems and have the advantage of being able to use a wider range of species than the lowland or highland systems.

Highland cropping systems are less suited to undersowing or intercropping but forage crops grown as relays or in rotation with cereal crops offer opportunities for better integration of livestock and cropping systems. Contour strips of browse or forage legumes combined with thick grasses increase the sustainability and productivity of most soils whilst also providing high quality forage to supplement low quality roughages and crop residues. Poorly drained areas and uplands can be developed as permanent pastures and stock exclusion areas which, although not directly integrated with cropping areas, reduce grazing pressure on cropped land. Inclusion of woody browse legumes in stock exclusion areas not only increases quality forage production but also provides an alternative fuel source, which enables dung resources to be used on cropping areas. In this way, well-managed permanent pastures and stock exclusion areas provide an important resource, which is integral to sustainable crop production. Increasing cropping intensities to support growing populations demand more draught animals, which places an unsustainable burden on the reduced areas available for grazing. A combination of small-scale mechanisation and increased use of browse legumes on upland stock exclusion areas are essential if highland agricultural systems are to be sustained.

Key Principles

Livestock development has frequently focused on animal health or improved livestock breeds. Unless livestock producers first improve the quantity and quality of forage available for their livestock, these investments will normally be uneconomic and environmentally unsustainable. Livestock development therefore needs to firstly focus on forage production. This is more readily adopted by farmers and is most economically done by better integrating livestock and cropping systems. The key principles for the successful integration of livestock and coping systems include:

• The widespread linkage between improved forage and browse production and other livestock development benefits such as artificial insemination (AI), animal health services, provision of breeding stock, and agricultural credit.

• The use of forage and browse legumes to increase the quantity and quality of livestock forage, to supplement crop residues and natural roughages to increase their intake and utilisation by ruminants, and to maintain soil structure and fertility. As a general rule a mixture of one part improved legume forage to two parts crop residue or natural roughages will economically optimise nutrients available to ruminants.

• The use of cut and carry systems to control grazing of stock exclusion and cropped areas and to preserve uplands, catchments and recharge areas essential for sustainable water supplies. Cut and carry systems optimise the use of forage by controlling browse


F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s fo r L iv^ i o ^ k P r o d u c tio n

and forage harvesting and reducing the amount energy used by animals for walking. Animals should be tethered or temporarily kraaled near forage sources to reduce cut and carry labour requirements and to improve nutrient cycling in livestock-cropping systems. Tethering systems are particularly suited to cattle being fed from contour forage strip, undersowing, and alley cropping strategies. Kraaling systems are particularly suited to small ruminants being fed from stock exclusion areas, undersown cereal or tree crops, and forage banks.

• The use of browse legumes in agroforestry, alley cropping and forage bank systems to add a third dimension to the root and foliage resources of farming systems. This third dimension - roots reaching deep into the soil resource and branches reaching upwards- is especially important where lateral expansion of cropping areas is restricted because of increasing population or land degradation. This offers the single most important opportunity for increasing sustainable productivity in Ethiopian farming systems. Appropriate species have been widely demonstrated and accepted by farmers in much of the country.

• Conservation of soil and water resources by using more productive and sustainable farming systems, which focus on utilising improved forage and browse resources to increase household income from livestock fattening or increased milk production.

Impact of Increased Crop Productivity on Livestock Feeding

Cropping systems are expanding and intensifying to feed growing human populations and overcome decreasing productivity due to soil degradation and poor husbandry. By adopting strategies, which integrate livestock and cropping systems, there is considerable potential to not only increase crop yields but to also increase the quantity and quality of forage for ruminant livestock. The positive impacts of increased sustainable cropping include more crop byproducts, more forage and browse legumes where forage production strategies are integrated with sustainable cropping, and a better mix of nutrients from these sources of forage. In most areas of Ethiopia sustainable cropping systems will produce more dry matter of better nutritional value for ruminant forage than common grazing areas. This factor overcomes the key negative impact of increased cropping which is a reduction of the area available for livestock grazing. Table 2.1 demonstrates the benefits of improved legumes - experience which is widespread throughout the highlands of Ethiopia.



Table 2.1: Effects of Protein Supplements on Liveweight Gains of Zebu Bulls Kept on a Basal Diet of Maize Stover in Cameroon

TreatmentLiveweight Gain

(g/day)Stover Intake

(kg/day/animal)Basal Diet -8 4.16

Cottonseed Cake 154 4.12Leucaena 236 325

Source: Wegad and Ndumbe, 1986

Table 2.2: Comparison of Browse and Concentrates on Dry Matter Intake and Milk Yield of Barka x Boran Cows in Ethiopia

Group

Concentrate (kg DM/ d/cow)

Browse (kg DM/ D/cow)

Total DM (kg/d/cow)

Mean Milk Yield

(kg/cow/d)Control 5.27 - 5.27 7.62

0.3* Sesbania 3.44 1.69 5.13 8.250.6 Sesbania 2.05 1.92 3.97 7.700.3 Leucaena 3.26 1.41 4.67 8.250.6 Leucaena 1.86 3.11 4.97 8.65

#0.3 and 0.6 show group concentrate allowance. Source: Biru et al, 1988

Because uplands are generally unsuitable for sustainable cropping, they are often used to graze livestock displaced from newly cropped land. This is unsustainable and is best managed by excluding livestock from uplands and developing them as forage and browse reserves to be harvested for cut and carry feeding systems. Uplands can be quickly and cheaply enriched using oversowing and planting strategies. Unless uplands are managed in this way, they will normally erode. This quickly degrades the productivity of uplands and threatens the productivity of lowlands and water systems influenced by the upland catchment area.

Financial Impact of Integrated Farming Systems

Benefits from integrated crop/forage production systems are substantial, prolonged and complementary. Agronomic benefits are well documented and include increased crop yields, reduced soil erosion, improved livestock production - higher weight gains, lower mortality rates and increased milk production - and additional supplies of fuel (dung and wood). However, the financial benefits from integrated livestock/cropping systems are not so well known and are more difficult to quantify accurately. For example, the impact of improved supplies of forage can be reduced by the presence of internal parasites,

A l« m a y « h u M e n g is t u , 2002 10


and milk production can be limited by low genetic potential. Furthermore, it is not necessary to include all benefits attributable to forage development programs in the analysis of projects based on the integration of cropping and livestock. This is because there are numerous primary, secondary and even tertiary benefits associated with such projects, and it is usually possible to generate a satisfactory rate of return without having to include all benefits. Forage development projects are characterised by low levels of public and on-farm investment and recurrent expenditure, and therefore benefits per farm need only reflect increased productivity of the order of 20% for such projects to be financially and economically viable.

Examples of integrated crop/livestock models used for project analysis are given in Annex 2. These were prepared for analysis of the FLDP, and are proving to be reasonably accurate, if not conservative. The models, based on a spreadsheet model called STRATMOD, indicate financial returns per incremental person day of about Birr 3.00 - 8.00. These are quite acceptable when compared with an opportunity cost of time of about Birr 0.50 to Birr 1.50 per day, depending on the food cropping cycle. Furthermore, the financial returns detailed in the models are based on the inclusion of only two main streams of benefits - the impact of improved nutrition on livestock production and the value of increased supplies of two important by-products (wood from tree legumes and dung for fuel). If other benefits such as increased milk yields, improved crop yields (due to increased supplies of nitrogen), reduced soil erosion, and reduced herding time were also included in the analysis, returns per incremental person day would be substantially higher - probably of the order of Birr 15 per person day. Person day rates of this magnitude indicate very high financial rates of return and acceptable economic rates of return.

Examples of the livestock benefits from integrated crop/forage models are given in Annex 2.


Fo r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

III. IMPROVED FORAGE EXPERIENCE IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Australia

Temperate Australia can be divided into three zones on the basis of rainfall and grazing management systems, as shown in Table 3.1. Only zones 2 and 3 have a sufficient rainfall to support improved forage crops.

Table 3.1: Temperate Australia Agroecological Zones

__________Zone______________ Rainfall1. Shrub Rangeland < 300mm2. Cereal Livestock 300-600 mm

3. High Rainfall > 600 mm

Pasture and forage production was of secondary importance to cereal production during the early years of agricultural development in Australia and consequently received little attention. Stock originally grazed native pastures. The native tussock grasses and other perennial species were well adapted to long dry periods, irregular rainfall patterns and poor soil fertility - specifically phosphorous deficiency. Cultivation for crop production and increased impact from treading due to the high grazing intensities of introduced hooved livestock resulted in native pastures loosing productivity and becoming severely degraded in some areas. Fig. 3.1 also shows the impact of unsustainable cropping practices on wheat yields between 1860 and 1895 before the use of fertiliser and forage legumes increased the sustainability and yield of wheat production in temperate Australia.

In 1920, a variety of Trifolium subterraneum named Mount Baker was identified which was suited to southern Australia's growing seasons and farming systems. This started the developm ent of what cam e to be known as the Australian ley farming system of crop/pasture rotation. Medicago spp., which favour alkaline to neutral soils and Trofolium spp., which favour acid to neutral soils; increased the sustainability of temperate Australian farming systems by enabling livestock to be integrated into cropping systems. These legumes provide cereal root disease control, improve soil structure thorough added organic matter and ground cover, and increase soil fertility through added nitrogen as well as increasing the quantity and quality of livestock forage. The key to sustainable farming systems in southern Australia is the widespread use of forage legumes.

The high rainfall zone of temperate Australia sustained low stocking rates until phosphate fertilisers and selected trace elements were used to correct



nutrient deficiencies. This and the introduction of forage legumes such as Alfalfa (.Medicago sativa), White Clover (Trifolium repens), and Tagasaste/Tree Lucerne (Chamaecytisus palmensis) increased sustainable carrying capacity from 0.1 TLU/ha to 1.5 TLU/ha. In 1990 more than 75 percent of the temperate cereal- livestock and high rainfall zones used legumes in their farming systems - covering an area of more than 20 million hectares.

TIME (LAST YEAR OF DECADE)

Fig. 3.1: Trends in Wheat Yields in Australian Since 1870Source: Donald, 1982

Tropical Australia has a limited range of natural forage species, which produce the quantity and quality of forage required for efficient livestock production. Since the 1950s there has been a pasture revolution in tropical Australia with a large increase in the range of forage grasses and legumes grown. Since 1945 more than 50 tropical and sub-tropical legumes have been introduced from expeditions to the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, India and Africa. Only a third of these have become widely adapted and naturalised. Fig. 3.2 shows a cumulative introduction record of grasses and legumes into tropical Australia. Over the past 25 years, the area sown to improved pasture and forage legumes in tropical Australia has increased to nearly 5 million hectares of which nearly 2 million hectares contain legume varieties. This is illustrated in Fig. 3.3.


Num

ber

of sp

ecies

Nu

mbe

r of

spec

ies

F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p lic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

Fig. 3.2: Names and Cumulative Number of Forage Species Introduced Into Queensland, Australia a/

The first letter of each species aligns with its date of first release or use. Species widely planted, past or present, and those now naturalised are underlined.

Source: Gramshaw and Walker, 1988



Fig. 3.3: Area of Sown Patures and Forages in Queensland, Australia - Total Area Sown and Proportion Sown Solely to Grasses

Source: Gramshaw and Walker 1988Farmers in tropical Australia sow approximately 300,000 hectares of

improved pasture and forage species each year. Legumes used by farmers in tropical Australia include centro (Centrosema pubescens) and Puero (Pueraria phaseoloides) in the high rainfall coastal zone; and Siratro (Macroptilium atropurpureum), Seca (Stylosanthes scabra) and Verano Caribbean Stylo (S. hamata) for the drier coastal areas. Highland farmers use Greenleaf Desmodium (Desmodium intortum), Glycine (Neonotonia withtii), Creeping Vigna (Vigna luteola), Haifa White Clover (Trifolium repens), and Safari Clover (T. semipilosum). The coastal wetlands and tablelands, which have rainfall above 1500 mm, are sown to improved grasses including Guinea Grass (Panicum maximum), Panic (P. maximum var. trichoglume), Signal Grass (Brachiaria decumbens) and Para grass (B. mutica). Highland areas are sown to Rhodes Grass (Chloris gayana), Setaria (Setaria anceps), and Kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum).

In the savannah areas of tropical Australia, with rainfall between 700 and 1500 mm, farmers replace natural grasses with improved forages to increase the quantity and quality of feed for cattle. Legumes successfully used by farmers in these areas include Seca Stylo (Stylosanthes scabra), Siratro (Macroptilium atropureum), Wynn Cassia (Cassia rotundifolia), Verano Stylo (S. hamata), Creeping Vigna (Vigna luteola), Glycine (Neonotonia wightii), Leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala), Alfalfa (Medicago sativa), and Haifa White Clover (Trifolium repens). Legumes well suited to soils in this zone with low to moderate fertility are Oxley Fine Stem Stylo (S. guianensis), Miles Lotonis (Lotonis bainesii) and Maku Lotus (Lotus sp.).


F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E th io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c t io n

New Zealand

New Zealand has placed importance on improved forage production for many years, with significant research work being conducted on temperate species. Some of the temperate forage legumes developed in New Zealand are relevant to highland areas of Ethiopia - especially Trifolium repens. Recognising the need to increase productivity of uplands and to reduce soil loss and provide shelter, New Zealand researchers have emphasised the use of browse species to increase the quantity and quality of livestock forage. Particular emphasis has been placed on Tree Lucerne or Tagasaste (Chamaecytisus palmensis) because of its high productivity, excellent nutritional characteristics and good palatability, especially for small ruminants. Significant areas of the uplands are now planted to contour strips and forage banks of Tagasaste, with annual production of up to 900 kg dry matter (DM) per tree. Contour browse strips occupying 30 per cent of the land area — leaving 70 per cent for pasture - gives up to 22 per cent more DM per hectare than improved pasture alone (Townsend and Radcliffe, 1990). Small ruminants in New Zealand show a marked preference for fresh Tagasaste but cattle find dried or wilted Tagasaste more palatable than fresh leaves (Lambert,1989). The New Zealand experience with Tagasaste 'is especially relevant to the upland stock exclusion areas of the Ethiopian highlands.

South-East Asia

South East Asia is not a significant producer of ruminants but several countries have cultures which value ruminant meat, especially Malaysia and Indonesia. Forage production strategies for ruminants has focussed on the use of shade tolerant, sprawling legumes undersown into tree crop plantations. This was the most economic and sustainable means of producing high quality forage in these countries. Undersowing coconut, young oil palm, and rubber plantations with forage species reduces weed growth, protects the soil from erosive rains, and leads to increased income during the establishment of tree crop plantations and greater income security generally.

Experience in mature coconut plantations in Indonesia suggest that up to 5 TLU per hectare can be sustainably grazed to give long term production of 550 kg liveweight gain/ha/year (Humphreys, 1987). Key species used in South East Asia under tree crop plantations are Macroptilium atropurpureum, Centrosema pubescens, Stylosanthes guianensis, setaria anceps, and Brachiaria decumbens. This experience is relevant to some lowland areas of Ethiopia, especially where coffee, enset, and fruit crops are grown in higher rainfall areas.


F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w ith Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c t io n

Caribbean

The Caribbean is not a significant livestock producing region but increasing demand for meat and milk products developed interest in improved forage in the 1970s and early 1980s. Many forage legumes with desirable productivity, palatability and grazing tolerance characteristics were indigenous to the region or to the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. The predominantly acid and infertile Oxisols and Ultisols supported a range of Stylosanthes, Desmodium and Brachiaria species. Researchers from the Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI) triailled selections of many grass and legume species throughout the region. This work was coupled with livestock feeding trials to ensure that species adapted to the soils and climate of the region were also palatable and nutritious to ruminant livestock. All new legume introductions were inoculated with appropriate rhizobia to ensure adequate growth and nitrogen fixation.

This work has led to improved pastures and some agroforestry in Antigua, Barbados, and Jamaica. Key species are Macroptilium atropurpureum, Neonotonia withtii, Stylosanthes hamata, Centrosema pubescens, Leucaena leucocephala, Setaria anceps, Panicum maximum, and Andropogon gayanus. More than 25 per cent of the livestock pastures of the Caribbean now include improved forage species (CARDI, 1986). Recent developments include extension of alley cropping systems using Leucaena, Calliandra and Gliricidea species, and the use of forage banks of Stylosanthes humata for dry season feeding.

Alamayahu Mangiatu, 2002 18


IV. IMPROVED FORAGE PRODUCTION STRATEGIES'

The strategies developed and successfully implemented by the FLDP in Ethiopia evolved from experiences in other countries and an understanding of the importance of matching forage systems to AEZs. The strategies are farmer centered and were developed with farmers to maximize sustainable income generation and food production at the household level. The key forage production strategies are conservation based and promote the use of legumes as improved forage (Alemayehu M., 1989; Robertson, 1990). The key strategies are divided into two categories:

On Farm StrategiesBackyard Forage Production Undersowing and Interplanting Countour Forage Strips Agroforestry

Backyard Forage Production

Backyard forage production is based on small plots and hedges of productive forage and browse planted within house compounds and around their boundaries. This is the most important initial strategy since it is developed in the farmer's household, and is very convenient for intensive feeding of dairy animals or fattening of meat animals. The higher fertility levels typically found in and around house compounds also helps with the successful establishment of backyard forage. This strategy has a major impact in exposing farmers to the management and productivity of new species and also provides a seed bank to help establish new plantings for other forage strategies. Woody leguminous browse species are particularly suited to this strategy because of their multipurpose benefits and rapid growth rates. Tall growing tropical grasses are also suited to backyard forage development. Tree legume hedges have been the most widely adopted backyard forage strategy and need to be used as an incentive for broad-scale forage development based on contour forage strip and undersowing strategies. This strategy introduces farmers to the concept of supplementing crop by-products and poor quality roughages with high quality forage in a location, which facilitates close attention to management.

Backyard forage provides significant quantities of both forage and fuelwood where they can be conveniently used. Other benefits perceived by farmers include shelter, increased privacy, wood products construction and implements, and bee products. The multipurpose benefits of backyard forages provide a range of incentives for farmers to adopt this strategy. It should be one

Common Land Strategies• Oversowing Common Grazing Areas• Stock Exclusion Areas/Forage Banks• Permanent Pastures



of the first strategies to be promoted by extension agents since it is easily established and managed, and provides the means to reduce grazing pressure on common grazing areas. Backyard forage can be cut and carried to tethered or housed animals, or cut and conserved for dry season use in mixes with crop residues and natural pasture hay or roughages. Experience from Ethiopia testifies to the utility of backyard forage species used by the FLDP and summarised in Table 4.1. Experience in New Zealand suggests that Tree Lucerne will produce up to 900 kg DM/tree each year (Townsend and Radcliffe, 1989) and has a forage value similar to alfalfa. Goats fed maize husk and Leucaena in Zambia, mixed in a ratio of 3:2 on a DM basis, gained 29 g/day compared with goats fed maize husk and 1 per cent urea which gained 5 g/day. The digestibility of the ration increased from 47 per cent for maize husks alone to 63 per cent for the 3:2 maize husk -.Leucaena ration (Phiri, 1992). Supplementation of Guinea Grass (Panicum maximum) hay fed to goats with 100 g DM/day Sesbania sesban leaves resulted in total DM intake of 626 g DM/day compared with 498 g DM/day without the browse supplement (Ash, 1990).

The backyard forage strategy provides an opportunity to reach large numbers o f farmers very quickly and can therefore have a great impact nationally, even in the short term. Demonstrations of about 100 browse legume seedlings or grass sets should be established in the housing compounds of contact farmers. This numbers is necessary to ensure sufficient high quality forage to supplement conserved roughages and crop by-products fed to household livestock. Forage seedlings or sets can be planted in any pattern to suit the needs of the household but simple boundary hedges/shelter belts or forage blocks are the most widely accepted designs for backyard forage plantations.

The extension emphasis should be on browse legumes and large grasses and the production of bare rooted seedlings in backyard nurseries. This ensures that farmers develop the capacity to grow their own seedlings or sets for expansion of forage development using contour forage strips and other strategies. In this way, farmers develop familiarity with the propagation, growth and management of key species. Backyard nurseries are typically 4 to 5 square metres in size and are initiated with small packets of seed containing 50 to 100 grams of seed. It is feasible to distribute these seed packets to vast numbers of farmers each year. Wide distribution of seed and promotion of hedges, backyard forage banks, ensure the farmers' capacity to grow bare rooted seedlings for planting in other areas.

Once these components of the backyard forage strategy have been adopted, extension efforts can focus on the use of backyard forage to reduce grazing pressure on common areas and increase livestock productivity from poor quality roughages. Wide acceptance of the backyard forage strategy also provides a sound foundation for farmers to establish grazing management groups or pastoral associations to control grazing on common lands and cropped areas. This



then provides the basis for adoption of the contour forage strip and livestock exclusion area strategies.

Table 4.1: Key Species for Backyard Forage

Altitude Browse Legumes Forage Legumes Grasses<2000m Leucaena Greenleaf Rhodes Grass

Sesbania Silverleaf Elephant GrassPigeon Pea Alfalfa Panicum

2000-2400m Sesbania Alfalfa PhalarisPigon Pea Vetch Elephant GrassTree Lucerne Verano stylo

>2400m Tree Lucerne Alfalfa PhalarisVetch Oats

Undersowing and Interplanting

Undersowing and interplanting is the establishment of forage species in an annual crop or perennial plantation. This strategy provides the most convenient approach to rapidly increasing on-farm forage supplies over a large number of farmers and should have a major impact in the short to medium term. The use of legumes in this system will contribute to the improved fertility and structure of cropping soils. Farmers seeing on-farm trials of undersowing and interplanting accept the strategy readily and understand the benefits and techniques very quickly. This is normally the second strategy to promote after backyard forage has been adopted by farmers. Undersowing and intercropping are probably the most important of the forage development strategies.

Undersowing works best with sprawling, low growing annual legumes but can also work well with climbing legumes. The strategy is particularly suited to the production of tall growing cereals such as maize, sorghum or millet but also works with other cropping systems. Undersowing with legumes produces large quantities of high quality forage for utilisation by either post harvest grazing or cut and carry systems. The undersown forage protects the soil from erosive rains, can contribute nitrogen for the food crop, and balances the forage value of crop residues such as stover and straw to increase its intake and utilisation. The strategy works well with sprawling and climbing legumes but is also effective with other forage legumes and dual purpose legumes such as cow pea.

Tree crops and some vegetables can also be undersown or interplanted with leguminous forages. The establishment of annual or perennial legumes under tree crops is a reliable strategy, which is well accepted by farmers. It is particularly appropriate to the more intensive horticultural and forestry systems where the undersown legume is intensively managed with cut and carried systems for livestock feed. The strategy primarily involves lower altitude systems


F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e St u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

where fruit, coffee, coconuts, enset or chat are grown. There is also broad application with eucalyptus and Acacia plantations grown for fuelwood.

Where crop weeding practices are very thorough, forages should be undersown at the time of final weeding. This avoids any risk of the undersown legume competing seriously with the cereal crop but often means that the legumes have insufficient time to produce ripe seed prior to crop harvest. In areas of poorer weeding practices, undersowing should coincide with an earlier weeding. In this way sufficient legumes survive any subsequent weeding to provide an adequate seeding capacity prior to crop harvest. Early maturing cereals generally favour better forage production because they compete with the undersown forage legume for a shorter period of the growing season. The competitive balance between crop and undersown or intercropped forage legume is very sensitive to sowing time. This will vary with soil and crop type, season, and management practices, and is best determined using on-farm demonstrations.

Farmers understand the benefits of undersowing or intercropping and adopt this strategy over a wide range of traditional cultivation and cropping practices. Farmers are attracted by the sim plicity of the program and by the high yields of forage, which require no management input because the forage legume is protected from grazing by the crop. Farmers acknowledge that undersowing does not reduce crop yields but do not accept that the use of legumes helps maintain soil fertility, even though this has been successfully demonstrated. The incentive for adoption is large quantities of high quality forage in return for a minimal investment. High adoption rates can only be maintained if supplies of seed are available. Relatively large quantities of seed are required (typically 8 to 10 kg pre hectare for annual legumes) unless early undersowing practices are used to ensure adequate seed set at the end of each season.

