Proceedings of the Third Regional Meeting of the Forages for ... - cgiar

Forages for Smallholders Project 

PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD REGIONAL MEETING OF THE FSP 

Proceedings of the Third Regional 

Meeting of the Forages for 

Smallholders Project held at the 

Agency for Livestock Services of 

East Kalimantan, Indonesia. 

Samarinda, East Kalimantan, Indonesia 

23-26 March 1998 

CIAT Working Document No. 188 

Edited by W.W. Stür 

1

PROCEEDINGS OF THE THIRD REGIONAL MEETING OF THE FSP 

2 

The Forages for Smallholders Project (FSP) 

The Forages for Smallholders Project (FSP) is a partnership of the governments of 

Indonesia, Lao PDR, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand and P.R. China. A first 

phase of the FSP from 1995 to 1999 was funded by the Australian Agency for 

International Development (AusAID) and managed by Centro Internacional de 

Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 

Organisation of Australia (CSIRO). A second phase of the FSP from 2000 to 2002 has 

been funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and is coordinated by CIAT. 

The objectives of the first phase of the FSP were to increase the availability of adapted 

forages and the capacity to deliver them to different farming systems, in particular, 

upland farming systems in Indonesia, Lao PDR, Philippines and Vietnam, and to develop 

close linkages in forage development activities between these countries and Malaysia, 

Thailand and tropical areas of P.R. China. The main implementing agencies were: 

Indonesia – Directorate General of Livestock Services (DGLS). 

Lao P.D.R. – Department of Livestock and Fisheries (DLF), Ministry of 

Agriculture and Forestry. 

Philippines – Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources 

Research and Development (PCARRD). 

Vietnam – National Institute of Animal Husbandry (NIAH), Ministry of 

Agriculture and Rural Development. 

China P.R. – Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Science (CATAS), 

Hainan. 

Malaysia – Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute 

(MARDI). 

Thailand – Department of Livestock Development (DLD), Ministry of 

Agriculture and Cooperatives. 

For further information 

Visit the CIAT-Asia website: http://www.ciat-asia.org/ 

Contact the CIAT regional coordinator: CIAT 

Regional Coordinator 

PO Box 783 

Vientiane, Lao PDR 

Email: ciat-asia@cgiar.org 

Visit the CIAT website: http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/

Contents 


Foreword ............................................................................................................ 5 

The Forages for Smallholders Project – Where does it fit 

and what has it achieved? ........................................................................ 6 

Indonesia......................................................................................................... 7 

Maimunah Tuhulele 

Lao PDR .......................................................................................................... 10 

Viengsavanh Phimphachanhvongsod 

Philippines ...................................................................................................... 13 

Ed Magboo, Pat Faylon and Francisco Gabunada 

Vietnam ........................................................................................................... 16 

Le Hoa Binh 

China ............................................................................................................... 18 

Liu Guodao, Zhuo Jiasuo, Bai Changjun and Wei Jiashao 

Malaysia .......................................................................................................... 20 

Wong Choi Chee 

Thailand .................................................................................................... ..... 23 

Chaisang Phaikaew 

Livestock development in Indonesia .................................................... 28 

Policy on livestock development in Indonesia........................................... 29 

Erwin Soetirto 

Trends in ruminant livestock development in East Kalimantan................ 37 

Erik Nursahramdani 

Environmental adaptation of forages .................................................. 40 

Environmental adaptation of forages in Lao PDR 41 

Phonepaseuth Phengsavanh and Viengsavanh 

Phimphachanhvongsod 

Regional evaluation of forages in Aceh, Kalimantan, North Sulawesi 

and North Sumatra ....................................................................................... 53 

Ibrahim and Maimunah Tuhulele 

Environmental adaptation of forages in Vietnam....................................... 67 

Le Hoa Binh, Truong Tan Khanh and Le Van An 

Regional evaluation of forages in the Philippines ..................................... 78 

F. Gabunada, E. Magboo, V. Pardinez, C. Cabaccan, A. Castillo, L. 

Moneva, A. Obusa, P. Asis, J. Mantiquilla, C. Subsuban 

Developing and evaluating forage technologies with 

farmers ............................................................................................................... 103 

Farmer evaluation of forages in the Philippines: Progress, 

experiences and future plans ...................................................................... 104 

E. Magboo, F. Gabunada, L. Moneva, E. Balbarino, P. Asis, W. 

Nacalaban, J. Mantiquilla, and C. Subsuban 

3


4 

Impact of participatory approaches on sheep production in North 

Sumatra, Indonesia ..................................................................................... 125 

Tatang Ibrahim 

Developing and evaluating forage technologies with farmers in Lao 

PDR ............................................................................................................... 129 

Viengsavanh Phimphachanhvongsod and Phonepaseuth 

Phengsavanh 

Farmer evaluation of forages in Vietnam: Progress and plans ................. 138 

Bui Xuan An, Le Van An, Truong Tan Khanh, Leo Hoa Binh and Bui 

The Hung 

Developing forage systems with smallholder farmers in Malitbog, 

Bukidnon, Philippines ................................................................................. 144 

Willie Nacalaban 

Farmer evaluation of forages in Indonesia: Progress, experiences 

and future plans ........................................................................................... 146 

Maimunah Tuhulele, Ibrahim , Heriyanto , Tugiman, M. Taufiq, A. 

Heriadi, S. Hasyim, T. Ibrahim, R. Hutasoit, Radianto, Z. Tanjung, 

G. Zainal, Mansur, T. Bustari, Susilan and I. Labantu. 

Forage research papers .............................................................................154 

Seed production potential of Brachiaria species in northeast Thailand .. 155 

Ganda Nakamanee and Chaisang Phaikaew 

Evaluation of Stylosanthes species for resistance to anthracnose and 

suitability for leaf meal production ............................................................. 163 

Liu Guodao, Zhuo Jiasuo, Bai Changjun and Hong Caixiang 

Some natural and induced grasslands of the Lao PDR ............................. 167 

Bryan Hacker, Soulivanh Novaha and Vanthong Phengvichith 

New forage developments in Bali, Indonesia: Arachis pintoi as a cover 

crop and Calliandra calothyrsus for cattle fattening ................................. 173 

I. Ketut Rika 

The use of Leucaena leucocephala in farming systems in Nusa 

Tenggara, eastern Indonesia....................................................................... 178 

Jakob Nulik 

Forage research and development in the Kingdom of Bhutan.................. 183 

Walter Roder 

The use of forages for soil fertility maintenance and erosion control 

in cassava in Asia......................................................................................... 196 

R.H. Howeler, A. Tongglum, S. Jantawat and W.H. Utomo 

Discussion papers on impact of forages and networking ..........212 

Sustaining a research and development network: Experiences with 

SEAFRAD..................................................................................................... 213 

Wong Choi Chee and Peter Horne 

Assessing the impact of forages at the farm level ..................................... 215 

Peter Kerridge and Sam Fujisaka 

List of participants.................................................................................. 219

Foreword 


Regional meetings of the Forages for Smallholders Project (FSP) are held annually. 

They serve to summarise the activities and results obtained, and to give partners a voice 

in formulating the direction of the FSP. It is a forum to review activities, reflect on 

progress and decide on activities for the coming year. During the first phase of the FSP 

(1995-1999) the proceedings of the Regional Meetings were published in a Technical 

Report Series, providing a technical summary of the activities and results obtained in all 

partner countries. Three Technical Reports have been published so far: 

• Technical Report No. 1: Feed Resources for Smallholder Livestock Production in 

Southeast Asia. Proceedings of the first Regional Meeting of the FSP held in 

Vientiane, Lao PDR, 16-20 January 1996. 

• Technical Report No. 2: Proceedings of the second Regional Meeting of the FSP 

held at the Chinese Academy of Tropical Agricultural Science, Danzhou, Hainan, 

P./R. China, 19-24 January 1997. 

• Technical Report No. 3: Forage Seed Supply Systems. Proceedings of a workshop 

held at the Animal Nutrition Research Centre, Tha Pra, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 31 

Oct. and 1 Nov. 1996. 

This forth Technical Report contains the proceedings of the third Regional Meeting of the 

FSP held at the Agency of Livestock Services of East Kalimantan, Samarinda, East 

Kalimantan, Indonesia, 23-26 March 1998. This meeting coincided with the mid-term 

review of the FSP and provided an excellent opportunity to present the achievements of 

the FSP, review the process of forage technology development and make plans for the 

remaining two years of the Project. 

5


The Forages for Smallholders Project – 

Where does it fit and what has it 

achieved? 

6


The FSP in Indonesia – Where does it fit and what can it 

achieve? 

Maimunah Tuhulele 1 

Introduction 

As human population and income per capita increase, the demand for livestock products 

(meat, milk, and eggs) increases. The demand for ruminant meat (beef, mutton, veal, 

venison) is second to that for poultry. The ruminant population must increase to satisfy 

this demand. Consequently, the amount of feed produced for them must also increase. 

Naturally occurring forages and crop residues barely satisfy the current demand by 

ruminant livestock. Additional forage must be produced. During the First Long-term 

Development Stage (1969 – 94), the Indonesian government, through the Directorate 

General of Livestock Services (DGLS), has tried to address this problem by introducing 

improved species of grasses and legumes, multiplying them in government stations, and 

then distributing these planting materials free to smallholder farmers. 

Despite the efforts and budget put into the so-called Forage Intensification Program, 

there was very little adoption by farmers. The reasons for non-adoption include a 

shortage of species adapted to smallholder farming systems, low availability of planting 

materials, and lack of farmer involvement in the forage selection process. 

Through a collaboration with the Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) 

and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation of Australia 

(CSIRO), the Southeast Asian Forage Seeds Project was implemented in East and 

Central Kalimantan, and at BPT-HMT Pelaihari, a government forage multiplication 

station, from January 1992 to December 1994. The project was funded by the Australian 

Agency for International Development (AusAID), and aimed to introduce and evaluate 

new forage germplasm, and distribute adapted varieties to smallholder farmers. Six 

broadly adapted forage species (Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621 or cv. Kent, Brachiaria 

brizantha cv. Marandu, Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk, Brachiaria humidicola 

(several lines), Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160, and Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 

184) were identified and recommended for on-farm testing. 

In January 1995, a follow-on project, the Forages for Smallholders Project (FSP) 

started, also with funding from AusAID. This project built on the results from the 

previous project, taking up the challenge to develop forage technologies for smallholder 

farmers using a farmer participatory approach. 

Organisation and collaborators 

The executing agency of the FSP in Indonesia is the Directorate General of Livestock 

Services (DGLS). The activities in the field are carried out by provincial and district 

livestock services. The subject matter specialists (Penyuluh Peternakan Spesialis/PPS), 

field extension workers (Penyuluh Peternakan Lapangan/PPL) and field technicians 

guide, supervise, and monitor day-to-day activities in the field. The project also 

collaborates with the Assessment Institutes for Agricultural Technologies (BPTP) in North 

Sumatra and Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT) in eastern Indonesia, Udayana University in 

Bali, and forage multiplication stations of DGLS. 

1 

Bina Produksi, Directorate General of Livestock Services, Jalan Harsono RM No. 3, Jakarta Selatan 12550, 

Indonesia. 

7


Sites of the FSP are located in several 

Aceh 

provinces (Fig. 1). These are in Aceh 

(grassland), North Sumatra (intensive 

North Sumatra 

sedentary upland agriculture and 

East Kalimantan 

Central Kalimantan 

North Sulawesi 

plantation), Central Kalimantan (rainfed 

lowland agriculture), East Kalimantan 

(extensive sedentary upland agriculture, 

rainfed lowland agriculture), and North 

Sulawesi (plantation and extensive 

Bali 

sedentary upland agriculture). Additionally, 

NTT 

the FSP collaborates with researchers in 

Bali and NTT in eastern Indonesia. 

Fig. 1. FSP sites in Indonesia. 

An overview of activities carried out at 

the FSP sites is shown in Table 1. They 

include regional evaluation of forages, farmer evaluation, multiplication of species, 

training, and seed production. Following a negative response of farmers during the 

participatory diagnosis stage, the activities in Central Kalimantan were limited to 

networking with technicians and PPL. To date, they are involved only in training and 

information exchange. Farmer evaluation of forages is being conducted at many sites. 

The local collaborators at each site are shown in Table 2. 

Training of local collaborators (extension officers, development workers) in farmer 

participatory research (FPR) has been conducted in Samarinda and Sungei Putih. 

Training courses in forage agronomy are planned for Samarinda and Aceh in April/May 

1998. Ir. Ibrahim received hands-on training in the Philippines in 1997. 

8 

Table 1. Activities at different FSP sites. 

Activity 

Loa Janan, 


Makroman, 


Sepaku II, 


Regional evaluation ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ - - - 

Participatory diagnosis - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - - - 

Farmer evaluation of forages - ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - 

Farmer training - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - - - 

Expansion to other areas - ✔ ✔ - - - - ✔ - - - 

FPR training for field staff - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - - - 

Government seed production - - - - - - - - - - ✔ 

Kanamit, Central 

Kalimantan 

Gorontalo, 


Farmer training in the form of field days, cross visits, provision of planting material, 

and lectures/discussions have been carried out at all sites where farmers are testing 

forages. 

Marenu, 

North Sumatra 

Pulau Gambar, 

North Sumatra 

Saree, Aceh 

Besakih, Bali 

Kupang, NTT 

BPT-HMT stations

Table 2. Activities at different FSP sites. 

Sites Collaborators 


Blang Ubo-ubo, Aceh Besar, Aceh Ir. T. Bustari, Ir. Mansur, and Mr. Ghozali Zainal (Livestock Services) 

Marenu and Pulau Gambar, North 

Sumatra 

Dr. Tatang Ibrahim, Ir. Tri Kingkin, and Mr. Rijanto Hutasoit, (BPTP), 

Mr. Radianto and Mr.Zulkifli Tanjung (Livestock Services) 

Kuala Kapuas, Central Kalimantan Dr. M. Taufiq. Ir. Arief Heriadi, and Mr. Said Hasyim (Livestock 

Services) 

Loa Janan, Makroman and Sepaku, 


Ir. Ibrahim, Mr. Herianto and Tugiman (Livestock Services) 

Gorontalo, North Sulawesi Ir. Susilan and Mr. Idrus Labantu (Livestock Services) 

Besakih, Bali Prof. I.K. Rika, Udayana University 

Kupang, NTT Dr. Jacob Nulik (BPTP NTT) 

BPT-HMT Pelaihari, South Kalimantan 

BPT-HMT Serading, NTB 

BPT-HMT Kabaru, NTT 

Staff of forage multiplication stations of DGLS 

Seed production and multiplication of planting materials must be carried out locally 

to make access to planting material easy for farmers. Vegetative propagation is often 

the preferred method by smallholder farmers. National seed production of the best 

varieties started at BPT-HMT stations in Pelaihari, Serading, and Kabaru. This activity is 

fully funded by DGLS. 

9


The FSP in Lao PDR – Where does it fit and what can it 

achieve? 

Viengsavanh Phimphachanhvongsod 1 

10 

Myanmar 

China 

❶ – Luang Namtha 

➋ – Oudomxay; 

➌ – Luang Phabang 

➍ – Xieng Khouang 

➎ – Vientiane (Namsuang) 

➏ – Savannakhet 

➐ – Champassak 

Introduction 

The vast majority of livestock (cattle and buffalo) in Lao PDR are managed by 

smallholder farmers using few or no external inputs. Livestock are an important 

component of upland farming systems in Lao PDR, providing draft power, manure, food, 

income, and livelihood for resource poor farmers. Locally available inputs (such as rice 

straw and tree leaves) are sometimes utilized. Animals usually graze on communal land 

(forests, grasslands, roadsides) and are either kept in pens at night or simply left to roam. 

In raising livestock, the farmers encounter many problems, including: 

• Diseases. 

• Lack of feed during the dry season. 

• Lack of feed at critical times during the wet season (such as planting and 

harvesting), when there is not enough labour to care for animals. 

• Loss of animals to thieves and predators. 

• Damage to other farmers’ fields. 

The Forage for Smallholders Project (FSP) is working with the Department of 

Livestock and Fisheries to address these problems. This paper summarises the 

activities of the FSP in Lao PDR. 

Agro-ecosystems 

The project has activities in seven locations (Fig. 1), covering a wide diversity of agroecosystems 

and climate. Soil pH at these sites 

varies from very acid to neutral. Most soils are 

moderately to severely infertile. Average 

annual rainfall ranges from 1000 to 2600 mm, 

❶ with peak rainfall occurring from June to August 

❷ 

(Table 1, Fig. 1). The dry season at all sites 

❸ 

lasts for 5 - 6 months, with only 1-4% of total 

❹ 

rainfall being received during this period. 

❺ 

Thailand 

Fig. 1. FSP sites in Lao PDR. 

❻ 

❼ 

Vietnam 

Cambodia 

Project activities 

The activities of the project at each of these 

sites are summarised in Table 2. In addition to 

these activities, the following booklets/manuals 

have been translated into Lao: 

• Hacker JB, Simon BK, Phengvichith V. 

1996. The pek savannas of the Lao 

People’s Democratic Republic – ecology 

and floristics. Genetic Resources 

Communication No. 23. Australian Tropical 

Forages Genetic Resources Centre, CSIRO 

1 Livestock Development Division, Department of Livestock and Fisheries, Vientiane, Lao PDR.


Tropical Agriculture, Australia. 

• Hacker JB, Phimphachanhvongsod V, Novaha S, Kordnavong P, Veldkamp J, 

Simon BK. 1997. A guide to the grasses of Xieng Khouang province, Lao PDR, and 

some notes on the ecology of grazing lands in the province. Genetic Resources 

Communication No. 28. Australian Tropical Forages Genetic Resources Centre, 

CSIRO Tropical Agriculture, Australia. 

• Cheng Y, Horne P. 1997. Field experiments with forages and crops. Practical tips 

for getting it right the first time. 48 p. Australian Centre for International Agricultural 

Research, Canberra. 

• Developing forage technologies with farmers. A training manual. Forages for 

Smallholders Project. 

Table 1. Agro-ecosystems for each location. 

Agro-ecosystems 

Louang 

Namtha 

Oudomxay 

Agroforestry ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ 

Upland cropping ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - - - 

Grassland - - - ✔ - ✔ ✔ 

Rainfed lowland rice - - - - ✔ ✔ ✔ 

FSP partners 

Louang 

Phabang 

At all sites, we work with provincial and district livestock officers. The FSP has also 

established links with other development organisations in Lao PDR. Apart from 

consultative links, active collaboration in on-farm activities is continuing with the GtZ 

NAWACOP project in Xieng Khouang, the EC Micro Projects in Luang Phabang, and the 

Lao-IRRI Project in Luang Phabang. Another project with the Norwegian Church Aid in 

Luang Namtha is about to begin. 

Future activities 

The FSP in Lao PDR is planning to expand its activities in on-farm development and 

evaluation of forage technologies. In 1998, we will start on-farm evaluations in Luang 

Namtha and Oudomxay and will involve more farmers from Luang Phabang and Xieng 

Khouang. 

To do this, we must learn from our experience during our first year of on-farm work. 

Because we depend so much on the district rural development officers, we need to 

spend more time and efforts in developing their skills and motivating them to work with 

us. This means providing them more training opportunities (both formal and informal), 

visiting them more often and giving them opportunities to visit other sites to build their 

confidence in FPR methodologies. 

As we expand our on-farm activities we will continue to conduct participatory 

diagnoses, as these are critical components in planning on-farm trials with farmers. 

Xieng 

Khouang 

Vientiane 

Savannakhet 

Champassak 

11


12 

Table 2. Project activities in Lao PDR. 

Activity 

Luang 

Namtha 

Oudomxay 

Nursery evaluation - ✔ ✔ - ✔ - ✔ 

Regional evaluation ✔ - ✔ ✔ - - - 

On-farm evaluation - - ✔ ✔ - - - 

FPR training - - ✔ - - - - 

Agronomy training - - - - ✔ - - 

Evaluation training - - ✔ - - - - 

Participatory diagnosis - ✔ ✔ ✔ - - ✔ 

Forage multiplication - - - - ✔ - - 

Legume tree evaluation - - - - ✔ - - 

Brachiaria seed experiment. - - - - - - ✔ 

Grassland studies - - - ✔ - ✔ ✔ 

Luang 

Phabang 

Xieng 

Khouang 

Vientiane 

Savannakhet 

Champassak


The FSP in the Philippines – Where does it fit and what 

can it achieve? 

Ed Magboo 1 , Pat Faylon 1 and Francisco Gabunada 2 

Forage R & D activities in the country 

Forage evaluation in the Philippines formally started in 1973 with the creation of the 

National R & D Team for Forage, Pasture and Grasslands under the coordination of 

Philippine Council for Agriculture Forestry and Natural Resources Research and 

Development (PCARRD). Anent to this, a network of R & D stations was established 

(Fig. 1). 

Most of these stations were state colleges and universities (Table 1). The forage 

evaluation and selection process follows standard procedures: 

1. Varietal collection, evaluation, and selection. 

Germplasm collection. Seeds of different species are collected and planted in plots for 

seed increase and propagation. In the absence of seeds, root stocks or cuttings are used 

as planting materials. 

Observational nursery trial. This unreplicated trial screens a large number of entries. 

Seed yield potential is determined at this stage. 

Preliminary performance trial. The entries are those selected 

in the nursery trials. Exceptions are new introductions with 

enough seeds and which are known to have performed well 

in other locations. Each entry is planted in 2 m x 6 m plots, 

replicated four times. This trial determines which entries will 

be considered for regional trials. 

2. Regional performance trials (on-station). 

Entries, which showed high potential from the preliminary 

performance trials, were distributed to various stations 

nationwide (Fig. 1). Evaluation based on associative 

properties, performance under specific environmental 

conditions, and animal performance is done at this stage. 

Regional Performance Trial Locations 

Fig. 1. Location of RPT and FSP sites. 

FSP Sites 

After this evaluation, the entries that performed better 

than the existing materials are recommended for distribution 

and wide-scale adoption. 

1 

Livestock Research Division, Philippine Council for Agriculture Forestry and Natural Resources Research and 

Development (PCARRD), Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. 

2 

Forages for Smallholders Project, CIAT, c/o The International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Laguna, 

Philippines. 

13


14 

Table 1. Institutions involved in the existing R & D network. 

Institution Location 

1. Mariano Marcos State University Batac, Ilocos Norte 

2. Cagayan State University Tuguegarao, Cagayan 

3. Isabela State University Cabagan, Isabela 

4. Abra State Institute of Science and Technology Lagangilang, Abra 

5. Central Luzon State University Muñoz, Nueva Ecija 

6. Pampanga Agricultural College Magalang, Pampanga 

7. University of the Philippines Los Baños College, Laguna 

8. Bureau of Animal Industry Diliman, Quezon City 

9. Camarines Sur State College of Agriculture Pili, Camarines Sur 

10. West Visayas State College Lambunao, Iloilo 

11. Visayas State College of Agriculture Baybay, Leyte 

12. Central Mindanao State University Musuan, Bukidnon 

13. University of Southern Mindanao Kabacan, North Cotabato 

The FSP in the Philippines 

The Forage for Smallholders Project (FSP) began in 1995. It is guided by the overall 

objective of the project, that is, to increase the availability of adopted forages and the 

capacity to deliver them to different farming systems, particularly upland farming 

systems. In the Philippines, the FSP is coordinated by PCARRD which is part of the 

Department of Science and Technology. The project has a large number of government 

and non-government collaborators (Table 2). 