Good stands of undersown legumes produce 2,500 to 3,000 kg dry matter per ha from one cut in farmers' fields (Robertson, 1990). Farmers advise that grain yields are not depressed but that sprawling legumes such as the Desmodium and vetch dramatically reduce weed infestations - effectively replacing weed growth with high quality forage. Verano stylo (Stylosanthes hamata) undersown into a three week old sorgum crop near Kaduna in Nigeria yielded 1.6 t/ha sorghum grain, 3 t/ha DM stylo forage, and 6 t/ha sorghum residue (Saleem, 1982). The forage and by-product resulting from this undersowing is a balanced growth diet for ruminants. Compare this total production of 1.6 t/ha grain and 9 t/ha forage with the production from the control crop without undersown forage - 2.0 t/ha grain and 7.5 t/ha sorghum residue. Middle altitude farmers in Ethiopia undersowing maize with Desmodium uncinatum harvested an average of more than 6 t DM/ha/year (Tadesse, 1990). This is enough quality forage to mix with 12 t DM natural hay or crop residue and fatten about 150 sheep or 15 oxen over a 120-day fattening cycle (see Chapter VI). Highland wheat crops in Ethiopia undersown with a range of indigenous Trifolium species yielded significantly



more DM than control crops without undersown legumes. The most significant outcome of this work was the successful intercropping of wheat with forage legumes without any significant reduction in wheat yield. Trifolium quartinianum was particularly efficient with broadcast undersowing at Holetta yielding 1.1 t/ha wheat grain, 2.1 t/ha wheat straw and 3.1 t DM/ha clover hay (Kahurananga, 1988).

Table 4.2: Key Species for Undersowing and Intercropping

Altitude Browse Legumes Forage Legumes Grasses<2000 m Not Appropriate Cow Pea

Verano Stylo Greenleaf Wynn Cassia

Not Appropriate

2000-2400m Not Appropriate SiratroVetchGreenleaf

Not Appropriate

>2400m Not Appropriate VetchWhite Clover Native Clovers

Not Appropriate

Contour Forage Strips

Forage strips are broad based mixtures of herbaceous and tree legumes, and grasses planted on contour bunds or in narrow strips along the contour without any physical structures. This is a multipurpose strategy providing forage, shelter, soil stablisation, and fuelwood. Forage strips planted along the contour contribute to soil conservation by directing ploughing along the contour and by reducing run-off down the slope. This increases infiltration and reduces soil erosion, especially where a thick sward of grass or herbaceous legumes is included in the forage strip. Contour forage strips are particularly successful when perennial, thick rooted grasses are mixed with woody leguminous species. Because this strategy integrates forage production in cropping areas, potentially weedy species such as stoloniferous grasses should not be used for forage strip plantings.

Farmers perceive the principal benefits of forage strips to be the fuel and forage products rather than the conservation attributes. It is these benefits, which should be promoted as the incentives for adoption of forage strip strategies. They key problem with forage strips is the difficulty some farmers have in establishing them where livestock have free grazing access to fallow land or crop stubbles after harvest. This problem is best overcome by involving shepherds in forage strip establishment and promoting cut and carry feeding of animals tethered in the field. Thus contour forage strips are more easily promoted once backyard



forage and undersowing is established to provide alternative forage sources to stubble and fallow grazing. Animals can be kept away from planted forage strips during their establishment if conspicuous species such as vetch are included in the forage strip mix. In some areas, alley farming can be developed by using long-lived browse species as part of the species mix for contour forage strips. Alley farming requires careful location and marking of contour strips which should be wide enough apart to allow ploughing and harvesting operations to take place without disruption. Alley farming is best established with bare rooted seedlings.

Typical on-farm demonstrations of contour forage strips would include up to 1 hectare of forage strips at 4 to 10 metre horizontal intervals between strips. Strips are up to 1 metre wide and should be continuous along the contour to maximse their conservation function. Contours can be marked out using a simple A frame and pendulum device. Alternatively, water levels made of two staffs with a water-filled tube between them can be used. Where alley cropping is developed using woody legumes along contour forage banks, seedlings or seeds of woody species should be planted at 1 metre intervals along each contour strip. Large bare rooted seedlings are most successful because they have a quick visual impact and are more easily protected from grazing animals. The most reliable species include those listed in Table 4.3. Pioneer species such as Pigeon Pea, Phalaris, and Greenleaf Desmodium are particularly reliable understorey species when planted with Leucaena or Tree Lucerne. Stoloniferous species such as Rhodes Grass are not suited to contour forage strips because of their weed potential in crop areas.

Demonstrations need to focus on the production benefits of contour forage strips to overcome some farmers' fears that contour forage strips reduce their arable area and so decrease their income or food security. In fact, because of" shelter, soil conservation and nitrogen benefits, well-designed contour forage strips frequently increase the productivity of the area between strips in addition to the products from the strip itself. This is especially true of alley cropping systems where the third dimension provided by browse legumes increases the productivity of the farming system. Contour forage strips produce between 2,000 and 5,000 kg dry matter per hectare of planted strip, or between 340 and 850 kg dry matter per hectare assuming 6 metre intervals and one metre wide strips. In addition to this benefit, there are yields of wood for fuel and construction, shelter benefits, nitrogen fixation and bee products (honey and wax).



Forage Crop Production

Where farmers use a cropping rotation or have sufficient land, they can grow a short-term forage crop. Short-term forage crops can be reliably introduced over a wide range of sites but are most appropriate for farmers who rely on dairy production for their income. Annual leguminous species mixed with cereals provide the best quantity and quality of forage in highland areas but annual legume forages optimise forage production in middle altitude and lowland areas. Farmers in Ethiopia are shifting towards perennial forage production strategies because annual forage crops do not integrate livestock and cropping systems except where fallow is commonly used. In these areas fallow reduction strategies based on leguminous forage crops are appropriate. Oats and vetch have performed well over a wide range of AEZs, with oats showing good tolerance of relatively low fertility and poor drainage. Lablab is very productive at lower altitudes and competes well with weeds whereas alfalfa does not persist under rainfed condition in Ethiopia.

Table 4.3: Key Species for Contour Forage Strips

Altitude Browse Legumes Forage Legumes Grasses<2000m Leucaena

Sesbania Pigeon Pea

SiratroAxillarisSilverleafGreenleafVetchVerano Stylo

PanicumSetariaVetiveria

2000-2400m Tree Lucerne Sesbania Pigeon Pea

Greenleaf Axillaris White Clover Native Clovers Vetch Alfalfa

PhalarisSetaria

>2400m Tree Lucerne White Clover Native Clovers VetchMaku Lotus Alfalfa

Phalaris

Farmers accept oat/vetch and lablab strategies, especially where fattening or dairy enterprises are viable. However, as demand for subsistence food crops increases, forage strategies which can be integrated into cropping systems will be adopted in preference to annual forage crop strategies.

X l« m a y « h u ttengiatu, 2002 25

F o r a g e P r o d u g tio n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s fo r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

Table 4.4: Key Species for Forage Crop Production

Altitude Browse Legumes Forage Legumes Grasses<2000m Not Applicable Siratro

Greenleaf Silverleaf Vemano Stylo Lablab

Rhodes GrassPanicumSetaria

2000-2400m Not Applicable GreenleafSilverleafVetchWhite CloverAlfalfaLablab

PhalarisSetaria

>2400m Not Applicable White CloverAlfalfaVetch

PhalarisOatsCocksfoot

Agroforestry

Agroforestry is the combination of trees and agriculture in an integrated and sustainable farming system. Many of the forage production strategies can be developed as agroforestry systems. In particular contour forage banks and undersowing of tree crops or forest plantations can be designed as agroforestry systems where leguminous browse species provide an upper storey in a forage system or undersown legumes and grasses provide an under storey in a forestry or horticultural system. Agroforestry maximises the use of land by adding a third dimension to the above and below ground areas of utilisation. This aspect is particularly important for farmers with limited land resources. Because many agroforestry strategies include leguminous species, they are also attractive to farmers facing problems of declining soil productivity.

Experience in Ethiopia and elsewhere shows that the height and frequency of cutting agroforestry browse species has a significant impact on their productivity and forage value. For example, Leucaena produces more DM at longer cutting intervals (>3 months) and moderate cutting height (75 to 100 cm) than more severe defoliation. Table 4.5 shows that the leaf nitrogen from three year old trees was also increased with longer cutting intervals (Karim et al, 1991).


Fo r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e St u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

Table 4.5: Effect of Cutting Height and Interval on DM Yield of Leucaena

Cutting Height (cm)

DM Yield (g/tree) Cut Biomass N g/tree)I month 3 months Mean 1 month 3 months Mean

25 20 60 40 0.65 1.50 1.0850 22 71 46 0.70 1.80 1.2575 28 126 77 0.92 3.15 2.03100 50 96 69 1.42 2.38 1.90

Mean 30 88 59 0.92 2.21 1.56Source: Karim etal., 1991

Similarly, total DM yield of Sesbania increased with increased cutting interval with the highest yields recorded at 8 week cutting intervals. The 100 cm cutting height gave maximum yields from 12 month old Sesbania, as shown in Table 4.6 (Galang et al, 1990). Pigeon Pea also gives maximum yields with a cutting frequency of about 8 weeks - yielding up to 50 t DM/ha each year (Udedibie and Igwe, 1989). Table 4.7 shows that although DM yield was maximised with a longer cutting interval, crude protein (CP) was maximised and crude fiber (CF) minimised with shorter cutting frequencies.

Table 4.6: Effect of Cutting Height (cm) and Frequency (weeks) on the Total Productivity (t/dm/ha) and Leaf Content (%) of Sesbania sesban cv nubica

Cut Height -> 50cm | 100cm | 150cm 50cm | 100cm | 150cmCut Interval Total DM (t/ha/year) Leaf Content of DM (%)

4 weeks 2.4 3.3 3.3 87 88 916 weeks 3.2 4.2 4.2 69 70 778 weeks 4.1 4.9 4.4 54 60 65Mean 3.2 4.1 4.0 67 71 77

Source: Galang et al, 1990

Table 4.7: DM Yield and Chemical Composition of Pigeon Pea Leaf Meal Cut at Different Time Intervals

CuttingInterval

DMYield(t/ha)

Com position of DM (% )CP CF Ca P

4 wks 2.3 24.3 24.8 1.39 0.316 wks 2.4 21.9 26.1 1.24 0.228 wks 2.7 20.1 27.1 1.09 0.23

Source: Udedibie and Igwe, 1989


F o r a g e P r o d u c tio n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w ith Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

Oversowing Common Grazing Areas

Oversowing is the simplest of the forage development strategies and can be undertaken at very low cost depending on the seeding rates used. It involves broadcasting or sowing improved forage species into common grazing lands, native pastures and degraded areas without any cultivation or other inputs. Typically there is no attempt to modify grazing management but existing stocking rates should not be increased after oversowing. The strategy includes sowing roadsides from vehicles and is suited to aerial seeding where very large areas are to be developed. Aerial seeding is also another way of establishing improved extensive grazing areas using oversowing techniques. This strategy is most suited to pioneer legume species, which grow quickly and seed prolifically. Because of the low input nature of this strategy, incremental forage yields are not large but pioneer species with good grazing tolerance and natural seeding ability gradually colonise common areas and improve the overall species composition available for grazing. Natural spread of seed with water movement, grazing animals and wind action can be rapid, enabling very large areas of land to be developed so long as grazing management is possible to enable plants to become established and set seed.

Farmers are more likely to gain long term advantages from oversowing strategies if there is some of grazing management group or pastoral association, which manages common grazing areas. This could be associated with dairy user groups but requires the majority of farmers using common grazing land to recognise that there is an overgrazing or low productivity problem, which can be solved with oversowing. The provision of seed and technical support for oversowing strategies is a sufficient incentive to encourage farmers to organise grazing management groups or pastoral associations. Such organisations are only successful if the are initiated by farmers in response to their perceived needs. If suitable sites ar^ chosen and effective grazing management of common lands exists, oversowing of grazing areas is the most cost effective strategy for broad- scale forage production.

Because this strategy is implemented on common grazing land by the government, fanner acceptance is not an important issue for implementation if the work is carried out by government staff. It is, however, a major issue for management of oversown areas. For this reason grazing management groups or pastoral associations, which are a prerequisite for successful long term establishment of oeversown forage, should be closely involved in implementation as well as management of oversowing strategies. These associations can broadcast seed with hand cranked seed broadcasters. These inexpensive and simple implements are easy to use and very robust. They are equally suited to

Alemayehu Mengiscu, 2002 28


fertiliser spreading and so are an attractive implement for farmer groups and can act as an additional incentive for organisation of grazing and pastoral groups.

Village groups should aim to oversow up to 10 ha each year in low and medium altitudes and about 2 ha each year in the highlands. The most reliable species for oversowing have been the stylos, which have established and begun spreading on an extremely wide range of sites in Ethiopia. Wynn cassia and climbing/sprawling legumes such as greenleaf and Siratro have also shown promise. Experience in the sub-humid middle altitude areas of Ethiopia shows that even after a short time oversown Stylosanthes guianensis (cv Schofield) and Desmodium uncinatum can make up more than 15 per cent of pasture DM composition and yield more than 3 t DM/ha (Tadesse A., 1988).

Table 4.8: Key Species for Oversowing Grazing Areas


SesbaniaSiratro Axillaris Greenleaf Silverleaf Seca Stylo Verano Stylo Wynn Cassia

Rhodes Grass Panicum Setaria Buffel grass

2000-2400m Sesbania Siratro Axillaris Seca Stylo Verano Stylo Greenleaf Silverleaf White Clover Alfalfa

PhalarisSetaria

>2400m Tree Lucerne White Clover Alfalfa Maku Lotus

PhalarisCocksfoot

Stock Exclusion Areas/Forage Banks

Stock exclusion areas are an important means of protecting degraded areas, key watersheds, and common land. They also provide an opportunity to develop forage banks for use during droughts or periods of seasonal forage shortage. Stock exclusion areas are particularly important for the conservation of highlands but are only accepted by farmers where they see sufficient benefits to organise grazing management groups or pastoral associations to control stock exclusion areas and voluntarily keep stock out. The introduction of browse species, productive legumes and improved grasses can rapidly increase the

A la m a ya b u M « n g i » t u , 2002 29


productivity of exclusion areas. The strategy is suitable for aerial seeding techniques which enable very large areas of land to be sown to forages quickly.

Rehabilitation of degraded areas using forage species normally provides a good incentive for farmers and pastoralists to organise grazing management groups or pastoral associations. Because degraded land has low value as a common grazing resource farmers are usually willing to voluntarily exclude livestock from these areas. Rehabilitation of degraded areas with forage species provides an incentive for these initiatives, especially when farmers understand the benefits of forage development. Without farmer initiated grazing management groups or pastoral associations to control grazing, stock exclusion areas and forage banks are unsustainable. The extension effort therefore need to focus on the benefits of collaborative management of common lands and initially focus on degraded areas where benefits will be maximised and the likelihood of farmer resistance will be minimal.

Cultivation is not necessary to establish forage banks or rehabilitate stock exclusion areas, especially on very bare sites, but broadcast sowing should take place after commencement of the main rains to ensure that there is enough soil m oisture to sustain germ ination. D irect seeding with chisel tyned cultivators m ay be necessary in degraded areas with scalded or hardpan surfaces. Leguminous browse and tall grass species should always be included in stock exclusion areas to maximise the production potential and drought resistance of the species mix. Woody species can be planted by direct seeding but generally develop more successfully where they are planted as bare rooted seedlings early in the main rainy season. Annual cut and carry forage production from improved low and medium altitude sites in Ethiopia is in excess of 6000 kg per hectare (Robertson,1990). Other benefits include soil conservation, better recharge of shallow aquifers, and production of fuelwood and bee products where browse species are included in the stock exclusion area.



Table 4.9: Key Species for Stock Exclusion Areas


SesbaniaSiratro Axillaris Seca Stylo Verano Stylo Cook Stylo Wynn Cassia Greenleaf Silverleaf

Plicatulum Buffel Grass Setaria

2000 - 2400m Sesbania Tree Lucerne Leucaena

Siratro Axillaris Seca Stylo Verano Stylo Vetch Greenleaf Silverleaf White Clover

PhalarisSetaria

>2400m Tree Lucerne White Clover Alfalfa Maku Lotus

Phalaris

Forage banks should be established at the beginning of the wet season. Stylosanthes hamata cv Verano and S. guianensis cv Cook are particularly suitable for forage banks and should be established with 8 to 10 kg seed per hectare. Forage banks are left ungrazed during the growing season to provide a supply of high quality forage during the dry season. Once established, these species can support up to 5 TLU/ha for up to 4 hours per day during the dry season (Otsyina et al, 1987). Burning is not necessary for establishment but kraaling animals on the area to be established as a forage bank prior to sowing helps reduce weed competition and adds manure to the soil. Forage banks are particularly important for maintaining priority animals in the household herd - for example lactating animals and weaners. Browse legumes such as Leucaena and tree lucerne also act as good forage banks if they are left uncut during the growing season. Many farmers regard backyard browse plantings as forage banks and this is an appropriate use for backyard forage strategies, which should be promoted by extension agents.

Annual targets for stock exclusion areas of 2 to 10 hectares per village area are possible but much larger areas have been rehabilitated where strong village support has resulted in the formation of grazing management groups to voluntarily exclude livestock from areas to be developed. The improvement of stock exclusion areas is suited to cut and carry systems and is rapidly adopted by farmers where there is a history of fattening livestock for local markets. The


F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w ith Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

location of intensive fattening or dairying enterprises adjacent to stock exclusion areas facilitates the efficient use of cut forage and provides an additional incentive for farmers to collectively manage their common grazing resources. Once farmers have agreed to exclude livestock from an area, it should not be reopened for grazing. Forage produced from stoc1 exclusion areas should always be cut and carried to livestock to maintain the protected nature of the improved forage resource.

Permanent Pastures

Permanent pastures comprise a broad range of annual and perennial legumes and perennial grasses. Productive mixed pastures can be readily established, particularly in the low and medium altitudes with warmer growing conditions. Grazing management is a significant problem for sustainable pasture production in some regions, which is best overcome with cut and carry systems. Permanent pastures are most useful for dairy farmers who rely on optimal productivity of their livestock investment for their livelihood. Permanent dairy pastures should include a mix of legumes and grass species with high palatability and productivity.

Table 4.10: Key Species for Permanent Pastures

Altitude Browse Legumes Forage Legumes Grasses<2000m Not Applicable Siratro

Greenleaf Silverleaf Seca Stylo Verano Stylo

Rhodes GrassPanicumSetaria

2000 - 2400m Not Applicable Verano Stylo Greenleaf Silverleaf VetchWhite Clover

PhalarisSetaria

>2400m Not Applicable White CloverAlfalfaVetchMaku Lotus

PhalarisOatsCocksfoot

Roadside Sowing

Roadside sowing is a successful means of implementing the oversowing strategy. It is quick and effective and provides an impressive visual impact which can be used to excite farmer interest and provide an incentive for the formation of grazing management groups or pastoral associations. This strategy can be highly



cost-effective, particularly when using species with the ability to spread under grazing. Sowing a broad grid of suitable roads provides a convenient mechanism for introducing improved forage species to a large area since the rate of spread from a very long narrow transects is high. 10 km of roadside sowing equates to about one hectare of oversown grazing land. Seeding rates are typically 0.5 to 1.0 kg per kilometer of roadside. Mixed seed should be emptied from sacks or buckets from the back of a reasonably fast moving vehicle. In this way the vortex currents carry seed onto the roadside verge. Roadside sowing is most suitable for quickly establishing and prolific seeding species, which tolerate grazing. The stylos are the most successful species used in roadside sowing in Ethiopia.

Aerial Sowing

Aerial sowing enables very large areas to be oversown with improved forage seeds. The success of establishment depends largely on the selection of suitable sites. The most suitable sites have rough often gravelly surfaces. Sites with compacted or hardpan surfaces do not enable good establishment of aerial sown or broadcast seed. Stylosanthes are particularly successful for aerial oversowing - being extremely resilient to grazing and a successful pioneer species

Aerial sowing is particularly suited to the rehabilitation of large catchments, which include relatively inaccessible areas. Where grazing is restricted or there are protected niches because of thorn bushes or rocks, leguminous browse species should also be included in aerial sowing mixes. Leucaena is especially appropriate for this purpose. Seed is best dispersed from fixed wing aircraft, which travel at sufficient speed to create air currents for seed dispersal. If helicopters are used, spinners are normally required for efficient seed distribution. Flag bearers on the ground or the use of prominent landmarks are necessary to plan and manage aerial seeding operations.

In some other countries, including Australia and New Zealand, aerial seeding has been used successfully to oversow pastures on millions of hectares of uplands and range areas. Temperate, sub-tropical and tropical species, especially herbaceous legumes, have been successfully established with aerial sowing. Aerial sowing enables small quantities of seed to be uniformly and efficiently spread very quickly and economically. The low seeding rates necessary for this type of sowing are a major advantage for those species with the capacity to rapidly increase density and spread. These include the stylos, the desmodiums, some trifoliums, and Wynn cassia. Experience in Ethiopia shows that even on the most degraded sites, Verano stylo will establish and seed within three months of aerial sowing. Successful sowing was undertaken shortly after commencement of the main rains.

A la m a ye h u M e n g is t u , 2002 33


Summary

Table 4.11 illustrates the perceived significance of the various forage strategies in Ethiopia (FLDP, 1989). The potential economic impact, with a score of five representing the maximum impact, is assessed on the basis of increasing forage production and benefits in terms of fuelwood supply, erosion control and contribution to the maintenance of soil structure and fertility. The technical possibilities are assessed for low to medium altitudes and highlands, with an indication of acceptance of the strategy amongst farmers in Ethiopia. Major research needs to support further development of the strategies are listed. Fig. 4.1 gives a forage activity calendar for Ethiopia.

Table 4.11 Summary of Forage Production Strategies

Strategy PotentialEconomic

Impact

Technical Possibilities FarmerAdoption

ResearchNeeds>2400m <2400m

Backyard 3 Good Good Good LabourUndersowing 2-4 Good Moderate Moderate TimingForage Strips 5 Good Good Variable ManagementForage Crops <1 Good Good ModerateAgroforestry 4 Good Moderate Moderate EstablishmentOversowing 1 Moderate Poor Good SpeciesForage Banks 4 Good Moderate Good SpeciesPastures <1 Good Good PoorRoadside 1 Moderate Moderate GoodAerial 1 Moderate Moderate Good Seed Rate

Table 4.12 summarises further observations on the success of the various strategies and their limiting factors.


Table 4.12 Key Observations on Forage Strategies

Strategy General Comments Limiting FactorsBackyard

ForageWidespread adoption; useful point of

entry for new species.Many areas too small to have

impact on production.Undersowing Widespread adoption with annuals;

shifting towards being self- sustaining; some species now locally traded, and consumed as human food.

Continued government support slowing shift towards self

sustainability.

Oversowing Success dependent on site selection; some excellent persistence/spread over ten years; better results below

2,400mAerial seeding of 1988/99 successful on suitable sites, including for tree

legume establishment.

Availability of perennial legume seed at very low cost. Suitable delivery systems for

large inaccessible sites

Stock Exclusion Areas

Very successful for control of degradation and fodder production; excellent performance of introduced

legumes in many sites; need to reinforce all with legumes; need to allow regular cutting from outset.

Availability of perennial legume seed at low cost;

appropriate policy on utilisation; local adoption of cut

and carry management.

Intercropping Some success with Desmodium under coffee and citrus, insufficient

emphasis to date; need to concentrate on areas with livestock.

Some of the most suitable species not yet available in the

field.

Hedgerows of Leguminous

Trees

Some excellent results with Leucaena, Sesbania, tree lucerne; but

scale often too small. Need to expand to include crop areas, and to

link to intensive utilisation for fattening and dairying. Utilisation

good in only some systems, but improving in most areas.

Inadequate awareness of benefits, inadequate stock control in most farming

systems; most Leucaena not inoculated.

Contour Forage Strips

Most destroyed with collapse of Producer Cooperatives; beginning to

regain momentum in some areas; potentially very important and needs to be stressed; needs to be linked to

intensive livestock enterprises.

Local availability of suitable grasses and companion

legumes.

Source: Alemayehu M., 1989


Fo rage Pr oduction in Ethiopia: a C ase Stu d y w ith Im plications for L ivesto ck Pr oduction

ActivityExpected Rainfall

Monomodal

Bi modal

Extension

Identification of new fanners

Initial extension for new farmers

Extension for existing farmers

Farmers field days

Seedlings

Establishment in nurseries

Ranting out

Strategies

Undersowing, beig season

Undersowing, main rains

Oversowing grazing areas

Sowing in exclusion areas

Mixed pasture establishment

Backyard forage establishment

Forage strip establishment

Seed Program

Harvesting most legume seed

Harvesting most grass seed

Seed cleaning, treatment

Seed packaging, labelling

Distribution to extension teams

Jan I Feb I Mar I Apr I May I Jun I

Fig. 4.1 Forage Activity Calendar for EthiopiaSource: Alemayehu M., 1989

Alwoayahu Mangiatu, 2002

F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s fo r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c t io n

V. FORAGE SPECIES

Principles for Selection and Testing

The key principles for selecting improved forage species and their cultivars focus on their ability to persist under normal management conditions and produce large quantities of high quality forage. This means that the species should tolerate grazing, and be able to flower and set seed under normal grazing conditions. Suitable species will be drought tolerant in order to maximise production in an environment characterised by a dry season. A mixture of species should be selected for each AEZ to ensure biodiversity, and thus minimise the risks from pests and climatic extremes. Species with different plant forms and modes of reproduction should also be selected for each AEZ to maximise the opportunities for integrating improved forages into different farming systems and ecological niches. For example, tall growing species such as Seca stylo are suitable for cut and carry systems associated with strategies for oversowing natural grasslands. Similarly, sprawling vigorous legumes such as Siratro and Greenleaf desmodium are suitable for undersowing and intercropping. Maku Lotus and Halifa white clover are suitable for wet bottomlands in highland areas and so on. Browse and other multipurpose leguminous tree species should be introduced into every AEZ. Seed bearing species (such as stylo and tree lucerne) should be mixed with vegetatively reproducing species (such as Rhodes grass or hybrid Phalaris) to optimise ecological stability of introduced forage mixes.

When assessing growth rates and productivity, it is important to understand the life cycle and growth habits of each species and cultivar. Stylos, for example, are slow to become established but after two or three years are highly productive. Similarly, tree lucerne and Leucaena often require more than 12 months to become established but are highly productive after this time. Because the ultimate objective of forage production is to increase the quality of livestock forage as well as the quantity, qualitative aspects of forages should also be considered during selection and assessment of new forages. Palatability, digestibility and nutrient balance should be measured. The occurrence of toxic substances - for example indospicine in lndigoferci spicata or mimosine in Leucaena - should also be considered. Much of this information is readily available so that the initial screening should be restricted to species with a reasonable probability of being useful in each AEZ.

Because there is a considerable body of knowledge appropriate to forage production and development in Ethiopia, it is economically and technically more efficient to implement a wide range of strategies at farmer level without prior adaptive research. Not only is there sufficient knowledge to proceed with some



confidence, but many of the problems which would affect adoption of the strategies are related to socio-economic and institutional factors which are unlikely to be resolved by adaptive research. The cost of seed is small compared to the cost of extensive research and the economic cost of delayed implementation of forage development programs. In addition, the accumulation of local knowledge of the various strategies is much more rapid through observation by farmers (the ultimate users of the program) and technicians over a wide range of development sites. Finally, this farmer-centered approach is more flexible and thus better able to make rapid modifications in response to changing market, socio-economic and environmental conditions. The farmer centered approach to development and implementation of forage production strategies also provides better "hands-on" training for technicians, extension agents and farmers.

Some forage species, especially some grasses, may become rampant under favourable conditions and should either be restricted in their use or excluded from forage production strategies. For example stoloniferous grasses such as Rhodes grass are highly suitable for pastures or stock exclusion areas but should not be used for undersowing or on contour forage strips because of their potential to become serious weeds.

Species with Proven Capability

Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 detail improved forage and browse species, which have been successfully used under FLDP. Many of them have also been used successfully in other parts of Africa and on other continents. Detailed information on the characteristics and requirements of these species is in Annex 1.


Table 5.1 Forage Legumes for Ethiopia

Species Common Altitude Minimum Frost Drought Water-loggingName Rainfall Tolerance Tolerance Tolerance

Macroptilium atropurpureum Siratro <2000 m 500 mm Low Low LowMacrotyloma axillare Axillaris <2400 m 500 mm Low Low LowDesmodium uncinatum Silverleaf <2400 m 800 mm Low Low LowDesmodium intortum Greenleaf <2400 m 700 mm Low Low LowSytlosanthes hamata Verano <2400 m 500 mm Moderate Moderate ModerateStylosanthes scabra Seca <2400 m 500 mm Moderate Moderate ModerateStylosanthes guianensis Cook <2400 m 600 mm Moderate Low LowLablab purpureus Lablab <2400 m 400 mm High Low LowCassia rotundifolia Wynn Cassia <2400 m 400 mm High Moderate ModerateVigna unguiculata Cow Pea <2400 m 350 mm High Moderate ModerateVicia dasycarpa Common Vetch >2000 m 400 mm High Moderate ModerateMedicago sativa Alfala/Luceme >2000 m 350 mm High Moderate ModerateTrifolium species aJ Native Clovers >2000 m 500 mm Moderate High HighTrifolium repens White Clover >2000 m 500 mm Low High HighLotus pedunculatus Maku Lotus >2400 m 600 mm Low High High

a/ Includes Trifolium decorum, T. burchellianum, T. quartinianum, T. semipilosum and T. tembense

39

Table 5.2: Tree and Shrub Legumes for Browse in Ethiopia

Species Common Name AltitudeMinimumRainfall

FrostTolerance

DroughtTolerance

Water-loggingTolerance

Leucaena leucocephala Leucaena <2000 m 400 mm Low Moderate LowSesbania sesban Sesbania <2400 m 600 mm Low Low LowCajanus cajan Pigeon Pea <2400 m 250 mm Low High LowChamaecytisus palmensis Tree Lucerne <2000 m 350 mm Moderate High Low

Table 5.3: Forage Grasses for Ethiopia

Species Common Name AltitudeMinimumRainfall

FrostTolerance

DroughtTolerance

Water-loggingTolerance

Cenchrus ciliaris Panicum maximum Setaria sphacelata Chloris gayana Pennisetum purpureum Paspalum plicatulum Phalaris aquatica Dactylis glomerata

Buffel Grass Guinea Grass/Panic Setaria Rhodes Grass Elephant Grass Plicatulum Phalaris Cocksfoot

<2000 m <2000 m <2000 m <2400 m <2400 m <2400 m <2400 m <2400 m

250 mm 600 mm 800 mm 500 mm 800 mm 700 mm 400 mm 500 mm

Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Low High

.. High

HighMediumMediumMedium

HighMedium

HighMedium

LowMedium

HighMedium

LowHighHighLow

40


VI. IMPROVED FORAGE UTILISATION STRATEGIES

Improved forage can be used to maintain more animals, to provide increased quantities of better quality forage to the same number of animals, or to strategically feed selected groups of animals. If increased forage production is used to maintain more animals the incremental production is relatively small and will depend on the additional number of animals. For example, a 25 per cent increase in forage increases production by 25 per cent if the number of animals is also increased by 25 per cent. If the number of animals is not increased, this same amount of extra feed more than doubles production. This is illustrated in Fig. 6.1. Strategic feeding to selected groups of animals is better still. Strategic feeding means controlling what animals eat so that high quality forage is used where it will generate most production. In Ethiopia livestock fattening and dairy production and the most productive strategic feeding strategies.

125 12585%

106100 85% 85

Feed Used for Maintenance85

TraditionalPractice

- With Forage Development -

MaintainMoreAnimals

Feed More to Same Number

Fig. 6.1 Impact of Different Forage Utilization StrategiesSource: AACM, 1989



Livestock Fattening

Livestock fattening is one of the best ways for farmers to quickly realise returns on improved forage production investments. It is a strategy, which significantly increases household incomes and provides a quick and tangible incentive for further adoption of improved forage production strategies. The other attraction of livestock fattening strategies is that they generate income without using significant amounts of arable cropland. The amount of land used to enclose animals at night is small and most of the forage production strategies do not compete with crop production. Livestock fattening programs must include improved forage production strategies as a precondition if they are to be sustainable and successful.

It is necessary to estimate how much forage is available before deciding how many animals to fatten. Visual estimation skills can be developed by cutting and weighing samples and careful observation of animals performance at different feeding rates. Initially, a conservative approach should be adopted since it is better to successfully fatten a small number of animals than to run short of feed and fatten none at all. Fattening programs are most efficient if they are planned to coincide with the period of maximum forage growth. If market conditions or other factors make it more attractive to fatten animals at other times of the year, improved forage should be conserved as forage or browse hay. Fattening programs should not begin until forage and browse supplies sufficient to complete a fattening cycle are assured - normally after the second year of the forage program.

Fattening programs should only use cut and carry feeding strategies and should provide as much forage as animals can eat for 24 hours per day. Underfeeding is the main cause of failure in fattening programs. This can be overcome by ensuring that animals have feed available at all times, including through the night. If there is no feed left in the morning, animals should be given more on the following evening. Fattening programs are more efficient and require less labour if the animals are fed close to the source of forage. Carrying feed long distances from the field to the village is very labour intensive and usually results in underfeeding. It is much better to tether animals near the source of forage and give then cut forage in the field. This practice also helps return nutrients to the field. Forage only needs to be brought back to the village for night feeding. As a general rule, if animals are tethered or kraaled where forage is being cut, one person can feed 7 to 10 oxen (up to 80 sheep or goats) during the day and cut enough forage to bring back on donkeys for night feeding.



Animals should be fattened for a fattening cycle of between 90 and 120 days. In most parts of Ethiopia the period of assured feed surplus is only adequate for a single fattening cycle. Fattening programs should start towards the end of the main wet season - in September or early October - to coincide with the time of maximum forage growth and the availability of crop residues. There are a number of activities, which precede the commencement of fattening, and these are outlined in Fig. 6.2, which shows a fattening activity calendar for Ethiopia. A late start can mean that forage will run out or decline in quality. In Ethiopia a late start can also mean than animals do not reach peak condition for the Christmas market.

c t iv l t y p e c t e d R a i n fa l l

M onom oda l

B im oda l

a t t e n i n g P r o g r a m

uy L iv estock

eed ing Period

el l L iv es tock

x t e n s i o n P r o g r a m

ent if y /Se lec t New Fatteners

aining

perv is ion

alys is of Resu lt s

urs and W orkshops

r e d i t P r o g r a m

repare/Subm it App li ca t ions

pra ise App li ca t ions

an D isbu rsem ent

an R epaym en t

nual Rev iew

Fig. 6.2 Fattening Activity CalendarSource: Alemayehu M., 1989

Animals being fattened should be fed as much leguminous forage as is available and then be topped up with other feed. This ensures that the protein content and digestibility of the ration will not constrain growth. Feeding too much protein rich legume forage is less risky than feeding insufficient protein. No supplements or by-products should be mixed with the ration unless they are cheaply and locally available. As a general rule, a dry matter mix of one part leguminous forage mixed with two parts crop residue or unimproved hay will be a balanced fattening ration for ruminants. Cattle should receive about 10 kg of this DM per day and sheep or goats about 1 kg.

It is important that animals being fattened have the opportunity to drink as much fresh water as they want at least once each day. Inadequate or dirty water



will reduce feed intake and affect the performance of animals. As a general rule, cattle require about 10-14 litres of fresh water each day and sheep or goats require about 4-7 litres of fresh water each day. The exact amount will vary with animal liveweight, climate, type of forage and other factors.

Animals in the fattening program should receive adequate disease and internal parasite protection. Unhealthy or unproductive animals will not give a good return to the scarce quality forage resources. Animals should be vaccinated against the major endemic diseases (for example Rinderpest, Foot and Mouth Disease, and Contagious Bovin Pleuro-Pneumonia). Animals should be drenched with a broad spectrum anthelmintic at the beginning of the fattening cycle. This is especially important for sheep fattening. Animals which are performing poorly after 30 days should be culled and sold - even if this incurs a loss, since this is better than wasting good forage on unhealthy or unproductive animals which are not growing.

Selecting animals for fattening will depend on the availability of stock and the potential markets for finished stock. Breeds with good growth characteristics should be selected. Most lowland cattle of the Boran type are suitable. Animals should have a large skeletal frame, which is capable of producing a heavy carcass. Stock should be docile and easy to handle and should not be too old - their teeth should be sound. Steers are preferable to bulls because they grow faster and are more docile. The most profitable animals to purchase for fattening are those, which are lean with a faintly visible backbone and ribs, visible hip bones, and a slightly recessed tail head. Thinner animals normally take too long to recover and fatter animals usually have a higher price per kilo, which limits the potential for increased values. If possible, determine why animals are lean. Animals from an area where feed is short or which have just finished the ploughing season are likely to gain weight rapidly.

Individual households generally only have enough forage to fatten one ox. If there is not enough forage for this, or if the household considers the risk too great, 2 to 5 sheep or goats should be considered. Groups of households may decide to pool their forage resources to fatten a group of animals. This makes more efficient use of labour but requires careful attention to animal health at the beginning of the fattening cycle to avoid transmission of diseases or internal parasites amongst the fattening group.

It is important that accurate records be kept of each fattening cycle to determine whether each cycle is profitable and to provide information for planning subsequent cycles. Records should be kept by farmers using selfmonitoring techniques, and extension agents. Local units of forage weight or volume should be used. Animal performance is best measured with girth tapes used to estimate weight gain and growth. Visual appraisal and hand testing along the back and rear of the animals will also give a subjective appraisal of animal performance.



Credit can be used to help farmers without cash resources to purchase animals for fattening. Fattening loans should only be used where needed and should not be forced on reluctant borrowers. Loan applications and approvals should be processed in time to allow purchase of animals for fattening before the end of the main wet season. The loans repayment period should be over one year. This will avoid the need to reschedule if there are poor results in one year, and will help maintain a positive cash flow throughout. Insurance of animals should be a compulsory part of any fattening loan. Loans should not be made available for construction of animal housing. This will help discourage over-investment in unnecessary facilities and encourage the use of local building materials. For forage-based fattening loans, money should not be made available for purchased feedstuffs or concentrates. Rations should be 100 per cent forage except where by-products are cheaply and locally available as and alternative to crop residues.

Dairy Production

Dairy products are an important source of human food and income for many rural communities in Ethiopia. Where sedentary communities raise dairy animals there are significant opportunities to increase production by increasing the quantity and quality of forage available to lactating animals. Wherever possible, breeding cycles should be timed to ensure that lactations begin at the time of maximum forage availability - near the end of the main wet season. Improved dairy breeding and artificial insemination programs should be conditionally tied to improved forage production strategies. This is the best way to ensure sustainable production from these investments as well as to maximise the benefits from them. Most of the principals outlined for fattening programs also apply to dairy production programs.

Nutrition is a more significant constraint to sustaining milk production in Ethiopia than is the genetic potential of dairy animals. Natural pasture would rarely support milk yields of more than 3 to 4 kg per cow per day but improved forages, such as those outlined in the strategies in Chapter IV, can sustain yields of up to 8 or 10 kg under good feeding and management conditions (Walshe et al,1991). Because milk is a high energy, high protein product lactating animals benefit from the addition of by-products or concentrates in their ration. Suitable by-products or concentrates should have high digestibility, high energy (carbohydrate) and proteins levels and low fiber content. Most high protein (for example soybean or fish meal) and high energy (for example maize or barley) concentrates are expensive, especially where dairy producers compete for them with poultry producers. Low protein (for example noug or cottonseed cake) and low energy (for example oats or bran) concentrates are suitable for dairy animals and are more cost effective than the pensive concentrates. Note that leaf hay (dried leaves) from browse species such as Leucaena, pigeon pea, Sesbania and



tree lucerne have high energy and high protein levels and are suitable concentrates for dairy animals if there is sufficient available to mix with other feeds. A backyard browse plot or hedge will normally produce enough leaf hay for one dairy cow and thus has a significant impact on household dairy production.

A large amount of feed is required to maintain dairy animals, but the share of total feed needed for maintenance declines as the milk yield increases. For example, a cow producing 500 kg of milk pear year needs about 2.5 feed units per kg of milk, while the requirement drops to about 0.5 feed units per kg for a cow producing 5,000 kg per year (Walshe et al, 1991). This emphasises the importance of improved quantity and quality of forage for efficient dairy prediction. Because dairy animals typically have a lactation period of more than the 90 to 120 days required for fattening cycle, forage needs to be conserved to provide high quality rations throughout the lactation period and the dry season when forage is scarce.

Forage Conservation

Forage conservation helps to bridge the quantity gap between livestock feed requirements and the production of forage. If good quality forage is conserved, the nutritional gap between high quality (wet season) and low quality (dry season) forage may also be bridged. Hay produced from natural grasses, improved forage legumes and browse legumes is the most appropriate conserved forage for small-scale fattening or dairy production in Ethiopia. Forage conservation is especially important for dairy production because it ensures a supply of balanced nutrients for dairy animals throughout their lactation.

A mixture of grass and legume forage should be harvested for quality hay. The legumes increase the digestibility and intake of the conserved forage. If mixed grass-legume forage is not available for hay making dried legume forage can be mixed with grass hay in a dry matter ratio of about 1:2 to provide a balanced ration for ruminants. For high quality hay, forage should be cut just before grasses flower. This will produce good yields of hay with high digestibility and protein content. Although cutting hay after plants have flowered produces more hay, it is of lower quality than earlier cut hay. Quality hay is typically cut 4 to 6 weeks after the pasture or forage crop has been closed to grazing.

Quality hay is cut before flowering of the grasses and ideally between rainy periods. Cut hay should be dried as quickly as possible and should be turned regularly during drying to keep the hay mould free. Once the hay is dry, it should be stacked using the "heap-up" methods. Haystacks should be constructed so that they are tall and thin - with the smallest possible surface area at the top to



increase their resistance to rain. Flat topped and broad haystacks are not weatherproof - the hay will be damaged by rain.

When conserving crop residues such as straw, layers of leguminous forage or browse hay should be sandwiched between the layers of crop residue. This increases the feeding value of the crop residues and provides a balanced livestock diet. Alternatively, separate haystacks can be made from crop residues and forage and browse legumes.


---------------------------------

P r o d u c t io n in E t h k ?p ia : a C a s e St u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s t o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n



VII. FORAGE SEED PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION

The production of forage and browse to overcome dry season livestock feed shortages is dependent on the availability of reliable supplies of quality seed at the time of planting. Forage development programs need to include local seed production to ensure their long-term sustainability and economic viability. Because of the wide range of agro-ecological zones and farming systems in Ethiopia, many species are required, but local production of seed for the key species can be initiated very early in the forage program. The principal objective of a local seed program should be to meet the forage and browse seed needs of a forage development program.

Importation of Initial Seed

The first years o f an improved forage production program will normally need to be established with imported seed. The cost of seed is small compared to the benefits of rapid and widespread implementation of improved forage production. Small quantities of a very wide range of species and cultivars should be imported along with larger quantities of proven species or cultivars to initiate forage programs. Regional trials should be conducted with untried species and cultivars to assess their suitability for wider use. Wherever possible these trials should be conducted in farmers' fields but careful planning and supervision of the trials is important to protect them from grazing and to ensure than small quantities of seed are effectively used.

International competitive bidding tenders normally result in the best value for money from imported seed. Australia is the largest producer of tropical forage seeds and has a well-organised and competitive seed exporting industry. Tenders should be called in time to receive and distribute seed before the sowing season and should also recognise seasonal aspects of supply and delivery times. Most seed can be airfreighted at reasonable cost but major shipments would normally be seafreighted. D elivery schedu les norm ally require 3 to 6 months. Tenders should be prepared and called for international competitive bidding at least 7 months before the sowing season. This allows 1 month for bidding, 1 month for award of the tender and contract finalisation, 3 months for delivery of seed, and 1 month for distribution of farmers. This tight schedule assumes that there will be no delays and that the forage program coordinator has good control of tender award and contract approval, customs clearance, and distribution activities. If delays are anticipated, additional time should be allowed.

Imported seed should be certified true to type and of minimum purity, and be tested for germination prior to shipment. Table 7.1 gives some germination and purity standards for a range of species. Imported seed should be supplied in



sealed, weatherproof sacks or small cloth bags with printed labels on each sack or bag identifying the species, cultivar, source, date of harvest, and recommended storage conditions. Seed treatments are not normally required for forage seed but inoculants and gum adhesives should be included for leguminous species, which are not naturalised in the forage program area. Inoculant requirements are listed in Annex 3.

Importation of forage and browse seed should not be necessary after the start-up phase of a forage program - typically three years, self-sufficiency in major forage species and cultivars requires a planned seed production program which is farmer based and market oriented. The basic objective of a successful forage seed production program should be low cost seed production by farmers based on contracts, which do not compete with subsistence food production. This approach has proved successful in Ethiopia where forage seed production is now treated as a cash crop by small farmers.

Contract Seed Production

The most successful method of producing forage and browse seeds in Ethiopia has been to contract farmers to grow or collect seed. Contract seed production involves establishing a contractual agreement between a farmer and the seed purchaser - usually the Ministry of Agriculture, but sometimes a seed trader. The seed contract is a legally binding agreement between the purchaser (a project or Ministry or trader) and the farmer or a group of farmers. Both the purchaser and the producer must make certain commitments under the seed contract.

The Purchaser Must:• Provide seed for initial sowing.• Provide close supervision and technical backup

for the seed plots.• Purchase the seed for cash at an agreed price for

certain quality at a specified time.

Contract prices are based on estimated yield, production costs, the market for seed (or program requirements), and the cost of imported seed. Local seed prices will normally be significantly less than imported seed prices because they exclude shipping or airfreight costs. As an example, contract seed prices paid to Ethiopian farmers for seed produced in 1990/91 were typically one third to one half of the import price. Contracts must be arranged well before the crop is grown and should detail: which species and cultivar is to be grown; who will supply the parent seed and when it will be delivered; technical supervision during planting,

The Producer Must:• Produce seed to an agreed quality.• Sow, manage and harvest the crop.• Clean the seed after harvest and

deliver it at a specified time.



growing and harvesting; minimum quality standards for produced seed; and the price paid for a given quantity and quality of seed.

Before contracting seed growers, the contracting agency (buyer) should conduct group meetings with farmers to ensure that they fully understand the technical and contractual aspects of seed production. Although it is desirable to spread the program over a wide range of geographical locations and agro- ecological zones, it is important to cluster production sites to facilitate supervision and seed collection. The area of land needed to produce the quantities of pasture seed required for most forage development schemes is very small compared to the total cropping land available. Thus pasture seed production will not compete with food production. Apart from contract seed production, farmers can also opportunistically collect seed from browse species and other species growing in stock exclusion areas, forage strips, and undersowing sites. Opportunistic seed collection can also be contracted.

Site Selection: The most suitable regions for forage and browse seed production have: an adequate growing season to support good seed set and maturation; freedom from frost; even, sunny conditions during flowering to promote flower opening, pollination and high rates of photosynthesis during seed differentiation; access to labour for harvesting and seed cleaning; and access to markets and seed storage infrastructure. Weed free areas or areas that have a history of reasonably clean cropping are preferable to weedy areas to minimise the problems of weed competition in the seed crop.