Table 2. FSP collaborators in the Philippines. 

Agency Focal person Project site 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Farming 

system 

On-going activities 

V. Pardinez / S. Darang Gamu, Isabela Upland On-station trials 

C. Cabaccan / R. Pascua Aglipay, Quirino Upland On-station trials 

R. Jamola / A. Cosep Argao, Cebu Upland On-station trials 

A. Castillo Camalig, Albay Coconut 

plantation 

On-farm trials 

FARMI, Visayas State 

College of Agriculture 

E. Balbarino / A.Obusa Matalom, Leyte Upland On-farm trials 

Mag-uugmad Foundation 

Inc. (NGO) 

T. Llena / L. Moneva Guba, Cebu Upland On-farm trials 

Local government unit P. Asis Cagayan de Oro City Upland On-farm trials 

W. Nacalaban Malitbog, Bukidnon Upland On-farm trials 

Philippine Coconut 

Authority 

J. Mantiquilla / C. 

Albacite 

Davao City Coconut 

plantation 

Philippine Carabao 

Centre at University of 

C.P. Subsuban / O. 

Arganas 

Aroman, Carina, 

North Cotabato 

Southern Mindanao M’lang, North 

Cotabato 

On-station/ Onfarm 

trials 

Upland On-farm trials 

Rainfed 

lowland 

On-farm trials 

While the regional performance trials (RPT) are conducted on-station, the FSP 

works with farmers to evaluate forages on farms. At FSP sites, various activities were 

carried out: Regional evaluation, seed production, farmer evaluation of forages,


multiplication of forages, training courses in participatory diagnosis (for technicians and 

farmers), planning and evaluation of forages, forage agronomy, and seed production 

(Table 3). 

As part of the staff development program of FSP, 15 local staff (mostly present and 

prospective collaborators) were trained on Forage Agronomy at IRRI, Los Baños, Laguna 

from 4-15 August 1997. 

Table 3. Activities being carried out at FSP sites. 

Activity 

Sites 

Isabela Quirino Albay Leyte Cebu CDO Bukidnon Davao USM 

Regional evaluation ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ 

Participatory diagnosis - - - ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

On-farm evaluation - - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Participatory evaluation - - - ✔ - ✔ ✔ - - 

Multiplication of forages ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Seed production ✔ ✔ - - ✔ - - - - 

Training of technicians ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Training of farmers ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Continued collaboration with the FSP – a must for the 

Philippines 

Access to germplasm 

This is a vital area where FSP can help national R & D programs. With the continued 

program of the Centro Internacional de Agricultural Tropical (CIAT) and with appropriate 

funding from AusAID, continued access to forage germplasm is assured. The existing 

program on RPT on forages can be accelerated if FSP can provide new germplasm to 

the trials. 

Staff development 

These is a dearth of available manpower, especially for on-farm R & D, FSP should 

therefore provide short-term courses and study tours and support attendance to regional 

and international scientific conferences. The cost can be appropriately divided between 

FSP and the host country. 

Access to information 

Information is vital to R & D work. FSP can initiate establishment of facilities to enhance 

information exchange and access to information technology. The host country shall 

shoulder the maintenance cost once facilities have been established. 

New approach to technology development and delivery 

Participatory approach to R & D is relatively new in the Philippines but this approach is 

well suited to the Filipino culture. FSP can provide the necessary training for local staff 

to strengthen their capability to use this new methodology. 

15


The FSP in Vietnam – Where does it fit and what can it 

achieve? 

Le Hoa Binh 1 

16 

Forage research and development in Vietnam 

Vietnam is a small country (332,000 km 2 ) with a population of more than 75 million. The 

pressure brought about by high population density and the ever-increasing need for 

cropland has resulted in a decrease in forests and grasslands, which are traditional 

grazing areas for cattle and buffalo. In recent years, the Vietnamese government has 

made structural changes in the agricultural economy, giving greater emphasis to 

livestock production. During a 10-year period from 1985-95, cattle number increased by 

40% and buffalo number by 14%. The total contribution of livestock production to the 

national economy increased 66%. 

The depletion of traditional grazing resources and the increase in livestock number 

imply a rapidly growing demand for alternative feed resources. What is needed are 

grass species with high yield potential for intensive production systems (such as 

Pennisetum purpureum and Panicum maximum), legume species such as Stylosanthes 

guianensis and Leucaena leucocephala to provide higher quality feed, and forage 

species for difficult soils and long dry seasons (such as some Brachiaria spp.). 

The Forages for Smallholders Project (FSP) is working with partners in Vietnam to 

develop forage technologies for smallholder farmers. The main approach consists of: 

• Introduction and evaluation of many forage species at different sites throughout 

Vietnam to identify those that are broadly adapted and have potential to solve 

farmers’ problems. 

• Use of participatory approaches to identify farmers’ needs and to evaluate adapted 

forage species on-farm. 

• Providing information on forage agronomy, management, and utilisation to 

development workers and farmers. 

The National Institute of Animal Husbandry in Hanoi coordinates the FSP in 

Vietnam. The project is implemented in close collaboration with: 

• Tay Nguyen University in M’Drak, Daklak Province. 

• Hue College of Agriculture and Forestry in Xuan Loc, Hue Province. 

• University of Agriculture and Forestry, Ho Chi Minh City in Binh Thuan and Ninh 

Thuan Provinces. 

• Vietnam-Sweden Mountain Rural Development Project (MRDP) in Phu Tho, Ha 

Giang, Tuyen Quang, Lao Cai, and Yen Bai Provinces. 

The activities carried out at each site are shown in Table 1. 

1 National Institute of Animal Husbandry, Thuy Phuong, Tu Liem, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Table 1. Activities at FSP sites. 


Site activity Ba Vi MRDP Xuan Loc M’Drak 

Binh Thuan 

Ninh Thuan 

Nursery evaluation ✔ - ✔ ✔ - 

Regional forage evaluation - ✔ - ✔ - 

Participatory diagnosis ✔ ✔ ✔ - - 

On-farm evaluation of forage - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Multiplication of forage seed - - - ✔ - 

FPR training course ✔ - - - - 

Agronomy training course - - ✔ - - 

Leucaena evaluation - - - ✔ - 

Farmer training ✔ - ✔ ✔ - 

Note: ✔ = Commenced and/or completed. 


The FSP is planning to: 

1. Conduct participatory diagnosis in Daklak and Binh Thuan provinces so on-farm 

work can begin this year. 

2. Involve more farmers in testing forages at sites where the project is working. 

3. Expand work to nearby villages at FSP sites. 

4. Conduct regular participatory evaluation of forages at existing and new sites. 

5. Introduce new species for specific purposes and areas (such as Setaria sphacelata 

cv. Solander for the northern regions, Chamaecrista rotundifolia for ground cover in 

fruit orchards, earlier flowering lines of Stylosanthes guianensis for the northern 

regions, and Flemingia macrophylla for fish feed). 

6. Provide farmer training on forage production, management, and utilisation in Hue, 

M’Drak, and MRDP. 

17


The FSP in China – Where does it fit and what can it 

achieve? 

Liu Guodao, Zhuo Jiasuo, Bai Changjun and Wei Jiashao 1 

18 

In China the Tropical Pasture Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Tropical 

Agricultural Science (CATAS), coordinates the Forages for Smallholders Project (FSP). 

The main activities carried out are forage evaluation on station, farmer training, 

publications and networking. 

Forage Evaluation 

Selection of forages for leaf meal production 

The main legume used for leaf meal production in southern China is Stylosanthes 

guianensis CIAT 184. Experiments are being conducted to find alternative accessions of 

S. guianensis with broad resistance to the fungal disease Anthracnose in case that the 

resistance of CIAT 184 breaks down. 

Twenty-five accessions of Stylosanthes spp. were introduced from CSIRO 

(Australia) and CIAT (Philippines and Colombia). Together with four CATAS-released 

varieties, these accessions were included in the experiments to evaluate anthracnose 

disease resistance. The trials commenced at CATAS in August 1996 and results are 

described in detail in another paper in these proceedings. 

Selection of Arachis 

Five accessions of Arachis pintoi, (CIAT 17434, 18744, 18748, 18750, 22160) and two 

accessions of A. glabrata (IRFL 3019, CPI 93483) were introduced from CIAT, 

Philippines and, together with one accession of A. glabrata introduced from Guangxi 

Province, were evaluated to assess forage yield. This experiment was planted in 

September 1996 and is ongoing. 

Two experiments are being conducted to improve the persistence of Stylosanthes 

guianensis CIAT 184 in leaf meal production. Treatments designed to improve 

branching include time of first cutting, cutting height and frequency. These experiments 

are ongoing and results are not yet available. 

Selection of Brachiaria spp. 

Four accessions of Brachiaria brizantha introduced from CIAT Philippines, B. ruziziensis 

from Thailand, Brachiaria decumbens CIAT 606, and another accession of B. brizantha 

are being evaluated in terms of adaptation and forage yield. 

Farmer training 

Thirty farmers participated in a one-week training course in Lingshui County. They 

learned about cultivation and utilization of Stylo for leaf meal production, using a Stylo 

booklet (see publications) as the main training material. 

1 Tropical Pasture Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agriculture Sciences, Hainan, P.R. China.

Publications 


CATAS researchers have written and edited a booklet on cultivation, management and 

utilization of Stylo. 1000 copies were printed in Chinese and more than half of these 

have already been distributed to farmers and extension agents. A draft of the booklet in 

English has also been finished. 

CATAS also produced a comprehensive handbook on the cultivation and utilization 

of important varieties of tropical forages released in South China. Publication is 

expected in 1998. 

CATAS also distributed the SEAFRAD newsletter. 

Future Activities 

• Continue selection trials of forages for leaf meal production. Prepare seed of 

promising accessions for further evaluation. 

• Continue the cutting management experiments of CIAT 184 Stylo. 

• Continue selection trial of Arachis. 

• Continue selection trial of Brachiaria spp. for grazing purposes. 

• Set up a selection trial of Panicum spp. 

• Set up a selection trial of Setaria spp. 

• Publish the handbook on cultivation and utilization of tropical forages. 

• Set up two or three FPR sites by using 4-5 promising forage species for cut-andcarry 

for farmer evaluation of forages. 

• Farmer training in forage management in cut-and-carry forage systems. 

• Share Farmer Participatory Research techniques learned with other projects at 

CATAS and the CIAT 

19


The FSP in Malaysia – Where does it fit and what can it 

achieve? 

Wong Choi Chee 1 

20 

Introduction 

The Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) is the 

implementing agency of the Forages for Smallholders Project (FSP) in Malaysia. The 

overall objective is to increase the availability of adapted forages and the capacity to 

deliver them to smallholder farming systems, in particular, to agroforestry and other 

upland systems in Southeast Asia. 

The four specific objectives are to: 

1. Identify forages for different ecoregions in agroforestry, upland cropping, and 

plantation systems. 

2. Integrate forages into these different farming systems through participatory research 

and development (R&D). 

3. Increase the capability of national staff through training. 

4. Improve the effectiveness of regional R & D activities through networking. 

The specific terms of reference give MARDI the mandate to support the FSP by 

assigning one staff member of MARDI as the Malaysian coordinator (part-time) for the 

FSP project, providing reports of the progress of collaboration, and expediting project 

activities in Malaysia. 

The FSP agreed to provide training in participatory R & D methods for two scientists 

from Malaysia, send one collaborator from Malaysia to attend annual project meetings 

and a regional conference at the conclusion of the project, and support the publication of 

a regional newsletter to foster linkages between forage R & D workers in Southeast Asia. 

The role of FSP in Malaysian Forage R & D 

Based on the terms of reference, the FSP provided adequate opportunities for its 

Malaysian partners to attend meetings and training courses. We have learned a lot from 

our involvement in the FSP (on areas such as germplasm supply, seed supply, training 

in participatory research, and training in forage agronomy and seed production), and we 

were able to share our experiences and technologies with colleagues from other 

Southeast Asian nations, particularly on the forage technologies we have developed for 

plantation systems. 

However, our contribution to the project could have been greater had Malaysia been 

included as full partner and recipient of assistance in the overall program. The demand 

for forages and forage R & D in Malaysia is continuing. There are frequent requests for 

better forages for exotic animal species, such as deer and ostrich. There is interest in 

creeping grasses that can persist in mango plantations to allow integration with ostrich. 

In this case, we have little to offer that can be established from seed apart from the 

Brachiaria species. We also receive requests for shade-tolerant grasses and legumes, 

but only a few productive species are available for commercialisation. Creeping grasses 

1 

Livestock Research Centre, Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI), , Kuala Lumpur, 

Malaysia.


are also popular for soil erosion control on hill slopes, for terracing and for turfing. These 

and many other possible uses of grasses and tropical legumes have not been adequately 

exploited in Malaysia. In this regard, FSP can do more than limit its mandate on 

participatory research and development. 

Possible future role of FSP in Malaysia 

The FSP could assist in forming the national livestock policy of Malaysia. The 

agricultural sector is still an important contributor to the national economy, both as a 

producer of export-oriented commodities and as a supplier of food and resources to the 

food-based industries. The livestock and livestock product industry was the fastest 

growing industry in the agricultural sector during the period of the Sixth Malaysian Plan. 

In 1995, the ex-farm value of the livestock production sub-sector was estimated at RM 

4.2 billion and has registered an average growth rate of 7 % per annum since 1990. The 

poultry and swine industries continue to be major contributors, with poultry contributing 

69% and swine 26% of the total ex-farm value. The balance of 5% total ex-farm value is 

contributed mainly by beef, mutton, and dairy. To further develop agriculture, the 

Seventh Malaysian Plan outlined the following policies: 

1. Encourage greater participation of the private sector in agriculture on a large-scale 

basis, particularly in the production of food commodities and high-value produce, 

with the government providing the required support services. 

2. Reorient production methods to improve competitiveness in the context of a more 

liberal market environment. 

3. Consolidate the areas planted to rubber, oil palm, and cocoa with the end in view of 

reorienting production to meet the needs of the local agro-based industry. 

4. Integrate and maximize agriculture and forestry land use. 

5. Use modern technology. 

6. Motivate plantation companies to explore new activities, particularly food production 

which has high value and can be produced on a large scale. 

Modernization in livestock production means a deviation from current practices 

toward mechanization and increasing livestock density per unit area. We need to adopt 

a scientific and progressive R & D approach to achieve these objectives. 

The more recent livestock production systems in Malaysia involved plantationlivestock 

integration, crop-livestock integration, and intensive feed lots. These systems 

of production have contributed to an increase in beef production from 12,200 t in 1990 to 

15,600 t in 1995. Several plantation companies are actively involved in livestock 

production — cattle and sheep are reared in plantations to maximize land utilization and 

promote more sustainable farming. The feedlot system is widely adopted among 

commercial farmers. However, most of the raw materials and ingredients for feed 

production are still being imported. Private sector involvement in livestock production is 

being encouraged and the privatisation of livestock farms and abattoirs in the public 

sector is continuing. 

To provide and promote livestock production as an attractive medium for long-term 

investment, the livestock production sub-sector will be developed into an efficient 

business enterprise, capable of providing enough supply for domestic and export 

markets and overcoming pollution and environmental problems. In the short term, there 

are proposals to designate specific zones for livestock production and ensure more 

effective implementation of regulations and standards, and promote large-scale cattle 

and sheep integration under plantation crops. 

21


22 

Based on this new agricultural policy, there is scope for forage development to 

serve the needs of the livestock industry. The following aspects need attention: 

1. Forages (including fodder shrubs or leguminous trees) with high nutritive value need 

to be identified for cattle, sheep, deer, ostrich, and equine enterprises. 

2. New forage ecotypes which are adapted to acidic soils, need to be tested in 

agronomic trials; forage species must be evaluated as conserved fodders in animal 

feeding trials. 

3. Planting materials derived from selected germplasm of the genera Brachiaria, 

Stylosanthes and Arachis need to be made available to livestock producers. The 

species provided should match the ecological niches of the different production 

systems. 

4. Many research activities on forages were done in the past. There is enough 

information compiled to develop a tropical forage database. The data could be 

used to develop systems and simulation models. At present, we tend to repeat work 

done elsewhere under similar conditions. A database for use in computing and 

simulation studies would save a lot of time and money. 

5. There is a need to develop efficient seed production technology to meet domestic 

requirements. 

6. Better cover crop legumes must be identified for the plantation environment. Little 

has been done to screen new materials for such environments. 

Conclusions 

Under the terms and conditions of the MOU with Malaysia, the achievements and 

progress of the project have been satisfactory. However, much more could be achieved 

with greater cooperation between MARDI and the FSP. By definition, the FSP focus on 

smallholders has actually marginalized Malaysia’s forage needs. The FSP is promoting 

participatory research and development and is applying the concept of ‘participation’ in 

planning its activities. 

However, the FSP must recognise the uniqueness of each of its member country 

and it should try to help meet their diversified needs. The scope of the FSP can be 

broadened to include a variety of R & D activities that focus on the specific needs of the 

feed resource in each country and region. In this way, a stronger linkage between 

member countries could be fostered in the longer term.


The FSP in Thailand – Where does it fit and what can it 

achieve ? 

Chaisang Phaikaew 1 

Myanmar 

Lampang 

Forage R&D activities in Thailand 

From 1994 to 1996, the Government of Thailand launched the Reformed Agricultural 

System Project which aimed to increase farmers’ income. Under this project, rice and 

cassava areas were replaced with livestock farms. At the same time, the Department of 

Livestock Development (DLD) actively promoted dairy production. This expansion of 

beef and dairy production has increased the demand for improved forages which, in turn, 

has led to new research on forage species and methods of establishment, management, 

and utilisation. The research and development (R&D) efforts are spearheaded by the 

DLD and several Universities. The Division of Animal Nutrition in the DLD has a Forage 

Research Section, which is responsible for forage R&D for the whole country. In 1997, 

there were 45 forage research projects being conducted in eight animal nutrition research 

centres (Fig. 1). 

Selection of species 

Most forage species being evaluated were introduced from other countries. Regional 

evaluations of 40 of the most promising grasses and legumes are being conducted at 25 

forage stations and 8 animal nutrition research centres to identify the species best 

adapted to local environments. To date, three grasses (Brachiaria ruziziensis, Panicum 

maximum TD58, and Pennisetum purpureum) and 

three legumes (Stylosanthes hamata cv. Verano, 

Lao PDR 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184, and Desmanthus 

virgatus) have been identified as most promising. 

Khon Kaen 

 

Other forage species that show promise but need to 

be evaluated further for their potential forage are 

Paspalum atratum BRA 9610, Setaria sphacelata, 

 

Nakornratchasima Brachiaria brizantha, Brachiaria decumbens, Arachis 

pintoi cv. Amarillo, Centrosema pascuorum cv. 

 

Srakaew 

 

Cambodia 

Cavalcade and Bundy, Chamaecrista rotundifolia cv. 

Wynn, Aeschynomene americana cv. Lee and Glenn 

and Macroptilium gracile cv. Maldonado. 

Chainat 

DLD Bangkok 

Petchaburi 

 

 

Pakchong 

 

Nakornsrithammarat 

Narathiwat 

Malaysia 

Fig. 1. Location of animal nutrition 

research centres in Thailand. 

 

Establishment, management, and utilisation of 

forage crops 

Successful establishment of grasses and legumes lies 

in the choice of appropriate species and appropriate 

methods of establishment, including land preparation, 

sowing rate, and seed treatment. Many trials have 

been (and are continuing to be) conducted in Thailand 

to determine the best methods of establishment for 

promising species mentioned earlier (Thinnakorn and 

Wittayanuparpyuenyong 1992, Egara and Kodpat 

1992). 

1 Division of Animal Nutrition, Department of Livestock Development, Rajthewee, Bangkok 10400 Thailand. 

23


24 

DLD’s research on forage management provides a better understanding of the 

nutrient requirements of each species (Khemsawat et al. 1993, Suksaran et al. 1997) and 

the role of cutting in crop management (Punyavirocha et al. 1994, Nakamanee et al. 

1995, Phaikaew et al. 1984). 

Research is also continuing to assess the potential of these species for improving 

animal production. For example, we have known for some time that Ruzi grass is 

reasonably palatable when mature and provides good roughage for cattle and buffalo in 

the rainy season. However, the quality of Ruzi straw (after seed harvesting) is low, so it 

should be used in conjunction with a high-quality feed supplement (Kodpat et al. 1991, 

Chuenpreecha et al. 1992, Phaikaew et al. 1987). Dried Desmanthus leaf can be used to 

provide a protein supplement to improve the quality of feed for cattle in the dry season 

(Nakamanee et al. 1993, 1995). 

Seed production and processing technology 

Unavailability of seed is frequently a major limitation in forage development programs. 

To address this problem, the DLD has developed considerable practical information on 

forage seed crop management, especially on B. ruziziensis and P. maximum TD58. As a 

result, Thailand was able to produce more than 1200 t of forage seed in 1995 (Phaikaew 

et al. 1997). Recent trials on new seed harvesting techniques have shown that excellent 

quantity and quality of seed can be obtained by shaking seed heads rather than cutting 

them (Phaikaew et al. 1995). Research on seed production of new promising species 

(Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT184 and Brachiaria spp.) is continuing. 

Transfer of forage technology 

Each animal nutrition research centre and forage station in Thailand has been involved 

in transferring forage technologies to farmers in the vicinity. In the future, one village 

near each centre and station will be identified for dissemination of forage technologies. 

How does the FSP fit into these forage R&D activities? 

A wider range of species that are better adapted to particular conditions in Thailand, such 

as lowlands, waterlogged soils, saline soils, and areas with long dry seasons is needed. 

The capability of local staff in forage agronomy and technology transfer should also be 

increased. The Forages for Smallholders Project (FSP) plays an important role in these 

forage R&D activities, especially in the selection of adapted species (see Fig. 2). The 

FSP has already provided new tropical forage germplasm and technical support for 

species evaluation, including the design, implementation, analysis, and interpretation of 

on-farm trials. 

The FSP has also provided two training courses on participatory R&D methodology 

and forage agronomy, seed production and supply systems. It has funded one in-country 

course on participatory R&D, which was so successful that DLD funded additional 

courses for 54 forage officers from 8 centres and 25 stations during 1996-97. 

Through FSP regional meetings and training courses, forage researchers from 

different countries in Southeast Asia now cooperate and share their ideas in forage 

development. This active networking alone is a good indicator of the success of the 

project.

FSP activities in Thailand (1997) 


The FSP in Thailand is a cooperative program involving the DLD and CIAT/CSIRO. 

Local staff and facilities have been mostly provided by DLD. The staff directly involved 

in the work are the country coordinator (Chaisang Phaikeaw) and two counterparts, Mr. 

Kiatisak Klum-em from the Division of Animal Nutrition and Mrs. Ganda Nakamanee 

from the Pakchong Animal Nutrition Research Centre. 

Regional evaluation 

Seed production potential of 33 accessions of Brachiaria spp. introduced from CIAT by 

Dr. Werner Stür, has been evaluated in 1996-97 at the Pakchong Animal Nutrition 

Research Centre, Nakorn-ratchasima (Fig. 1). Nine accessions were selected for further 

testing in 1998. 

Seed multiplication 

From the 1996 trial, five accessions of Brachiaria sp. demonstrated tolerance for dry 

conditions and potential to produce seed. Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780, 16835, 6387, 

26110 and B. decumbens CIAT 26297. Seed of these 5 accessions has been multiplied 

at the Pakchong Animal Nutrition Research Centre. Plots were planted with seedlings in 

July 1997. Because the plots were planted late and there was a long dry season in 1997, 

seed yields were very low (Table 1). 

Adaptation 

Introduction 

and initial seed 

increased 

Evaluation 

Multiplication 

of promising forages 

Participatory evaluation 

of forages on farms 

Adoption by 

smallholder farmers 

Supply of forage 

germplasm (FSP) 

Technical support in 

the design, analysis, 

and interpretation of onfarm 

evaluation (FSP) 

Fig. 2. Integration of the FSP into forage R & D activities in Thailand. 

25


26 

Table 1. Seed yield of five Brachiaria spp. at Pakchong Animal Nutrition Research Centre. 

Species Area planted (m 2 ) Seed yield (kg) Seed yield (kg/ha) 

B. brizantha CIAT 6780 325 4.8 148 




B. decumbens CIAT 26297 100 2.6 260 

Farmer evaluation of new forage grasses for small dairy farms in 

Nakornratchasima 

The grasses in Table 1 will be introduced to dairy farmers in Nakornratchasima Province 

in 1998 to get feedback on their performance. Dairy farmers from two villages in Sung 

Nern District were selected, being members of a farmers’ group who were keen to 

participate and who had insufficient feed in the dry season for their cattle. This district 

has an average annual rainfall of 805 mm. Twenty farmers were selected to participate 

in the program. The farmers and district livestock officer will make plans to implement 

forage evaluations in April 1998. 

Distribution of SEAFRAD Newsletter and FSP books 

Two issues of the 1997 SEAFRAD Newsletter were distributed to forage workers in 

animal nutrition research centres, stations and universities, and to others who were 

interested in forages. The FSP booklet, ‘Field experiment with forages and crops. 

Practical tips for getting it right the first time’ and the proceedings of the FSP regional 

meeting held in Vientiane in 1996 (‘Feed Resources for Smallholder Livestock Production 

in Southeast Asia’) were distributed to DLD and university researchers. 

The FSP also facilitated better information exchange between regional forage 

workers by setting up an electronic mail system at DLD. 

IGC Participation 

The FSP co-supported the attendance of Chaisang Phaikaew to the 18th International 

Grassland Congress (IGC) in Winnipeg and Saskatoon, Canada, on 8-19 Jun 1997. She 

presented a paper on ‘Tropical Forage Seed Production in Southeast Asia: Current 

Status and Prospects’. 

Acknowledgement 

The author would like to thank all parties involved in the Forage for Smallholders Project 

for all their support and hard work, especially Dr. Werner Stür, Dr. Peter Horne, Dr. Peter 

Kerridge, Dr. Bryan Hacker, Mr. Chirawat Khemsawat (Director of Animal Nutrition 

Division), and Mr. Somchit Intaramanee (Director of the Pakchong Animal Nutrition 

Research Centre). 

References 

Chuenpreecha. T., Jenkollop, D., Boonpakdee, W. 1992. Cassava meal or rice bran as 

a supplement to Ruzi hay for feeding buffaloes. In: Proceedings of the 11 th Annual 

Livestock Conference, Department of Livestock Development, Ministry of 

Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand. p 342-351.


Egara, K., Kodpat, W. 1992. Method of establishment of Ruzi sward. Final report of the 

Technology for Pasture Establishment in Thailand. Department of Livestock 

Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand. p. 72-76. 

Khemsawat, J., Punyavirocha, T., Nakamanee, G. 1993. Yield and chemical composition 

of hedge Lucerne (Desmanthus virgatus) at different P rates under irrigation. In: 

Proceedings of the 13 th Annual Livestock Conference, Department of Livestock 

Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand. p 129-134. 

Kodpat, W., Sanitwong, C., Padungsak, P. 1991. Utilization of corn and corn meal as a 

feed supplement for beef cattle. Annual report of the division of Animal Nutrition, 

Department of Livestock Development , Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, 

Thailand. p 1-7. 

Nakamanee, G., Khemsawat, J., Punyavirocha, T., Punpipat, W. 1995. Effect of cutting 

interval on yield and chemical composition of Napier grass (Pennisetum pupureum) 

dwarf elephant grass (Pennisetum pupureum cv. Mott) and King Grass (Pennisetum 

pupureum Pennisetum americanum) under irrigation. Annual report of the Division 

of Animal Nutrition, Department of Livestock Development, Ministry of Agriculture 

and Cooperatives, Thailand. p 122-128. 

Nakamanee, G., Punpipat, W., Ponbamroong, T. 1993. Dried Desmanthus (Desmanthus 

virgatus) as a protein supplement for feeding cattle in dry season. Annual report of 

the Division of Animal Nutrition, Department of Livestock Development, Ministry of 

Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand. p 29-39. 

Phaikaew, C., Suriyachantrathong, W., Indraramanee, S., Senagasp, U., Kawitsarasai, 

P., Nakamanee, G. and Phonboon, P. 1984. Yield and nutritive value of Verano 

Stylo (Stylosanthes hamata cv. Verano ) at different cutting intervals. In: 

Proceedings of the 3 rd Annual Livestock Conference, Department of Livestock 


Phaikaew, C., Devahudee, P. and Boonpahdee, W. 1987. Effect of defoliation and 

harvesting times on seed yield and quality of Ruzi grass (Brachiaria ruziziensis ). In: 

Proceedings of the 6 th Annual Livestock Conference, Department of Livestock 


Phaikaew, C., Pholsen, P. and Chinosang, W. 1995. Effect of harvesting methods on 

seed yield and quality of purple Guinea Grass (Panicum maximum TD58) produced 

by small farmers in Khon Kaen. Annual Report – Division of Animal Nutrition, DLD,, 

Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand. p 102-107. 

Phaikaew, C., Guodao, L., Abdullah, A., Tuhulele, M., Magboo, E., Bouahom, B. and 

Stür, W.W. 1997. Tropical forage seed production in southeast Asia: current status 

and prospects. In: Proceedings 18 th Inter. Grasslands Congress, Canada, June, 

1997. 

Punyavirocha, T., Khemsawat, C., Nakamanee, G., Kanjanapibul, N. and Punpipat, W. 

1994. Yield and nutritive value of hedge Lucerne ( Desmanthus virgatus) at 

different cutting intervals under irrigation. In: Proceedings of the 13 th Annual 

Livestock Conference, Department of Livestock Development ,Ministry of 

Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand. p 176-182. 

Suksaran, W., Vongpipatana, C. and Nonthanawong, T. 1997. Response of Panicum 

maximum TD58 to nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers on Ubon soil series in Thung 

Kula Ronghai. Annual report of the Division of Animal Nutrition, Department of 

Livestock Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. p 99-117. 

Thinnakorn, S. and Wittayanuparyuenyong, S. 1992. Quality improving of Ruzi pasture 

by using different seed rates of Verano and Graham stylo. Proceedings of the 11 th 

Annual Livestock Conference. Department of Livestock Development, Ministry of 

Agriculture and Cooperatives. p 260-287. 

27


Livestock development in Indonesia 

28

Policy on livestock development in Indonesia 

Erwin Soetirto 1 

Introduction 


Indonesia is one of the countries in Asia with an agricultural base. It consists of more 

than 17,500 islands, extending along 5110 km from east to west and 1888 km from north 

to south. The country covers a land area of 1.9 million km 2 . Indonesia has 27 provinces, 

243 districts, 62 municipalities, 3625 subdistricts, and about 65,852 villages. The human 

population is about 201 million, 63% of whom live in rural areas. About 54% of the 

labour force is engaged in agriculture. 

Agriculture (forestry, food crops, fisheries, estate crops, and livestock) is the most 

important sector of the Indonesian economy, and livestock is an integral part of 

agriculture development. During the first phase of the long-term development plan 

(1969-93), the livestock sub-sector has contributed significantly to the development of 

agriculture. Although the share of the agriculture sector to national gross domestic 

product (GDP) decreased from 42% in 1969 to 18% in 1993, the contribution of the 

livestock sub-sector to agriculture GDP increased from 6% to 10.5% in the same period. 

For the second phase (1993-2018), the livestock sub-sector is estimated to grow 6.4% 

annually which compares to food crops 2.5%, estate crops 4.2%, and fisheries 5.2%. 

Role of livestock in national development 

The role of livestock in national development covers the following areas: 

Livestock as a source of food supply 

The supply of meat from ruminant and non-ruminant livestock increased from 309 t in 

1969 to 1749 t in 1997. Of this amount, poultry meat was the largest contributor (59% or 

1024 t) followed by ruminant meat (30% or 527 t). Egg production was 58 t in 1969, and 

this increased to 818 t in 1997. The purebred chicken egg is the largest contributor at 

66%, followed by duck egg 19%, egg and free-range chicken egg 16%. Domestic dairy 

products increased from 29 t in 1969 to 447 t in 1997. 

Livestock as a source of income and labour absorption 

At the farmer level, livestock and their products are a source of cash income as well as a 

reserve and a way of savings. Livestock minimize the risks of harvest failure. 

At the national level, livestock contribute 11.5% to agricultural GDP or 2% to the 

national GDP. Livestock is a new growth source in the agricultural sector – its growth 

rate of 6.4% per year is higher than that of other sub-sectors. It can create job 

opportunities and the 6 th Five-Year Plan has targeted an increase of 456,000 new jobs. 

Livestock for sustaining agriculture and environmental conservation 

Research and experience show that mixed crop-livestock farming is profitable. Livestock 

complement other farm activities and the interaction between farm animals and farmland 

can improve soil fertility. Research shows that manure can be an alternative to lime for 

reclamation of acid farmland. Livestock can serve both as a source of power for 

1 

Director General, Directorate General of Livestock Services, Department Pertanian, Jalan Harsono RM No. 3, 

Jakarta Selatan 12550, Indonesia. 

29


30 

ploughing paddy fields and as a means of rural transportation. In 1992, an ADB study 

suggested that distribution of beef cattle was conducive to expansion of paddy field and 

non-irrigated field, by 23% and 26%, respectively. Farm animals can be used for 

conservation of farmland, particularly in the prevention of erosion. Most conservationrelated 

government programs include livestock as one of its components. 

Livestock for poverty alleviation 

Many smallholders own livestock and depend on it for income. A 1975 study by the 

University Gajah Mada indicated that farmers with less than 0.4 ha of land generate 34% 

of their income from livestock. The corresponding figure for farmers owning 0.4 - 0.8 ha 

is 22%, and from 0.8 upwards, 16%. Another study shows that a farmer who received a 

cattle loan (IFAD Project) earns 63% higher income than a farmer who did not. In a 

survey in Indonesia, 40-50% of respondents identified livestock as an important 

component of the poverty alleviation program. 

Livestock for industries 

Livestock also has the important role of providing raw materials to industries, either food 

or non-food. For the food industry, livestock provides raw materials such as meat, egg, 

and milk. For the non-food industries, livestock is good source of leather/skin, bone, 

horn, or other animal waste products. 

Policy of livestock development in the 6 th five-year development 

plan (1994-1999) 

The goal of livestock development is to: 

• Increase income from livestock through optimising production capabilities, use of 

advanced technology, and increasing business efficiency. 

• Increase livestock production to fulfil domestic demand, provide raw materials to 

industry and to enable export and import substitution. 

• Improve quality of food and community nutrition through diversification. 

• Develop agribusiness to encourage livestock development as an effort to increase 

income, create jobs and develop the rural economy. 

• Optimise the use of natural resources for the benefit of livestock production and 

encourage environmental conservation by means of recycling waste. 

Strategies 

The attainment of this goal requires a strategy using three development approaches: 

Technical approach 

The main target is to increase livestock population. The approach is to increase 

livestock birth rate by means of artificial insemination and embryo transfer. To minimize 

mortality, animal health programs should be conducted: quarantine, vaccination, 

controlling slaughtered of productive female livestock, and importation of high-quality 

breeding stock. 

Integrated approach 

The target is to increase production through intensification. This means solving 

problems by integrating production, economic, and social aspects of technology 

development. 

Agribusiness approach 

The target is to optimise utilization of resources. With this approach, the smallholder 

farmers and livestock enterprises cooperate in farm supply, production, processing, and 

marketing.


Problems 

• Scale of business ownership is relatively low. 

• Operationalisation of livestock production and productivity has not been achieved 

yet. 

• Animal disease outbreaks often occur. 

• Dependence on provision of raw material for feed. 

• Discrepancy between technology development and application at the farmer level. 

• Farmer institutional needs to be improved through cooperatives. 

• Inadequate infrastructure. 

Targets 

• 6.4% livestock growth to support 3.4% growth in agriculture. 

• Absorption of 456,000 additional labour. 

• Increase in production of meat from 1.3 million t to 1.6 million t (5.5% increase); egg 

from 636,000 t to 784,000 t (5.4% increase); and milk from 425,000 t to 530,000 t 

(5.7% increase). 

• Increase in population of 11 species of livestock from 33.9 million units to 48 million 

units (8% annual increase). 

• Increase in animal protein intake from 3.6 g/capita/day to 4.5 g/capita/day. At the 

end of the 6th Five-Year Plan, it is hoped that an average annual per capita 

consumption of 7.6 kg of meat, 3.0 kg of egg, and 6.2 kg of milk will be reached (3- 

4% increase). 

• Investment in livestock development during the 6th Five-Year Plan of Rp. 5.5 - 7.9 

trillion (or Rp. 1.1 - 1.6 trillion per annum). 

• Import substitution to reduce the negative trade balance. 

Programs and projects 

Under government support programs 

Integrated Smallholder Agricultural Development Program 

This program aims to increase the role of small-scale farm business by providing 

guidance to farmer groups and cooperatives. It is hoped that farmer will be independent 

and will take steps leading to farm industrialization based on a model developed by the 

Applied Centre for Agribusiness Development of Superior Farm Commodities. 

Agriculture Business Development Program 

It is hoped that this program will accelerate rural economic growth by intensifying capital, 

technology, management, and market access. Participation of BUMN (state-owned 

corporation) and BUMD (regional government-owned corporation) and cooperatives will 

be sought, as well as the private sector, and the farmers themselves to bring about a 

mutually profitable integrated agribusiness or agroindustry. This will require a climate 

conducive to private sector investment and must involve small-scale farmers. 

Food and Nutrition Diversification Program 

This program aims to consolidate the twin objectives of food self-sufficiency and 

improved nutrition through food diversification. 

Agriculture Resources, Input Supply, and Infrastructure Development Program 

This program aims to improve the quality of human resources and maximize the use of 

natural and agricultural resources and supply. The construction and development of 

facilities and infrastructure, in addition to the development of farmer institutions are 

intended to ensure efficient and effective use of all development resources. 

31


32 

Support Programs 

This is divided into a program for effective use of system implementation and control, 

and a program of statistical improvement and development. 

Private programs and projects 

Development of beef cattle industries 

Three models are being followed: 

• Fattening nucleus scheme. 

• Feeder cattle nucleus scheme. 

• Feed stuff nucleus scheme. 

Development of dairy cattle industries 

Integrated efforts have been made to consolidate this type of agribusiness covering 

improvements in breed and feed, and animal health and reproduction. Farmers’ 

organizations are also improved. 

Development of poultry industries 

The development of a purebred chicken industry will be pursued in close partnership. 

Functional policies 

There are five main functional policy elements in national livestock development: (1) 

animal health system, (2) livestock breeding system, (3) livestock production and 

farming system, (4) livestock distribution and development system, and (5) livestock 

agribusiness system. 

National Animal Health System 

Animal health status 

Of a total of 226 kinds of animal diseases that exist in the world, 87 (40%) occur in 

Indonesia. Of the 44 sporadic diseases, 11 have been declared eliminated (as declared 

by the Minister of Agriculture’s Decree of 31 January 1994) and two have been stated as 

case free (i.e. Malleus and Blue Tongue on serologic testing prior to be stated as a free 

disease). Since October 1990, Indonesia has been declared free of food and mouth 

disease. Without adequate and appropriate control of endemic and epidemic diseases , 

it is estimated that there would be annual losses of about Rp.100 billion. With the 

current control system, the losses can be minimized to 50%. 

Animal health approach 

The animal health approach consists of five components: animal protection, animal 

disease surveillance, prevention and control, veterinary public health, and veterinary 

drug control. 

Animal health operation 

The national animal health operation consists of four activities: integrated animal health 

services, protection of breeding environment, protection of natural resources, and 

protection of livestock products. 

Animal health infrastructure 

The main units of animal health consist of 7 Diagnostic Centres, 24 type-B and 51 type-C 

animal health laboratories, 1 veterinary drug assay laboratory, and 1 residue assay 

laboratory.

National livestock breeding system 


Beef cattle breeding 

The national livestock breeding system aims to ensure adequate and good-quality 

breeding animal. There are three priority commodities in Indonesia’s breeding 

development: beef cattle, dairy cattle, and poultry. 

Dairy cattle breeding 

Although the dairy cattle population increased significantly, there are problems of 

productivity, efficiency, and farm management facing the industry: 

• Feeding management, particularly in feed quality. 

• Reproduction and long calving interval. 

• Mastitis, particularly subclinical symptoms. 

• Poor milk quality caused by inadequate quality and quantity of feed as well as poor 

hygiene and sanitation. 

• Poor farm management resulting in higher cost and lower productivity. 

Poultry breeding 

The ‘native’ chicken development was carried out with intensification of vaccination and 

mass guidance program. The breeding of commercial improved chicken is conducted by 

a number of breeding farms scattered throughout the country. In 1997, there were 116 

chicken breeding farmers, operating in pure line farms, 16 grand parent stock farms, and 

120 parent stock farms with 1.5 trillion day-old-chick production capacity and 195 million 

layers. 

National livestock production and farming system 

The objectives of the system are to: 

1. Achieve the projected production target. 

2. Increase farmer's income and welfare. 

3. Provide job and business opportunities mainly in the rural areas. 

4. Assist in the formation of farmer groups, cooperatives and rural economic 

institutions. 

5. Promote cooperation (partnership) between farmers and enterprises to increase 

added value adding. 

6. Improve efficiency, productivity, and product quality to meet consumer's demand. 

The system has four subsystems – namely ruminant production development, nonruminant 

production development, poultry production development, and minor animal 

production development. 

Livestock distribution and development system 

The livestock distribution and development system aims to optimise the use of underutilised 

land to increase livestock production, to increase farmer's income and welfare, to 

alleviate poverty, and to fill the gap between regions and groups. 

The system consists of four subsystems – the humid areas, the arid areas, the 

critical areas, and the border areas. 

Livestock agribusiness system 

In the 6 th Five-Year Development Plan, livestock agribusiness and agroindustry is 

targeted to: 

1. Enhance the growth of livestock GDP to 6.4% per annum. 

2. Support the investment to Rp 5.5-7.7 trillion. 

33


34 

3. Increase job opportunity in the livestock sub-sector to 3.5% per annum and labour 

absorption to 456,000 people. 

4. Increase labour productivity by 2.9% per annum. 

5. Create a conducive situation for investment in agribusiness. 

6. Fill the gap between regions by enhancing development of the eastern part to the 

country. 

7. Alleviate poverty. 

8. Substitute import commodities and promote export of livestock commodities. 

National forage production system 

As the ruminant population increases, the demand for forages increases accordingly. It is 

calculated that the demand for 1998 alone is equivalent to 37 million tonnes of dry 

matter. To meet this demand, several programs on forage development have been 

launched. These efforts could be divided into four categories: 

1. Intensification, through a program of planting improved species such as Napier, 

King grass, and legumes. 

2. Extensification through establishment of grazing lands and forage multiplication 

stations. 

3. Rehabilitation of critical lands. 

4. Diversification, through increased use of agricultural and industrial by products. 

Constraints to forage development 

Forage development programs in Indonesia face several constraints. The major ones 

are as follows: 

• The average land owned by a farmer in Java is very small. It is difficult to expect 

farmers to plant forages on this limited area, which is mainly planted to food crops. 

In the outer islands, farmers do not consider forage supply a serious problem, since 

a vast area of natural grassland is available, and herd size per family is small in this 

region. 

• Investments to improve natural pasture and cultivated pasture are high. The 

shortage of seeds (due to low seed production), the price of fertiliser and the high 

cost of transportation of vegetative planting materials limit improvement efforts. 

• Forage production technologies are still new to farmers. The lack of knowledgeable 

and experienced technicians and extension workers results in low rates of adoption. 

The prospects for increasing forage production 

Prospects for increasing forage production in Indonesia depend on the development of 

the ruminant industry. With increasing demand for meat and milk, the ruminant 

population should increase to meet this demand. Hence, the need for forages will also 

increase. Also, with pressure from population growth and with the establishment of new 

economic areas, existing natural pastures will be converted into cropping areas and 

construction projects, further reducing the feed base. 

There is a tendency to involve forage development in new development programs, 

such as reclamation of critical lands, watershed management, and reforestation, which 

are aimed at improving the welfare of farmers in the surrounding areas. 

Some grasses and legume species suitable for different agro-ecosystems have 

been identified through, among others, the forage seeds project. These species are 

being integrated into upland farming systems through the Forages for Smallholders 

Project. To assist farmers, technicians and extension workers have been trained in 

forage agronomy and in the participatory approach. Soon more staff will undergo similar 

training.

Livestock towards an international free trade 


The major force that influences the livestock industry in Indonesia is the continued 

movement toward open and free trade and investment at the global and regional levels 

in the face of the implementation of the Uruguay Round of GATT and the evolution of 

regional trade groups such as the EC, NAFTA, AFTA, and the emerging APEC forum. 

In anticipation of these situations, the government has formulated several policies to 

strengthen livestock development in the country: 

Beef cattle 

The following principles will be followed: increase beef cattle population; balance supply 

and demand; decrease on import; value added; and people participation. Application of 

a non-tariff policy through a ‘technical barrier on trade’ in the short-term: 

1. Import cattle should be feeder steers, 2.5 years, maximum weight 350 kg; go 

through a feedlot system for at least 60 days; and 10% of imported cattle should be 

pregnant heifers to increase livestock population. 

2. Since the importer/private company do not want to cooperate with farmers, they 

have to buy 20% of the local feeder steers. 

3. As per the decision of the Working Group on Agriculture and Food Cooperation of 

Indonesia-Australia, feedlot operators are called upon to set aside 1% of their profit 

for purchasing cattle for farmers. 

Implementation of technical policy through 

• Beef cattle intensification (INSAPP) 

• Development of village breeding centre (Gerbang Serba Bisa) 

• Development of priority commodity (SPAKU) 

• Development of livestock in transmigration areas 

• Strengthening of beef cattle breeding (Inpres Perbibitan) 

• Eradication and control of brucellosis. 

Poultry 

Trends in poultry development show that supply is greater than demand. The oversupply 

of poultry would be exported. The government policy is directed at increasing efficiency 

and productivity, to enable poultry producers to compete in the market through better 

quality products, competitive prices and good delivery systems. 

Dairy Cattle 

Continue the consolidation program using the agribusiness approach through the 

cooperation between GKSI (Union of Indonesian Dairy Cooperatives) and the IPS (Milk 

Processing Plant). 

Conclusions 

Considering the achievements of the 1st Long-Term Development Plan, the livestock 

sub-sector has good potential as a source of growth and is considered a new 

development source within the agricultural sector. 

Livestock development in Indonesia can give great opportunities for use of 

resources, employment, and marketing expansion. The recent deregulation imposed by 

the government has encouraged investment efforts, particularly to promote export and to 

provide more job opportunities. 