Seedbed Preparation: Seed crops need to be established in a clean, fine and firm seedbed with sufficient seed to ensure a strong, dense plant population, which will compete with weeds and maximise yields. Ethiopian experience suggests that the maximum size of a seed crop for small farmers is about 0.25 ha (FLDP, 1991). Legumes seeds need to be treated to soften hard seeds, which will not germinate without treatment. Browse legumes and forage legumes with less than 500,000 seeds per kg should be treated. The simplest say is to boil water in a tin, remove the tin of boiling water from the fire, and immerse a cloth bag containing the seed in the hot water for about 10 minutes. The treated seed should then be rapidly cooled by spreading it out in a thin layer. Stylos are sensitive to heat so they should only be immersed for 3 minutes. Where hot water treatment of seed is impractical, scarification is suitable alternative. The simplest way to scarify or scratch the seed coat is to combine some seeds with sand or gravel and thoroughly mix them together so that the gravel or sand scratches the seed. This will normally take at least 15 minutes.

Sowing: When using cultivars or species new to an area, legume seed should be inoculated with appropriate rhizobia (see Annex 3) to ensure that they fix nitrogen. Seed should be sown as soon as possible after the beginning of the main rainy season. This reduces the risks of crop failure. Small forage seeds (more than 20,000 seeds/kg) are broadcast onto the seedbed and raked in. Larger



seeds are either sown in rows or buried, with a light cultivation, no more than 3 cm deep after broadcasting. Sowing in rows reduces the quantity of seed required and makes weed management and harvesting simpler. Row spacings should be 50 cm for small seeded forage legumes, vetch, stylos, desmodiums, and grasses.1 m row spacing should be used for siratro, axillaris, and cowpea. Browse legumes being grown for seed should be planted in rows 3 m apart. Sprawling legumes such as axillaris, desmodiums, and siratro produce much higher seed yields if seed crops are grown on trellises, browse trees, or along fencelines. Seed crop sowing rates are suggested in Table 7.1. Some plants reproduce without seed - from sets or cuttings. Several grasses are more effectively reproduced this way - for example hybrid Phalaris and these may be grown by farmers and sold on a contract basis of so much per rooted cutting or set.

Management: The overall aim of seed crop management is to consistently succeed in producing a seed crop with not only a high yield of quality seed, but also a crop, which allows efficient seed harvesting. This essentially means having a crop of uniform age and is best achieved by: establishing an adequate, uniform plant population; developing a dense cover to exclude weeds, encouraging flowering at the same time; and ensuring that flowers produce mature seeds. Regular crop inspections are important to control weed and pest populations. Weeds should be hoed or pulled by hand. Weeds not only compete with the seed crop but they also increase the risks of contaminating forage seed with weed seed - something which increases the work required for effective seed cleaning. Advice on pest management should be sought from local Plant Protection Specialists or Extension Advisers.

Seed Harvesting, Cleaning and Storage

Harvesting: Most tropical legumes flower and set seed over a longperiod and frequently shed seed quickly. This makes it very difficult to judge when to harvest seed. Techniques used to judge ripeness include testing for ease of seed removal; seed hardness; and field colour. When most seed can be easily removed by gentle rubbing or shaking, then seed is normally close to shedding and should be harvested. If seed rubbed in the palm of the hand is hard and dry then it is mature and ready to harvest. Grass seed should be bitten to ensure that it is full. The seed or pods of some species, for example Siratro, Rhodes Grass, tree lucerne and Leucaena, change colour as they ripen. The optimum harvest time usually occurs before maximum flower density occurs. Hand harvesting of tropical pasture seed, particularly if labour is experienced and well supervised, can lead to high yields of good quality seed. Hand harvested yields are generally higher than yields from mechanical harvesting. As an alternative to hand picking, mature seed of both grasses and legumes can be removed from the plant by shaking it into a basket or bag. Hand picking and shaking two or three times per


F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p lic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

week will maximise seed yields and farmer income. Small seeds can be collected from threshing areas by sweeping. This technique is particularly suitable for stylos, Wynn Cassia, and Axillaris.

Table 7.1: Seed Production Characteristics for Selected Species

Species Min % Germination

Purity%

Seeds /kg ‘000

Sowing a/ Rate kg/ha

Seed Yield kg/ha

Forage LegumesAlfalfa 60 95 400 15 200-600Axillaris 60 95 120 3-5 150-500Wynn Cassia 60 90 250 2-4 150-500White Clover 60 90 1,500 2-3 100-400Cow Pea 75 98 10 10-20 500-800Greenleaf 60 90 750 3-4 100-400Silverleaf 60 90 210 4-5 100-400Siratro 60 95 75 3-5 200-950Seca Stylo 40 90 425 5-10 200-750Verano Stylo 40 90 400 5 150-750Cook Stylo 40 90 300 5 300Maku Lotus 60 90 2,200 1 100-400Vetch 75 98 14 15-20 700-2,500

Browse LegumesLeucaena 60 98 24 4 5-10 a/Pigeon Pea 60 98 20 5 1-5 a/Sesbania 60 95 100 3-4 5-10 a/Tree Lucerne 60 98 60 3-4 5-10 a/

a/ for seed crops b/ Seed yield range per tree Source: FLDP, 1991 and O’Reilly, 1987

Further observations on seed production are summarised in Table 7.2.



Table 7.2: Observations on Forage Seed Production on Government Farms and Smallholder Contract Schemes

Key Indicator Government Farms Smallholder ContractYield per area Variable HighCost per unit of seed High LowPredictability of annual Low Very highproductionRelaibility of supply Variable Very high once

establishedCapital investment required Variable - high NegligibleOrganisation required Continually high Initially highSuitable species groups Grasses All annual and

perennial legumesRequirements for success Continual funding, Technical supervision,

supervision, organisation of reliable market, timelylabour purchase

Source: Alemayehu M., 1989

Cleaning and Drying: Legume seed should be dried as soon as possible after harvest to achieve a seed moisture content of 8 to 10 per cent. This ensures good seed viability. Seed can be sun dried without damage to the seed. Grass seeds should be heaped immediately harvest so that they will "sweat" to assist final maturation of the seed. Grass seed is more sensitive than legume seed and should be dried slowly to maintain its viability. Sun drying is not recommended because of this but grass seed can be dried in the shade. All drying seed should be turned regularly - at least once per day - to ensure efficient drying. Dried seed is then threshed using animals, a mortar and pestle, or beating with sticks or flails. Regular inspection of the seed is essential to avoid damage to the seed. Threshed seed is then cleaned to remove seeds of contaminant species, soil, chaff and poor seeds. Winnowing and sieving are the normal means of cleaning seed. Most farmers in Ethiopia are skilled at manual seed cleaning of both coarse a fine seed, for example maize and teff.

Storage and Labeling: Once cleaned, harvested seed must be stored in a cool, dry place. The length of life of a seed in storage depends on the environment in the seed store. For storage beyond 5 years seed should be kept at temperatures below 15°C with relative humidity below 4 per cent. An indication of seed store suitability can be calculated by adding the average temperature (°C) and the average relative humidity (%) from the store. This is the storage index. For example, a seed store with an average temperature of 20°C and average relative humidity of 45 per cent has a storage index of 20 + 45 = 65. Short term storage (>6 months) requires a storage index of less than 80. Medium term storage (6-18 months) requires a storage index of less than 70 and long term storage (up to 5 years) requires a storage index of less than 50. Grass seeds


F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E th io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s fo r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

should be stored in a sealed container but cotton sacks or woven bags are suitable for most legume seeds. Seed stores should be well ventilated, secure, and clean - especially free from insects and rodents. Each seed container must be labelled with information on: the species; the cultivar; the date of harvest; the location of harvest; the weight of seed in the container; and any seed treatments (for example scarification or insecticide dressing).

Seed Distribution

Distribution of seed must be planned in advance of the next cropping season when improved forage will be planted according to one of the strategies outlined in Chapter IV. This is best achieved with an annual forage plan, which is developed by farmers and extension agents. This "bottom-up" participatory element is essential for successful extension and management of forage programs and is discussed further in Chapter VIII. The annual forage plan for the coming season will ideally have contributed to determining how much forage seed was contracted to be grown in the previous season. The coordination required for successful forage program planning requires time and skill and is best done on a Regional or National level. This coordination requires an accurate knowledge of existing seed supplies so that any shortfalls can either be imported or taken into account by modifying the forage program for the coming season. Once regional forage program targets have been established, seed mixes and quantities are prepared for each administrative region. This may involve moving seed from one Region to another to ensure that each region has sufficient seed to meet farmer demand or forage program targets.

At the regional or local level, seed is split and, where necessary, mixed into seed packs for use by farmers. Seed packs typically have sufficient seed to establish a small nursery of browse species for backyard strategies, enough seed for undersowing 0.25 ha of crop, or enough seed to sow 250 m of contour forage strips. Strategies such as oversowing or improvement of stock exclusion areas for communal areas would have larger seed packs, which would be used by grazing management groups or pastoral associations. Forage programs are most successful where seed is inoculated and scarified at a Regional level before being split into farmer seed packs. This helps ensure success during establishment. Seed packs should be clearly labelled and include sowing and early management instructions.


Forage Production in Ethiopia: a Case Study with Implications for Livestock Production

Alemayehu Mengistu, 2002 56


VIII. REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCCESS

Improved forage production program programs must be adapted to the economic, social and environmental conditions in each region where they are to be implemented. However, there are some fundamental requirements for success, which should be included in programs. These include:

• active farmer participation at all stages;• strong institutional support;• a planning approach to implementation;• motivated technicians located throughout the project area to extend forage strategies

and conduct adaptive research;• initial importation of improved forage seed;• financial mechanisms to enable contract seed growing-• secure land tenure for farmers; and• monitoring and evaluation

Farmer Participation at all Stages

Successful improved forage production programs involve farmers from the very beginning. By conducting diagnostic survey or problem census meetings during the identification and preparation phases of the program, it can be designed to solve key problems identified by farmers. This ensures high adoption rates and increases the likelihood of improved forage strategies developed for each region being appropriate to local circumstances. For example, farmers identifying fuelwood and shelter as priority problems are more likely to adopt strategies involving browse legumes than undersowing strategies. Similarly, a village or group of individuals, which collectively give priority to land degradation of common lands are more likely to orgnise themselves into grazing management groups or pastoral associations to implement oversowing and stock exclusion strategies than farmers who place priority on food security issues. Problem census and diagnostic survey techniques, especially where they are farmer led rather than technician pushed, provide a clear message about which strategies are likely to be most successful for each group farmers. Strategies which solve priority problems provide the most successful starting point for an improved forage production program which will gradually evolve to cover the whole spectrum of strategies - backyard forage, integration of forage and crop production, and enrichment of common lands.

Implementation of a program identified and prepared with farmers is much more simple than initiating a program that is completely new to them. Farmers must participate not only in the implementation of each strategy - obviously on their own land and in their own backyards or compounds, but also on common land - but they must also contribute to the planning and coordination



of implementation. This builds up improved forage management skills, which will help ensure the program’s sustainability at the end of the initiation phase. For example, farmers should be consulted about their forage seeding plans for the forthcoming season and helped to convert this information into anticipated seed requirements. This forms the basis of annual forage production plans discussed below. Monitoring information should be shared widely with participating farmers - to help them feel that they are part of a wider effort and to give them technical information about the experiences of others which may be of use to them. Information sharing can be achieved through simple newsletters or village posters, or through regional demonstrations and meetings, which bring farmers together. The latter approach is more expensive and difficult where transport problems may exist.

Farmers should be integrally involved with adaptive research, especially where it is conducted on-farm. In this way research ideas are constantly being validated by the ultimate users of the technology being trilled or developed. On- farm research is the most appropriate way to assess new forage cultivars and develop the most appropriate forage production and utilisation techniques. Key or contact farmers should be used for transferring improved forage production technology to other farmers - either through farmer-to-farmer contact or through formal field days and demonstrations. Finally, as detailed below, farmers should conduct the monitoring and some of the evaluation tasks associated with improved forage production programs.

Strong Institutional Support

Effective farmer participation is enhanced by strong institutional support at all levels. Central government support is required for coordinating the flow of funds for each forage production plan and to budget for future activities, as well as overall coordination of resource allocation to the program. This includes allocation of seeds, field technicians working with farmers, vehicles, adaptive research activities, and training. Regional government support is required to coordinate local activities, aggregate locally produced annual forage production plans, and support local technicians with subject matter specialists in areas such as forage production and forage utilisation. Local offices effectively act as the liaison point between farmers and central government - they are the crossroads between "bottom-up" activities focusing on farmer participation and "top-down" activities, which coordinate and allocate resources made available by government. Local offices should be staffed by motivated and active technicians who work with farmers to extend each strategy, modify technical packages with on-farm adaptive research, and facilitate the preparation and implementation of annual forage production plans. Improved forage production programs are

A le m a y e h u M e n g is t u , 20 02 58


normally staffed from existing resources rather than adding new staff at the regional and local level.

Adequate financial and infrastructure support is important for the successful implementation of forage programs. Transport is especially important for participatory programs. Small 4WD vehicles or motorbikes, where dogs and wildlife are not a problem, should be available to each local technician to encourage them to work in the field and to motivate their activity. Regional coordinators and subject matter specialists also need access to vehicles for periodic visits to local areas, demonstrations and farmer group meetings. Access to telephone or radio communications between regional and central offices is essential for effective and timely coordination of project activities - especially during the preparation of annual plans. Regional offices should have a modest but up-to-date technical library to which local technicians and farmers have access. This is most easily organised through a library of original journals and books kept at central level from which appropriate papers and chapters are copied to each region for inclusion in a series of subject matter file.

Central government staff coordinating improved forage programs need access to word processing resources and printing or copying facilities for preparation of posters, newsletters, extension bulletins and technical briefing papers. A photocopier is invaluable for facilitating the flow of information between subject matter specialists and local technicians, and between farmers. Computers are needed at central and ideally regional level to coordinate budgets, organise and keep track of seed distribution, and analyse monitoring and research data. Training in the use of word processing, spreadsheet, and data analysis soft ware needs to be included with all computer purchases.

Central and regional administrators need to organise and monitor farmer and local technician training. This will sometimes involve subject matter specialists but could also include international training courses. Because of the many components required for successful production of improved forage, large programs are normally most successful if the program coordinator is supported by special coordinators for key areas - seed, forage production, forage utilisation and training. This central program organisation can be duplicated at regional level if the program is sufficiently large. Otherwise a single regional coordinator can work with the special coordinators at central level and the local technicians at village level.

A Planning Approach to Implementation

Successful implementation of forage production programs is enhanced by basing implementation activities on annual plans, which are developed at a local level by farmers with support from local technicians. Annual plans are used as an integral part of farming management and provide a focus for liaison between


F o r a g e P r o d u c tio n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w ith Im p l ic a tio n s fo r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

farmers and local technicians and regional subject matter specialists. The timing of forward planning, seed requirement calculations, seed ordering and distribution, and sowing are all developed with farmers during the annual planning process. Annual plans developed by each farmer or household are aggregated into village annual plans by self-organised farmer groups - for example pastoral associations and grazing management groups. Village annual plans are aggregated at regional level to make regional forage production plans, and finally pooled together at central level to prepare a national forage production plan for that particular year. Fig. 8.1 provides an indicative annual planning cycle for a forage program.

V i l l a g e c o n t a c t D e m o n s t r a t - V i l l a g ea n d b a s e d a t a - i o n s a n d p r o b l e m <4 - i

c o l l e c t i o n o p t i o n s m e n u c e n s u s

V i l l a g e p l a n s a g g r e g a t e d i n t o

R e g i o n a l p l a n

A n n u a l v i l l a g e f o r a g e p l a n s w i t h i n b u d g e t

4 -P r o b l e m s o l v - ' - i ng & h o u s e -

- h o l d p l a n s

rR e g i o n a l p l a n s r e v i e w e d a n d

a p p r o v e dIm p l e m e n t a t i o n -is > M o n i t o r i n g

Fig. 8.1 Annual Planning Cycle for Forage Program

Motivated Technicians Located throughout the Project Area

Motivated technicians need to be locally based to extend forage strategies and conduct adaptive research with farmers. The local technician ultimately determines whether the role of the executing institution in the forage program is successful. They must facilitate diagnostic surveys or problem census activities with farmers, conduct initial on-farm demonstrations and promote a widespread understanding of forage utilisation. Once the program is being implemented, local technicians should initiate demonstrations, which will have an early visual impact. This provides an important incentive for wider participation in the forage production program by farmers. A lot of seed and seedlings should be made available during the early years of he project to have a saturation effect on each locality. Motivated technicians will make good use of this seed, and its availability helps reinforce their position within the local community, which in turn strengthens their motivation.



On-farm adaptive research is needed to assess new cultivars and modify the technical packages to suit local social and environmental conditions. Adaptive research can also be used to emphasise certain benefits which farmers perceive with the program or to emphasise solutions to priority problems identified by farmers. For example, many farmers appreciate the shelter and privacy uses of browse species so demonstrations and adaptive research can be oriented towards optimising these attributes - browse hedges can be demonstrated and optimal in-row spacing, cutting height and cutting frequency can be the subject of adaptive research. This approach to forage production helps farmers develop an understanding of the wide range of direct and indirect benefits of improved forage. By ensuring that farmers participate at all levels, benefits, which they perceive but which are not apparent to technicians will not be overlooked.

Local technicians should also work with farmers to develop their understanding of farm feed budgeting and feeding priorities. This should be included in forage utilisation activities. The value of improved forage needs to be demonstrated to farmers in relation to the normally more expensive agroindustrial by-products.

Integration with Other Activities

Improving the quantity and quality of forage is •central to increased livestock productivity in Ethiopia. Without adequate forage farmers cannot realise the full benefits from animal health and breed improvement programs. Improved forage production programs should therefore be fully integrated with other livestock development activities. Most importantly, improved forage production should be a pre-requisite for participation in other programs. This not only acts as an incentive for wider adoption of forage production strategies but also increases the benefits from other, usually more expensive, programs. For examples, farmers seeking Government-provided animal health services should first be required to have adequate and balanced forage available for their livestock. Similarly, farmers wishing to participate in artificial insemination or improved heifer programs should also demonstrate that they have a sustainable supply of balanced forage for their animals. This integration also ensures that all technicians and administrators involved with national, regional and local livestock production include sustainable forage production in their strategies.

Initial Importation of Improved Forage Seed

As detailed in Chapter VII, improved forage programs must commence with imported seed of cultivars for which there is expected to be strong demand from farmers, as well as cultivars to be assessed in on-farm trials. Programs



identified and prepared with farmers will have a much clearer idea of the quantity and cultivars of seed, which are needed to commence implementation. Because imported seed is cheap relative to other project costs, adequate quantities of forage seed should be imported as early as possible during project implementation. This enables local technicians to saturate participating farmers with seed and so establish an early visual impact. This is extremely important for reinforcement of the forage program and its extension to a wider community of participants.

Financing Mechanisms

Institutions executing improved forage production programs need to have access to project or other funds for local seed purchases. Unless simple administrative procedures exist to distribute and account for funds required for seed purchases, it is very difficult and time consuming to enter into forage seed production contracts with farmers. Without such seed production, forage programs are unlikely to be sustainable, unless a private sector seed industry exists. Where private seed traders and producers exist, it may be more administratively simple for executing agencies to issue selected companies with a head contract to produce certain quantities of certified seed. These companies can then sub-contract production of this seed to farmers. Financial mechanisms for other program procurement should be within the control of the program coordinator at central government level. This reduces the delays in procurement of inputs for forage programs and enables more accurate preparation of annual plans and their budgets.

Secure Land Tenure

Security of land tenure is one of the issues normally raised by farmers during problem census and diagnostic survey activities for improved forage programs. Land tenure issues have wide political, economic and social implications, many of which are outside the objectives of improved forage programs. However, security of land tenure is a very powerful incentive for adoption of improved forage strategies - especially where they involve perennial browse and grass species. Freehold title provides the best incentive for individual farmers to adopt improved forage strategies on their cropping land. This is especially important for long term strategies such as contour forage strips and agroforestry.

Where freehold title is not possible, leasehold title also provides and incentive for forage production. Leasehold titles guarantee tenurial lease from the Government for a given period of time - typically up to 45 years - but may have management convenants attached. If the covenants are not observed the


F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E th io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s fo r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

leasehold is forfeited to the Government. Leasehold titles are especially useful for common lands to be rehabilitated with oversowing strategies or to be managed as stock exclusion areas. Secure leasehold tenure acts as an incentive for the formation of grazing management groups or pastoral associations, and the lease is normally established in the name of the group or association. This not only give farmers or pastoralists a reason for forming these groups or associations but provides a mechanism for peer group pressure to regulate grazing management and implementation of improved forage strategies on common land.

One strategy, which is normally very successful, is to use grazing land rehabilitation contracts as a vehicle for implementing oversowing, agroforestry, pr stock exclusion strategies on common land. These contracts provide grazing management groups or pastoral associations with leasehold title to certain common land. The leasehold title has land rehabilitation, improved forage production and grazing restrictions attached to it. These would normally include oversowing and stock exclusion strategies, provision for cut and carry harvesting of forage and browse at certain time of the year and a requirement for regular monitoring of plant cover and soil erosion. The leasehold title should be for a period of at least 10 years and should be strictly monitored by a regional administrator with support from local technicians. This approach works successfully in Asia and Turkey and should be included in problem solving sessions with farmers during the identification and preparation of improved forage programs.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The impact and sustainability of improved forage production programs will depend on the existence of a database of information, which can be used to modify technical packages and demonstrate the benefits of each strategy being promoted by the program. The information required for this database can mostly be collected by farmers and local technicians and should include:

• area planted to each species and cultivar;• DM production from each cultivar under different management strategies;• local climatic data - especially rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature and frost

incidence.;• livestock numbers by species and type (male, female, castrate etc.);• purchase price and weight for animals to be fattened;• daily rations fed to animals being fattened;• selling price and weight for fattened animals;• daily rations fed to dairy animals;• daily and total milk yield for dairy animals;• veterinary expenses; and• labour inputs for improved forage production and utilisation.


F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E th io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w ith Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

This type of information can be conveniently collected by self-monitoring or auto-recording strategies in which farmers enter information in simple daily livestock record books designed for the purpose. As with other activities the livestock monitoring record book should be desic •'ed with farmers. It must be in their local language and should be based on their technical terms for the parameters being measured. This local technical lexicon is translated into international terms at the regional or central office responsible for recording and analysing monitoring data. Thus in Ethiopia, for example, timad and quintal might be used rather than hectare or kilogram, with the appropriate conversion factors being applied by technicians analysing the data. Separate monitoring books would normally be developed with farmers for forage production, livestock fattening and dairy production. The use of auto-recording strategies for livestock monitoring has been successfully used in several projects, including the Second Livestock development Project in Mauritania. The principal benefits of auto-recording monitoring are that data reflects socio-economic aspects of farming systems, which cannot normally be record by outsiders. Such data not only enables production to be monitored but it also is able to compare the productivity of different management and socio-economic systems. This information becomes very important for adapting technical packages to different socio-economic and environmental circumstances.

Forage production monitoring can be adequately done with simple sheets, which are completed on a weekly basis. This forms the basis for evaluating the implementation of annual forage production plans and the preparation and modification of subsequent annual forage production plans. Harvesting data should be entered from the weekly summary sheets in monitoring books used for livestock fattening or dairy production. The weekly monitoring sheets are summarised onto monthly forage production sheets by the local technician working with the farmer. Local technicians take copies of this monthly summary for collation and analysis at regional or central level. Analytical results are later returned to the local technician for discussion with farmers. This helps farmers see how they are performing relative to their peers. It also enables the local technician to not only target people in most need of help but also identify the most successful management strategies for integration into subsequent demonstration and extension activities. Auto-recording forage production monitoring forms include:

• units(s) of production (area, length of strips, number of browse trees etc.);• soil type;• drainage score;• farming system into which forage has been integrated;• inputs (fertiliser, dung, other);• labour inputs (weeding, harvesting, etc.);



• wood production by species;• forage production by species; and• seed production by species.