35


36 

In spite of the success in livestock development, some problems and constraints 

remain such as lack of standardization of livestock products, lack of an efficient 

marketing system, low level of animal protein intake, lack of knowledge transfer, and 

animal disease problems. Therefore, livestock development in each operational activity 

shall focus on harnessing the existing potential of natural and human resources.


Trends in ruminant livestock development in East 

Kalimantan 

Erik Nursahramdani 1 

The East Kalimantan Province in Indonesia has an area of about 211,440 km 2 (1.5 times 

larger than Java and Madura) and, in 1997, had a population of 2.2 million. It occupies 

an important position in the Indonesian economy because of its rich natural resources. 

Many of the soils are acid and infertile and not well suited for crop production. The 

topography is hilly and only partly used for upland farms, the rest is Imperata grasslands 

which have not been fully utilized. There are about 15 million ha of this type of land 

which is suitable for livestock development. Under a framework which aims to promote 

the well being of smallholders, these lands may be used as the basis of livestock 

development, especially when planted to forages. 

In 1996, the amount of ruminant meat consumed (cattle, buffalo, goat, and sheep) 

was 29% of the total consumption of meat. Ruminants from other provinces were used 

(which average 40,110 head per year or 70%) and even the feeder cattle have to be 

imported from Australia. Local supply was only 30%. 

Ruminant development 

Cattle 

Looking at East Kalimantan’s land potential and relatively low cattle population (Table 1) 

the province has good prospects for increasing cattle production. 

Table 1. Population of ruminant livestock (animal units) in East Kalimantan, 1994-1997. 

Species 1994 1995 1996 1997 

Annual increase 

(%) 

Cattle 58,556 61,216 62,604 66,460 4.3 

Dairy 52 56 56 58 3.5 

Buffalo 20,165 20,646 21,201 21,727 2.5 

Goat 7,070 7,656 9,420 9,749 11.3 

Sheep 402 378 333 338 -5.7 

Deer 9 11 13 15 18.7 

Total 86,254 89,963 93,626 98,347 4.5 

The East Kalimantan Province is a fast developing region. Pelita I has been getting 

feeder cattle from several regions in Indonesia and from other countries. The 

government, through its ‘Departemen Transmigrasi dan Pemukiman Perambah Hutan’, 

plans to bring 200,000 heads to East Kalimantan during a 20-year period, starting in 

1997/1998. 

Buffalo 

As with cattle, the government supports buffalo development by importing feeder steer 

through the ADB II and Banpres Projects. In 1997, 1200 buffaloes from the Banpres 

Project were distributed to farmers in Pasir and Kutai districts. 

1 Head, East Kalimantan Livestock Services, Samarinda, East Kalimantan, Indonesia. 

37


38 

The potential of buffalo raising is high in East Kalimantan. Good indigenous 

germplasm resources are Kalang and Krayan buffaloes. The Kalang buffalo, a swamp 

buffalo, is found near the Mahakam river. During the dry season, they roam in the forest. 

During the wet season, when their habitats are flooded, they return to animal pens with a 

raised wooden floor (= Kalang) where they are kept during the flooding period and fed 

cut grasses. 

Another kind of buffalo that has thrived well in northeast Kalimantan is the Krayan 

buffalo. The largest population is concentrated in Krayan District, Kabupaten Bulungan, 

numbering about 9,700 animal units or 45% of the buffalo population in East Kalimantan. 

Goats 

During the 6th National Development Plan the population of goats in East Kalimantan 

has risen at an average of 11% per year. Goats have been distributed to farmers 

through several projects. 

Goats are popular among smallholder farmers as they are a small ruminant and 

good source of ready extra income. Goat raising is one of the poverty alleviation 

methods espoused by the government. 

Sheep 

The sheep population in East Kalimantan is very small. Population is only 340 animal 

units. One reason, why sheep are not popular in East Kalimantan is their link with the 

infectious MCF disease, which can infect Bali cattle and cause an epidemic. 

Deer 

Another ruminant group being developed in East Kalimantan, is Sambar deer (Cervus 

unicolor brookei). Classified as a small ruminant, they live in the forests and savannas in 

East Kalimantan. They number about 50,000 but are threatened by excessive hunting 

activities – about 5,000 animals are lost every year. 

The East Kalimantan Livestock Services was mandated to oversee deer breeding. 

For the past 7 years, deer breeding has been conducted on 1000-ha government land at 

Desa Api-api, Kecamatan Waru, Kabupaten Pasir. Captive breeding of deer has been 

proven possible and the deer population now stands at 78, with average annual increase 

of 19% during the last four years. 

Forage development 

The opportunities for developing ruminant production are good. At the end of 7 th Five- 

Year National Development Plan (Pelita VII), ruminant population is expected to grow to 

132,775 animal units at an annual growth rate of 5.2% (Table 2). 

Table 2. Projections of ruminant population (animal units) in East Kalimantan under Pelita VII. 

Species 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Annual increase (%) 

Cattle 74,900 79,514 84,412 89,612 95,132 6.2 

Dairy 62 64 66 68 70 3.3 

Buffalo 22,818 23,384 23,963 24,558 25,167 2.5 

Goat 10,444 10,809 11,187 11,579 11,984 3.5 

Sheep 347 351 356 361 366 1.3 

Deer 24 29 36 45 56 23.9 

Total 108,594 114,151 120,021 126,223 132,775 5.2


Ruminants must eat 10-15% of their body weight of fresh forages each day. It is 

projected that about 40% of forage requirement will come from natural grass and 

agricultural by-products; the remaining 60% must come from planted forage (grass and 

legume). At the beginning of Pelita VII, the need for planted forages is 951,000 t, rising 

to 1,163,000 t by the end of the period (Table 3). 

Table 3. Planted forage and land requirements under Pelita VII. 

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Annual increase (%) 

Planted forage (t) 951,000 1,000,000 1,050,000 1,106,000 1,163,000 5.2 

Area required (ha) 4,800 5,000 5,300 5,500 5,800 5.2 

Based on these projections some 4,800 ha of planted forage is needed at the start 

of Pelita VII and some 5,800 ha at the end, expanding by 200 ha each year. The present 

area of planted forage is only 137 ha, so more than 4,600 ha will still have to be 

developed by the beginning of Pelita VII. 

By cooperating with the Forages for Smallholder’s Project, it is expected that forage 

species will be identified which are well adapted to the conditions in East Kalimantan and 

which are easily adopted by farmers. 

39


Environmental adaptation of forages 

40


Environmental adaptation of forages in Lao PDR 

Phonepaseuth Phengsavanh 1 and Viengsavanh Phimphachanhvongsod 2 

In Lao PDR, livestock production is almost totally a smallholder farming practice and is a 

vital component of livelihood security. Animals generally graze on native forages 

(grasses, shrubs, legumes, and tree leaves) that are available in forests and grasslands. 

However, native grass is abundant only during the wet season. Dry season feed 

shortages are common, resulting in severe animal feeding problems for farmers 

throughout the country. There are currently few, if any, alternative feed sources. 

For many years, some Hmong farmers, who live on the fertile highland soils in 

Luang Phabang and Xieng Khouang, have fed grazing animals Napier grass 

(Pennisetum purpureum) as a supplement. Some farmers in Xieng Khouang have 

recently started to use Ruzi grass (Brachiaria ruziziensis) for the same purpose. 

However, in general, very few farmers in Lao PDR plant forages. This does not mean 

that there is no demand. The severity of feed resource limitations in some provinces 

(especially Luang Phabang and Xieng Khouang) is creating a huge interest in planted 

forages among farmers. 

To meet this demand, the Department of Livestock and Fisheries, in collaboration 

with the Forages for Smallholders Project, established forage nurseries at five different 

agro-ecological sites in four provinces to evaluate forage adaptation for subsequent onfarm 

testing at Namsuang (Vientiane municipality), Houakhoth and Houaphai (Luang 

Phabang), Ban Km 32 (Oudomxay), and Khinak (Champassak). 

Site descriptions 

The soil pH (1:5 water) at these sites varied from very acid to neutral (Table 1). 

Table 1. Physical characteristics of sites for nursery evaluation. 

Site 

Latitude Altitude 

(m) 

Annual 

rainfall 

(mm) 

Namsuang 18 o N 150 1500 - 

2000 

Houakhoth 20 o N 400 1600 - 

1800 

Houaphai 20 o N 428 1600 - 

1800 

Ban km 32 21 o N 900 1000 - 

1600 

Khinak 14 o N 85 1300 - 

1500 

1 pH measurement in 1:5 H2O. 

Wet 

season 

May - 

Oct 

May - 

Oct 

May - 

Oct 

Apr - 

Oct 

May - 

Oct 

Number of 

wet months 

(>50 mm) 

Soil characteristics Farming system 

6 pH 4.5 1 , sandy loam, 

well drained, infertile 

6 pH 5, silty loam, 

moderately drained, 

moderately fertile 

6 pH 5.9, loam, well 

drained, moderately 

fertile 

7 pH 4.3, silty loam, 

moderately drained, 

moderately fertile 

6 pH 6, sandy loam, 

well drained, infertile 

Lowland rice (rainfed and 

irrigated) 

Shifting cultivation in upland 

area, irrigated rice and home 

gardens in valleys 

Shifting cultivation in upland 

area, irrigated rice and home 

gardens in valleys 

Shifting cultivation (rice), 

upland cropping (maize, 

cassava). 

1 Forages for Smallholders Project, Vientiane, Lao PDR. 

2 Livestock Development Division, Department of Livestock and Fisheries, Vientiane, Lao PDR. 

Lowland rainfed rice, lowland 

crops, and grazing of pek 

savannah 

41


42 

Table 2. Soil analysis at each experiment site. 

Nam Suang Houakhoth Houapai Ban km 32 Khinak 

Soil texture Sandy loam Silty loam Loam Silty loam Sandy loam 

pH (1:5 water) 4.6 5.0 5.9 4.3 6.0 

Organic carbon (%C) 0.5 1.4 1.3 1.6 0.6 

Nitrate nitrogen (mg/kg) 4.2 16.6 16.9 33.0 12.4 

Sulfur (mg/kg) 2 10 11 9 4 

Phosphorus (BSES) (mg/kg) 7 13 19 7 12 

Phosphorus (Colwell) (mg/kg) 3 9 7 7 6 

Potassium (Amm. Ac.) (meq/100g) 0.05 0.39 0.46 0.15 0.13 

Calcium (Amm. Ac. )(meq/100g) 0.25 3.34 7.19 0.46 1.42 

Magnesium (Amm. Ac.) (meq/100g) 0.06 2.68 4.39 0.29 0.34 

Cation Exch. Cap. (meq/100g) 1.29 7.62 12.26 4.07 2.04 

Aluminium saturation % 71 16 - 77 - 

Most soils were moderately to severely infertile (Table 2). Average annual rainfall 

at the five sites ranges from 1000 to 2600 mm, with peak rainfall from June to August 

(Fig. 1). The dry season at all five sites ranges from 5-6 months, with only 1-4% of total 

rainfall being received during this period. The topography of the sites is flat to rolling; 

with altitude ranging from 85 to 900 m above sea level. The farming systems are quite 

different and include shifting rice cultivation and intensive upland cultivation of maize 

and cassava in the mountainous regions and irrigated/rainfed rice and cash crops in the 

lowland areas (Table 1). 

(mm) 

(mm) 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Luang Phabang 

Median 

Lower Quintile 

Upper Quintile 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Month 

Oudomxai 


Month 

(mm) 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

Vientiane 


Month 

Champassak 

Fig. 1. Rainfall pattern in the four provinces (1985-95) 

(mm) 


Month

Results 


A large range of forage species was evaluated over 2 years at each of the five sites. 

Three nurseries (Nam Suang, Houakhoth, and Houaphai) have already been completed 

and the other two (Ban km 32 and Khinak) are ongoing. 

At each nursery, the species were planted in four plots consisting of single rows 3 m 

long. The forage nurseries were visually evaluated each month and the following 

information was collected: 

Establishment success: 0=did not emerge, 1=poor, 2=moderate, 3=good, 4=excellent. 

Yield potential, persistence, and seed production: 1=poor, 2=moderate, 3=good, 

4=excellent. 

Pests and diseases: 0= no damage, 1=little impact, 2=moderate impact, 3=severe 

impact, 4=plants killed. 

Maintains green leaf in dry season: 0=very poor, 1=poor, 2=average, 3=good, 

4=excellent. 

The number of species evaluated at each site varied, depending on the forage 

systems in the area and the availability of seeds. A complete list of species evaluated at 

each site is available from the authors. 

Results showed that many grasses and legumes were well adapted. 

Namsuang 

Eighty-four forage species (64 legumes and 20 grasses) were planted in the middle of 

July 1995. The grass species which were well adapted to this site were Andropogon 

gayanus cv. Kent, Brachiaria brizantha (all accessions, including CIAT 6780, CIAT 16318 

and CIAT 16835, Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk, Brachiaria humidicola cv. Tully and 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299. Only a few legumes showed good adaptation and 

performance to the acid and very infertile soil: Stylosanthes guianensis (various 

accessions but especially CIAT 184), Chamaecrista rotundifolia cv. Wynn and, to a 

lesser extent, Centrosema acutifolium CIAT 5277 and Zornia latifolia CIAT 728. The 

details of performance of each species at the Namsuang site are presented in Table 3. 

Table 3. Performance of forage species at Namsuang. 

Species 

Establishmen 

t success 1 

Yield 

potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

production 2 

Maintains 

green leaf in 

dry season 3 

Aeschynomene americana cv. Glenn 3 3 1 3 0 0 

Aeschynomene americana cv. Lee 4 3 1 3 1 0 

Aeschynomene americana CPI 93667 3 2 1 1 0 0 

Aeschynomene brasilianum CIAT 8628 3 2 1 2 1 0 

Aeschynomene histrix CIAT 9690 2 2 2 1 0 0 


Aeschynomene villosa CPI 93621 3 2 1 2 0 0 


Alysicarpus monilifer CPI 52343 1 1 1 1 0 0 

Alysicarpus rugosus CPI 30034 1 1 1 1 0 0 


Alysicarpus vaginalis CPI 100856 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 18748 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 17434 (Amarillo) 2 1 3 1 2 0 

Pests 

/diseases 4 

(continued next page) 

43


44 

Table 3 (cont.). Performance of forage species at Namsuang. 

Species 

Establishmen 

t success 1 

Yield 

potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

production 2 

Maintains 

green leaf in 

dry season 3 



Centrosema acutifolium CIAT 5277 3 3 3 3 3 0 

Centrosema brasilianum CPI55698 2 2 2 1 2 0 

Centrosema macrocarpum CIAT 15014 2 2 3 1 2 0 

Centrosema pascuorum cv. Cavalcade 3 1 1 1 1 0 

Centrosema plumieri CPI 58567 2 2 1 1 2 0 

Centrosema pubescens CIAT 438 0 0 0 0 0 0 


Chamaecrista rotundifolia Q 10057 2 2 2 2 2 0 

Chamaecrista rotundifolia CPI 86127 3 3 2 4 2 0 

Chamaecrista rotundifolia cv. Wynn 4 3 3 4 2 0 

Clitoria ternatea cv. Milgarra 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Clitoria ternatea CIAT 772 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Calopogonium mucunoides CIAT 7722 2 2 1 3 0 0 

Desmodium distortum CPI 38568 1 1 1 2 1 0 

Desmodium heterocarpon CPI 86227 2 1 1 1 1 0 

Desmodium heterophyllum CIAT349 2 2 1 2 1 0 

Desmodium ovalifolium CIAT 3666 2 2 1 1 1 0 


Desmodium cinerea CPI 46562 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Desmodium subsericeum CPI 78402 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Desmodium sericophilum CPI 91147 2 1 1 1 1 0 

Desmanthus virgatus ex. IRRI 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Desmanthus virgatus cv. Bayamo 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Desmanthus virgatus cv. Mark 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Macroptilium atropurpureum cv. Aztec 3 1 1 1 1 0 

Macroptilium atropurpureum CPI 90844 2 1 1 1 1 0 

Macroptilium bracteatum CPI 27404 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Macrotyloma daltonii CPI 60303 1 1 0 1 0 0 

Macroptilium gracile cv. Maldonado 2 1 1 1 1 0 

Macroptilium gracile CPI 91340 2 1 1 1 1 0 



Stylosanthes capitata CIAT 11280 2 2 3 2 3 0 

Stylosanthes hamata cv. Amiga 2 2 1 3 1 0 

Stylosanthes hamata cv. Verano 3 2 3 2 3 3 

Stylosanthes mexicana CPI 87487 4 2 1 2 1 0 

Stylosanthes guianensis SSD-12 4 3 4 3 4 0 

Stylosanthes guianensis FM07-1 4 3 4 2 3 0 




Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184 4 4 4 2 4 0 

Teramnus uncinatum CIAT 7315 1 1 1 1 1 0 

Vigna decipiens CPI 73602 2 1 1 1 0 0 

Vigna oblongifolia CPI 121699 1 1 1 1 0 0 

Vigna trilobota CPI 13671 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Vigna vexillata CPI 65484 1 1 1 1 0 0 

Zornia latifolia CIAT 728 2 2 1 3 0 0 

Pests 

/diseases 4 

(continued next page)

Table 3 (cont.). Performance of forage species at Namsuang. 

Species 


Establishmen 

t success 1 

Yield 

potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

production 2 

Maintains 

green leaf in 

dry season 3 

Andropogon gayanus cv. Kent 3 3 3 3 2 0 

Bothriochloa inseupta cv. Bisset 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780 2 4 4 1 4 0 


Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk 3 3 4 1 4 0 

Brachiaria humidicola cv. Tully 3 3 4 1 3 0 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 6133 3 2 4 1 3 0 


Cenchrus ciliaris cv. Biloela 1 1 1 1 1 0 

Dichanthium aristatum cv. Floren 1 1 1 1 0 0 

Digitaria milanjiana cv. Jarra 2 2 3 1 2 0 

Digitaria milanjiana CPI 41192 2 1 3 1 2 0 


Panicum coloratum CPI 16796 2 1 1 1 1 0 

Panicum maximum cv. Petrie 1 1 2 1 2 0 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 3 3 2 2 3 0 

Paspalum notatum cv. Competidor 2 2 2 1 1 0 

Paspalum nicorae CPI 37526 2 1 2 1 1 0 

Urochloa mosambicensis cv. Nixon 2 2 2 2 2 0 

Urochloa stolonifera CPI 60128 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1 Establishment success: 0=did not emerge, 1=poor, 2=moderate, 3=good, 4=excellent. 

2 Yield potential, persistence, and seed production: 1=poor, 2=moderate, 3=good, 4=excellent. 

3 Maintains green leaf in dry season: 0=very poor, 1=poor, 2=average, 3=good, 4=excellent 

4 Pests/diseases: 0= no pests/diseases, 1=little impact, 2=moderate impact, 3=severe impact, 4=plants killed. 

Houakhoth 

Sixty-one forage species (48 legumes and 13 grasses) were planted at the end of June 

1995. The grass species adapted to this site were Brachiaria brizantha (CIAT 6780 and 

CIAT 16318), Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk, Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 16886, and 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299. Of the legumes, only Stylosanthes guianensis (various 

accessions) showed good adaptation and performance. The performance of each 

species at the Houakhoth site is presented in Table 4. 

Table 4. Performance of forage species at Houakhoth. 

Species 

Establishment 

success 1 

Yield potential 

2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

production 2 

Maintains 

green leaf in 

dry season 3 



Aeschynomene americana CPI 93667 3 2 1 4 0 0 









Pests 

/diseases 4 

Pests 

/diseases 4 


45


46 

Table 4 (cont.). Performance of forage species at Houakhoth. 

Species 

Establishme 

nt success 1 

Yield 

potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

production 2 

Maintains 

green leaf in 

dry season 3 





Centrosema brasilianum CPI 55698 1 2 1 1 1 0 

Centrosema macrocarpum CIAT15014 1 2 1 1 2 0 

Centrosema pascuorum cv. Calvacade 2 1 1 1 0 0 





Chamaecrista rotundifolia 86127 2 3 2 4 2 0 


Clitoria ternatea cv. Milgarra 2 2 2 2 2 0 



Desmodium heterophyllum CIAT349 2 1 1 1 1 0 


Desmodium cinerea ex. Davao 3 2 2 2 2 0 















Vigna oblongifolia 121699 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Vigna trilobota CPI13671 1 1 1 1 1 0 




















Pests 

/diseases 4


Houaphai 

Fifty-six forage species (42 legumes and 14 grasses) were planted at the end of June 

1995. Grass species, which were well adapted to this site were Brachiaria brizantha 

CIAT 6780 and CIAT 16318, Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk, Brachiaria humidicola 

CIAT 16886 and Tully, and Panicum maximum CIAT 6299. Of the legumes, only 

Chamaecrista rotundifolia cv. Wynn and Stylosanthes guianensis (especially CIAT 184), 

were well adapted. The details of performance of each species at the Houaphai site are 

presented in Table 5. 

Table 5. Performance of forage species at Houaphai 

Species 

Establishment 

success 1 

Yield potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

production 2 

Maintains 

green leaf in 

dry season 3 



Aeschynomene americana CPI93667 2 2 1 3 0 0 











Centrosema brasilianum CPI 55698 1 1 1 1 1 0 























Teramnus uncinatum CIAT 7315 2 2 1 1 1 0 


Vigna oblongifolia CPI 121699 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Vigna trilobota CPI 13671 2 1 1 1 0 0 



Pests 

/diseases 4 


47


48 

Table 5 (cont.). Performance of forage species at Houaphai. 

Species 

Establishment 

success 1 


Persistence 2 

Seed 

production 2 

Maintains 

green leaf in 

dry season 3 








Dichanthium aristatum cv. Floren 3 2 3 1 1 0 











Khinak 

Fifty-two forage species (25 legumes and 27 grasses) were planted at the end of June 

1996. Of the grass species, Brachiaria brizantha (including CIAT 6387, CIAT 6780, CIAT 

16318, CIAT 16827, CIAT 16835, CIAT 26110), Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk, and 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 were well adapted and productive. Only a few legumes 

showed good adaptation and performance: Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160, 

Chamaecrista rotundifolia cv. Wynn, Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184, and 

Stylosanthes hamata cv. Verano. The details of performance of each species at the 

Khinak site are presented in Table 6. 

Table 6. Performance of forage species at Khinak. 

Species 

Establishmen 

t 

success 1 

Aeschynomene histrix CIAT 9690 2 2 2 2 1 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 17434 (Amarillo) 0 0 0 0 0 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 22160 1 2 3 1 0 

Centrosema acutifolium CIAT 5277 1 1 1 1 0 

Centrosema macrocarpum CIAT 25522 1 1 3 1 1 

Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160 2 3 3 1 0 

Chamaecrista rotundifolia Q 10057 1 2 2 3 0 

Chamaecrista rotundifolia CPI 86127 2 3 2 2 0 

Chamaecrista rotundifolia cv. Wynn 3 2 2 3 0 

Desmodium heterophyllum CIAT 349 2 2 1 1 0 

Desmodium ovalifolium CIAT 13305 2 2 3 1 0 

Desmodium cinerea CPI 46562 1 1 2 1 0 

Flemingia macrophylla CIAT 17403 3 3 3 1 0 


Yield 

potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

production 2 

Pests /diseases 

4 

Pests 

/diseases 3

Table 6 (cont.). Performance of forage species at Khinak. 

Species 

Establishment 

success 1 


Macroptilium atropurpureum cv. Aztec 1 1 1 1 0 

Macroptilium atropurpureum CPI 90844 1 1 1 1 0 

Macroptilium gracile cv. Maldonado 2 1 1 1 0 

Macroptilium gracile CPI 33498 2 1 1 1 0 

Stylosanthes capitata Multiline 5 2 1 2 1 0 

Stylosanthes hamata cv. Verano 3 3 3 3 0 

Stylosanthes guianensis FM05-1 2 3 4 2 0 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184 3 4 4 2 0 

Stylosanthes scabra cv. Siran 1 3 4 2 0 

Stylosanthes scabra cv. Seca 2 3 4 2 0 

Vigna parkeri cv. Shaw 1 1 1 1 2 

Zornia latifolia CIAT 728 0 0 0 0 0 

Andropogon gayanus cv. Kent 0 0 0 0 0 

Bothriochloa inseupta cv. Bisset 1 1 3 1 0 

Bothriochloa bladhii cv. Swann 1 2 2 3 0 

Bothriochloa pertusa cv. Medway 1 2 3 2 0 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6387 1 4 4 2 0 






Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk 1 4 4 1 0 

Brachiaria humidicola cv. Tully 1 2 4 1 0 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 6133 0 0 0 0 0 


Brachiaria ruziziensis ex. Thailand 2 2 3 3 0 

Cenchrus ciliaris cv. Biloela 2 2 3 1 0 

Dichanthium aristatum cv. Floren 1 2 2 1 0 

Digitaria milanjiana cv. Jarra 3 2 3 2 0 

Digitaria milanjiana cv. Strickland 2 2 3 1 0 

Panicum maximum TD 58 2 2 3 1 0 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 2 4 3 1 0 

Paspalum atratum BRA 9610 2 3 3 1 0 

Paspalum guenoarum BRA 3824 1 2 3 1 0 

Urochloa mosambicensis CPI 46876 3 2 3 1 0 



Urochloa mosambicensis cv. Nixon 1 3 3 2 0 




Ban Km 32 

Forty-five forage species (25 legumes and 20 grasses) were planted in the middle of July 

1996. Brachiaria brizantha (CIAT 6780, CIAT 6387, CIAT 16827, CIAT 16835 and CIAT 

26110), Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk, Brachiaria ruziziensis ex. Thailand, and 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 all performed well. Only a few legumes showed good 

adaptation to the local conditions: Stylosanthes hamata cv. Verano and Stylosanthes 

guianensis CIAT 184. The details of performance of each species at Ban Km 32 site are 

presented in Table 7. 


Persistence 2 

Seed 

production 2 

Pests /diseases 

3 

49


50 

Table 7. The performance of forage species at Ban Km 32. 

Species 

Establishment 

success 1 

Yield 

potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

production 2 

Maintains 

green leaf in 

dry season 3 



Arachis pintoi CIAT 17434 (Amarillo) 0 0 0 0 0 0 



Centrosema brasilianum 55698 3 2 3 1 2 0 



Centrosema pubescens cv. Cardillo 3 1 3 1 2 0 


Desmodium heterophyllum CIAT 349 4 2 4 2 2 0 


Desmodium cinerea CPI 46562 4 2 4 2 3 0 

Flemingia macrophylla CIAT 17403 2 2 3 1 3 0 





Stylosanthes hamata cv. Verano 4 3 3 2 3 0 



Stylosanthes scabra cv. Siran 2 2 4 2 3 0 

Stylosanthes scabra cv. Seca 3 2 4 1 3 0 

Vigna parkeri cv. Shaw 3 1 2 1 1 0 


Andropogon gayanus cv. Kent 0 0 0 0 0 0 











Brachiaria ruziziensis ex. Thailand 3 3 3 4 3 0 

Panicum maximum TD 58 2 3 3 3 3 0 


Paspalum atratum BRA 9610 1 2 3 1 2 0 

Paspalum guenoarum BRA 3824 3 2 2 1 2 0 

Urochloa mosambicensis CPI 46876 2 3 2 2 3 0 








Pests 

/diseases 4

Discussion 


Across all sites, some grass species proved to be persistent, productive, and broadly 

adapted. These included Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780, Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 

16318, Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk, and Panicum maximum CIAT 6299. They 

grew well in a wide range of soils – from very acid (at Namsuang) to more fertile (at Ban 

km 35). They were tolerant of drought and showed high yield potential in the wet season. 

However, these species had only poor to moderate establishment at some sites. This 

may have been due to ant theft of seed, as reported by some technicians, or poor seed 

quality. Andropogon gayanus appears to have potential but it was not planted at all sites 

because of lack of seed. 

The main limitation for many of the legumes was surviving the long and severe dry 

season. Growth of the legumes was generally vigorous in the first wet season, but many 

did not survive the dry season. Only Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT184 persisted and 

grew vigorously at all sites. Chamaecrista rotundifolia cv. Wynn was reasonably 

successful, but is largely annual. 

Some species performed well and persisted in some locations but not in others. 

These were Brachiaria humidicola (cv. Tully, CIAT 16886 and CIAT 6133), Urochloa 

mosambicensis cv. Nixon, Zornia latifolia CIAT 728, and Centrosema acutifolium CIAT 

5277. 

Conclusions 

The nurseries have identified a small range of broadly adapted forage species for Lao 

PDR (especially Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780, CIAT 16318, Brachiaria decumbens cv. 

Basilisk, Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 and TD58, and Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 

184). There is no shortage of grass species for farmers to evaluate, but there are few 

legumes adapted to the poor soils and long dry season typical of much of Lao PDR. 

Some species need further evaluation for various reasons: either because they 

have not been tried, were only tried at some sites, did not establish well (because of poor 

seed/ant predation), or may have specific adaptation to particular conditions (for 

example, higher altitude areas of the northern provinces). These include Andropogon 

gayanus (which is well adapted to the acid and poorly drained soil of the Namsuang site), 

Brachiaria humidicola (which established poorly from seed at most sites but is easily 

propagated vegetatively), Setaria sphacelata cv. Solander and cv. Kazungula (which 

have performed well in the cooler areas of Xieng Khouang), Chamaecrista rotundifolia 

cv. Wynn and other leafier accessions, Zornia latifolia CIAT 728 and Centrosema 

acutifolium CIAT 5277. 

The lack of adapted legumes points to the need for more work on tree legumes. At 

Ban km 32, for example, Calliandra calothyrsus has performed extremely well. 

Leucaena is generally not well adapted to most of Lao PDR because of the acid soils. 

However, some of the cold-tolerant Leucaena varieties should be tried in the more fertile 

soils of the northern provinces. Gliricidia sepium appears to have potential in the 

moderately fertile soils of Luang Phabang but has not performed well on either the 

poorer soils or in areas with low winter temperatures. 

Acknowledgements 

The authors thank the provincial and district officers (Mr. Bounthong, Mr. Daosadet, Miss 

Thongbay, Mr. Sengpasith, Mr. Simuang, Mr. Sisomvang) and Mrs. Kaysone for their 

assistance in the management of the nursery and in data collection. We also thank Miss 

51


52 

Soukanhya for her assistance in data management. The assistance and financial 

support of the Forages for Smallholders Project and the Division of Livestock 

Development, Department of Livestock and Fisheries, MAF are much appreciated.


Regional evaluation of forages in Indonesia: Aceh, 

Kalimantan, North Sulawesi and North Sumatra 

Ibrahim 1 and Maimunah Tuhulele 2 

Introduction 

The Forages for Smallholders Project (FSP) was able to make use of the results of 

species evaluations of the Forage Seeds Project (1992 – 1994). Several species were 

identified which had shown broad adaptation to environmental conditions in Kalimantan. 

These species were offered to farmers for evaluation on-farm in the Forages for 

Smallholders Project. Regional evaluation was continued at some sites of the Forage 

Seeds Project in Kalimantan, adding new species which had shown promise in other 

countries. New regional evaluation sites were established in areas where the FSP 

intended to work with farmers. These were tailored to the needs expressed by farmers 

and therefore did not include all species at every site. New regional evaluation sites 

were established in Aceh, North Sumatra, North Sulawesi and East Kalimantan. We 

would like to thank all of our local collaborators who provided data for this paper. 

Site description 

Table 1. Physical characteristics of sites for regional evaluations. 

Site 

Gorontalo, 

North 

Sulawesi 

Loa Janan, 

East 

Kalimantan 

Makroman, 

East 

Kalimantan 

Sepaku, 

East 

Kalimantan 

Kanamit, 

Central 

Kalimantan 

Marenu, 

North 

Sumatra 

Alt. 

(m) 

Annual 

rainfall 

(mm) 

Wet 

season 

No. of wet 

months 

(>100mm) 

Soil characteristics 

pH 1 

Texture 

(% Al sat) (drainage) 2 

18 1290 Nov-Jun 5 – 7 6.8 grey-brown fine 

sandy loam 

(seasonally flooded) 


54 

Rainfall (mm) 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

The selected sites represent a range of upland agro-ecosystems (Table 1). These range 

from relatively fertile soils in Saree, Aceh to extremely infertile soils in Marenu, North 

Sumatra (Table 2). All sites apart from Gorontalo are relatively humid with average 

annual rainfall ranging from 1290 to 2750 mm (Fig 1). 1997 was an unusually dry year 

which tested the ability of species to withstand dry conditions. 

Aceh has vast areas of degraded natural grasslands in mountainous areas which 

traditionally have been used for communal grazing. Two evaluation sites were 

established; one in an area of intensive upland cropping (Saree) where farmers fatten 

cattle bred on the communal grazing areas and the second site (Blang Ubo-ubo) in a 

communal grazing area in the mountains. The latter is managed by a group of farmers. 

In Saree, forages are intended mainly for cut & carry. Those in Blang Ubo-ubo are for 

both cut & carry (supplementary feeding) near the cattle shed and for improvement of 

communally managed grazing areas. 

South Tapanuli in North Sumatra is an area of extensive upland agriculture which 

has traditionally been used for grazing of cattle and buffaloes. The evaluation site is 

located in a transmigration area which has only recently been established. The 

transmigration area is based on sheep production. Farmers were given 20 sheep and 2 

rams to start breeding sheep. Forages are needed mainly for cut and carry but there 

may also be some potential for improvement of grazing areas. 

Gorontalo: 1290 mm/year Saree: 1580 mm/year 

400 

J F M A M J J A S O N D 

Makroman: 2040 mm/year 


Marenu: 2330 mm/year 

0 



Months Months 

Fig. 1. Mean monthly rainfall (mm) at forage evaluation sites (10-year data). 

300 

200 

100 

0 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

400 

300 

200 

100 


Kanamit: 2750 mm/year 


Sepaku: 2400 mm/year


Sepaku, Makroman and Loa Janan in East Kalimantan are located in Imperatadominated 

upland areas, but represent a range of soil fertility and farming systems and 

thus the need for different types of forages. Farmers in Sepaku graze cattle on the poorquality 

Imperata grasslands. Makroman has a mix of lowland and upland areas and 

farmers keep both cattle and goats. Farmers at Makroman are particularly interested in 

the use of legumes for weed control and soil fertility improvement in their upland 

cropping areas. Loa Janan was carried on from the Forage Seeds Project to complete a 

comprehensive evaluation. 

Kanamit, Kuala Kapuas in Central Kalimantan is located in seasonally flooded 

lowland area of acid-sulphate peat soils This site was carried over from the Forage 

Seeds Project but new species were added which had shown potential in other countries. 

Gorontalo in North Sulawesi is an area of moderately intensive upland agriculture, 

mainly under coconut plantations. Soils are moderately fertile but it is the site with the 

lowest rainfall and longest dry season. Farmers are interested in both grazing and cut & 

carry species. 

Table 2. Soil analysis results at regional evaluation sites. 

Site 

Gorontalo, 


Loa Janan, 


Makroman, 


Sepaku II, 


Kanamit, 

Central Kalimantan 

Marenu, 

North Sumatra 

Saree, 

Aceh 

Blang Ubo-ubo, 

Aceh 

Concentration 

low, if 

1 = P (BSES) 

pH 

Organic 

carbon 

N 

NO3 P1 (1:5 H2O) (%) 

S 

–– ppm –– 

Al 

K Ca Mg Al Na CEC Cu Zn Mn Fe B 

sat. 

–––––– meq/100g ––––––– ––––––––––– % ––––-––––– 

6.8 1.0 0.4 26 4 0.29 7.4 3.5 0 0.1 11.3 1.8 0.5 15 19 0.5 0 

4.8 2.4 7.0 58 32 0.51 2.7 1.6 2.6 - 7.4 0.8 0.7 9 - 0.7 35 

4.6 1.7 6.7 5 9 0.15 0.8 0.7 3.2 0.02 4.9 0.4 0.8 5 276 0.5 65 

4.8 1.2 0.5 5 6 0.14 0.8 0.4 2.4 0.02 3.8 0.3 0.2 3 113 0.3 64 

4.3 12.6 14 - - 0.17 1.1 0.6 8.3 - 10.2 0.4 0.2 - - 0.3 82 

4.7 3.0 0.3 5 10 0.13 0.4 0.1 3.1 0.07 3.8 0.3 0.3 2 168 0.6 82 

5.1 2.2 19.8 40 8 0.38 6.5 1.8 0.4 0.07 9.1 2.0 2.5 14 169 0.7 5 

5.6 3.2 4.4 21 18 0.82 6.7 3.1 0 0.03 10.6 2.1 3.8 229 120 1.3 0 


56 

Table 3. List of forages evaluated at regional sites in Indonesia. 

Species 

Grasses 

Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621 ✔ ✔ - - ✔ - ✔ ✔ 

A. gayanus cv. Kent ✔ - ✔ ✔ - ✔ - - 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6387 - - - ✔ - - - - 

B. brizantha CIAT 6780 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

B. brizantha CIAT 16835 - - - ✔ - ✔ - - 

B. brizantha CIAT 26110 ✔ - ✔ ✔ - - ✔ ✔ 

B. brizantha ex. Sungai Putih - - - - - ✔ - - 

B. decumbens cv. Basilisk ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ 

B. humidicola CIAT 6133 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ 

B. humidicola CIAT 6369 - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - - - 

B. humidicola cv. Tully ✔ - ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Chloris gayana cv. Callide - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

Digitaria milanjiana cv. Jarra - ✔ - - ✔ ✔ ✔ - 

D. swynnertonii CPI 59749 - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

Panicum maximum T-58 - - - - - ✔ - - 

P. maximum CIAT 6299 - - ✔ - - - ✔ ✔ 

P. maximum cv. Makueni - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

P. maximum cv. Riversdale - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

Paspalum atratum BRA 9610 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ 

P. atratum ‘Pantaneira’ - - - - - ✔ - - 

P. conjugatum ‘local’ - - - - ✔ - - - 

P. guenoarum BRA 3824 - ✔ - ✔ - ✔ - - 

P. malacophyllum CPI 27690 - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

P. notatum cv. Competidor ✔ - - - - - - - 

Pennisetum hybrid (‘King’ grass) ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - - 

Pennisetum hybrid cv. Mott (dwarf napier) ✔ - ✔ - - ✔ - - 

P. purpureum ‘local’ ✔ - - - ✔ - - - 

Setaria sphacelata var. splendida ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - - 

Stenotaphrum secundatum cv. Floratam ✔ - - - - - - - 

Herbaceous legumes 

Aeschynomene americana cv. Glenn - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

A. americana cv. Lee - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

Arachis glabrata ✔ - - - - - - - 

A. pintoi cv. Amarillo (CIAT17434) ✔ ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

A. pintoi CIAT 18744 ✔ - - - - - - - 

A. pintoi CIAT 22160 ✔ - - ✔ - - ✔ - 

Cajanus cajan CIAT 18700 - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

Calopogonium mucunoides ‘local’ - - - - - - - - 

Centrosema acutifolium CIAT 5277 ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - - - 

C. macrocarpum CIAT 25522 ✔ - - ✔ - ✔ - - 

C. macrocarpum CIAT 5452 - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 



C. pascuorum cv. Cavalcade - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

C. pubescens CIAT 15160 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

C. pubescens CIAT 438 - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

C. schiedeanum cv. Belalto - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

Chamaecrista rotundifolia cv. Wynn - - - - ✔ - - - 

D. heterophyllum CIAT 349 ✔ ✔ - ✔ - ✔ ✔ - 

D. ovalifolium CIAT 13089 - ✔ - - - - - - 

D. ovalifolium CIAT 13305 - - - ✔ - - - - 

D. velutinum CIAT 13220 - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

Macroptilium gracile cv. Maldonado - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

Stylosanthes capitata CIAT 10280 - ✔ - - - - - - 

S. guianensis cv. Cook - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

S. guianensis cv. Graham - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

S. guianensis CIAT 184 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 


Gorontalo 

Loa Janan 

Makroman 

Sepaku II 

Sites 

Kanamit 

Marenu 

Saree 

Blang Uboubo

Table 3 (cont.) List of forages evaluated at regional sites in Indonesia. 

Species 


S. hamata cv. Verano - ✔ - - ✔ - ✔ ✔ 

S. scabra cv. Seca - - - - - - - - 

S. scabra cv. Siran - - - - - ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Tree legumes 

Calliandra calothyrsus ex. Indonesia (CPI 115690) ✔ ✔ ✔ - - ✔ - ✔ 

Codariocalyx gyroides CIAT 3001 - ✔ - - ✔ - - - 

Cratylia argentea CIAT 18516 - ✔ - - ✔ ✔ - - 

Desmodium cinerea ex. MBRLC (CPI 46562) ✔ - ✔ - - ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Flemingia macrophylla CIAT 17403 ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - - 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Retalhuleu’ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ 

G. sepium ‘Monterrico’ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ 

G. sepium ‘Belen Rivas’ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ 

G. sepium ‘local’ ✔ - - - - - ✔ ✔ 

Leucaena collinsii QF 152/88 - - - - - ✔ - - 

L. leucocephala K636 ✔ - ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ 

L. leucocephala ‘local’ ✔ - - - - - ✔ -- 

Sesbania grandiflora ‘local’ - - ✔ - - - - - 

Results 

Gorontalo 

Several forage are broadly adapted across the wide range of soil fertility and rainfall 

conditions (Table 4). 

The most broadly adapted forages were Andropogon gayanus, Brachiaria brizantha, 

Brachiaria humidicola, Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184, Centrosema pubescens CIAT 

15160 and the tree legume Gliricidia sepium. Particular accessions have been identified 

within these species which are vigorous, persistent and produce seed at all locations. 

There were also some other species which were adapted to particular environments 

(Table 4). 

Detailed data on performance of species included in regional evaluations are 

presented in the Appendix. 

Conclusions 

Environmental adaptation is only one part of successful forage technology. The next 

step is to find out how these forages fit into farming systems, and how they can be 

utilized to provide maximum benefits to smallholder farmers and the environment. This 

can best be achieved through farmer evaluation of forages. The broadly adapted forage 

species identified through regional evaluation form the basis for farmer testing. To make 

these forages widely available to farmers outside FSP sites, large-scale seed 

multiplication is needed. 

Loa Janan 

Makroman 

Sepaku II 

Sites 

Kanamit 

Marenu 

Saree 

Blang Uboubo 

57


58 

Table 4. Broadly adapted forages in Indonesia. 

Grasses 

Saree 

Ubo-ubo 

Gorontalo 

Soil fertility 1 H M M M M L L L 

Andropogon gayanus 4 - - 3 3 4 3 4 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780 4 - 4 4 4 4 3 4 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 26110 4 3 4 - 3 4 - - 

Brachiaria decumbens 4 4 3 3 3 3 - 3 

Brachiaria humidicola 4 4 3 4 3 4 - 3 

Panicum maximum 4 4 2 4 2 - 1 2 

Paspalum atratum 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 

Pennisetum spp. 

Legumes 

4 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 

Arachis pintoi 3 - 4 1 - 1 - 1 

Centrosema macrocarpum - - 1 4 - 2 4 3 

Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 

Desmodium heterophyllum 3 - 4 2 - 3 - - 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184 

Tree legumes 

4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 

Calliandra calothyrsus - 3 2 1 1 - 1 - 

Flemingia macrophylla - - 4 4 - - 4 4 

Desmodium cinerea (prev. D. rensonii) 4 4 2 1 - - 1 - 

Gliricidia sepium 4 4 4 4 - 2 4 - 

Leucaena leucocephala 4 4 1 - - 1 1 - 

1 Soil fertility: H = high, M = moderate, L = low. 

2 Overall performance: 4 = excellent, 3 = good, 2 = moderate, 1 = poor, - == not evaluated at this site. 

L. Janan 

Site 

Makroman 

Sepaku 

Marenu 

Kanamit

Appendices 


Appendix 1. Performance of forage species at Gorontalo, North Sulawesi. 

Grasses 

Andropogon gayanus cv. Kent 0 - - - - 


B. brizantha CIAT 26110 3 3 3 1 0 

B. decumbens cv. Basilisk 2 2 3 1 0 

B. humidicola CIAT 6133 0 - - - - 

B. humidicola cv. Tully 3 3 3 1 0 


Paspalum atratum CIAT 9160 4 4 4 1 0 

P. notatum cv. Competidor 3 2 3 1 0 

Pennisetum hybrid ‘King’ grass 4 3 3 1 0 

Pennisetum purpureum cv. Mott 3 2 3 1 0 

P. purpureum ‘local’ 3 3 3 1 0 

Setaria sphacelata var. splendida 0 - - - - 

Stenotaphrum secundatum cv. Floratam 

Legumes 

2 2 4 1 0 

Arachis glabrata 1 1 2 1 1 

A, pintoi cv. Amarillo 1 1 2 1 1 

A. pintoi CIAT 18744 0 - - - - 

A. pintoi CIAT 22160 4 3 4 1 0 

Centrosema acutifolium 1 1 2 1 1 

C. macrocarpum CIAT 25522 1 1 2 1 1 

C. pubescens CIAT 15160 4 3 3 2 1 


Macroptilium gracile cv. Maldonado 0 - - - - 


Trees and shrubs 

4 4 4 3 1 

Calliandra calothyrsus 1 2 2 1 1 

Desmodium cinerea CIAT 46562 (D. rensonii) 2 1 2 2 1 


Gliricidia sepium ‘Belen Rivas’ 3 3 2 1 1 

G. sepium ‘Monterrico’ 3 3 2 1 1 

G. sepium ‘Retalhuleu’ 3 3 2 1 1 

Leucaena leucocephala K636 3 2 3 3 2 

1 Establishment success: 0=did not emerge, 1=poor, 2= moderate, 3=good, 4=excellent. 

2 Yield potential, persistence and seed production: 1=poor, 2=moderate, 3=good, 4=excellent. 

3 Pests/Diseases: 0=none, 1=little impact, 2=moderate impact, 3=severe impact, 4=plants killed. 

Establishment 

success 1 

Yield Potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

Production 2 

Pests/ 

Diseases 3 

59


60 

Appendix 2. Performance of forage species at Loa Janan, East Kalimantan. 