Units and terminology used will be those chosen by the farmers during design of the forage production monitoring sheets. Local technicians should review this data when they collect the monthly summary sheets of the above information to which they would include:

• strategy name(s);• success score relative to neighbouring farmers;• primary forage use;• secondary forage use; and• local climatic data (rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature, frost).

Livestock fattening monitoring: by farmers is best developed as a herd book which records performance of individual animals. Daily records should be kept for each animal (identified by ear tag, name or distinguishing mark) throughout the fattening cycle (see Chapter VI). Experience in Mauritania suggests that were farmers design the livestock monitoring books they actively collect data and take a keen interest in its analysis. Base data should include:

• animal identity and date of purchase;• breed, sex, and age of animal;• purchase price and weight (estimated by girth measurement);• sale price and weight (estimated by girth measurement); and• sale date.

Dairy production monitoring follows similar principles to monitoring of livestock fattening but will take place throughout the year to take account of the lactation period and the management during pregnancy and preparation for the subsequent lactation. Base data should include the identity, breed, and age of each animal being monitored. Most farmers only have one or two milking animals so auto-recording monitoring is not an onerous task.

Daily livestock fattening and dairy production monitoring data is aimed at identifying the production impact o f different m anagem ent strategies and should include for both types of monitoring:

• time animal was housed;• time animal was grazing outside;• time animal was tethered and fed outside;• quantity (local measure) of cut and carry forage provided;• source of cut and carry forage;• quantity (local measure) of crop residues provided;• quantity (local measure) of by-products piuviued;• quantity (local measure) of natural grass hay provided;• time animal was watered (local measure);• labour inputs (local measure) that day;



• principal source of labour (son, daughter, self, hired help etc.)• veterinary inputs and costs; and• other notable events that day.

These daily forms are normally filled out by children with their parents at night - thus having an additional social benefit of enabling children to practically use their literacy and numeracy skills, and become involved with improved livestock management at an early age. The recording book should be designed with a weekly summary sheet, which the farmer completes with the local technician on a regular basis. This forms a focus for the relationship between these partners in the improved forage development program, and enables the local technician to question any inconsistencies. At the same time, analysis of previous data can be discussed and any modifications to management practices discussed. Auto-recording is well suited to monitoring fattening programs and dairy production.

Assessment of forage legume performance is a more complex matter because it requires a long term monitoring framework and an appreciation of the morphology of each species and cultivar being monitored. For example, stylos generally have poor productivity during the first year of establishment. After that they are much more productive. Apart from forage production monitoring mentioned above, assessment of new cultivars and different management strategies should be done by local technicians and regional subject matter specialists as part of the adaptive research activities supporting the improved forage production program. Persistence of species and cultivars under normal management conditions should be one of the major criteria monitored,



IX. FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FORAGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Introduction

The forgoing chapters indicate that numerous forage development strategies and species mixes have been identified and proven for a range of ecological niches in Ethiopia. However, the impact of increased forage production on animal performance and farm-level incomes is not as well understood or documented as the agronomy of forage production. Internationally, the effect of improved nutrition on animal production is well proven and documented, and countries such as Australia now have very large areas of improved forage developed for cattle and sheep production in the both the temperate and tropical zones. The financial impact of improved forage production is also well understood in many countries, but this is not the case in Ethiopia, where past emphasis has been on animal health, rather than health and nutrition.

The missing information relates to the animal response predictions once improved forage is available and dietary levels of energy and protein increase, and to the financial impact at the farm-level. As discussed previously, benefits from increased forage production are numerous and diverse. Therefore it is necessary to keep analysis of forage production and animal response models simple and in formats which can be used by field extension staff as part of their farmer training programs. If used properly, forage development and animal response models can be powerful extension and training tools, particularly if they are progressively upgraded as local information on yields and animals responses - e.g. weight gains and survival rates - become available as project M&E systems provide data.

During preparation of FLDP, numerous forage production/animal response models were constructed as part of project analysis. These models were completed before spreadsheet programs for computers were available, and therefore were cumbersome to use and manipulate. However, use of computers became widespread in Ethiopia during the project implementation phase, and this resulted in considerable flexibility in the approach to financial and economic analyses of project benefits and costs.

The remainder of this chapter discusses the likely financial and economic impact of forage development projects, using models prepared during FLDP implementation. The models could be used for analysis of forage production projects in any part of the country, provided project agronomists have a clear


F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s fo r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c t io n

understanding of the local farming systems and the crops grown for food and cash.

Public Sector Investment and Recurrent Costs

A feature of FLDP was the high financial and economic rates of return. This was because development relied on the simple intervention of local seed distribution and an extension service, which was essentially in place at the time of project preparation. The strategy at the outset was to use existing resources - government staff, farm-level resources (land, labour and limited capital), and local farmers for seed production, after an initial period of importation.

The only major capital items required for a successful forage development project are:

Simple seed storage sheds - preferably constructed on a regional basis - with basic seed cleaning equipment. In most instances, seed can be cleaned to a satisfactory standard by hand, packed in small bags and then distributed prior to rainy seasons.

Adequate transport facilities for extension staff. Depending on the size of the project area, this can vary from four-wheel drive vehicles and motor cycles, to smaller fleets for smaller projects. Good transport systems are essential, because timeliness of operations such as seed harvesting and planting is most important. Preferably, transport should be dedicated to the forage project. In addition, it is necessary to equip forage development projects with fleets of small and medium sized trucks for transport of seed, seedlings and cuttings. Transport for extension staff will vary with the type of service used. If Development Agents are located in strategic villages, field-level extension staff only require a bicycle, motor cycle, or horse/mule. If these staff are scattered widely through the project area, they will need more expensive forms of transport. Experience indicates that a satisfactory approach is to locate multi-disciplinary Development Agents in selected villages, particularly if farm sizes are small and the farming community lives in villages or extended family groups.

A central office for general project coordination. Space is usually available in the Ministry of Agriculture's headquarters. Ready access to within-country communication services is important, so that seed is delivered on time and funds for local seed purchases are available when required. Farmers growing seed under contract soon lose interest if they are not paid according to the agreed schedule. The central office should have adequate computer and report production facilities, and at least access to a local printer for production of extension materials and training aids.

As with capital expenditure, forage development projects have low requirements for recurrent expenditure. Apart from vehicle operation and maintenance, there are no major items of plant and equipment, which need to be



maintained and/or replaced, and if designed C a r e f u l ly , it should be possible to keep incremental staffing down to a minimum. The aim should be to increase the effective utilisation of existing staff resources, rather than to plan on the basis of appointing new staff. Experience indicates that staff educated in a wide range of disciplines and with limited exposure to forage agronomy developed into effective forage extension staff once field-level training courses were in place.

Training is an important recurrent cost, but need not be excessive, provided the number of overseas higher degree courses are kept in perspective. Astute use of technical assistance can result in the development of large numbers of specifically trained forage technicians who can be more effective. A carefully planned and controlled training and staff development program is an integral part of a successful forage project. Timely study tours - in-country and overseas - are often the most cost-effective means of introducing new forage production technology. For example, the use of Leucaena for erosion control on steep land in Indonesia was common practice long before the system was introduced into Ethiopia. Today, the best way to convince extension staff that the system works is to run brief study tours to the Eastern Islands of Indonesia where thousands of farmers are now stable and productive because of the use of Leucaena in an alley cropping system.

The cost of seed is also a major recurrent expenditure item. As detailed above, the key to success is to import large quantities of seed for at least the first three years of the project. This will ensure that the impact of the improved forage is observed over a wide area. It also protects against the negative impact of early failures of the contract seed production system. One of the main reasons for the success of FLDP was management's willingness to import initial quantities of seed. This was in addition to substantial in-country seed production. In addition, it is necessary to allocate adequate local budget for the purchase of seed grown under contract by farmers. These funds must be available on time if contractors are to continue to participate in such schemes. Payment for local seed production worked smoothly when fund allocations were planned well in advance. However, there were examples of seed wastage when funds were inadequate or not delivered to the regional offices on time. A well-organised seed procurement system is essential for successful forage production projects, as eventually imports become too expensive and governments rightly express the desire for self-sufficiency in forage seed.

FLDP experience shows that some technical assistance can be useful, particularly in the areas of seed production and forage agronomy. In some instances, further assistance may be required in animal nutrition and small-scale fattening, forage and animal production economics, monitoring and evaluation, legume nodulation and other technical problems, and project management. Most of the latter can be provided by short-term consultants. If funds are limiting, the key disciplines are seed production, processing and storage; and forage



agronomy. These two key aspects of forage production projects must proceed in unison - seed is required to support an expanding forage development program, and to a considerable extent, large areas of forage are required for seed production. This is because a high proportion of the seed required can be produced from forage set aside when flowering occurs. Multi-purpose forage trees are capable of producing seed and forage at the same time, provided that farmers are aware of this opportunity.

Farm-Level Investment and Recurrent Costs

As with public sector costs, farm-level investment and recurrent costs associated with forage development are usually low and affordable by peasant farmers, provided that seed is locally distributed. By far the largest farm-level input is family labour - for forage planting and utilisation. It is important to ensure that labour demand for forage development and utilisation activities do not overlap with the labour inputs required for food cropping activities. Managers of forage production projects must be aware of the likely impact of forage activities on the overall supply/demand situation for family labour. This means that a M&E system should be established in the first year of the project so that assumptions used in the forage production/animal response models can be confirmed/rejected and the predictive models modified. This is particularly important in situations where the opportunity cost of farm labour is high, e.g. during the period when crop weeding is critical for good food crop yields. Indicative labour supply/demand figures for forage production and utilisation are scarce and difficult to collect accurately. More reliable figures are available from projects in South East Asia. Attempts to collect data in Ethiopia were partially successful, but FLDP did not succeed in obtaining good information on labour use profiles for forage related-activities. Therefore the predictive models discussed are based on observations in FLDP's project areas and measured labour use figures from Asia. Given that labour is by far the largest input at the farm- level, it is important that forage development projects focus on accurate collection of data on this cost item.

Other farm-level inputs for forage development projects include:• Simple animal feeding equipment - for small-scale fattening and dairying. This could

include a container for water cartage if animals are being fattened under the tethering system.

• Basic shelter for dairy cattle - note that one of the main constraints to milk production in Ethiopia is inadequate grazing hours. This problem is exacerbated by cattle spending prolonged periods in poorly ventilated and inappropriate (European design) dairy bams.

• Simple hand tools for forage harvesting - sickles are adequate for non-tree legumes and all grasses, whereas small handsaws are best for harvesting tree legumes. Trees



such as Sesbania and tree lucerne can be damaged if branches are hacked off with blunt instruments.

• Basic seed storage containers - these can be the same as those used to store cereal seed.

• Al! livestock should be treated against the main "killing" diseases such as rinderpest and anthrax, etc. In addition, good responses to the control of internal parasites are achieved when nutrition is improved. This means that animals in a fattening program should be drenched, provided they can be separated from other livestock to avoid reinfection.

Selection of Forage Development Strategies

A key to successful forage projects is the selection of appropriate forage development strategies, which complement existing farming systems. FLDP was successful because the strategies discussed in Chapter IV did not compete for land with regular food cropping activities. In some instances, additional labour was required, but this was offset by increased returns from both crop and animal production. It is essential to ensure that all elements of a forage development program can be integrated into the prevailing w-hole farm production system. Any conflict between forage production and food/cash cropping activities will result in low forage production adoption rates.

This means that project staff must have a sound understanding of current farming systems before forage development activities commence. Such an understanding requires far more than simply a knowledge of the crops grown and farm sizes. Experience from Ethiopia indicates that it may be necessary to conduct some baseline surveys prior to the commencement of forage development, so that information on the following key variables is available:

• Land use (by season and activity - cropping or grazing). This includes information on the areas of fallow, availability of communal grazing, area of house/garden compound, and cropping intensity.

• Crops grown, the area of each crop and crop by-product production. In some areas, crop residues are the main source of animal forage, and this often forms the basis of improved animal nutrition through the addition of leguminous protein and additional energy from improved forages.

• The number of labour units available to average families - expressed as adult equivalents.

• If the availability of draught power is a limiting factor, it is important to have information on the number of oxen per farm and the number of oxen per hectare cropped.

• The structure and make-up of an average farm's livestock herds and flocks. This will enable assessment of the likely impact of increased quantities of improved forage on animal production and farm incomes. This information, when combined with data on farm area and land use, will also enable the existing stocking rate to be calculated, preferably as Tropical Livestock Units (250 kg liveweight) per ha.



• Information on the sources and use of fuel for cooking and heating will provide a guide as to the importance in incremental dung (for fuel) and wood (from tree legumes).

• Current livestock feeding practices - use of supplementary straw or hay during the dry season (or the short rains) will indicate an understanding of the importance of feeding crop residues, and a familiarity with an animal production system which will benefit substantially from the introduction of improved forages into the farming system.

Table A2.1 in Annex 2 lists profiles of selected Service Cooperatives in highland Ethiopia. The information in the table was collected as part of a Service Cooperative Development Planning exercise and was to form the basis o f farm- level development planning when Ethiopian agriculture was collectivised. The concept proved too ambitious, but did provide useful information which supported the strategy of integrating improved forage production into existing farming systems. Once the area cropped and the types of crops are known, it is possible to determine the area/km of each forage development strategy for average farms in the survey area. For example, Table A2.1 shows that farms associated with the Kolba Service Cooperative in could implement the following forage development strategies:

• 0.1 ha of pasture development on communal grazing land, assuming that 30% of the area was sown;

• 0.7 ha of undersown legumes (75% of the area cropped with cereals and tree crops which are suitable for undersowing - sorghum, maize, millet, enset, coffee and chat);

• 0.6 km of alley planting - based on 85% of the area sown to annual crops and 0.4 km of alley per ha;

• 0.4 km of strip/contour planting - based on 85% of the area sown to annual crops and 0.3 km of strip/contour per ha;

• 600 m of backyard forage in a plot; and• 180 backyard forage trees.

Benefits from Forage Development and Rates of Return

Once the quantities of each forage development strategy have been estimated for average farms, it is possible to estimate the level of benefits, which flow from each strategy. The benefits from forage development are diverse and wide-ranging, from improved animal production to increased fuel supplies. Therefore it is important to keep the analysis of forage-based benefits simple and realistic. It is not necessary to quantify all primary and secondary benefits, because past analysis of forage projects indicates that high financial and economic rates of return can be achieved even when secondary benefits (such as increased food crop production resulting from improved soil fertility) are ignored. The approach should be to only include those benefits, which can be easily quantified up to the point where a satisfactory rate of return is obtained.



Thereafter, the analytical exercise becomes somewhat academic, because projects with economic rates of return above 25% are often viewed with a degree of suspicion by economists who are not familiar with forage and animal production systems.

Analysis during FLDP project preparation was based on incremental production of meat and milk. The effect of improved supplies of fodder on draught power, and the impact of increased quantities of fuel (dung and wood) were ignored. The project was estimated to generate an economic rate of return of about 35%. This figure was based on a much more substantial management infrastructure than the system eventually implemented by the government. The mid-term review of FLDP estimated that the project's economic rate of return would be approximately 25%, based on progress during the first three years and realistic farmer acceptance rates. In conclusion, it is apparent from FLDP experience that forage development projects generate high financial and economic rates of return when only selected benefits are quantified and included in the analyses.

Forage Production and Utilization Models

During the course'of FLDP a series of forage production/animal response models were developed. These were based on the following:

• Area/length of each strategy for an average farm in a given agro-ecological zone;• Phased development of each forage development strategy over a five-year period;• A figure for the maximum level of forage utilisation for each strategy - e.g. 70% of

the forage produced by backyard fodder tree would be available for animal production, and the corresponding figure for alley planting would be 85% of the incremental forage produced;

• The percentage legume content in the incremental forage produced by each strategy;• The number of person and oxen-pair labour days required to establish a given

area/length of strategy;• Increased forage yield (kg DM/ha) for each strategy, and the phasing of this increase

over a five-year period;• Estimated labour use profile for each strategy as forage yields increase over time;• Energy (MJ-ME/kg) and protein (crude protein per cent) of grasses, legumes and crop

stovers; and• The value of incremental supplies of dung and fuelwood, on a per kg basis.

Once this information is fed into a spreadsheet model called STRATMOD, it is possible to calculate the following for each nominated forage development strategy:

• Labour use for forage development and utilisaion;• Number of oxen pair days required for forage establishment;• Incremental forage yields over a 10 year period;• Total incremental dry matter available, expressed as kg DM. MJ-ME, and CP%;



• Incremental dung and wood production, and the total value of by-products.An example of the STRATMOD model, based on forage development

strategies for the Chelo Service is given in Table A2.2 in Annex 2. The Chelo model is based on the following forage development strategies.

• Pasture development - 0.01 ha;• Undersowing - 0.74 ha;• Alley planting - 0.34 km;• Strip planting - 0.26 km;• Backyard pasture - 570 m2; and• Backyard trees - 170 (number).

Table A2.2 indicates that incremental forage production under these conditions would range from 318 kg DM in the first year, to 2,393 kg DM seven years after the program commenced. The corresponding figures for incremental energy and protein would be 2,927 and 22,093 MJ-ME, and 54 and 419 kg CP. Incremental dung production, based on 50% digestibility and 75% recovery would range from 119 kg in the first year to 897 kg by year 7. The equivalent figures for incremental fuelwood production would be 44 and 935 kg. The total value of by-products would increase by Birr 458 by year 7. This indicates that farm incomes wouid at least double, once the entire farm was "saturated" with improved forage. This is before consideration of the impact of improved forage on animal production.

Once incremental forage has been estimated using the STRATMOD model, it is possible to "superimpose" STRATMOD on the profiles of whole farms (refer Table A2.1) to determine the impact of increased supplies of improved forage on animal production. The farm profiles in Table A2.1 include estimation of energy and protein balances for existing livestock populations. For example, for farms associated with the Kolba Service Cooperative, it appeared that inadequate protein was limiting efficient use of surplus energy - there was a surplus of 6,324 MJ-ME, but a deficit of 156 kg CP in the "without" project situation. When the impact of the forage development strategies is considered, the energy surplus increases to 35,154 MJ-ME, and the protein deficit becomes a surplus of 400 kg CP.

In terms of impact analysis, the next step is the most difficult, because it is based on the subjective assessment of how existing livestock on the target farm respond to increased supplies of energy and protein. The approach taken for analysis of FLDP, which is reflected in Table A2.1, was based on the estimated rate of change in the supply of energy and protein. For example, if over a six-year period, the levels of both energy and protein slowly changed from negative to positive - as is the case for the Fonco Service Cooperative - it was assumed that off-take rates for sheep/goats and cattle during the same period would increase by a maximum of 20% and 10% respectively. In the case of Fonco Service

A le m a ye h u M e n g is t u , 2 002 74

Fo r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w ith Im p l ic a tio n s fo r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

Cooperative, this would men that an extra 0.27 sheep/goats and extra 0.42 cattle would be sold six years after the forage development program commenced. If sheep/goats and cattle are valued at Birr 30 and 250 per head respectively, this means that annual gross income would increase by Birr 105 by year 6. For simplicity, it was assumed that incremental income in the first year would be zero, and that thereafter income would increase from Birr 35 in year 2 to Birr 105 by year 6. Further details are given in Table A2.1.

For those farms with immediate surpluses of protein and energy, for example farms associated with Dembessa Service Cooperative, it was assumed that the impact of increased supplies of improved forage would be immediate, and that a static level of increased income would be generated from year 2 onwards. For exam ple, for the D em bessa farms it was assumed that annual incomes would increase by Birr 64 per year, one year after forage development commenced.

A further analytical step was necessary for those farms with large surpluses of energy and protein, for example Kolba Service Cooperative. It was assumed that these surpluses would be used to fatten culled oxen for specific markets, such as Christmas and Easter when livestock prices are high. In the case of Kolba, it was assumed that by year 3 there would be adequate incremental forage to result in increased production from the existing herds and flocks and to fatten 0.5 oxen or about four sheep/goats. This activity would generate a gross margin of about Birr 350 per oxen, or approximately Birr 175 in year 3. The total incremental income from livestock production activities in year 3 and 4 would be Birr 290. By year 5, incremental income w'ould have increased to about Birr 465. When added to the increased income from dung and fuelwood (Birr 644 for Kolba farms) increased annual income attributable to the forage development activities would amount to Birr 1,110 - refer Table A2.1 for details.



Financial and Economic Rates of Return from Forage Projects

The STRATMOD model calculates total incremental labour days required to develop and utilise improve forage supplies. For example, Table A2.1 shows that farms associated with the Service Cooperative at Hulahubeta required an additional 63 labour days per year once the forage program reached full development. If this requirement is assessed against an annual incremental income of Birr 235, this is equivalent to Birr 4 per additional day. A return per person day of Birr 4 is high when compared with the opportunity cost of labour of approximately Birr 1. Table A2.1 in Annex 2 shows that incremental returns per person day would vary from Birr 1 (first year's operation in Hulahubeta Service Cooperative) to Birr 8 per day in year 6 for forage development on farms associated with the Cheki Service Cooperative.

The financial rates of return for farmers participating in forage development projects are invariably high because cash expenditure is minimal - the main input is labour which usually has a low opportunity cost. This means that analysis of forage development programs at the farm level is best completed by consideration of returns to incremental labour. It should be noted that the returns specified for selected Service Cooperatives do not take into account the following benefits, which were not quantified:

• Increased draught power and the impact on crop production due to improved oxen liveweights;

• Increased crop production due to increased supplies of organic matter and nitrogen from legumes grown on crop land, particularly through the undersowing strategy;

• Decreased herding time by children - this results in more time for education;• Reduced soil erosion on crop and grazing land though the use of vegetative barriers

(alley cropping and forage strips) and oversowing on steep communal grazing land;• Improved dry season stream flow due to increased filtration and reduced run-off;• Improved human nutrition resulting from increased supplies of milk - from both

indigenous and improved dairy breeds;• Improved human nutrition from increased consumption of meat - small ruminants and

cattle; and• Improved standards of housing due to increased supplies of building materials from

multi-purpose tree legumes.The economic rates of return from forage development projects are also

high. This is because public sector investment is low and incremental staffing can usually be kept to a minimum by improving the skills and knowledge of existing staff. In most instances, incremental production consists of non-traded goods - milk, meat fuelwood, etc. This means that financial prices have to be adjusted by standard conversion factors, which reflect the fact that non-traded goods (those that do not earn or save foreign exchange) are worth less than traded goods (which do earn or save foreign exchange).



At the time the analysis was undertaken there was a wide separation between the fixed official exchange rate and the shadow or market exchange rate. In these circumstances, the standard conversion factor was estimated to be between 0.3 and 0.2. However, the impact on the economic rate of return of low conversion factors was more than offset by low shadow prices for labour - this figure is as low as Birr 0.50 per day in some areas when crop weeding is not an important activity. In summary, forage development projects generate high economic rates of return and are not unduly influenced by exogenous risk factors, provided that seed is produced and distributed.


Forage Production in Ethiopia; a C ase Study with implications for Livestock Production

Alamayehu Mengiatu, 2002 78


A N N E X 1

A N N E X 2

A N N E X 3

A N N E X 4

LIST OF ANNEXES

: Species D escrip tion and C haracteristics.

: A nim al Perform ance o f Im proved Forage.

: Inoculation o f Legum es.

: M odel C ontract for Supply o f Pasture/Forage Seed.