Grasses 

Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621 4 3 3 1 0 



B. humidicola CIAT 6369 4 4 4 1 0 


Panicum maximum cv. Makueni 1 1 1 - - 

P. maximum cv. Riversdale 3 4 2 1 0 

Paspalum atratum BRA 9610 

Legumes 

3 4 3 1 0 

Aeschynomene americana cv. Glenn 3 1 1 1 0 

A. americana cv. Lee 3 1 1 1 0 

Arachis pintoi cv. Amarillo 3 - - - - 

Cajanus cajan CIAT 18700 1 - - - - 


C. macrocarpum CIAT 15047&15014&5452 2 3 3 1 1 

C. pascuorum cv. Cavalcade 3 ? ? ? ? 

C. pubescens CIAT 15160/438? 4 4 4 3 0 

C. schiedeanum cv. Belalto 3 2 2 1 0 

Desmodium heterophyllum CIAT 349 3 ? 

D. ovalifolium CIAT 13089 2 ? 

Macroptilium gracile cv. Maldonado 3 ? 

Stylosanthes capitata CIAT 10280 1 - - - - 

S. guianensis cv. Cook 3 2 2 1 1 

S. guianensis cv. Graham 3 ? 

S. guianensis CIAT 184 4 4 3 2 0 

S. guianensis SSD-12 2 ? 

S. hamata cv. Verano 


2 - - - - 

Calliandra calothyrsus 2 ? 

Codariocalyx gyroides CIAT 3001 3 ? 





Establishment 

success 1 

Yield Potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

Production 2 

Pests/ 

Diseases 3


Appendix 3. Performance of forage species at Makroman, East Kalimantan. 

Grasses 








P. guenoarum ? 1 0 


Setaria sphacelata cv. Splendida 3 3 2 1 0 


Pennisetum purpureum cv. Mott 

Legumes 

2 2 3 1 0 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 22160 - - - - - 


C. acutifolium CIAT 5277 3 1 3 1 0 




3 2 3 1 0 

Calliandra calothyrsus 1 - - - 0 

Desmodium cinerea CIAT 46562 3 - - - 0 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Belen Rivas’ 3 - - - 1 

G. sepium ‘Monterrico’ 3 - - - 1 

G. sepium ‘Retalhuleu’ 4 - - - 1 

Leucaena leucocephala K636 3 - - - 1 

Sesbania grandiflora ‘local’ 2 - - - 1 




Establishme 

nt success 1 

Yield 

Potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

Production 2 

Pests/ 

Diseases 3 

61


62 

Appendix 4. Performance of forage species at Sepaku II, East Kalimantan. 

Grasses 










P. guenoarum BRA 3824 3 3 3 1 0 


Setaria sphacelata cv. Splendida 3 2 4 1 0 

Panicum maximum CIAT 629 ? - 3 1 0 


Legumes 

-? - 3 1 0 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 22160 1 1 - - - 


C. acutifolium CIAT 5277 2 1 3 1 0 



D. ovalifolium CIAT 13305 4 1 3 1 0 



4 2 4 2 0 

Desmodium cinerea CIAT 46562 -? - 1 - - 

Flemingia macrophylla CIAT 7403 -? - 1 - - 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Belen Rivas’ 3 - - - 0 

G. sepium ‘Monterrico’ 3 - - - 0 

G. sepium ‘Retalhuleu’ 3 - - - 0 

Leucaena leucocephala K636 3 - - - 0 




Establishme 

nt success 1 

Yield 

Potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

Production 2 

Pests/ 

Diseases 3


Appendix 5. Performance of forage species at Kanamit, Central Kalimantan. 

Grasses 






Chloris gayana cv. Callide 2 2 1 - - 

Digitaria milanjiana CPI 41192 2 2 2 1 0 

D. swynnertonii CPI 59749 4 3 4 2 0 

Panicum maximum cv. Makueni 2 2 2 1 0 

P. maximum cv. Riversdale 2 3 3 1 0 

Paspalum conjugatum ‘local’ 3 2 3 1 0 

P. malacophyllum CPI 27690 2 1 1 1 0 

Pennisetum hybrid (‘King’ grass) 3 2 2 1 0 

P. purpureum ‘local’ 3 3 3 1 0 

Setaria sphacelata cv. Splendida 

Legumes 

3 3 2 1 0 


A. americana cv. Lee 2 1 1 1 0 

Arachis pintoi cv. Amarillo 2 1 1 1 0 

Cajanus cajan CIAT 18700 1 - - - - 

Calopogonium mucunoides ‘local’ 2 2 3 1 0 





C. pascuorum cv. Cavalcade 2 3 - - - 



C. schiedeanum cv. Belalto 2 2 2 1 0 


Desmodium velutinum CIAT 13220 1 - - - - 

Macroptilium gracile cv. Maldonado 2 3 2 - - 

Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Cook 2 1 1 1 0 

S. guianensis cv. Graham 2 1 1 1 0 

S. guianensis CIAT 184 4 3 4 2 0 

S. hamata cv. Verano 


2 1 2 1 0 

Codariocalyx gyroides CIAT 3001 0 - - - - 

Cratylia argentea CIAT 18516 0 - - - - 

Flemingia macrophylla CIAT 17403 4 3 4 3 - 




Establishme 

nt success 1 

Yield 

Potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

Production 2 

Pests/ 

Diseases 3 

63


64 

Appendix 5. Performance of forage species at Marenu, North Sumatra. 

Grasses 




B. brizantha ex. Sungai Putih 4 2 4 1 0 


Digitaria milanjiana cv. Jarra 4 - 4 - 0 

Panicum maximum T-58 4 1 2 3 0 


P. atratum cv. Pantaneira 4 4 4 1 0 

P. guenoarum BRA 3824 4 4 4 1 1 

Pennisetum hybrid (‘King’ grass) 4 1 2 1 2 

P. purpureum cv. Mott 4 1 2 1 0 

Setaria sphacelata var. splendida 

Legumes 

4 1 3 2 0 

Centrosema macrocarpum 25522 4 4 4 1 0 




S. scabra cv. Siran 


2 1 2 2 1 

Calliandra calothyrsus CPI 115690 2 1 2 1 0 

Cratylia argentea CIAT 18516 0 - - - - 



Gliricidia sepium ‘Belen Rivas’ 4 4 4 1 0 

G. sepium ‘Monterrico’ 4 1 3 1 0 

G. sepium ‘Retalhuleu’ 4 1 3 1 0 

Leucaena collinsii QFI 152/88 4 1 3 1 0 

L. leucocephala K636 4 3 4 1 0 




Establishmen 

t success 1 

Yield 

Potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

Production 2 

Pests/ 

Diseases 3


Appendix 6. Performance of forage species at SPK Saree, Aceh. 

Grasses 

Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621 0 - - - - 







Legumes 

3 4 3 1 0 





S. hamata cv. Verano 3 3 3 3 0 



2 3 3 2 0 


Gliricidia sepium ‘Belen Rivas’ 4 4 4 - 0 

G. sepium ‘local’ 2 2 3 - 0 

G. sepium Monterrico’ 4 4 4 - 0 

G. sepium ‚Retalhuleu’ 4 4 4 - 0 


L. leucocephala ‘local’ 2 2 2 2 1 




Establishment 

success 1 

Yield 

Potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

Production 2 

Pests/ 

Diseases 3 

65


66 

Appendix 7. Performance of forage species at Blang Ubo-ubo, Saree, Aceh. 

Grasses 

Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621 0 - - - - 







Legumes 

3 4 3 1 0 

Centrosema ‘mixture’ 3 3 3 2 0 


S. hamata cv. Verano 3 3 3 3 0 



2 3 3 2 0 

Calliandra calothyrsus 3 3 3 2 0 


Gliricidia sepium ‘Belen Rivas’ 4 4 4 - 0 

G. sepium ‘local’ 2 2 3 - 0 

G. sepium ‘Monterrico’ 4 4 4 - 0 

G. sepium ‘Retalhuleu’ 4 4 4 - 0 


L. leucocephala ’local’ 2 2 2 2 1 




Establishment 

success 1 

Yield 

Potential 2 

Persistence 2 

Seed 

Production 2 

Pests/ 

Diseases 3


Environmental adaptation of forages in Vietnam 

Le Hoa Binh 1 , Truong Tan Khanh 2 and Le Van An 3 

The land area of Vietnam is relatively small (33.6 million ha) with a large population (75 

million people). Steep hills and mountains cover two-thirds of the country. The average 

agricultural landholding per capita is only 0.1 ha. Population growth rate is more than 

2% per year. As a result, land under cultivation for food and industrial crops is 

expanding at a fast rate while grassland and forests, which are the traditional resources 

for grazing, are shrinking. 

The Vietnamese Government aims to change the structure of agricultural production 

and actively promote livestock production. To address the problem of diminishing feed 

resources for livestock, studies to identify new, adapted forage species are being 

conducted in collaboration with the Forages for Smallholders Project (FSP). Farmers 

normally prefer forage species which are productive, are easy to propagate, and are 

adapted to a wide range of environments and farming systems. This paper presents the 

results of forage evaluations conducted at three sites in Vietnam. 


Forages were evaluated at Ba Vi (Ha Tay province), FRC (Phu To), Xuan Loc (Hue) and 

M’Drak, (Daklak). A brief site description is provided in Table 1. Actual rainfall and air 

temperature data are attached in the Appendix 1. 

Results 

A total of 101 forage species were included in the nursery evaluations. This consisted of 

63 legumes, 31 grasses and 7 tree legumes. The number of species evaluated at each 

site is presented in Table 2. The complete list of species tested at each site is attached 

in the Appendix 2. 

Table 1. Physical characteristics of sites for nursery evaluation. 

Site Latitude Altitude 

(m) 

Ba Vi 

(Ha Tay) 

FRC 

(Phu Tho) 

Xuan Loc 

(Hue) 

M’Drak 

(Daklak) 

Annual 

rainfall 

(mm) 

Wet 

season 


wet months 

(>50mm) 

Soil characteristics Farming systems 

21 o N 50 1840 Apr – Nov 8 pH (KCl) 5.5-5.7, light 

loam, moderately fertile, 

well drained 

21 o N 40 1850 Apr – 

Nov 

8 pH (KC): 3.8-4.0, light 

loam, moderate 

drainage, poor soil 

16 o N 150 2300 Jul - Feb 8 pH (1:5 water) 5.0-5.5, 

Sandy loam soil, light to 

medium texture and 

well drained 

12 o N 550 1895 Apr - 

Nov 

8 pH(1:5 water):5, sandy 

loam, well drained, 

moderately fertile but P 

deficient 

1 National Institute of Animal Husbandry, Thuy Phuong, Tu Liem, Hanoi, Vietnam. 

2 Department of Agriculture, Tay Nguyen University, Buon Ma Thuot, Daklak, Vietnam. 

3 College of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Hue, Vietnam. 

Forestry in highland, industrial 

and other crops, home 

gardens, irrigated rice and 

livestock. 

Forestry and upland crops, 

lowland rice and livestock. 

Slash-and-burn cultivation on 

steep hills, irrigated rice, 

home gardens, livestock. 

Shifting cultivation on steep 

hills, home gardens and 

lowland rice in the valleys. 

67


68 

Table 2. Number of forage varieties evaluated at each site. 

Ba Vi M’Drak Xuan Loc FRC 

Grasses 20 22 21 24 

Herbaceous legumes 49 49 28 18 

Tree legumes 0 4 4 0 

Total 69 75 53 42 

A list of the best-adapted species at each site is presented in Table 3. Of the 

species evaluated in the study, some proved to be broadly adapted. These were 

Brachiaria brizantha, Panicum maximum, Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184, and 

Flemingia macrophylla. These species produced not only a lot of green leaf but also had 

good seed production potential. 

Some species performed well only at some sites – Paspalum atratum at Hue, 

Brachiaria ruziziensis at Hue and Phu Tho, Brachiaria humidicola at M’Drak, and 

Andropogon gayanus at M’Drak and Ba Vi. 

The performance of all forage accessions evaluated at Ba Vi, Hue and Xuan Loc is 

detailed in Appendices 4 to 6. 

Table 3. List of best species at the four nursery sites. 

Species 

Ba Vi 

(Hatay) 

M’Drak 

(Dak Lak) 

Xuan Loc 

(Hue) 

FRC 

(Phu Tho) 

Grasses 

Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk ✔ ✔ - - 

B. brizantha CIAT 6780 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Andropogon gayanus cv. Kent ✔ ✔ - - 

Panicum maximum TD58 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Brachiaria humidicola (several varieties) - ✔ - - 

Brachiaria ruziziensis ex. Thailand - - ✔ ✔ 

Paspalum atratum BRA 9610 - - ✔ - 

Legumes 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Stylosanthes guianensis FM 05-2 - ✔ - ✔ 

Stylosanthes hamata cv. Verano - - ✔ ✔ 

Aeschynomene histrix CIAT 9690 ✔ - - ✔ 

Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160 

Tree legumes 

- - - ✔ 

Gliricidia sepium - ✔ ✔ - 

Flemingia macrophylla - ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Conclusions and recommendations 

There is a range broadly adapted species which can be used for on-farm evaluations. 

These include Brachiaria species, Panicum maximum, and Stylosanthes guianensis. The 

lack of broadly adapted legumes suggests that we need to do more work on tree legumes 

for living fences, erosion control, soil improvement, and weed suppression. 

We need to continue to evaluate new species for particular niches (such as Setaria 

sphacelata cv. Solander for the cooler northern regions). We need to organize training 

courses on forage agronomy and management for farmers.



The authors thank CIAT and CSIRO for supporting this work through the FSP. We also 

acknowledge the strong contribution and cooperation of the different institutions and 

agencies in Vietnam, including the National Institute of Animal Husbandry, the Tay 

Nguyen University, the Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry, the College of 

Agriculture and Forestry Ho Chi Minh City, and the Vietnam-Sweden Mountain Region 

Development Program. 

69


Appendices 

Appendix 1. Climatic data for the period of nursery evaluation at each site. 

Ba Vi (Ha Tay) 

FRC (Phu Tho) 

Xuan Loc (Hue) 

M’Drak (Daklak) 

70 

Rainfall 

(mm) 


rain days 

Mean max. 

temp ( o C) 

Mean min. 

temp ( o C) 

Rainfall 

(mm) 


rain days 

Mean max. 

temp ( o C) 

Mean min. 

temp ( o C) 

Rainfall 

(mm) 


rain days 

Mean max. 

temp ( o C) 

Mean min. 

temp ( o C) 

Rainfall 

(mm) 


rain days 

Mean max. 

temp ( o C) 

Mean min. 

temp ( o C) 

Month 

Year J F M A M J J A S O N D Total 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

1996 

1997 

10 

30 

14 

08 

26 

28 

5 

10 

27 

24 

12 

12 

26 

27 

7 

10 

29 

51 

11 

11 

29 

30 

11 

12 

24 

56 

12 

7 

27 

29 

14 

11 

1 Data not yet available. 

2 Most recent data not yet included. 

14 

15 

5 

13 

29 

26 

6 

11 

13 

34 

10 

16 

29 

26 

6 

12 

137 

80 

20 

18 

33 

28 

12 

15 

53 

6 

12 

7 

35 

34 

16 

14 

130 

157 

20 

19 

39 

28 

12 

16 

126 

167 

17 

21 

32 

28 

12 

16 

9 

38 

6 

7 

37 

35 

15 

15 

4 

10 

3 

3 

36 

35 

15 

15 

49 

188 

22 

14 

32 

31 

13 

17 

89 

170 

22 

16 

32 

32 

13 

18 

73 

90 

8 

18 

39 

36 

17 

20 

93 

14 

9 

9 

36 

36 

19 

21 

169 

89 

16 

11 

40 

37 

20 

22 

280 

104 

17 

8 

38 

36 

20 

22 

120 

118 

12 

13 

36 

38 

23 

22 

160 

235 

18 

15 

35 

36 

21 

22 

309 

258 

22 

12 

37 

40 

23 

24 

389 

142 

18 

15 

36 

40 

22 

23 

9 

17.1 

17 

4 

38 

38 

23 

23 

122 

28 

15 

9 

34 

35 

20 

20 

620 

602 

19 

21 

38 

36 

23 

24 

335 

380 

20 

24 

37 

34 

24 

24 

51 

63 

8 

11 

38 

39 

23 

24 

95 

150 

20 

15 

33 

32 

21 

21 

451 

438 

16 

17 

36 

38 

22 

22 

474 

289 

16 

14 

36 

37 

23 

23 

66 

151 

10 

8 

38 

38 

23 

24 

109 

102 

16 

16 

34 

32 

21 

22 

133 

99 

13 

15 

34 

35 

21 

18 

79 

121 

13 

14 

34 

34 

22 

17 

66 

559 

23 

18 

34 

37 

22 

20 

357 

87 

26 

19 

31 

32 

20 

20 

157 

256 

6 

12 

34 

33 

16 

17 

98 

178 

7 

13 

33 

33 

18 

18 

760 

726 

24 

16 

34 

34 

21 

21 

605 

350 

25 

19 

32 

30 

19 

20 

287 

10 

13 

03 

30 

35 

14 

14 

161 

61 

11 

3 

29 

33 

16 

15 

824 

- 

25 

- 

31 

- 

18 

- 

1057 

201 

25 

15 

30 

28 

18 

16 

5 

17 

3 

08 

27 

29 

10 

11 

13 

- 1 

8 

- 

27 

- 

11 

- 

363 

- 

23 

- 

28 

- 

14 

- 

656 

150 

24 

13 

25 

28 

15 

15 

2332 

2156 

169 

153 

1781 

1670 2 

171 

156 2 

2507 

1892 2 

177 

124 2 

3334 

1389 

205 

147

Appendix 2. Forage varieties evaluated at each site. 

Species 


M’Drak 

(Daklak) 

Xuan Loc 

(Hue) 

FRC 

(Phu Tho) 

Ba Vi 

(Ha Tay) 

Legumes 

Aeschynomene americana CPI 93667 ✔ - - ✔ 

Aeschynomene americana cv. Glenn ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Aeschynomene americana cv. Lee ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Aeschynomene brasiliana CIAT 8628 ✔ - - ✔ 

Aeschynomene histrix CIAT 9690 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Aeschynomene histrix CPI 93595 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Aeschynomene villosa CPI 91209 ✔ - - ✔ 

Aeschynomene villosa CPI 93621 ✔ - - ✔ 

Alysicarpus rugosus CPI 30034 ✔ - - ✔ 

Alysicarpus rugosus CPI 52348 ✔ - - ✔ 

Alysicarpus vaginalis CPI 100856 ✔ - - ✔ 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 17434 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 18744 ✔ - - ✔ 



Arachis pintoi CIAT 22160 - ✔ ✔ - 

Calopogonium mucunoides CIAT 7722 ✔ - - - 

Centrosema acutifolium CIAT 5277 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Centrosema brasilianum CPI 55698 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Centrosema macrocarpum CIAT 15014 ✔ - - ✔ 

Centrosema macrocarpum CIAT 25522 - ✔ ✔ - 

Centrosema pascuorum cv. Cavalcade - ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Centrosema plumieri CPI 58657 ✔ - - ✔ 

Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Centrosema pubescens CIAT 438 ✔ - - ✔ 

Centrosema pubescens cv. Cardillo - ✔ ✔ - 

Chamaecrista rotundifolia CPI 86172 ✔ - - ✔ 

Chamaecrista rotundifolia cv. Wynn ✔ - - ✔ 

Chamaecrista rotundifolia Q 10067 ✔ - - ✔ 

Clitoria ternatea CIAT 772 ✔ - - ✔ 

Clitoria ternatea cv. Milgarra ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Desmanthus virgatus cv. Bayamo ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Desmanthus virgatus cv. Marc ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Desmanthus virgatus ex. Thailand (CPI 52401) - ✔ - - 

Desmodium distortum CPI 38568 ✔ - - - 

Desmodium heterocarpon CPI 86277 ✔ - - ✔ 

Desmodium heterophyllum CIAT 394 ✔ - ✔ ✔ 

Desmodium ovalifolium CIAT 13089 ✔ - - ✔ 

Desmodium ovalifolium CIAT 3666 ✔ - - ✔ 

Desmodium sericophyllum CPI 91147 ✔ 

Desmodium subsericeum CPI 78402 ✔ - - ✔ 

Macroptilium atropurpureum CPI 90844 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Macroptilium atropurpureum cv. Aztec ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Macroptilium bracteatum CPI 27404 - ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Macroptilium gracile cv. Maldonado - ✔ - ✔ 

Macrotyloma daltonii CPI 6030 - - - ✔ 

Stylosanthes scabra cv. Seca - ✔ ✔ - 

Stylosanthes scabra cv. Siran - ✔ ✔ - 

Vigna oblongifolia CPI 121699 - - - ✔ 

Vigna parkeri cv. Shaw - ✔ ✔ - 

Vigna trilobata CPI 13671 - - - ✔ 


71


72 

Appendix 2 (cont.). Forage varieties evaluated at each site. 

Species 

M’Drak 

(Daklak) 

Xuan Loc 

(Hue) 

FRC 

(Phu Tho) 

Ba Vi 

(Ha Tay) 

Macroptilium gracile CPI 33498 ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Macroptilium gracile CPI 91094 ✔ - - ✔ 

Macroptilium gracile CPI 91340 ✔ - - ✔ 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Stylosanthes guianensis FM05-2 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Stylosanthes hamata cv. Amiga ✔ - - ✔ 

Stylosanthes hamata cv. Verano ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Stylosanthes mexicana CPI 87484 ✔ - - - 

Teramnus uncinatum CIAT 7315 ✔ - - ✔ 

Vigna decipiens CPI 73602 ✔ - - ✔ 

Zornia latifolia CIAT 728 

Grasses 

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Andropogon gayanus cv. Kent ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Bothriochloa insculpta cv. Bisset ✔ - - ✔ 

Bothriochloa pertusa cv. Dawson ✔ - - ✔ 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 16318 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 16827 - ✔ ✔ - 




Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 16886 ✔ - - ✔ 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 26144 - ✔ ✔ - 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 6133 ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Brachiaria humidicola cv. Tully ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Brachiaria ruziziensis ex. Thailand ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Cenchrus ciliaris cv. Biloela ✔ - - ✔ 

Dichanthium aristatum cv. Floren ✔ - - ✔ 

Digitaria milanjiana CPI 40700 ✔ - - ✔ 

Digitaria milanjiana CPI 41192 ✔ - - ✔ 

Digitaria milanjiana cv. Jarra ✔ - - ✔ 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Panicum maximum TD 58 - ✔ ✔ - 

Paspalum atratum BRA 9610 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Paspalum guenoarum BRA 3824 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Paspalum nicorea CPI 37526 ✔ - - - 

Paspalum notatum cv. Competidor ✔ - - ✔ 

Urochloa mosambicensis CP 46876 - ✔ - - 

Urochloa mosambicensis CPI 60128 - ✔ ✔ - 

Urochloa mosambicensis CPI 60147 - ✔ - - 

Urochloa mosambicensis Nixon ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Urochloa stolonifera CPI 60128 

Tree and shrub legumes 

✔ - - ✔ 

Calliandra calothyrsus CPI 115690 - ✔ - - 

Flemingia macrophylla CIAT 17403 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Gliricidia sepium ex. Costa Rica ✔ - - - 

Gliricidia sepium OFI 124/91 - ✔ - - 

Gliricidia sepium OFI 82/94 - ✔ - - 

Leucaena leucocephala K636 ✔ ✔ - - 

Zapoteca tetragona ex. Indonesia ✔ - - -


Appendix 3. Results of nursery evaluation at Ba Vi, Ha Tay Province. 

Species 

Establishment 

Yield 

Persistence 

Seed 

production 

Pest/ 

disease 

damage 

Grasses 


Bothriochloa insculpta Bisset 1 1 2 1 0 

Bothriochloa pertusa cv. Dawson 1 1 - 2 0 



Brachiaria decumbens CIAT 606 1 3 3 3 0 



Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 679 (Tully) 1 2 4 3 0 

Cenchrus ciliaris cv. Biloela 1 1 - 3 0 

Dichanthium aristatum cv. Floren 1 1 - 1 0 

Digitaria milanjiana CPI 40700 1 2 - 3 0 

Digitaria milanjiana CPI 41192 1 2 1 2 0 





Paspalum notatum cv. Competidor 2 1 1 - 0 

Urochloa mosambicensis cv. Nixon 1 1 2 3 0 

Urochloa stolonifera CPI 60128 

Legumes 

- - - - - 


Aeschynomene americana cv. Lee 2 2 1 3 1 

Aeschynomene americana 93667 2 2 1 3 1 

Aeschynomene brasiliana CIAT 8628 3 3 2 3 0 


Aeschynomene histrix CPI 93595 1 2 2 3 0 

Aeschynomene villosa CPI 91209 1 1 - 3 0 

Aeschynomene Villosa CPI 93621 2 1 - 2 0 

Alysicarpus rugosus CPI 52348 1 1 - 2 2 

Alysicarpus monilepher CPI 52343 1 1 - 2 2 

Alysicarpus vaginalis CPI 100856 2 1 - 1 0 



Arachis pintoi CIAT 18748 - - - - - 


Centrosema acutifolium CIAT 5277 1 1 - 2 1 

Centrosema brasilianum CPI 55698 2 2 1 3 0 


Centrosema pascuorum cv. Cavalcade 2 2 - 3 1 

Centrosema plumieri CPI 58567 1 1 - 2 1 





Chamaecrista rotundifolia Q10057 1 1 - - 0 

Clitoria ternatea CIAT 772 1 1 - 3 1 

Clitoria ternatea cv. Milgarra 1 1 - 2 1 

Desmodium heterocarpon CPI 86277 2 1 - 2 1 

Desmodium heterophyllum CIAT 349 2 1 - - 1 


73


74 

Appendix 3 (cont.). Results of nursery evaluation at Ba Vi, Ha Tay Province. 

Species 

Establishment 

Yield 

Persistence 

Seed 

production 

Pest/ 

disease 

damage 


Desmodium ovalifolium CIAT 3666 3 1 - 1 1 

Desmodium subsericeum CPI 78402 - - - - - 



Macroptilium bracteatum CPI 27404 - - - - - 

Macroptilium gracile CPI 33498 1 2 - 2 1 

Macroptilium gracile CPI 91094 1 1 - - 2 

Macroptilium gracile CPI 91340 2 1 - - 2 

Macroptilium gracile cv. Maldonado 2 2 - 2 1 

Macrotyloma daltonii CPI 60303 1 1 - - 2 


Stylosanthes guianensis FM 05-2 4 3 2 2 1 

Stylosanthes hamata cv. Amiga 2 3 - 3 0 

Stylosanthes hamata cv. Verano 1 2 - 3 0 

Teramnus uncinatum CIAT 7315 1 1 - - 1 

Vigna decipiens CPI 73602 2 1 - 3 0 

Vigna oblongifolia CPI 121699 1 1 - - 2 

Vigna trilobata CPI 13671 - - - - - 

Zornia latifolia CIAT 728 1 1 3 2 0 


Yield potential, persistence, and seed production: 1=poor, 2=moderate, 3=good, 4=excellent. 

Pests/diseases: 0= none, 1=little impact, 2=moderate impact, 3=severe impact, 4=plants killed.


Appendix 4. Results of nursery evaluation at Xuan Loc, Hue Province. 

Species 

Establishment 

Yield 

Persist- 

ence 

Pest / 

disease 

damage 

Grasses 

Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621 0 - - - 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 16318 0 - - - 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6387 3 3 3 4 





Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk 4 3 3 4 

Brachiaria humidicola cv. Tully 0 - - - 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 6133 0 - - - 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 26149 0 - - - 

Brachiaria ruziziensis ex. Thailand 4 4 3 4 

Desmanthus virgatus ex. Thailand (CPI 52401) 0 - - - 

Panicum maximum TD58 4 4 4 4 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 4 4 4 4 

Paspalum atratum BRA 9610 4 4 4 4 

Paspalum guenoarum BRA 3824 3 1 2 4 

Urochloa mosambicensis CPI 46876 2 1 2 4 

Urochloa mosambicensis CPI 60128 0 - - - 

Urochloa mosambicensis CPI 60147 1 1 1 4 

Urochloa mosambicensis cv. Nixon 

Legumes 

1 1 1 4 

Aeschynomene histrix CIAT 9690 2 2 4 4 

Aeschynomene americana cv. Lee 1 1 3 4 

Aeschynomene americana cv. Glenn 0 - - - 

Aeschynomene histrix CPI 93595 3 3 3 4 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 22160 3 2 4 4 

Arachis pintoi cv. Amarillo 0 - - - 

Centrosema acutifolium CIAT 5277 1 1 3 2 

Centrosema brasilianum CPI 55698 2 2 3 2 

Centrosema macrocarpum CIAT 25522 1 1 2 2 

Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160 2 2 3 2 

Centrosema pascuorum cv. Cavalcade 1 1 2 2 

Centrosema pubescens cv. Cardillo 1 2 2 2 

Clitoria ternatea cv. Milgarra 1 1 2 4 

Desmanthus virgatus cv. Marc 0 - - - 

Desmanthus virgatus cv. Bayamo 0 - - 4 

Macroptilium atropurpureum CPI 90844 3 2 2 4 

Macroptilium atropurpureum cv. Aztec 1 3 2 3 

Macroptilium bracteatum CPI 27404 3 3 2 3 

Macroptilium gracile CPI 33498 1 2 2 3 

Macroptilium gracile cv. Maldonado 2 3 3 3 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184 4 4 4 4 

Stylosanthes guianensis FM05-1 3 3 4 4 

Stylosanthes hamata cv. Verano 3 3 3 4 

Stylosanthes scabra cv. Siran 3 2 3 4 

Stylosanthes scabra cv. Seca 4 4 4 4 

Vigna parkeri cv. Shaw 0 - - - 

Zornia latifolia CIAT 728 

Tree legumes 

0 - - - 

Calliandra calothyrsus CPI 115690 3 2 3 4 

Gliricidia sepium OFI 124/91 2 1 3 4 

Gliricidia sepium OFI 82/94 3 4 4 4 

Flemingia macrophylla CIAT 17403 4 4 4 4 

Leucaena leucocephala K636 1 1 2 2 


Yield potential, and persistence: 1=poor, 2=moderate, 3=good, 4=excellent. 

Pests/diseases: 0= none, 1=little impact, 2=moderate impact, 3=severe impact, 4=plants killed. 

75


76 

Appendix 5. Results of nursery evaluation at M’Drak, Daklak Province. 

Species 

Establishment 

Yield 

potential ersist-ence 

Seed 

production 

Legume species 

Aeschynomene americana cv. Gienm 1 1 1 2 2 


Aeschynomene histrix CPI 93696 2 1 1 2 2 





Centrosema plumieri CPI 58567 3 2 1 2 2 







Chamaecrista rotundifolia Q10067 3 2 2 3 1 

Desmanthus virgatus cv. Marc 3 2 2 2 2 

Desmanthus virgatus cv. Bayamo 3 2 3 2 2 

Desmodium distortum CPI 38568 3 2 3 3 1 

Desmodium heterocarpon CPI 86277 3 2 3 3 1 




Desmodium sericophyllum CPI 91147 3 2 3 2 2 

Desmodium subsericeum CPI 78402 3 2 2 2 2 



Macroptilium gracile cv. Maldonado 2 1 1 2 3 





Stylosanthes guianensis FM05-2 4 4 4 3 1 

Stylosanthes hamata cv. Amiga 2 2 2 3 2 

Stylosanthes hamata cv. Verano 2 2 2 3 2 

Stylosanthes mexicana CPI 87484 1 1 1 1 3 

Grasses 




Brachiaria decumbens CIAT 606 3 3 4 2 0 




Brachiaria ruziziensis ex. Thailand 3 2 2 4 1 




Paspalum nicorea CPI 37526 2 2 1 1 1 

Tree legumes 


Gliricidia sepium ex. Costa Rica 4 3 4 2 1 

Leucaena diversifolia ex. Davao 3 1 1 0 3 

Leucaena leucocephala CIAT 17263 3 1 1 0 3 

Zapoteca tetragona ex. Indonesia 3 1 2 2 0 

Pest-/disease 

damage 



Appendix 5 (cont.). Results of nursery evaluation at M’Drak, Daklak Province. 

Species 

Establishment 

Yield 

potential ersist-ence 

Seed 

production 

Pest-/disease 

damage 

Leucaena diversifolia CPI 33820 2 1 1 0 3 

Leucaena diversifolia CPI 35134 3 1 1 0 3 

Leucaena hybrid ex. tropical America 2 1 1 0 3 

Leucaena leucocephala CPI 61227 3 1 1 0 3 

Leucaena leucocephala CPI 64189 3 1 1 0 3 

Leucaena leucocephala cv. Cunningham 3 1 1 0 3 

Leucaena leucocephala cv. Peru 3 1 1 0 3 


Leucaena pallida CQ 3439 3 1 1 0 3 


Yield potential, persistence, and seed production: 1=poor, 2=moderate, 3=good, 4=excellent. 

Pests/diseases: 0= none, 1=little impact, 2=moderate impact, 3=severe impact, 4=plants killed. 

77


Regional evaluation of forages in the Philippines 

F. Gabunada 1 E. Magboo 2 , V. Pardinez 3 , C. Cabaccan 4 , A. Castillo 5 , L. Moneva 6 , A. Obusa 7 , P. Asis 8 , J. 

Mantiquilla 9 and C. Subsuban 10 

78 

In the Philippines, about 90% of the ruminant population belong to the backyard or 

smallholder sector (Lanting et al. 1995). In this sector, livestock production is a 

component of an intensive, mixed farming system (Horne, et al. 1997). Most of the 

smallholders are basically crop farmers; few are specialised livestock producers. 

Livestock are kept for draft and, at the same time, as source of cash income. Under this 

system, livestock accounts for more than half of the household income, representing a 

component that is maintained with minimal inputs and readily converted to cash in times 

of need. 

Ruminants raised in smallholder systems are fed native vegetation and crop 

residues with minimal or no supplementation. Fattening is not commonly practiced. The 

major objective is reproduction, as more offspring means more sources of income and 

less risk. Animals are usually sold on a per head basis, with little incentive for wellfattened 

stock. 

Most of the smallholder farmers in the Philippines have observed poor performance 

of their animals, which they attribute to insufficient quality and quantity of feed. This is 

associated with little feed in the dry season and limited area for grazing and has lead to 

overgrazing. In sloping areas, crop production has declined primarily due to soil erosion. 

The Forages for Smallholders Project (FSP), in 

collaboration with local agencies, has conducted regional 

evaluation of forages at different sites in the Philippines. 

Farmers at these sites have experienced, in varying 

degrees, the previously mentioned problems. Regional 

evaluation was done as a first step towards on-farm 

evaluation of forages by farmers. 

Fig. 1. FSP regional evaluation sites 

in the Philippines. 


Regional evaluation was carried out at 13 sites in the 

Philippines (Fig. 1) – four sites in Luzon, three in the 

Visayas and six in Mindanao. Seven of the sites were 

located on experiment stations and were managed by local 

agency collaborators. The rest were located in communal 

areas volunteered by farmer-groups (Bicol, Guba, 

Montealegre, Pagalungan, Carmen, and M’lang) and were 

managed by farmers in consultation with local agency 

collaborators. These sites doubled as multiplication areas 

1 Forages for Smallholders Project, CIAT, c/o IRRI, College, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. 

2 Livestock Research Division, PCARRD, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. 

3 CVIARC-LES, Upi, Gamu, Isabela, Philippines 

4 CV-UPROS, Dungo, Aglipay, Quirino, Philippines. 

5 Bureau of Animal Industry, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. 

6 Mag-uugmad Foundation Inc., Manreza Building Inc., F. Ramos St., Cebu City, Philippines. 

7 FARMI, Visayas State College of Agriculture, Baybay, Leyte, Philippines. 

8 City Veterinary Office, Cogon Market, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines. 

9 Davao Research Cente, Philippine Coconut Authority, Bago-Oshiro, Davao City, Philippines. 

10 Philippine Carabao Center, University of Southern Mindanao, Kabacan, Cotabato, Philippines.


of planting materials for later testing by farmers. Some localities have two evaluation 

sites. 

The physical characteristics of the sites are shown in Table 1. Detailed soil analysis 

results are shown in Appendix 1. Climate information is shown in Appendix 2 (long-term) 

and Appendix 3 (actual during the evaluation period). 

Table 1. Physical characteristics of sites for regional evaluation. 

Site Lat. 

Alt. 

(m) 

Annual 

rainfall 

(mm) 

Wet 

season 

No. wet 

months 

(>50mm) 

pH a 

(% Al sat) 

Soil characteristics 

Texture 

(drainage) b 

Gamu 17 o N 60 1890 May-Dec 10 5.6 Brown, gritty clayloam, 

well drained 

Aglipay 16 o N 

2530 May-Jan 11 5.1 

(3) 

IRRI 14 o N 20 1500 May-Dec 9 6.5 

(1) 

Yellow-brown, silty 

clay-loam, well 

drained 

Brown, clay-loam, 

well drained 

Bicol 13 o N 20 3900 All year 12 5.6 Brown, clay-loam, 

well drained 

Guba 10 o N 550 1680 May-Jan 12 4.9 

(31) 

Matalom: 

San Salvador 

Matalom: 

Montealegre 

Cagayan de 

Oro: CCC 

Cag. de Oro: 

Pagalungan 

10 o N 30 1970 June-Apr 12 4.9 

(13) 

Yellow brown, 

clay-loam, welldrained 

Brown, clay-loam, 

well-drained 

10 o N 300 1970 June-Apr 12 6.0 Brown, clay-loam, 

well drained 

8 o N 150 1500 June-Nov 10 6.5 Brown, clay-loam, 

well drained 

8 o N 180 1500 June-Nov 10 5.8 Brown, clay-loam, 

well drained 

CMU 7 o N 2200 May-Dec 12 5.5 Brown, clay-loam, 

well drained 

Carmen 7 o N 1590 April-Nov 12 6.5 Brown, clay-loam, 

well drained 

M’lang 7 o N 1590 April-Nov 12 6.5 Brown, clay-loam, 

area is subsoilrecently 

scraped 

off 

Davao: PCA ) 7 o N 120 2210 April-Jan 12 5.1-6.1 Black, clay-loam, 

well drained 

a soil pH measured in 1:5 H2O (% Al saturation in brackets). 

b drainage (poorly drained, moderate drainage, well drained, seasonally flooded). 

c major soil fertility deficiencies or problems (eg. low P). 

Fertility c Dominant farming system 

Moderate Moderately extensive upland 

low P, S cropping, Imperata-dominated 

native vegetation 


low P cropping, Imperata-dominated 

native vegetation 

Fertile, 

low S 

Intensive, irrigated lowland rice 

Moderate Extensive upland agriculture 

under coconut 

Fertile, 

low pH 

Intensive upland agriculture 

(maize, vegetables, fruit trees); 

cut-and-carry feeding 

Moderate Moderately intensive upland 

low P, K agriculture; overgrazed and 

dominated by Chrysopogon 

Fertile Extensive upland agriculture, 

grazing areas dominated by 

Imperata 


cropping, grazing areas invaded 

by Chromolaena 


low S cropping; grazing areas invaded 

by Chromolaena 

Fertile Intensive upland agriculture 

(corn, sugarcane), native 

vegetation grazed 

Fertile Moderately intensive upland 

agriculture; native vegetation 

grazed 

Infertile Moderately intensive rainfed 

lowland rice and maize, native 

vegetation used for grazing 

Fertile Moderately intensive upland 

agriculture under coconuts 

Most of the sites (except IRRI and M’lang) are upland areas with soil fertility varying 

from moderate to good. The evaluation at M’lang was done in a recently scraped area, 

thus only the subsoil was left. All sites have clay soils with pH (1:5 H2O) lower than 7. 

Annual rainfall varied from 1500 to 3900 mm with most sites having an average of 

around 2000 mm. 

The evaluation did not start at the same time. As such, in some sites, the first year 

was wetter than normal while in others, it was drier. However, the deviation was not 

79


80 

significant. Rainfall was generally slightly higher than normal in 1995 at all sites except 

Aglipay, CMU, Carmen, and M’lang. In 1996, rainfall was slightly higher at all sites 

except Aglipay, IRRI, Cagayan de Oro, Carmen, and M’lang. In 1997, rainfall was lower 

at all sites due to the El Niño phenomenon. 

Methodology 

Establishment procedures were similar at all sites. Grasses were planted vegetatively, as 

was the legumes Arachis pintoi. The rest of the species were sown by seed, either 

directly in the plots (herbaceous and shrub legumes) or transplanted as seedlings from a 

seedbed (tree legumes). 

Plot size and planting distance varied between sites and ranged from 1000 m 2 plots 

with a planting distance of 0.5 x 0.5 m at Gamu and Aglipay to single rows with a 

planting distance of 0.5 – 1.0 m at other sites. Legume trees and shrubs were usually 

planted in single rows at a distance of 0.5 m between hills. Some species were 

established as mixtures (usually grasses for grazing mixed with Arachis spp., 

Centrosema spp., Desmodium heterophyllum, and Stylo 184). In this case, each species 

was planted in alternate rows at a closer planting distance (about 25 cm between hills). 

During the establishment period missing hills were replanted as necessary. Plots 

were weeded regularly, except for plots planted with cover crop species (twining 

legumes) and those for grazing (mixtures of stoloniferous grasses and creeping 

legumes). The latter were weeded only once or twice during establishment. No fertiliser 

was applied except to species planted for seed production. Cutting frequency varied 

from regular harvests at CMU, Bicol and Davao to irregular harvests at Gamu, Aglipay 

and IRRI. 

The forage varieties tested at each site are shown in Table 2. Species performance 

was visually assessed for a period of at least two years after establishment. The major 

factors considered in these ratings were establishment success, yield, persistence, seed 

production, and presence of pests and diseases. 

Table 2. Forage varieties tested at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 

Species 

Erect Grasses 

Davao-PCA 

Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621 - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 16318 - ✔ - - - - - - - ✔ - - - 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 16827 ✔ ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 16835 - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 26110 ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - - - - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6387 - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Pennisetum purpureum cv. Capricorn ✔ ✔ ✔ - - ✔ - - - ✔ ✔ - 

Pennisetum purpureum cv. Mott ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - - - - ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Pennisetum hybrid ‘Florida’ ✔ ✔ - - ✔ - ✔ - - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Pennisetum purpureum ‘Local’ ✔ ✔ - - ✔ - - - - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Pennisetum hybrid ‘King’ grass ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - - - - ✔ ✔ - 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - - - - ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Panicum maximum T58 ✔ ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

IRRI 

Montealegre 

Guba 

Carmen 

CMU 

Gamu 

Aglipay 

Bicol 

San Salvador 

CCC 

Pagalungan 

M'lang 



Table 2 (cont.). Forage varieties tested at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 

Species 

Davao-PCA 

Panicum maximum cv. Tanzania - - - - - ✔ - - - - ✔ - - 

Paspalum atratum BRA 9610 ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - - - - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Paspalum guenoarum BRA 3824 - ✔ - - - - - - - - ✔ - - 

Setaria sphacelata cv. Golden Timothy ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - - - - - - - ✔ 

Setaria sphacelata cv. Splenda - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Setaria sphacelata var. splendida ex. Indonesia 

Decumbent and Stoloniferous Grasses 

✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - - - - ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 6133 ✔ ✔ - - ✔ ✔ - - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT16886 - ✔ ✔ - - ✔ - - ✔ ✔ - - - 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 26149 - ✔ - - - ✔ - - - - - - - 

Brachiaria humidicola cv. Tully ✔ ✔ - - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Brachiaria ruziziensis - ✔ - - - ✔ - - - - - - - 

Cynodon plectostachyus - - - - - ✔ - - - - - - - 


Shrub/tree Legumes 

✔ ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Calliandra calothyrsus ex. Indonesia ✔ ✔ - ✔ - - - - - - ✔ - - 

Calliandra calothyrsus ATF 2014 - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Cratylia argentea CIAT 18516 - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Desmanthus virgatus ex. IRRI - ✔ ✔ - ✔ - - - - ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Desmanthus virgatus CPI 40071 ✔ ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Desmanthus virgatus CPI 52401 - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Desmanthus virgatus CPI 82285 (cv. Bayamo) - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Desmanthus virgatus CPI 91146 - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Desmanthus virgatus CPI 92803 (=cv. Uman) - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Desmodium cinerea ex. MBRLC ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ - - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Desmodium cinerea CPI 46561 - ✔ - - - ✔ - - - - - - - 

Desmodium cinerea CPI 76099 - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Flemingia macrophylla CIAT 17403 - ✔ - - - ✔ - - - ✔ - - - 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Monterrico’ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - ✔ - - ✔ - - ✔ 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Retalhuleu’ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - ✔ - - ✔ - - ✔ 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Belen Rivas’ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - ✔ - - ✔ - - ✔ 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Local’ ✔ - ✔ - ✔ ✔ - - - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Leucaena diversifolia ex. MBRLC ✔ - - ✔ ✔ - - - - ✔ - - ✔ 

Leucaena leucocephala ‘Local’ ✔ - ✔ - ✔ - - - - - ✔ - ✔ 

Leucaena leucocephala K584 - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Leucaena leucocephala K636 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Leucaena pallida CQ3439 ✔ ✔ - - ✔ - - - - - - - 

Sesbania rostrata ex. IRRI - - - - - - - - - - - - ✔ 

Sesbania grandiflora 

Herbaceous Legumes 

- - - - - - - - - - ✔ - - 

Aeschynomene histrix CIAT 9690 - ✔ - - - - - - - ✔ - - - 

Arachis glabrata cv. Florigraze - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Arachis glabrata IRFL 3112 ✔ ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Arachis glabrata CPI 12121 - ✔ - ✔ - - - - - - - - - 

Arachis glabrata CPI 93483 - ✔ - ✔ - - - - - - - - - 

Arachis hybrid IRFL 3014 - ✔ - - - - ✔ - - - - - - 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 17434 - ✔ - ✔ - ✔ - ✔ ✔ - - - - 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 18744 - ✔ - - - ✔ - ✔ - - ✔ ✔ - 

IRRI 

Montealegre 

Guba 

Carmen 

CMU 

Gamu 

Aglipay 

Bicol 

San Salvador 

CCC 

Pagalungan 

M'lang 


81


82 

Table 2 (cont.). Forage varieties tested at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 

Species 

Davao-PCA 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 18747 - ✔ - - - ✔ - - - - - - - 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 18748 - ✔ - - - ✔ - ✔ - - - - - 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 18750 - ✔ - ✔ - ✔ - ✔ ✔ - - - - 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 22160 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Calopogonium caeruleum CIAT 7304 ✔ ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Calopogonium mucunoides CIAT 772 - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 


Calopogonium mucunoides CIAT 17856 ✔ ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 


Centrosema acutifolium CIAT 5277 ✔ ✔ ✔ - - ✔ - - - ✔ ✔ ✔ - 

Centrosema acutifolium CIAT 5568 - - - - - ✔ - - - - - - - 

Centrosema macrocarpum CIAT 25522 ✔ ✔ - ✔ - - - - - - ✔ - - 

Centrosema macrocarpum CIAT 5713 - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Centrosema pascuorum cv. Cavalcade ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Centrosema pubescens ex. Davao ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Centrosema mix (CIAT 5277, 15160, 15470, 438, 442) - - - - - ✔ - - ✔ - - - - 

Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160 ✔ ✔ - - ✔ - ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Centrosema pubescens cv. Cardillo - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Clitoria ternatea - - - - - - - - - - - - ✔ 

Desmodium heterophyllum CIAT 349 ✔ ✔ - - - - - - ✔ - ✔ - - 

Desmodium intortum ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Desmodium ovalifolium CIAT 130329 - - - - - ✔ - - - - - - - 

Desmodium ovalifolium CIAT 13305 ✔ ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Desmodium ovalifolium CIAT 350 - ✔ - - - ✔ - - - - - - - 

Desmodium ovalifolium CIAT 3666 - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Lablab purpureus cv. Highworth - - - - - - - - - - - - ✔ 

Lablab purpureus cv. Rongai - - - - - - - - - - - - ✔ 

Macroptilium atropurpureum cv. Aztec - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Macroptilium atropurpureum cv. Siratro - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - ✔ 

Macroptilium gracile cv. Maldonado ✔ ✔ - - - - - - - - - - ✔ 

Mimosa invisa ex. MBRLC (spineless) - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mucuna pruriens CIAT 9349 ✔ ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Pueraria phaseoloides ex. Davao ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Pueraria phaseoloides CIAT 7182 ✔ ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Pueraria phaseoloides CIAT 8042 ✔ ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Pueraria phaseoloides CIAT 9900 - - - - - - - - - - ✔ - - 

Pueraria phaseoloides CIAT 32118 - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Cook - ✔ - - - - ✔ ✔ - - - - - 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT FM05-1 - ✔ - - - - - - - - - - - 






IRRI 

Montealegre 

Guba 

Carmen 

CMU 

Gamu 

Aglipay 

Bicol 

San Salvador 

CCC 

Pagalungan 

M'lang

Results 


The performance of forage varieties will be summarised in the following pages (and 

Tables). More details are provided in Appendices 4 – 8. 