Fo r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

A le m a y e h u M e n g is t u , 2002


ANNEX 1: Species Description and Characteristics

The following information provides a general introduction to the key species and cultivars, which have proved successful in the FLDP. The information is general and the species and cultivars described by no means exhaustive. These species and cultivars provide a useful starting point for improved forage programs because of their adaptability and proven forage value. However, forage programs should include wide screening of other species and cultivars during their early years to identify the broadest genetic base possible for improving the quantity and quality o f forage available for ruminant livestock.

IMPROVED FORAGE LEGUMES

Forage legumes are herbaceous (not woody shrubs) and are used in undersowing, intercropping, oversowing or grazing areas, improvement of stock exclusion areas, and in mixed pasture establishment. Forage legumes with a sprawling or climbing habit can also be used in backyard forage plots. Establishment is always by direct seeding. Because of this, only those species and cultivars with good seed production capacity and ease of seed establishment should be selected. Ease of establishment and persistence are other important factors to consider during assessment of cultivars for selection. Species and cultivars with proven capabilities in Ethiopia are detailed below. Their attributes are summarised in Table 5.1 in Chapter V and Table 7.1 in Chapter VII. Other species assessed by FLDP included Neontonia wightii (Glycine), Arachis pintoi (Forage Peanut cv Amarillo), Calopogonium mucunoides (Calopo). Vigna parkeri (Creeping Vigna cv Shaw), Aeschynomene falcata (Joint Vetch cv Bargoo), A. americana (Joint Vetch cv Glenn), Centrosema pascuomm (Centro cv Cavalcade or Bundey), and Ornitliopus compressus (Yellow Serradella).

Macroptilium atropurpureum (Siratro)

Siratro is a cultivar of M. atropurpureum, a perennial, sprawling/climbing forage legume with an important role in undersowing and improving stock exclusion areas. Its primary use is for forage, with secondary uses being for erosion control and nitrogen fixation. Siratro grows below 2400 m altitude and requires more than 600 mm annual rainfall. It is adapted to a wide range of well- drained soils, including low fertility sandy soils, but performs poorly on wet sites. Siratro requires careful grazing management for high productivity and is better suited to cut and carry systems based on undersowing and stock exclusion area strategies. Repeated low cutting kills plants but they respond well to continuous lig'ni cutting. Siratro has moderate palatabiIity, which increases with


F o r a g e P r o d u c tio n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e St u d y w ith Im p l ic a tio n s fo r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

age. Its low energy content makes it unsuitable as a quality dairy ration but it is useful for fattening strategies. It establishes easily with sowing rates from 0.5 to 2 kg/ha and is a useful component of roadside and aerial seeding mixes. If newly established plantings are allowed to seed in their first year plant density will quickly increase because of heavy seed setting. This is one of Siratro's best features and makes it highly suitable for oversowing strategies below 2000 m in areas with annual rainfall exceeding 750 mm. Seed production is best from crops grown on trellises, tall cereal crops or browse trees - with harvests of up to 1000 kg/ha possible. Siratro is an excellent understory species for plantation and forestry crops if tree spacing is sufficiently wide - this is essentially an agroforestry strategy with good soil conservation characteristics because of Siratro's ground cover characteristics. It climbs very vigorously and is useful for controlling weedy grasses and other species.

Macrotyloma axillare (Axillaris)

Axillaris is a perennial, sprawling/climbing forage legume highly suited to undersowing, intercropping and improving stock exclusion areas. Cultivar Archer has been used most successfully in Ethiopia. It grows best in warm to hot areas below 2400 m altitude and requires more than 600 mm annual rainfall, and complements Siratro and Greenleaf Desmodium. Axillaris is adapted to a wide range of soils, including low fertility sandy soils, and is moderately tolerant of waterlogging. Axillaris needs careful grazing management for high productivity and is most productive with cut and carry systems based on undersowing and stock exclusion area strategies. It should not be cut below 20 cm since repeated low cutting will kill plants, but they respond well to continuous light cutting. Axillaris has low to moderate palatability, which increases with age and makes it suitable for oversowing common grazing land and soil conservation areas. Livestock may need a familiarisation period when they are first introduced to this forage. It establishes easily with sowing rates from 0.5 to 1 kg/ha and is well suited to roadside and aerial seeding strategies. Seed production is limited by a short flowering period and is more successful when crops are grown on trellises, tall cereal crops or browse trees. Harvests of up to 500 kg/ha possible. Axillaris can be used as an understorey species for plantation and forestry crops if tree spacing is sufficiently wide. It combines well with Elephant grass.

Desmodium uncinatum (Silverleaf)

Silverleaf is a perennial, sprawling forage legume suited to undersowing, intercropping and improving stock exclusion areas. This species is less important than the related Greenleaf Desmodium. It grows below 2200 m altitude, requires more than 900 mm annual rainfall, and is tolerant of cool weather and light



frosts. Silverleaf should be grown on relatively fertile, well drained soils. It needs careful grazing management for high productivity and is most productive with cut and carry system s based on undersowing and stock exclusion area strategies. Continuous moderate cutting or grazing is preferable to occasional very heavy cutting or grazing. Silverleaf should be allowed to seed at least in the first season. It is palatable and thus is better managed for cut and carry systems. Silverleaf requires a moderate to fine seedbed w'ith sowing rates from 1 to 2.5 kg/ha. Because of this, it is not suited to oversowing strategies. Seed production is more successful when crops are grown on trellises, tall cereal crops or browse trees with harvests of up to 400 kg/ha possible.

Desm odium in tortum (Greenleaf)

Greenleaf is similar in many respects to Silverleaf but it is less tolerant of cool weather and light frosts. It is a perennial, sprawling forage legume suited to undersowing, intercropping and improving stock exclusion areas as is one of the most important forage legumes available for Ethiopia. Its primary use is in forage production and its secondary uses are for nitrogen fixation and erosion control. Greenleaf grows below 2400 m altitude and requires more than 700 mm annual rainfall. Greenleaf should be grown on fertile, well-drained soils and needs careful grazing management for high productivity. It is most productive with regular cut and carry systems based on undersowing and stock exclusion area strategies. Continuous moderate cutting or grazing is preferable to occasional very heavy cutting or grazing management for high productivity. It is most productive with regular cut and carry systems based on undersowing and stock exclusion area strategies. Continuous moderate cutting or grazing is preferable to occasional very heavy cutting or grazing, and it should be allowed to seed at least in the first season. Greenleaf is palatable and thus is better managed for cut and carry systems. It requires a moderate to fine seedbed with sowing rates from 1 to2 kg/ha and so is not suited to oversowing strategies. Seed production is more successful when crops are grown on trellises, tall cereal crops or browse trees with harvests of up to 400 kg/ha possible. The simplest collection method is to strip ripe pods from the stalk, between thumb and forefinger (Robertson, 1990). Pods are thoroughly dried, and seed is threshed out carefully using traditional mortar and pestle systems. It is normally possible to harvest and clean at least 1 kg per person day. Greenleaf is exceptionally successful under perennial tree crops and forestry because of its shade tolerance.



Stylosanthes species (The Stylos)

The stylos are very useful because they are often extremely hardy, and will grow on soils of very low phosphate status and on some quite acid soils. Palatability is variable, but always increases during the during the dry season when the plants "hay off", because of this, sytlos are less suited to cut and carry systems and more suited to common grazing strategies such as oversowing or improvement of stock exclusion areas. Most sytlos establish readily by surface sowing even on rough seedbeds. Burying seed may prevent germination. Typical seeding rates are 1 kg/ha from oversowing and 2 kg/ha for undersowing. Controlling companion grasses with grazing assists Establishment and early growth. Seed should be heat treated before sowing (see Chapter VII) but generally does not need to be inoculated. Most stylos are tolerant of heavy grazing pressure, and some will set seed and spread even under severe grazing. In fact the key to good stylo management is to prevent excessive competition form companion vegetation by regular cutting or grazing. Stylos typically take two to three years to become fully established, after which their productivity increases significantly. This aspect of their growth should be taken into account during assessment of their capability in new areas. Stylosanthes fruticosa is native to some parts of Ethiopia. The stylos with proven capabilities in Ethiopia are detailed below:

Stylosanthes hamata (Caribbean Stylo cv Verano)

Verano is a short-lived perennial plant growing to about 30 cm in height. It grows best at low altitudes and needs more than 500 mm annual rainfall. It performs best in warm to hot environments with productivity and seed set significantly reduced by low temperatures including low night temperatures. Verano is adapted to a wide range of soil types but performs best with good drainage. In the presence of vigorous grasses heavy grazing is usually necessary to maintain a high Verano population in the sward. This cultivar tolerates the fungal disease anthracnose, which affects most stylos. Verano seeds heavily (up to 1500 kg/ha) over a long period and is best harvested by sweeping the ground in the early dry season. For this reason, soils, which compact but do not crack in the dry season are more suitable for seed crops than cracking or self mulching soils. It should be possible to harvest and clean at least 5 kg clean seed per person day from a good seed crop. Verano has a high proportion of hard seeds and quick establishment will be improved by treatment of seed (see Chapter VII). Because of its heavy seeding characteristics and ease of establishment, Verno is well suited to roadside and aerial seeding strategies.



Stylosanthes scabra (Shrubby Stylos cv Seca)

Seca is a long lived perennial plant growing to 150 cm in height. It grows best below 2000 m altitude and needs more than 500 mm annual rainfall but is more cold tolerant than Verano. Seca is adapted to poor, sandy, acid soils and requires good drainage. This cultivar tolerates the fungal disease anthracnose, which affects most sytlos. It is the least palatable of the stylos and is very hardy, making it ideal for stock exclusion areas and oversowing degraded common grazing areas. Its great genetic diversity makes it highly adaptable with a good capacity to spread. Seca seeds moderately (200-400 kg/ha) and is slow to flower in its first season. However, it has a strong capacity to rapidly increase in density after the first two seasons. Seed is best harvested in the early dry season by cut- and-thresh techniques followed by sweeping the threshing ground. On oversown areas, Seca is most successfully spread by allowing animals to graze plants in full seed and then moving them to unsown areas where the seed passes through the animals and spreads the plant to the new area.

Stylosanthes guianensis (Perennial Stylo cv Cook)

Cook is a long-lived perennial plant growing to 60 cm in height. It grows best at low altitudes and need more than 700 mm annual rainfall. Cook is adapted to poor, sandy, acid soils and requires good drainage. This cultivar is susceptible to the fungal disease anthracnose, which affects most stylos. Cook seeds lightly (less than 300 kg/ha) and has a restricted flowering period. Because of this it is less tolerant of heavy grazing than other stylos. Seed is best harvested in the early dry season by cut-and-thresh techniques followed by sweeping the threshing ground.

Lablab purpureus (Lablab)

Lablab is a vigorous annual or short-lived perennial legume with very vigorous seedlings, which is best promoted as a dual purpose species. It grows up to 2400 m altitude and requires more than 400 mm annual rainfall. Lablab is suited to a wide range of soils but will not tolerate salinity or water-logging. Being large seeded, it establishes easily on a rough seedbed with seeding rates of 18-20 kg/ha for pure stands, 15 kg/ha for undersowing and 2 kg/ha for forage strip sowings. Successful establishment requires the seed to be covered before germination, Lablab should be cut or grazed regularly and lightly. It should not be cut below 25-30 cm. It has moderate palatability and cattle may require several days to become acquainted with it. Lablab leaf supplements other forages well and its seed is an excellent human food. Lablab seeds heavily (500-1000 kg/ha) with maximum yields being produced from trellised crops or those growing with browse trees.



Cassia rotundifolia (Wynn Cassia)

This is synonymous with Chamaecrista rotundifolia. Wynn Cassia is a very hardy, low management species, which will persist and spread very rapidly in areas below 2000 m altitude. It is sensitive to frost and prefers sandy soils of low fertility. Wynn Cassia is extraordinarily drought tolerant and can produce seed within two months of establishment, because drought stimulates early flowering. It tolerates heavy grazing pressure and because of its low palatability is well suited to oversowing strategies and improving stock exclusion areas. Wynn Cassia establishes well with oversowing, even without any land preparation and with seeding rates less than 1 kg/ha. Heavy grazing of companion species assists with early establishment and normally encourages persistence by reducing competition from grasses. Wynn Cassia is suited to undersowing strategies and will normally set seed before harvesting the companion crop, if sowing is undertaken at the time of final weeding. This species has shown remarkable ability to increase its density and spread form roadside and aerial seeding where there is little competition, making it ideal for rehabilitation of degraded areas. Wynn Cassia seed is best harvested in the same way as Verano stylo, with one person being able to sweep, thresh, and clean at least 2 kg of seed per day.

Vigna unguiculata (Cow Pea)

Cow Pea is an annual dual-purpose legume suited to a wide range of environments. It has a wide range of genetic material. Cow Pea grows in lowlands up to 2500 m and is drought tolerant - maturing with anything more than 300 mm annual rainfall, depending on cultivar. This species grows on a wide range of well-drained soils and will tolerate gentle cutting or grazing during the growing season. Cow Pea will establish on a fairly rough seedbed and is sown at 15 kg/ha for pure stands and about 12 kg/ha for undersowing. Seed does not need to be inoculated in most parts of Ethiopia. Cow Pea is ideal for undersowing or intercropping strategies and complements maize and sorghum particularly well. In this case the cowpea is utilised after harvesting the companion crop - either by cut and carry harvesting, or direct grazing. The mixed cowpea hay and stover makes excellent conserved forage for dairy animals. Seed should be collected for subsequent sowing before grazing. Cow Pea seed is also a valuable human food. It yields 500-800 kg/ha seed with undersowing or intercropping strategies.



Vicia dasycarpa (Vetch)

Vetch is a vigorous climbing/sprawling annual legume with a wide range of adaptation and high level of farmer acceptability. It grows well between 1500 and 3000 m altitude and is suited to a wide range of rainfall - typically anything above 400 mm per annum. Vetch grows on a wide range of soils but requires good drainage for optimum productivity. It is ideally suited to undersowing, mixed pasture and backyard forage plots and establishes readily, even on rough seedbeds. The seed should be inoculated before sowing. Typical sowing rates are 20 kg/ha for pure stands, 12 kg/ha for unaersowing, and 5-12 kg/ha as a pioneer component of mixed pasture. When sown at 12-20 kg/ha with oats, vetch makes excellent hay. On many sites natural regeneration from self-sown seed is minimal, necessitating annual sowing. Vetch is most suited to undersowing and is self-regenerating where it is allowed to mature and seed before harvest of the companion crop. Seed yields between 400 and 1000 kg/ha are common but shattering occurs. Because of this, vetch grown on trellises or tall companion crops such as maize and sorghum are ideal for seed collection. One person can harvest and ciean up to 15-25 kg seed per day (Robertson, 1990). Languedoc Vetch (Vicici sativa) is better suited to low rainfall areas because it matures earlier than common vetch.

Medicago sativa (Alfalfa)

Alfalfa is a long-lived perennial legume producing large quantities of high quality forage under good management. Common cultivars include Hunter River, Hairy Peruvian, Siriver, Paravivo, and Sequel. Alfalfa (also known as lucerne) grows over a wide range of altitudes and is tolerant of a wide range of temperatures. It develops a deep taproot, which enables the plant to withstand drought once established. Alfalfa produces good forage yields with more than 600 mm of rainfall arid is ideally suited to irrigation. Alfalfa is suited to a wide range of well-drained soils but best production is on neutral to slightly alkaline soils. Inoculated seed should be sown into a well-prepared seedbed with seeding rates of 8-10 kg/ha for pure stands, and 5-6 kg/ha for mixed forage plots. Young seedlings require early weed control for best results and so row planting is preferable. Seed should be sown to no more than I cm depth on heavy soils and no more than 2 cm depth on light soils. Alfalfa produces the most forage when it is cut with a rotational system with an interval of 30 to 45 days during the growing season. As a rough guide, alfalfa is ready to harvest when about 10 per cent of the crop is flowering. Alfalfa should be cut about 3 cm above the crown to avoid damage to the growing points and weeds should be controlled after each harvest. Alfalfa is best suited to cut and carry systems supervision. Alfalfa has

A le m a ye h u M e n g is t u , 2002


very high feed value and should be used as a supplement for crop residues and natural hay in a mixture of 30 per cent alfalfa and 70 per cent other roughages.

Trifolium repens (White Clover)

White Clover is a versatile perennial clover, primarily for altitudes above 2400 m, but because it is drought and heat tolerant it has some uses in lower altitudes. It has a much longer growing season than native trifoliums in Ethiopia and will typically grow for some time into the dry season. White clover seeds heavily and will spread rapidly, even under heavy grazing pressure. Native trifoliums in Ethiopia include Trifolium decorum, T. burchellianum, T. quartinianum, T. semipilosum and T. tembense.

Lotus pedunculatus (Maku Lotus)

Maku Lotus is a perennial legume with a very wide adaptation, primarily above 2400 m altitude. It requires more than 800 mm rainfall, is frost tolerant, and will grow on a wide range of sites from those that are well drained to those that are waterlogged. Maku Lotus is tolerant of heavy grazing and, being shade tolerant, can grow through a canopy of weeds and companion grasses. It is useful for improvement of stock exclusion areas, cover cropping in agro-forestry strategies, oversowing (especially in bottom lands subject to waterlogging) and contour forage strips. Maku Lotus does not produce prolific quantities of seed but has proven its ability to persist and spread in Ethiopia.

IMPROVED BROWSE LEGUMES

Tree legumes are extremely important elements in improved forage production programs because of their productivity and multi-purpose uses. Being perennial trees or shrubs they have a three dimensional root system and crown, which greatly increases the productivity of systems where land area is limited. Apart from large quantities of quality forage, browse legumes have deep rooting systems to increase their productivity during the dry season, and they produce other products such as fuelwood, construction timber, seeds, and bee products. In addition, browse species provide shelter and privacy, which is valued by many farmers. The following species have fast growing attributes, which make them especially suited to improved forage programs. Their attributes are summarised in Table 5.2 in Chapter V and Table 7.1 in Chapter VII.


F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S tu d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s fo r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

Leucaena leucocephala (Leucaena)

Leucaena is a browse legume of great importance in Ethiopia. Its major use is in the production of highly palatable, nutritious forage. Its secondary uses include fuelwood production, nitrogen supply for companion crops, erosion control, and shelter. Leucaena fuelwood burns well and the cut plant coppices rapidly. It is suited to warm-hot regions below 2000 m altitude and requires'more than 400 mm rainfall. There are now many cultivars and hybrids of Leucaena which will increase the range of this genus. For example, L. leucocephala x L. diversifolia hybrid KX3 will tolerate cooler conditions and should be suitable to 2400 m altitude. Leucaena prefers well-drained, fertile soils and will not tolerate highly acid or waterlogged soils. It is most productive on neutral to alkaline soils. Leucaena is susceptible to the leaf sucking psyllid Heteropsylla cubana which, although uncommon at the moment, gives a reason to discourage Leucaena monocultures in favour of leguminous browse polycultures. Suitable mixing species include Sesbania sesban, Cajanus cajan and local leguminous browse species such as Acacia sp. and other exotic species, such as Calliandra calothyrus and Flemingia.

Leucaena and its companion browse legumes are well suited to backyard forage programs, contour forage strips, agro-forestry systems such as alley cropping, oversowing on sites with self mulching soils, intercropping with perennial tree crops, and for soil conservation on stock exclusion areas. It is best established by direct seeding for all strategies except contour forage strips and agro-forestry where seedlings are more appropriate because they reduce the risk of young plants being killed by early grazing. Bare rooted seedlings are the best strategy for nursery production of plants to be established in the field. When transplanting bare rooted seedlings, leaves should be carefully stripped from the seedling to reduce moisture stress. If bare rooted seedlings are planted the same day that they are dug from the nursery, 90 per cent survival is possible. This is why village nurseries are more practical than centralised nurseries. Contour forage strips and alley cropping systems should have Leucaena or their browse legumes spaced at about 50 cm between plants in the row. Offset double row planting is useful in some areas, in which case between row spacings of 1 m are normally successful. As detailed in Chapter IV, Leucaena produces best with cut and carry systems but is well adapted to browsing also. In Ethiopia annual yields of 2 kg DM forage per metre of contour forage hedge and up to 10,000 kg DM/ha have been achieved on farmers fields. Pure stands will produce more than 2,000 kg seeds per ha with single trees in contour forage strips producing up to 2 kg seeds per year. Seed is best collected by plucking ripe pods from the trees before they shatter. This generally done on an opportunistic basis. Cut trees continue to flower and set seed and make see collection easier because they have less height. Leucaena is a good seed crop for farmers new to this industry because of its high

A le m a ye h u M e n g is t u , 20 02 89


production and because it seeds over a long time, thus spreading the labour demand. It is possible to harvest and clean 12 -20 kg seed per person day (Robertson, 1990).

Sesbania sesban (Sesbania)

Sesbania is an adaptable browse legume which will live for up to 7 years and will grow in some environments not suited to either Leucaena or tree lucerne. It is highly palatable and its major use is a forage with secondary uses for shelter, and nitrogen fixation for companion crops. Sesbania wood is not useful for fuel or construction but can be used for fencing. It produces best below 2000 m altitude, is very frost sensitive, and not very drought tolerant - requiring more than 600 mm annual rainfall for survival. Sesbania grows on a wide range of soils including very poor acid sands and waterlogged soils, but responds well to improved fertility. It should not be cut or browsed before it has become established, after which regular cutting produces the best results - as detailed in Chapter IV. Cutting intervals of about 6 weeks result in good productivity. Infrequent cutting or browsing results in very low leaf:stem ratios. Sesbania produces less forage than Leucaena but what it does produce is of very high quality. It should be grown with other browse species to reduce the impact of insect attack, which can be severe in monocultures. Sesbania is highly suited to contour forage banks, living fences in backyards, and alley farming. It establishes rapidly from direct seeding and this is the establishment method of choice. When sown into a well-prepared seedbed at the beginning of the major wet season and kept weed free, Sesbania establishes rapidly. Cutting or browsing should not begin until the trees are more than 1 m in height. It does not self-seed easily so direct seeding is required for all establishment. Despite this, Sesbania seeds heavily, especially from trees, which have not been cut for 12 months, and can yield more than 1 kg seed per tree. Pods are harvested by hand and one person can typically harvest and clean 3-5 kg seed per day (Robertson, 1990).

Cajanus cajan (Pigeon Pea)

Pigeon Pea is a short-lived dual purpose shrub legume providing forage, grain for human consumption, and low quality fuelwood. It lives up to 4 years and is an excellent crop to improve food security and integrate forage and cropping systems below 2400 m altitude. Pigeon Pea establishes rapidly on a wide range of well-drained soils and requires more than 350 mm annual rainfall for good production. The plant tolerates only light cutting or browsing and is best developed in contour forage strips, house compound hedges, and intercropping strategies. It recovers well from light cutting and is highly palatable, as detailed in Chapter IV. Because of its use for human food, Pigeon Pea is a useful plant to introduce the concept of contour forage strips and alley cropping to lowland


F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E t h io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p lic a tio n s fo r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

farmers. Once Pigeon Pea is established, and farmers are used to the idea o f a productive third dimension to their cropping systems, longer lived browse species such as Leucaena can be introduced to fill gaps as Pigeon Pea dies out. The plant is best established by direct seeding using 10-50 kg/ha for pure stands (not recommended for forage strategies) and about 1 kg/krn of contour forage strips. Seed should be sown into a well-prepared site and covered with no more than 2 cm soil. Early growth is slow but once established plants require little attention. Pigeon Pea intercrops very well with maize an sorghum. Pigeon Pea productivity depends very much on the cultivar used. Annual seed yields of 1,500 to 3,000 kg/ha have been recorded but pod boring insects reduce yields. One person can harvest up to 20 kg seed per day (Robertson, 1990).

Chamaecytisus palmensis (Tagasaste/Tree Lucerne)

Tree lucerne is a temperate, multipurpose browse legume of major importance to highland areas of Ethiopia. It is one of the few highly productive browse species for altitudes above 2000 m altitude. Its prim ary uses are forage and fuelwood but farmers also value it for shelter, bee forage, nitrogen fixation, and soil conservation purposes. The species has a remarkable level of genetic diversity with major differences in canopy shape, branching habit, leafiness, and flowering capacity. This diversity is a major advantage in view of the wide range of AEZs over which the plant is grown. Tree lucerne tolerates mild frosts but will not tolerate water logging at all. It is most suited to well-drained fertile soils but is productive on infertile acid sands as long as they are well drained. It is drought tolerant once established but requires more than 400 mm annual rainfall for maximum productivity. Tree lucerne is well suited to backyard forage programs, contour forage strips, agro-forestry systems such as alley cropping, oversowing on sites with self mulching soils, and for soil conservation on stock exclusion areas. It is best established by direct seeding for extensive strategies but intensive strategies such as backyard forage, contour forage strips and agro-forestry should use nursery-grown seedlings because early seedling growth is very slow. This also reduces the risk o f young plants being killed by early grazing. Bare rooted seedlings are the best strategy for nursery production of plants to be established in the field. Seedlings should be planted the same day that they are dug from the nursery, making village nurseries more practical than centralised nurseries. Tree lucerne should be planted at about 50 cm between plants in the row for contour forage strips and alley cropping systems. Off-set double row planting is useful in some areas, in which case between row spacings of 1 m are normally successful. As detailed in Chapter IV, tree lucerne produces best with cut and carry systems but is well adapted to browsing also. It should not be harvested until it has reached more than 1 m height. In Ethiopia annual yields of 1 kg DM forage per metre of contour forage hedge and up to 4,500 kg DM/ha have been achieved on


F o ra g e P ro d u c tio n in Ethiopia: a C ase Study with Implications for Livestock Production

farmers fields. Single trees in contour forage strips produce up to 1 kg seed per year after they are two years old. Seed is best collected by plucking ripe pods from the tree before they shatter. This is generally done on an opportunistic basis. Cut trees continue to flower and set seed and make seed collection easier because they have less height and more synchronised flowering. Tree lucerne is a good seed crop for highland farmers new to this industry because of its high production. It is possible to harvest and clean up to 4 kg seed per person day (Robertson, 1990).

IMPROVED GRASSES

M ost ruminant livestock in Ethiopia rely on local grasses for their roughage and much of their nutrition. Many of these species have low palatability, poor productivity and inadequate nutrients to maintain animals, especially during the dry season. Improved grasses, many o f them selected from other parts of Africa, have better productivity, palatability and nutrient characteristics that make them desirable for inclusion in improved forage production programs. Species and cultivars with proven capabilities are detailed below. Their attributes are summarised in Table 5.3 i i r Chapter V. other species showing promise include Andropogon gayanus (Gamba Grass), Panicum coloratum (Bambatsi Panic).

Cenchrus ciliaris (Buffel Grass)

Buffel Grass is extremely drought tolerant and is a very robust grass for areas below 2000 m with more than 250 mm annual rainfall. It is adapted to heavy cutting or grazing but is less palatable than many other grasses. Buffel Grass establishes well from seed and is well suited to improvement o f stock exclusion areas and rehabilitation of degraded areas.

Panicum maximum (Guinea Grass/Panic)

Panic is an erect grass, useful for strip planting or mixed pastures in areas below 2400 m altitude with more than 500 mm annual rainfall. It grows on most soils but requires high fertility for good productivity. Panic produces good quality forage and is well adapted to cutting or grazing. Suitable cultivars include Petrie and Gatton.

Setaria sphacelata (Setaria)

Setaria is a widely adaptable species for’ areas for areas below 2400 m altitude with more than 700 mm annual rainfall. It grows on a wide range of soils and tolerates waterlogging. Setaria is ideal for contour forage strips where it can

A la m a y a h u M a n g is t u , 2002 92


be established by direct seeding or from splits. It does not produce seed readily - an advantage for contour forage strip strategies because it reduces the risk of this plant becoming a weed. Cultivars include Narok, Solander, Nandi, and Kazaungula, with Solander being the best adapted to highland areas.

Chloris gayana (Rhodes Grass)

Rhodes Grass is a stoloniferous grass suited to areas below 2400 m with more than 600 mm annual rainfall. It grows on a wide range of soil types but requires good fertility for high productivity. Rhodes Grass provides effective erosion control but should not be used for contour forage strip strategies because it can become a crop weed. It tolerates heavy grazing and cutting and so its erosion control attributes are best used for stock exclusion areas and oversowing strategies.

Pennisetum purpureum (Elephant Grass)

Elephant Grass is a very productive, sterile grass for cut and carry systems and is well suited to contour forage strip strategies in areas below 2400 m and with more than 700 mm annual rainfall. It responds dramatically to manuring and is an excellent backyard forage - where it makes productive use of higher nutrient loads. Elephant Grass must be cut regularly to maintain its forage quality. It combines well with browse legumes and vigorous perennial forage legumes such as Greenleaf Desmodium. Elephant Grass is planted as sets at the beginning of the wet season.

Paspalum plicatulum (Plicatulum)

Plicatulum is a very versatile, low input grass for areas below 2000 m altitude with more than 700 mm annual rainfall. It is drought tolerant and adapted to very low fertility soils and to waterlogging. Plicatulum tolerates heavy grazing once established and is well suited to stock exclusion areas and other degraded sites. It produces good seed crops and is not recommended for contour forage strips, although it has good soil conservation properties. Cultivar Bryan performs well in Ethiopia.

Phalaris aquatica (Phalaris)

Phalciris is the most important grass species for forage development and soil conservation in Ethiopia. It has good forage qualities and is best mixed with other forages to optimise its value as a livestock feed. Phalaris performs well between 1800 and 3000 m altitude, is frost and drought tolerant and is productive with more than 400 mm annual rainfall. It requires fertile soils for strong growth



but will survive on poor soils, although its conservation value is diminished on such soils because of weak growth. Phalaris establishes slowly but once developed is well adapted to heavy grazing or cutting. It is suitable for contour forage strips where its soil conservation properties are put to best use, but is also suitable for backyard forage and mixed pasture strategies. In intensive programs, Phalaris establishes well from splits either from nurseries or from breaking up old clumps. It requires through seedbed preparation for direct sowing and does not establish well with competition. Phalaris should be lightly grazed or cut during early establishment to encourage the plant to stool. Phalaris does not set fertile seed except where long growing seasons are possible, in which case annual seed yields of 300-400 kg/ha are feasible with adequate nutrition. This lack of fertility in many sites is an advantage for contour forage strip strategies because it reduces the risk of Phalaris becoming a crop weed.

Dactylis glom erata (Cocksfoot)

Cocksfoot produces high quality forage in areas above 2400 m altitudewith more than 500 mm annual rainfall. It is less productive than Phalaris buthas a role in mixed pastures and contour forage strips, where it should be mixedwith leguminous species for best results.



ANNEX 2: Anim al Perform ance of Im proved Forage


TABLE A2.1 s PROFILE OF SELECTED SERVICE COOPERATIVES IN HIGHLAND ETHIOPIA

FILE * SCPMF2 SC NAME-> FONCO HULAHUBETA UDE t DIBANOIBA KOLBA

ALTITUDE RANGE 2200 - 3000 M 1800 M 1800 - 1900 MGROWING SEASON (DAYS) 270 SINGLE SEASON 150 -210

FORAGE FORAGE FORAGE FORAGE

LAND USE (HA) (T/HA) HA (T/HA) HA (T/HA) HA (T/HA)

SHALL RAINS (BELG) 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00MAIN RAINS (MEHR) 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.41 0.00 1.66 0.00FALLOW LAND 2.00 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04GRAZING (OWN - NOT COttUNAL) 2.50 0.11 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.13GARDEN/HOUSE AREA 1.50 0.30 0.45 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02

TOTAL 1.60 0.93 0.44 0.03 1.74 0.18

COHJNAL GRAZING (YES/NO) YES YES YESCROPPING INTENSITY (X) 89 100 94

EST. EDIBLESTOVER AVERAGE TONNES AVERAGE TONNES AVERAGE TONNES

CROPS AND AREA (HA) (T/HAJ AREA/FARM STOVER AREA/FARM STOVER AREA/FARM STOVER

SORGHLH 2.50 0.04 0.10 0.36 0.90 0.02 0.05

MAIZE 3.50 0.20 0.70 0.05 0.18TEFF 2.00 0.13 0.26 1.04 2.08

MILLET 2.50BARLEY 3.00 0.13 0.39 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.12OATS 3.00WHEAT 3.00 0.55 1.65 0.32 0.96HORSE BEANS 0.50 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.03FIELD PEAS 0.50 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.04

CHICK PEAS 0.50 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.05VETCH 3.00RAPE/LINSEEDNOUGHARICOT BEAN 0.50 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.02VEGETABLES 0.50 0.01 0.01POTATO 0.02 0.00ENSETE 0.13 0.00CHAT 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.00COFFEE 0.03 0.00

COmUNAL GRAZING (+30X) 2.00 0.53 1.06 0.15 0.29 0.57 1.15

TOTALS 1.82 4.18 0.74 1.45 2.25 4.49

LABOUR UNITS/FAMILY 2.61 2.25 2.27OKEN/FARM 0.91 0.03 1.87OXEN/HA CROPPED 0.50 0.04 0.83

LIVESTOCK OWNED TUJ/UNIT NO. TLUs NO. TLU* NO. TLUs

COWS 1.00 1.64 1.64 0.84 0.84 0.80 0.30

OXEN 1.10 0.91 1.00 0.03 0.03 1.87 2.06BULLS 1.10 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03

1300 - 2200 M ] 210 - 270

FORAGE HA (T/HA)

0.10 0.001.88 0.000.29 0.580.35 0.880.18 0.27

2.80 1.73

YES68

AVERAGE TONNESAREA/FARM STOVER

0.50 1.250.40 1.400.67 1.34

0.03 0.090.01 0.030.07 0.210.01 0.010.01 0.010.02 0.01

0.02 0.00

0.01 0.01

0.92 1.85

2.67 6.19

3.041.170.44

NO. TLDs

1.30 1.301.17 1.290.27 0.30

DEBRE MAHI

2400 HSIMGLE SEASON

FORAGE HA (T/HA)

0.111.170.000.010.19

1.48

YES

0.000.000.000.030.29

0.31

99

AVERAGE TONNES AREA/FARM STOVER

0.140.480.030.330.020.030.060.060.060.140.630.04

0.04

0.49

2.55

2.941.53 0.60

NO.

0.781.53 0.06

0.490.960.080.990.060.090.030.030.030.420.000.00

0.00

TLUs

0.781.680.07

DEMBESSA || CHEKI

1600 - 2000 MSINGLE SEASON

FORAGEHA (T/HA)

0.00 0.002.09 0.000.05 0.100.02 0.050.16 0.24

2.32 0.3S

YES97


1.32 3.300.08 0.280.60 1.200.03 0.08

0.06 0.030.02 0.01

0.07 0.00

0.77 1.53

2.95 6.43

2.431.140.39

NO. TLUs

0.63 0.631.14 1.250.00 0.00

2800 M 270

HAFORAGE(T/HA)

1.08 0.000.87 0.000.87 1.740.70 1.750.07 0.11

3.59 3.60

YES54


1.08 3.240.60 1.800.01 0.030.14 0.07

0.03 0.02

0.01 0.00

1.18 2.37

3.05 7.52

2.401.840.60

NO. TLUs

1.55 1.551.84 2.020.39 0.43

97

TABLE A2.1 z PROFILE OF SELECTED SERVICE COOPERATIVES IN HIGHLAM) ETHIOPIA (Cont'd.)

FILE * SCPR0F2 SC NAME-> FONCO 11 HULAHUBETA 11 UOE & DIBANOIBA KOLBA DEBRE KAMI 11 DGBESSA 11 CHEKI

YOUNG CATTLE (1-3 YRS) CALVES

SHEEPGOATSEQUINESCAMELS

0.600.25

0.130.130.371.10

TOTAL HO.

TLU/HA

FUEL SUPPLY (X OF FAMILIES USING)

WOODDUNGSTRAWFUEL ADEQUATE (PERCENTAGE)

USE OF FEED RESOURCES (X FAMILIES)

DRY SEASON SHORT RAINS MAIN RAINS

TOTAL FORAGE (KG)KG FORAGE/TLU

APPROX TOTAL MJ-ME APPROX TOTAL KG CP

APPROX MJ-ME/TLU AVAILABLE APPROX KG CPALU AVAILABLE

APPRQX MJ-ME REQUIRED/TLU APPROX KG CP REQUIRED/TLU

0.521.05

4.16

0.880.450.700.00

2.036.21

100553958

STRAW

MJ-ME/KG— CP X-----

MJ-ME/DAY -> KG CP/DAY ->

7.006.00

350.45

EST.EST.

MJ-ME DEFICIT KG CP DEFICIT

FORAGE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (MAX. AREA/LENGHT OF STRATEGY)

PASTURE DEVELOPMENT (HA)(30X COMJNAL GRAZING) UNOERSOWING (HA) (75X OF CROPPED AREA)ALLEY PLANTING (KM) (0.4 KM/HA)STRIP/CONT. PLANTING (KM) (0.3 KM/HA)

0.310.26

3.28

0.110.060.260.00

0.433.71

2.32

HAY

472813

51061375

35742306

962583

47439610

-11697-304

0.030.320.320.24

0.410.44

1.72

0.470.750.160.00

1.383.10

7288943

STRAW

0.000.340.120.09

0.250.11

1.23

0.060.100.060.00

0.221.45

3.29

HAY

2077

14801023

1036389

716361

18483238

-8120-149

0.500.57

3.77

0.000.171.130.00

STRAW

0.020.020.480.36

0.300.14

3.33

0.000.020.420.00

0.443.77

2.17

HAY

132610

46681237

32679280

866274

48196620

■15517-340

0.800.97

4.51

0.000.600.430.00

1.035.54

97836057

STRAW

717946

0.110.680.570.43

0.480.24

3.61

0.000.080.160.00

0.243.84

1.37

HAY

585021

79182060

55426475

14420124

49102631

6324-156

0.380.34

3.09

1.400.030.660.00

2.09 5.18

STRAW

0.000.130.370.28

0.230.09

2.84

2.21

HAY

34166

44621364

31233268

954582

41801537

-10568-270

0.470.33

2.57

0.000.500.740.00

1.243.81

100388760

STRAW

816744

0.011.070.600.45

0.280.08

2.25

0.000.070.270.00

0.342.59

1.12

HAY

191515

68162634

47713409

18441158

33053425

14661-16

1.261.10

6.14

7.930.162.130.00

10.2216.36

6100352

STRAW

0.210.000.560.42

0.760.28

5.03

1.03 0.02 0.79 0.00

1.846.87

1.91

HAY

584845

111191618

77836667

1132497

878131129

-9977-462

98

TABLE A2.1 « PROFILE OF SELECTED SERVICE COOPERATIVES IN HIGHLAND ETHIOPIA (Coat'd.)

FILE i SCPROF2 SC MAME-> I FONCO | HULAHUBETA J | UDE t DIBANDIBA | j HOLBA j DEBRE ma. j| DEMBESSA | CHEKI

BACKYARD FORAGE (M2) (30X OF AREA)BACKYARD TREES (MO.) (1000 TREES/HA, HIM 100)

1000300

20100

10100

I 600 180

630190

530160

230100

LANO USE (HA)

SHALL RAINS (BELG) 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.11 0.00 1.08MAIN RAINS (MEHR) 0.97 0.41 1.66 1.88 1.17 2.09 0.87FALLOW LAND 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.05 0.87GRAZING (CCmJMAL) 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.35 0.01 0.02 0.70GARDEN/HOUSE AREA 0.30 0.02 0.01 0.18 0.19 0.16 0.07

1.60 0.44 1.74 2.80 1.48 2.32 3.59

TOTAL AREA UNDERSOWN

SORGHUM, MAIZE, MILLET, TOTAL AREA------ > 0.43 0.45 0.02 0.90 0.17 1.43 0.00ENSETE, COFFEE, CHAT

ALLEY/STRIP PLANTING

85 X OF TOTAL AREA OF TOTAL AREA------ > 0.93 0.36 1.41 1.68 1.09 1.78 1.66ANNUAL CROPS : 0.4 t 0,3KM/HA RESPECTIVELY

INC. UAL. INC. BAL. INC. BAL. INC. BAL. INC. BAL. INC. BAL. INC. BAL.

INC. ENERGY YEAR 1 2502 -9195 1050 -7070 761 -14756 3384 9708 1553 -9015 3972 18633 1589 -8388AND ENERGY BALANCE (KMC) YEAR 2 6924 -4773 2824 -5296 2727 -12790 9466 15790 4522 -6046 10665 25326 5278 -4699

YEAR 3 10965 -732 4964 -3156 5498 -10019 16239 22563 7458 -3110 18247 32908 9831 -146YEAR 4 13873 2176 6657 -1463 7832 -7685 21721 28045 9639 -929 24432 39093 13666 3689YEAR 5 16411 4714 8251 131 10066 -5451 27023 33347 11630 1062 30456 45117 17400 7423YEAR 6 17343 5646 8571 451 11399 -4118 28830 35154 12619 2051 32084 46745 19437 9460

INC. PROTEIN YEAR 1 48 -256 19 -130 15 -325 £3 -93 31 -239 73 57 31 -431AND PROTEIN BALANCE (KG CP) YEAR 2 135 -169 52 -97 56 -284 180 24 90 -180 199 183 105 -357

YEAR 3 216 -88 93 -56 113 -227 311 155 150 -120 343 327 196 -266YEAR 4 272 -32 124 -25 162 -178 416 260 195 -75 461 445 274 -188YEAR 5 322 18 154 5 209 -131 518 362 235 -35 575 559 349 -113YEAR 6 342 38 161 12 237 -103 556 400 256 -14 609 593 391 -71

INC. ANNUAL INCOME (BIRR) NUMBER---- > 0.27 0.42 0.24 0.17 0.03 0.38 0.12 0.45 0.29 0.31 0.10 0.26 1.62 0.61CATTLE (+10% OFFTAKE) (BIRR 30/HD)SHEEP/GOATS (+20X OFFTAKE)(BIRR 250/HD) SHEEP OXEN SHEEP OXEN SHEEP OXEN SHEEP OXEN SHEEP OXEN SHEEP OXEN SHEEP OXEN

(SCALED IF ENERGY AND PROTEIN YEAR 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ARE LIMITING) YEAR 2 3 35 2 14 0 0 4 113 3 26 3 64 16 51

YEAR 3 4 52 4 22 0 0 4 113 4 39 3 64 24 77(FIXED IF ENERGY AND PROTEIN YEAR 4 5 70 5 29 0 0 4 113 6 52 3 64 32 102ARE NOT LIMITING) YEAR 5 7 87 6 36 0 0 4 113 7 64 3 64 40 128

YEAR 6 B 105 7 43 0 0 4 113 9 77 3 64 49 154

99

TABLE A2.1 t PROFILE OF SELECTED SERVICE COOPERATIVES IN HIGHLAND ETHIOPIA (Cont'd.)

FILE i SCPRQF2 “SC HAHE-» FONCO |1 HULAHUBETA || U0£ ft DIBANOIBA || HOLBA | DEBRE MAHI 0EM8ESSA | CHEKI

NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. MO.ADIT10NAL RETURNS FROM FATTENING SHEEP OKEN SHEEP OKEN SHEEP OKEN SHEEP OKEN SHEEP OXEN SHEEP OKEN SHEEP OX®

(PROTEIN LIMITS THE NUMBER YEAR 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0OF OXEN TO ONE PER FARM) YEAR 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

YEAR 3 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.5 0 0YEAR 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 1 0 0YEAR 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0YEAR 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

TOTAL NET INCOME FROM FATTENING (BIRR)(BIRR 350/0KEN) - (YEAR 1 - 6) 350 350

TOTAL INC. LIVESTOCK INCOME YEAR 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(EXCLUDING MILK SALES) YEAR 2 37 17 0 116 29 67 67

(BIRR) YEAR 3 56 25 0 291 43 242 101YEAR 4 75 34 0 291 57 417 135YEAR 5 94 42 0 466 72 417 168YEAR 6 112 50 0 466 86 417 202

INC. INCOME FROM BYPRODUCTS YEAR 1 40 16 19 50 28 56 28(HOOD AND DUNG) * (BIRR) YEAR 2 129 49 72 157 94 169 103

YEAR 3 215 87 146 284 166 316 202YEAR 4 300 125 231 417 243 448 312YEAR 5 393 165 332 568 330 610 440YEAR 6 447 185 391 644 383 686 513

TOTAL INC. INCOME (BIRR) YEAR 1 40 16 19 50 28 56 28YEAR 2 166 66 72 273 123 236 170YEAR 3 271 112 146 575 209 558 303YEAR 4 375 159 231 708 300 865 447YEAR S 487 207 332 1034 402 1027 606YEAR 6 559 235 391 1110 469 1103 715

LABOUR OKEN LABOUR OKEN LABOUR OKEN LABOUR OXEN LABOUR OXEN LABOUR OXEN LABOUR OKEN

INC. LABOUR t OKEN DAYS YEAR 1 23 5 11 5 12 6 21 6 17 6 20 6 15 6(FOR FORAGE DEVELOPMENT YEAR 2 39 5 21 5 21 6 44 6 31 6 46 6 28 6AND UTILISATION) YEAR 3 61 0 34 0 34 0 74 0 44 0 81 0 48 0

YEAR 4 72 0 43 0 42 0 99 0 52 0 111 0 62 0YEAR 5 84 0 51 0 50 0 124 0 60 0 142 0 76 0YEAR 6 100 0 63 0 60 0 156 0 70 0 182 0 92 0

RETURN PER DAY (BIRR) VEAR 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 2(OKEN DAYS NOT LIMITING) YEAR 2 4 3 3 6 4 5 6

YEAR 3 4 3 4 8 5 7 6YEAR 4 5 4 6 7 6 8 7YEAR 5 6 4 7 8 7 7 6YEAR 6 6 4 7 7 7 6 8

100

ANNEX 2

TABLE A2.2 t FORAGE DEVELflROfT STRATEGIES,, CHELD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE. ETHIOPIA

FARM AREA 1.65 HECTARES SERVICE COOPERATIVE i CHEUOCROPPED AREA 1.45 HECTARESGRAZING AREA 0.03 HECTARES FILE * STRATMDO

FILE t STRATH002 AVAILABLE MAX X X ESTABUSMENT/UNITINCREASEDSTRATEGY AREA FORAGE LEGUME LABOUR YIELD PER

UTILISATION DAYS DAYS UNIT (KG)

PAST. DEVELOPMENT (HA) 0.01 70 70 5 3 5000UNOERSOMING (HA) 0.74 70 60 0 2500ALLEY PLANTING <*M) 0.34 85 100 10 2 2000STRIP PLANTING (KM) 0.26 75 60 8 2 1000BACKYARD PAST. (M2) 570 60 80 2 10 0.50BACKYARD TREES (NO.) 170 70 100 1

PERCENTAGE SUPPLY EACH QUARTER/SEASON (AND THUS Z USE OF LABOUR)PAST. TREES UNDERSOWING

JAN/FEB/MAR 15 20 0APR/MAY/JUN 15 20 0 *JUL/AUG/SEP 40 30 0 1OCT/NOV/DEC 30 30 100

FORAGE VALUES GRASSES LEGUMES RESIDUES

MJ-ME/KG 8.5 9.5 6.5 *CP X 8.0Z 21.OX 4. OX

LIVESTOCK REQUIREMENTS 9 KG CM/DAY

50 MJ/DAY 0.63 KG CP/DAY

100 DAYS FED

VALUE OF 1 LABOUR DAY 2.5 BIRRVALUE OF 1 OXEN DAY 5 BIRRVALUE OF HOOD 0.25 BIRR/KGVALUE OF DUNG 0.25 BIRR/KG

LABOUR USE CALCULATIONS/PHASING - PASTURE

USAGE LABOUR AR/HA 75 100 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150

AMOUNT YR1 0.002 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3DEVEl.- YR2 0.002 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3OPED YR3 0.002 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3EACH YR4 0.002 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3YEAR YR5 0.002 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

TOTAL USAGE LABOUR 0.15 0.35 0.65 0.95 1.25 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5ESTABLISHMENT LABOUR 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01OXEN DAYS REQUIRED 0.006 0.006 0,006 0.006 0.006

101

TABLE A2.2 t FORAGE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES, CHELO SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE, ETHIOPIA (Cont'd.)

YIELD CALCULATIONS/PHASING - PASTURE

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

INC. FORAGE/YR * KG-DM/HA 3000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000 5000

AMOUNT YR1 0.002 6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10DEVEL- YR2 0.002 e 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10OPED YR3 0.002 6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10EACH YR4 0.002 6 10 10 10 10 10 10YEAR YR5 0.002 6 10 10 10 10 10

TOTAL YIEU) KG-DM 6 16 26 36 46 50 50 50 50 50

PERCENT UTILISATION 53 63 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

AVAILABLE DM (KG) 3 10 18 25 32 35 35 35 35 35

AVAILABLE ME (MJ) 29 93 167 232 296 322 322 322 322 322AVAILABLE CP (KG) 1 2 3 4 6 6 6 6 6 6

LABOUR USE CALCULATIONS/PHASING - UNDERSOWING

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

USAGE LABOUR/YR/HA 15 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

AMOUNT YR1 0.148 2.22 7.4 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8DEVEL- YR2 0.148 2.22 7.4 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8OPED YR3 0.148 2.22 7.4 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8EACH YR4 0.148 2.22 7.4 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8YEAR YR5 0.148 2.22 7.4 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8

TOTAL USAGE LABOUR 2.22 9.62 24.42 39.22 54.02 66.6 74 74 74 74ESTABLIStffCHT LABOUR 0 0 0 0 0OXEN DAYS REQUIRED 0 0 0 0 0

YIELD CALCULATIONS/PHASING - UNDERSOWING

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

INC. FORAGE/YR - KG-DM/HA 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500

AMOUNT YR1 0.148 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370DEVEL- YR2 0.148 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370OPED YR3 0.148 370 370 376 370 370 370 370 370EACH YR4 0.148 370 370 370 370 370 370 370YEAR YR5 0.148 370 370 370 370 370 370

TOTAL YIELD KG-HA 370 740 1110 1480 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850


102

ANNEX 2

TABLE A2.2 t FORAGE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES, CHELO SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE, ETHIOPIA (Cont'd.)

YEAR 1 2 3 ■ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AVAILABLE OH (KG) 194 466 777 1036 1295 1295 1295 1295 1295 1295


LABOUR USE CALCULATIONS/PHASING - TREE LEGUMES IN ALLEYS

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

USAGE LABOURAR/KM 10 20 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

AMOUNT YR1 0.068 0.68 1.36 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4OEVEL* YR2 0.068 0.68 1.36 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4OPED YR3 0.068 0.68 1.36 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4EACH YR4 0.068 0.68 1.36 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4YEAR YR5 0.068 0.68 1.36 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4

TOTAL USAGE LABOUR 0.68 2.04 5.44 8.84 12.24 14.96 17 17 17 17ESTABLISHMENT LABOUR 1 1 1 1 1OXEN DAYS REQUIRED 0 0 0 0 0

YIELD CALCULATIONS/PHASING - TREE LEGUMES IN ALLEYS

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


AMOUNT YR1 0.068 DEVEL- YR2 0.068 OPED YR3 0.068 EACH YR4 0.068 YEAR YR5 0.068

40.8 95.240.8

13695.240.8

136136

95.240.8

136136136

95.240.8

136136136136

95.2

136136136136136

136136136136136

136136136136136

136136136136136

TOTAL YIELD KG-KM 40.8 136 272 408 544 639.2 680 680 680 680


AVAILABLE DM (KG) 26 104 231 347 462 543 578 578 578 578


103

TABLE A2.2 2

YIELD CALCULATIONS/PHASING

FORAGE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES. CHELD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE, ETHIOPIA (Cont'd.)

- PASTURE

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


AMOUNT YR1 0.002 6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10DEVEL- YR2 0.002 6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10OPED YR3 0.002 6 10 1U 10 10 10 10 10EACH YR4 0.002 6 10 10 10 10 10 10YEAR YR5 0.002 6 10 10 10 10 10

TOTAL YIELD KG-DM 6 16 26 36 46 50 50 50 50 50


AVAILABLE DM (KG) 3 10 18 25 32 35 35 35 35 35

AVAILABLE HE (MJ) 29 93 167 232 296 322 322 322 322 322AVAILABLE CP (KG) 1 2 3 4 6 6 6 6 6 6

LABOUR USE CALCULATIONS/PHASING - UNDERSOWING

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

USAGE LABOUR/YR/HA 15 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100



YIELD CALCULATIONS/PHASING - UNDERSOWING

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

INC. FORAGE/YR - K6-0M/HA 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500 2500

AMOUNT YR1 0.148 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370DEVEL- YR2 0.148 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370 370OPED YR3 0.148 370 370 376 370 370 370 370 370EACH YR4 0.148 370 370 370 370 370 370 370YEAR YR5 0.148 370 370 370 370 370 370

TOTAL YIELD KG-HA 370 740 1110 1480 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850 1850


102

ANNEX 2

TABLE A2.2 t FORAGE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES, CHELO SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE. ETHIOPIA (Cont'd.)

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

AVAILABLE DM (ICS) 194 466 777 1036 1295 1295 1295 1295 1295 1295

AVAILABLE HE (MJ) 1768 4242 7071 9428 11785 11785 11785 11785 11785 11785AVAILABLE CP (KG) 31 74 123 164 205 205 205 205 205 205

LABOUR USE CALCULATIONS/PHASING - TREE LEGUMES IN ALLEYS

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

USAGE LABOUR/YR/KM 10 20 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

AMOUNT YR1 0.063 0.68 1.36 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4OEVEL- YR2 0.068 0.68 1.36 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4OPED YR3 0.068 0.68 1.36 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4EACH YR4 0.068 0.68 1.36 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4YEAR YR5 0.068 0.68 1.36 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4


YIELD CALCULATIONS/PHASING - TREE LEGUMES IN ALLEYS

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


AMOUNT YR1 0.068 40.8 95.2 136 136 136 136 136 136 136 136DEVEL- YR2 0.068 40.8 95.2 136 136 136 136 136 136 136OPED YR3 0.068 40.8 95.2 136 136 136 136 136 136EACH YR4 0.068 40.8 95.2 136 136 136 136 136YEAR YR5 0.068 40.8 95.2 136 136 136 136

TOTAL YIELD KG-KM 40.8 136 272 408 544 639.2 680 680 680 680


AVAILABLE DM (KG) 26 104 231 347 462 543 578 578 578 578


103

TABLE A2.2 t FORAGE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES, CHELO SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE, ETHIOPIA (Corrt'd.)

LABOUR USE CALCULATIONS/PHASING - STRIP (BUNO) PLANTING

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

USAGE LABOUR/YR/KM 10 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30


TOTAL USAGE LABOUR 1 2 3 5 6 7.28 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8ESTABLISHMENT LABOUR 0 0 0 0 0OXEN DAYS REQUIRED 0 0 0 0 0

YIELD CALCULATIONS/PHASING -STRIP (BUND) PLANTING

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

INC. FORAGE/YR - 1KG-DM/HA 600 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000

AMOUNT YR1 0.052 31.2 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52DEVEL- YR2 0.052 31.2 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52OPED YR3 0.052 31.2 52 52 52 52 52 52 52EACH YR4 0.052 31.2 52 52 52 52 52 52YEAR YR5 0.052 31.2 52 52 52 52 52

TOTAL YIELD KG-KM 31.2 83.2 135.2 187.2 239.2 260 260 260 260 260


AVAILABLE DM (KG) 18 56 101 140 179 195 195 195 195 195

AVAILABLE ME (HJ) 160 511 923 1278 1633 1775 1775 1775 1775 1775AVAILABLE CP (KG) 3 9 16 22 28 31 31 31 31 31

LABOUR USE CALCULATIONS/PHASING - BACKYARDS

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TOTAL USAGE LABOUR 20 25 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30ESTABLISHMENT LABOUR 1 1OXEN DAYS REQUIRED 5 5

104

TABLE A2.2 t FORAGE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES, CHELO SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE, ETHIOPIA (Coot'd.)YIELD CALCULATIONS/MASING - BACKYARDS

YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

INC. FORAGE /M* PAST. 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5- DM / YEAR /TREE 0.3 0.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

SUARO YR1 285 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5AREA YR2 285 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5 142.5TREES YR1 85 25.5 59.5 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85AREA YR2 85 25.5 59.5 85 85 85 85 85 85 85

SUARO YIELD KG-DM 142.5 285 285 285 285 285 285 285 285 285TREES YIELD ICG-DM 25.5 85 144.5 170 170 170 170 170 170 170TOTAL YIELD KS-B/YARD 168 370 429.5 455 455 455 455 455 455 455

X UTILISATION PAST. 45 54 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60X UTILISATION TREES 53 63 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

FORAGE FROM SWARD 64 154 171 171 171 171 171 171 171 171FORAGE FROM TREES 13 54 101 119 119 119 119 119 119 119TOTAL AVAILABLE DM-ICG 78 207 272 290 290 290 290 290 290 290

HE FROM PAST. (MJ) 596 1431 1590 1590 1590 1590 1590 1590 1590 1590ME FROM TREES (MJ) 127 509 961 1131 1131 1131 1131 1131 1131 1131CP FROM PAST. (KG) 12 28 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31CP FROM TREES (KG) 3 11 21 25 25 25 25 25 25 25


TOTAL INCREMENTAL : DAYS OF :UTILISATION LABOUR 24 39 64 84 104 120 130 130 130 130ESTABLISHMENT LABOUR 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0OXEN DAYS 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

AVAILABLE FORAGE KG-CM 318 844 1400 1838 2259 2358 2393 2393 2393 2393AVAILABLE ME (MJ) 2927 7775 12909 16952 20827 21763 22093 22093 22093 22093AVAILABLE CP (KG) 54 146 243 319 392 412 419 419 419 419

INC. DUNG PRODUCTION (KG) 119 316 525 689 847 884 897 897 897 897DIGESTIBILITY (50X)/RE(XJVERY (75X)

VALUE OF DUNG (ETH BIRR) 30 79 131 172 212 221 224 224 224 224INC. HOOD PRODUCTION NO. OF TREES ALLEYS (.75 M SPACE) BACKYARD

INC. NO. OF TREES

9185176

9185351

910

442

910

533

910

623 623 623 623 623 623YIELD/TREE (KG DM) 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25, 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50

INC. HOOD PRODUCTION (KG) 44 176 332 533 779 935 935 935 935 935VALUE OF HOOD PRODUCTION 11 44 83 133 195 234 234 234 234 234(ETH BIRR)TOTAL VALUE OF BYPRODUCTS 41 123 214 306 407 455 458 458 458 458(ETH BIRR)

105

TABLE A2.2 < FORME DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES, CHELO SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE. ETHIOPIA (Cont’d.)

FORAGE PRODUCTION MODEL BASED ON PARAMETERS SET OUT AS i SHARD DEVELOPMENT (HA) 0.01 STRIP PLANTING (KM) 0.26UNDERSOWING (HA) 0.74 BACKYARD SHARD (M*) 570ALLEY PLANTING (KH) 0.34 BACKYARD TREES (NO.) 170

YEARQUARTER

3 .» 4 -- - 51 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

INCREMENTAL UTILISED FORAGE/QTR «/SHARDS 13 13 34 25 33 33 88 66 44 44 116 87 50 50 135 101 57 57 153 115TREES 8 e 12 12 32 32 47 47 66 66 100 100 93 93 140 140 116 116 174 174UNDERSOWING 0 0 0 194 0 0 0 466 0 0 0 777 0 0 0 1036 0 0 0 1295

TOTAL / QTR 21 21 46 ANNUAL TOTAL 318

INCREMENTAL METABOLISABLE ENERGY / QTR (MJ)

232 65844

65 135 580 1101400

110 216 964 1441838

144 274 1277 1742259

174 327 1584

SHARDS 118 118 314 236 305 305 814 611 402 402 1072 804 465 465 1240 930 528 528 1408 1056TREES 75 75 112 112 299 299 449 449 631 631 947 947 885 885 1328 1328 1105 1105 1657 1657UNOERSOHING 0 0 0 1768 0 0 0 4242 0 0 0 7071 0 0 0 9428 0 0 0 11785

TOTAL / QTR ANNUAL TOTAL

1932927

193 426 2115 60S7775

605 1263 5302 103412909

1034 2019 8822 135016952

1350 2567 11685 163320827

1633 3065 14497

INCREMENTAL CRUOE PROTEIN / QTR (KG)SHARDS 2 2 6 5 6 6 16 12 8 8 20 15 9 9 23 17 10 10 26 20TREES 2 2 2 2 7 7 10 10 14 14 21 21 20 20 29 29 24 24 37 37UNOERSOHING 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 123 0 0 0 164 0 0 0 205

TOTAL / QTR 4 4 9 38 12 12 25 95 22 22 41 159 28 28 53 210 34 34 63 261ANNUAL TOTAL 54 146 243 319 392

INCREMENTAL UTILISATION LABOUR/QTR (LABOUR DAYS)SHARDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 2TREES 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 4 4UNOERSOHING 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 54BACKYARDS 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

5 5 5 8 7 7 8 17 9 9 11 35 10 10 12 51 11 11 14 67ANNUAL TOTAL 24 39 64 84 104

ESTABLISHMENT /QTR 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1LABOUR DAYS TOTAL 2 2 1 1 1fa/OXEN DAYS b/ /QTR 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 5 5 0 0 0

106

A


ANNEX 3: Inoculation of Legumes

Legumes obtain some of their nitrogen from bacteria called rhizobia, which invade their roots to form nodules. Different legumes require different species of rhizobia. Some legumes are able to use rhizobia, which are already in the soil, for example vetch, stylos, siratro, axilaris, lablab and cowpea all react to rhizobia, which are commonly found in healthy soils in Ethiopia. Other legumes need specific rhizobia to enable them to fix atmospheric nitrogen. Some of these are listed in Table A3.1. Inoculation with the appropriate rhizobia is recommended for most legume forage crops. It is cheap and ensures an early supply of nitrogen to the developing plants. Where undersowing or intercropping strategies are used, it also increases the opportunities for mutual benefits from integrated forage and cereal production.

Seed inoculation is a very simple process. Peat-based inoculum is mixed with seed either with water alone or with water plus an adhesive agent such as gum arabic. For example, a packet of inoculum is mixed with 1 to 2 litres of water and thoroughly mixed with 50 kg of legume seed. The seed is dried in the shade because sunlight kills rhizobium. Since insecticide also kills inoculum, seed treated with insecticide should be dried for several days before inoculation and sown immediately into a very moist seedbed.

Table A3.1: Legume Rhizobium Requirements

Rhizobium Type SpeciesGroup 1 (cowpea) a/ Siratro, Axillaris, Seca Stylo, Verano Stylo, Lablab, GlycineGroup A CentroGroup B Lucerne/AlfalfaGroup C White CloverGroup D Red CloverGroup E LotusTree Lucerne Vetch, Tagasaste/Tree LucerneLeucaena LeucaenaDesmodium Greenleaf, SilverleafFSS Fine Stem Stylo

a/ Naturally Present in Ethiopian Soils



ANNEX 4: Model Contract for Supply of Pasture/Forage Seed

Contract of Saie for Pasture/Forage Seed

o f ........................................................produced in the grow ing season to

(Species, Cultivar) (For seed

(A ddress o f Producer: W ereda...........................

A w rajaService C o-operative

The Producer agrees to:-• Establish an area o f .....ha for the primary purpose of seed production o f .................® Prepare a seedbed to a level deemed acceptable by an FLDP representative.• Control the access of stock to the site.• Control weeds as required by the FLDP representative.• Use fertiliser, pesticides and herbicides as recommended by the FLDP representative.• Harvest seed at times and with techniques as nominated by the FLDP representative,

with seed being provided for collection within 4 weeks of harvest.• Clean seed to approxim ately...............% purity.• Follow the general technical advice of the FLDP representative on all matters of seed

crop husbandry.• Sell seed to FLDP.• Not declare the termination of the contract, except under the conditions expressly

provided by the law.Failure to comply with the above conditions will result in disqualification form further participation in the seed production programs.

The Fourth Livestock Development Project agrees to:-• Provide initial seed requirement.• Provide adequate supervision of all aspects of crop management and seed production.• Purchase all seed collected during the production year ........................... from the

nominated area, at a price o f B i r r ............................/kg, in cash payable at the time ofcollection or as agreed with the producer.

• Collect/purchase seed at times and places to be determined by mutual agreement.

Signed

Producer's Nam e Producer's Signature FLD P C o-coordinating U nit

Service Co-op. Exec. R epresentative'sC om m ittee R epresentative Signature D a te .............................

For Zonal Office A FR D M D



BIBLIOGRAPHY

AACM. 1987. A Simple System for Defining Agro-Ecological Zones in Ethiopia. Final Report - a National Summary. AACM Advisory Te~m, Working Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

AACM. 1989. Fattening Manual. Fourth Livestock Development Project Ministry of agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Alemayehu M., 1987. Feed Resource in Ethiopia. In: Animal Feed Resources for Small-scale Livestock Producers. IDRC, Nairobi, Kenya.

Alemayehu M., 1989. Recommended Forage for Ethiopian Environments and Current Strategies for Utilization. Proceedings of the XVI International Grassland Congress, Nice, France.

Ash, A.J. 1990. Effect of Supplementation with Leaves from the Leguminous Trees Sesbania grandifolia, Bizza chinensis, and Glericidea sepium on the Intake and Digestibility of Guinea Grass Hay by Goats. An. Feed Sc. And Tech. 28 (3-4): 225-232.

Biru, L., Lambourne, L.J., and Fana, T. 1988. Feeding Value Sesbania and Leucaena Browse. In: Proceedings of Joint Workshop on Utilisation of Research Results on Forage and Agricultural By-Product Materials as Animal Feed Resources in Africa. ILCA, Ethiopia.

CARDI. 1986. Pasture Research and Development in the Eastern Caribbean.Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute, Barbados.

Carter, E.D. 1975. The Potential Role of Integrated Cereal Livestock Systems from Southern Australia in Increasing Food Production in the Near East and North Africa Region. FAO/UNDP Regional Project on Improvement and Production of Field Food Crops.

Donald, C.M. 1982. Innovation in Australian Agriculture. Sydney University Press.

FLDP. 1989. Forage Extension Manual. Fourth Livestock Development Project. Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.



FLDP. 1991. Forage Seed Production Extension Manual. Fourth Livestock Development Project. Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Galang, M.C. et al. 1990. The Effect of Cutting Height and Frequency on the Productivity of Sesbania seban var. nubica in a Sub-Tropical Environment. Nitrogen Fixing Tree Research Reports Volume 8.

Gramshaw, D., and Walker, B. 1988. Sown Pasture Development in Queensland. Old. Ag. J. 144 (2): 93-101.

Humphreys, L.R. 1987. Tropical Pastures and Fodder Crops, Second Edition. Longman, UK.

Karim, A.B. et al. 1991. Effect of Cutting Height and Cutting Interval on Dry Matter Yield of Leucaena leucocephala. Agroforestry Systems 16 (2): 129-138.

Kahurananga, J.C. 1988. Intercropping Trifolium spp. In Wheat and its Suitability for Smallholder Farmer Conditions of the Ethiopian Highlands. In: proceedings of Joint Workshop on Utilisation of Research Results on Forage and Agricultural By-Product Materials as Animal Feed Resources in Africa. ILCA, Ethiopia.

Lambert, M.G. et al. 1989. Forage Shrubs in North Island Hill Country. 2 Sheep and Goat Preferences. NZ J. Ag. Res. 32 (4): 485-490.

O'Reilly, M.V. 1987. Better Pastures for the Tropics. Yates, Australia.

Otsyina, R.M. et al. 1987. Manual of Forage Bank Establishment and Management. ILCA. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Phiri, D.M. 1992. The Effect of Browse Supplementation on Maize Husk Utilisation by Goats. Agroforestry Systems. 17: 153-158.

Robertson, A.D. 1990. Final Report on Forage Development Activities and Proposals. FLDP, Ministry of Agriculture, Ethiopia.

Saleem, M.A.M. 1982. Effect of Time of Planting Stylosanthes hamata cv.verano on Sorghum Grain and Legume Yield. ILCA Annual Report, Ethiopia.


F o r a g e P r o d u c t io n in E th io p ia : a C a s e S t u d y w it h Im p l ic a tio n s f o r L iv e s t o c k P r o d u c tio n

Tadesse, A. 1988. The Underexploited Potential of Improved Forages in the Mid- Altitude and Lowland Areas of Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of Joint Workshop on Utilisaiton of Research Results on Forage andAgricultural By-Product Materials as Animal Feed Resources in Africa. ILCA, Ethiopia.

Townsend, R.J., and J.E. Radcliffe. 1990. Tagasaste Forage Production Systems. N Z J. Ag. Res. 33 (4): 627-634.

Udedibie, A.B.I., and F.O. Igwe. 1989. Dry Matter Yield and ChemicalCompositor of Pigeon Pea Leaf Meal. An. Feed Sc. And Tech. 24 (1- 2): 111-119.

Walshe, M.J. et al. 1991. Dairy Development in Sub-Saharan Africa - A Study of Issues and Options, World Bank Technical Paper No. 135.Washington, D.C.

Wagad, D., and Ndumbe, R.D. 1986. The Effect of Different ProteinSupplements on Weight Gain and Voluntary Intake of Maize Stover by Cattle. In: Proceedings of a Workshop on the Utilisation of Agricultural By-Products as Livestock Feeds in Africa. ILCA, 1986.


FORAGE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

miiw-j-a*-*'% or H H 'M i

H t l H B eijges&e. t-j-r

Cut and Carry Feeding System Forage Seed Production & Collection

Photo: Alemayehu Mengistu

ETHIOPIAN SOCIETY OF ANIMAL PRODUCTIONESTABLISHMENTThe Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP) was established on 1? August 1990. ESAP is a non-profit nationwide scientific and educational organization open to ail who are interested in breeding, management, feeding, health, and state-of-the-art technology in the improvement i r livestock productivity.

OBJECTIVESESAP has the following major objectives:• To promote the advuii .meat of animal production with the toa* os

increasing its usefulness through sustained scientific research a ad development.

• To provide a common forum for the periodical exchange of id e a s a: also to liaise with national and international societies.

• To foster interest in the development of animal procaction an*' ■ safeguard the professional quality, academic standards, rele 'ane?, anc ensure the welfare of each and even/ member with regard to professional enrichment, and also to provide auximum ssrvit community at large.

a To collect research findings in animal production from profession'sinside and outside the country and publish these in various iv: v.s a.ui disseminate them to users.

• To promote a good understanding of ways of handling animaio concerned and also to forward ideas as > improvernent and •» animals.

• To encourage and reward organizations and individual for t! nr outstanding contributors in the advancement of animat product . ESAP welcomes professionals and organizations, engaged ir. Ue various disciplines of animal production, and users of the profess: v u become members under any of the following categories.

ESAP welcomes professionals and organizations engaged in me vario disciplines of animal production, and the users of the profession to fc ecx ne membersFor further information please contact:The Ministry of Agriculture Regional Office in yu:u areaORESAP Public Relations Officer PO Box 80010 Addis Ababa ETHIOPIA

Printed by Berhancna Seaian, Printing

forage production in ethiopia - 197.156.72.153:8080

Documents