Grasses 

Among the erect growing grass species (Table 3), Pennisetum purpureum and its hybrids 

as well as Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 had the highest yield potentials. However, 

these species had slow regrowth when subjected to regular cutting under shade at the 

PCA-Davao site. Fertilisation improved regrowth, implying that these species require 

considerable fertilisation to improve herbage production. Moreover, there were 

difficulties in vegetative establishment of P. maximum. 

Paspalum atratum BRA 9610 and Setaria sphacelata var. splendida ex. Indonesia 

also had very high yields. These species had more leaves and succulent stems than the 

Pennisetum or Panicum varieties. Moreover, seed production of P. atratum was good. 

However, P. atratum and S. sphacelata easily dried up and did not grow well in the dry 

season and in less fertile sites. 

Brachiaria brizantha (CIAT 6780 and CIAT 26110) also had good herbage yield, 

especially in the wet season. Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 26110 produced high seed yields 

towards the end of the wet season and remained green up to the middle of the dry 

season. Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780 was affected by leaf fungal diseases 

(Rhizoctonia or Cercospera) and had only moderate seed yields. 

Table 3. Performance of erect grasses with broad adaptation at sites in the Philippines. 

Species Strengths Weaknesses Potential uses 

Pennisetum purpureum and 

hybrids 

Panicum maximum 

CIAT 6299 

Paspalum atratum 

BRA 9610 

Brachiaria brizantha 

CIAT 6780, and ‘ 

26110 

Andropogon gayanus 

CIAT 621 

Setaria sphacelata var. 

splendida ex. Indonesia 

• Easy vegetative establishment 

• Very good yield potential 


• Good seed yield 


• High leaf yield 

• Good seed yield 

• Good yield potential 

• CIAT 26110 has considerable 

tolerance to dry condition and 

produces good seed 

• Good yield potential 

• Good performance in low pH 

soils 

• Excellent dry season tolerance 


• Succulent leaf and stem 

• Easy establishment 

(vegetative) 

• Moderate persistence under frequent cutting 

and under shade 

• Needs fertilisation for good regrowth when 

cut frequently 

• Difficult to establish vegetatively 



• Needs fertilisation for good regrowth when 

cut frequently 

• Highly susceptible to dry periods 





• CIAT 6780 affected by fungal diseases 

during wet periods 

• Poor seed germination 

• Difficult to establish vegetatively 

• Seeds difficult to clean 

• Highly susceptible to dry periods 

• Moderate persistence with frequent cutting 


• Low performance in poor soil 

• Cut-and-carry 

either as blocks 

or hedgerows 



or hedgerows 



or hedgerows 



or hedgerows 



or hedgerows 



or hedgerows 

Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621 grew well at most sites. This was particularly 

noticeable at sites where pH was so low that performance of other species was severely 

83


84 

affected. It also remained green long into the dry season. Unfortunately, this species 

had establishment problems both from the seed and vegetative material – because of 

the seed’s fluffiness, seed is difficult to clean and so overall germination tended to be 

poor. It was also difficult to get good rootstock planting material from mature plants 

because of their very strong root system. 

The evaluation results also showed that, generally, erect growing grasses had only 

moderate performance under shade in spite of good soil fertility. This was observed at 

the PCA-Davao site. 

Among decumbent and stoloniferous grasses (Table 4), Brachiaria decumbens and 

B. humidicola. (CIAT 6133, cv. Tully, CIAT 16886) had good performance, both in the 

open and under shade. These species also had good regrowth when cut or grazed 

frequently and when established in mixture with legumes. Among these species, only B. 

decumbens showed some yellowing in soils with poor fertility and during the dry season. 

These species had low growth habits and were often affected by companion legumes or 

weeds when grazed only lightly or cut infrequently. Seed production from these species 

was generally low. Brachiaria decumbens and B. humidicola cv. Tully had problems with 

establishment, both from the seed and vegetative material. The seed had low 

germination while vegetative materials had slow growth and often died. B. humidicola 

CIAT 6133 and CIAT 16886 established much better, especially from stolons since the 

nodes of these species produced roots and leaves much faster. 

Generally for grasses, establishment from vegetative material was a problem with 

species established from rootstock, especially if the tillers used were not young. This was 

not a problem for species propagated from cuttings and stolons that already had good 

roots and young leaves. 

All the broadly adapted erect species have good potential for cut-and-carry systems. 

They can be integrated in the farm as hedgerow or in blocks. On the other hand, 

decumbent and stoloniferous grasses had good potential as grazing species especially 

when mixed with legumes. Brachiaria humidicola produced very good regrowth even 

under frequent defoliation. 

Table 4. Performance of decumbent and stoloniferous grasses with broad adaptability at sites in 

the Philippines. 


Brachiaria decumbens 

cv. Basilisk 

Brachiaria humidicola 

CIAT 6133 

cv. Tully 

CIAT 16886 

• Good yield potential • Turns yellow with frequent 

defoliation and in dry 

periods 

• CIAT 6133 has good yield 

potential and is leafy 

• cv. Tully and CIAT 16886 

had moderate yield potential 

• Good tolerance to frequent 

defoliation 

• Moderate seed production 

only 

• CIAT 16886 was very easy 

to establish vegetatively 

• Dominated by weeds or 

companion creeping 

legumes if not cut/grazed 

frequently 

• cv. Tully difficult to establish 

vegetatively 

• Low seed production 

• Grazing in 

monoculture or 

mixtures 


monoculture or 

mixtures 

Legumes 

Only seven of the herbaceous legumes were tested in most sites. Among those tested 

(Table 5), Arachis pintoi (CIAT 18744 and CIAT 22160) and Stylosanthes guianensis 

CIAT 184 consistently performed well. The latter established well, had good yields even


in the dry season, and produced seeds but was found not to persist under grazing 

pressure and lasted only for 2-3 yr. On the other hand, A. pintoi did not tolerate dry 

periods and was growing better under partial shade compared with open field. This 

species was also easily dominated by companion grasses or weeds. Among the A. pintoi 

accessions, CIAT 22160 established most easily from cuttings while another accession, 

CIAT 18748 stayed greener a little longer into the dry season. 

Another legume tested in most sites was Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160. This 

legume had good establishment, persistence and seed production. It did well at 

moderate and high-fertility sites but not at the low-fertility site at M’lang. This species 

performed well in the wet season but not during the dry season. 

Table 5. Performance of herbaceous legumes with good potential in Philippine sites. 

Species Strengths Weaknesses Potential Uses 

Stylosanthes guianensis 

CIAT 184 

Arachis pintoi 

CIAT 18744 

CIAT 18748 

CIAT 22160 

Centrosema pubescens 

CIAT 15160 

Centrosema pubescens 

cv. Cardillo a 

Centrosema 

macrocarpum 

CIAT 5713 

CIAT 25522 b 

Calopogonium caeruleum 

CIAT 7304 b 

• Good establishment and yield 

• Tolerates low-fertility soil 

• Considerable dry-season 

tolerance 

• Tolerates heavy grazing 

• CIAT 22160 easy to establish 

vegetatively 

• CIAT 18748 has some tolerance 

for dry periods 

• Good establishment and 

persistence 

• Good yield in wet season 

• Good seed yield and easy to 

harvest 

• Good establishment and 

persistence 

• Good seed yield and easy to 

harvest 

• Excellent dry-season 

performance 

• Excellent performance in dry 

season and under shade 

• Good herbage yield 

• Excellent performance in dry 

season and under shade 

• Good herbage and seed yield 

• Not long-lived 

• Cannot tolerate heavy 

grazing 

• Dominated by weeds or 

companion species in 

mixtures 

• Only CIAT 22160 is easy 

to establish 

• Low performance in dry 

season 

• Low performance in poor 

soils 

• Moderate performance in 

wet season 

• Weed control 

• Fallow 

improvement 


feed 

• Grazing, 

especially under 

trees 

• Mixtures with 

low-growing 

grasses 


mixtures with 

grasses 


mixtures with 

grasses 

• Low seed yield • Cover crop 

• Fallow 

improvement 

• Cover crop 

• Fallow 

improvement 

Pueraria phaseoloides 

CIAT 7182 b 

• Good herbage and seed yield • Low performance in dry • Cover crop 

• Good performance under shade season 

a 

Evaluation done only at IRRI. 

b 

Evaluation done only at PCA-Davao (under coconut) and IRRI (open); both areas have fertile soils. 

Among the other herbaceous legumes tested in only a few sites, there were species 

that did very well in the dry season (much better than the aforementioned species) – 

Calopogonium caeruleum CIAT 7304, Centrosema macrocarpum (CIAT 25522 and CIAT 

85


86 

5713), and C. pubescens cv. Cardillo. Other species also yielded well in the wet season 

– Mucuna pruriens CIAT 9349 and Pueraria phaseoloides CIAT 7182. 

Of the herbaceous legumes, only Arachis pintoi had establishment problems, 

basically because they were established vegetatively. Centrosema macrocarpum had 

low seed yields. Mucuna pruriens had problems with leaf-cutting insects while P. 

phaseoloides had poor dry season performance. 

Herbaceous legumes have good potential as cover crops and as a soil fertility 

improvement tool aside from being a good source of feed. Most can be used as 

companions to grasses for grazing while S. guianensis CIAT 184 can also be used for 

cut-and-carry systems. 

To date, most of the shrub and tree legumes in the site are still in the establishment 

stage. As such, the observations obtained were more on establishment and yield at the 

early stage (Table 6). All the shrub legumes tested (Desmanthus, Flemingia, and 

Desmodium cinerea – previously called D. rensonii) had variable performance. 

Desmanthus virgatus generally did not do well in acid soil sites and were also infested to 

some degree by psyllids (Heteropsylla cubana) especially in the dry season. Desmodium 

cinerea had good yields but did not perform well in the dry season. 

Among the tree legumes, Gliricidia sepium (cv. Retalhuleu, cv. Monterrico and cv. 

Belen Rivas) consistently had good yields despite slow initial growth. Calliandra 

calothyrsus did very well at high-altitude sites. Leucaena leucocephala K636 had good 

establishment in slightly acidic soil conditions (pH>6.0). In moderately acidic soils, it 

established only when the soil was very fertile (e.g. at the Guba site). In this case, L. 

leucocephala has shown signs of poor persistence with plants dying in the first dry 

season. Moreover, it did not do very well under shade and was infested with psyllids. 

Table 6. Performance of shrub and tree legumes with good potential at sites in the Philippines. 


Desmanthus virgatus 

ex. IRRI 

CPI 40071 

CPI 52401 

Desmodium cinerea 

(prev. D. rensonii) 

ex. MBRLC = CPI 46562 

Flemingia macrophylla 

CIAT 17403 

• Good herbage and 

seed yield 


seed yield 


seed yield 

Calliandra calothyrsus • Good performance in 

high -altitude sites 

Gliricidia sepium 

cv. Retalhuleu 

cv. Monterrico 

cv. Belen Rivas 

Leucaena leucocephala 

K636 

• Good herbage yield 

• Good performance in 

acid soil 

• Affected by psyllids (H. 

cubana) 

• Moderate in dry season 

• Low performance in poor and 

acid soil 

• Moderate in dry season and 

acid soil 

• Cut-and-carry either 

as blocks or 

hedgerows 

• Cut-and-carry either 

as blocks or 

hedgerows 

• Coarse and hard herbage • Cut-and-carry either 

as blocks or 

hedgerows 

• Moderate establishment 

• Poor regrowth in low -altitude 

sites 

• Moderate establishment 

• Low seed production 

• Sheds leaves in dry season 

• Good herbage yield • Low persistence in acid soil 

• Affected by psyllids (H. 

cubana) 

• Cut-and-carry as 

hedgerows, fence 

lines or blocks 



lines or blocks 



lines or blocks


A major observation with shrub and tree legumes was their relatively slow 

establishment. This was aggravated by dry spells during the establishment period. 

Once established, shrub and tree legumes find good potential as cut-and-carry feed 

especially in the dry season when grasses and shallow-rooted herbaceous legumes dry 

up. They have potential for integration in smallholder farms as hedgerows or fences. 

Experience in the Philippines has shown that uncontrolled grazing is a common problem, 

thus using tree legumes as fences warrants considerable attention. 

Conclusions and recommendations 

The results of the evaluation yielded considerable information on what species have 

good chances of performing well in farmers’ fields. It also gave insights on the attributes 

and weaknesses of potential species. This has led to identification of areas and issues 

for further development. 

The evaluation activity was able to point out the need of high yielding grass species 

(e.g. Pennisetum and Panicum) for nutrients to sustain production. It has also 

highlighted the sustained production of stoloniferous Brachiaria species despite low 

nutrient availability. Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184 was also notable in terms of 

performance in poor soils while A. gayanus performed relatively better than did other 

erect species in very acid soils. 

Another interesting finding was the potential of Paspalum atratum BRA 9610 and Setaria 

sphacelata var. splendida ex. Indonesia. These species are very leafy and have 

succulent stems as well as high yields. Farmers commented that these species were not 

itchy and were more convenient to cut, providing a good amount of feed from a small 

area. 

Another attribute shown by some species is good performance during dry periods. 

This is very important since feed availability in the dry season is a major problem of 

smallholder farmers. Varieties with good dry season performance were Andropogon 

gayanus CIAT 621, Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 26110, Calopogonium caeruleum and C. 

macrocarpum (CIAT 25522 and CIAT 5713). Finding a way to integrate these species in 

farmers’ fields to provide feed during the dry season will be the next challenge. For 

example, establishing these species in mixtures with other species that do well in the wet 

season may be a good option. 

Another issue related to forage delivery system is the production of seed and 

planting material. Some grass species were difficult to establish from seed and 

vegetative material. An example is A. gayanus, which had low seed germination 

(primarily because the seeds are difficult to clean) and, at the same time had poor 

vegetative establishment. The species has a very strong root system and preparing 

rootstocks for planting was rather difficult. In other grasses propagated by rootstock, it 

was observed that those taken from old tillers had low survival. This therefore warrants 

development of simple and practical techniques of vegetative propagation. 

Seed production and seed collection were difficult especially for grasses. Lack of 

uniformity in seed ripening was a major constraint and, some species just did not 

produce enough good seed. This problem has to be addressed to enhance adoption and 

use of forages by a larger number of farmers. 

Some species tested mainly at IRRI showed good potential for seed production. 

These include Brachiaria ruziziensis and B. brizantha CIAT 6387. The former have been 

proven elsewhere to be a good seed producer, with uniform seed ripening and little 

shedding of ripe seeds. Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6387 was observed to produce seed 

more than once a year. This is a considerable trait especially with Brachiaria species 

because they produce seed in the Philippines early in the wet season. With B. brizantha 

87


88 

CIAT 6387, it is possible to harvest seed in the later part of the wet season, when rainfall 

is lower making harvesting easier. Another Brachiaria brizantha accession that was 

observed to produce seed late in the dry season was CIAT 26110. 

The issue of seed production can also be tackled by improving the methods of seed 

collection. This is important because aside from seed shedding, there are problems with 

birds and rats that feed on the seeds even before they are harvestable. 


We thank our research partners who are based at different sites for carrying out the 

fieldwork and data collection. The collaborating agencies are the Cagayan Valley 

Integrated Agricultural Research Centre (UPROS and LES), the Bureau of Animal 

Industry, FARMI at the Visayas State College of Agriculture, Mag-uugmad Foundation 

Incorporated, Cagayan de Oro City Veterinary Office, Philippine Coconut Authority- 

Davao Research Centre, and Philippine Carabao Centre at University of Southern 

Mindanao. We also thank the farmers in Guba, Matalom, Cagayan de Oro, Carmen, and 

M’lang for their interest and effort in maintaining their forage plots. 

References 

Lanting, E.F., Gabunada, F., Ocfemia, G., Salamat, S., Bugayong, A., Marasigan, C. and 

Garcia, N. 1995. Forage seeds project in the Philippines : activities, results and 

conclusions. In: Stür, W.W., Cameron, A.G. and Hacker, J.B. (eds) . 1995. Forages 

for smallholders. Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the Southeast Asian Regional 

Forage Seeds Project. Samarinda, Indonesia, 23-28 Oct 1994. CIAT Working 

Document No. 143. 

Horne, P.M., Stür, W.W., Gabunada, F. Jr., Phengsavanh, P. 1997. Prospects for 

introducing forages in smallholder farming systems in Southeast Asia. In: W.W. 

Stür (ed). Feed resources for Smallholder Livestock Farmers in Southeast Asia. 

Proceedings of the First Regional Meeting of the Forages for Smallholders Project, 

FAO Regional Working Group on Feed and Grazing Resources in Southeast Asia, 

and FAO Regional Working Network on Better Use of Locally Available Feed 

Resources for Sustainable Livestock Production in Southeast Asia. CIAT Working 

Document No. 156. Vientiane, Lao PDR. p 11-20.

Appendices 

Appendix 1. Results of soil analysis results at regional evaluation sites. 

P a 


ite pH Organic N S K Ca Mg Al Na CEC Cu Zn Mn Fe Bo Al 

(1:5 carbon NO3 

sat. 

H2O) (%) ––– (ppm) ––– –––––––––– (meq/100g) –––––––––– –––––––– (mg/kg) –––––––– (%) 

amu 5.6 1.4 1.3 10 9 0.4 9 5 - 0.09 13.7 2 1 54 38 0.5 - 

glipay 5.1 1.2 6.0 7 14 0.2 12 6 0.5 0.19 18.5 3 11 102 38 0.4 3 

RRI 6.5 1.4 0.7 105 9 1.1 14 6 - 0.21 21.2 8 3 20 69 0.7 1 

icol 5.6 1.7 1.3 18 16 0.2 4 2 - 0.39 6.0 4 3 84 37 0.5 - 

uba 4.9 1.2 14.0 23 35 0.8 9 3 6.2 0.38 20.0 17 4 42 109 0.8 31 

atalom: San 

alvador 

atalom: 

ontealegre 

agayan de 

ro: CCC 

ag. de Oro: 

agalungan 

4.9 1.4 3.1 10 20 0.1 2 1 0.5 0.07 4.0 2 2 97 43 0.4 13 

6.0 1.4 >60.0 42 13 0.9 19 4 - 0.05 23.6 2 2 19 44 0.3 - 

6.5 1.7 4.7 20 11 0.3 15 9 - 0.12 25.8 5 2 20 27 0.6 - 

5.8 1.5 20.7 24 7 0.6 15 10 - 0.16 25.4 3 1 28 45 0.5 - 

MU 5.4 2.4 4.0 17 15 0.2 3 3 0.3 0.06 6.1 6 1 73 54 0.5 4 

armen 6.5 1.2 18.2 35 12 1.3 10 4 - 0.08 15.7 6 4 42 23 0.5 - 

avao: PCA a 5.1-6.1 0.9 13 1.2 10 3 - 0.07 25.0 - - - - - - 

a BSES 

b Analysis taken from a local laboratory; methods differ from analysis in other sites. 

89


Appendix 2. Long-term climatic data at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 

Site Climatic Data J F M A M J J A S O N D Total 

Gamu, Mean rainfall (mm) 64 47 43 87 140 167 207 246 211 317 218 150 1898 

Isabela No. of rain days 9 7 6 7 9 9 12 11 12 15 15 12 122 

Mean max. temp. ( o C) 27 29 32 34 35 35 33 33 32 31 29 27 

90 

Mean min. temp. ( o C) 

20 20 22 24 25 25 25 25 24 23 22 21 

Aglipay, Mean rainfall (mm) 120 38 73 80 430 285 472 140 270 242 214 163 2527 

Quirino No. of rain days 15 8 6 4 13 8 16 13 17 18 16 14 146 



18 19 20 - - - - - 22 21 21 18 

Bicol Mean rainfall (mm) 439 224 244 155 141 243 263 217 234 307 581 854 3902 

No. of rain days 22 15 16 14 15 14 17 17 16 18 22 26 212 



23 23 23 24 25 25 27 25 24 24 24 23 

IRRI, Mean rainfall (mm) 41 20 31 52 135 265 320 257 246 320 252 143 2082 

Laguna No. of rain days 6 4 4 6 11 17 18 17 17 17 15 13 145 



22 22 22 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 23 22 

Guba, Cebu Mean rainfall (mm) 107 79 72 90 104 191 190 121 182 232 202 111 1680 




24 24 24 25 26 25 25 25 25 25 25 24 

Matalom, Leyte Mean rainfall (mm) 144 214 139 104 58 218 181 197 265 195 198 236 1972 

(San Salvador, No. of rain days 11 13 12 8 7 16 16 13 16 17 16 15 163 

Montealegre) Mean max. temp. ( o C) 31 32 32 33 34 33 33 33 32 32 33 32 


24 24 23 24 26 26 26 25 25 25 25 24 

Cagayan de Oro Mean rainfall (mm) 72 46 38 56 77 222 213 171 199 190 126 89 1501 

Pagalungan No. of rain days 10 6 6 6 9 16 18 14 17 14 11 8 135 

and CCC Mean max. temp. ( o C) 31 32 32 33 34 34 33 34 33 33 33 32 


22 22 23 23 24 24 23 24 23 23 23 23 

CMU, Bukidnon Mean rainfall (mm) 73 65 64 82 240 327 320 253 278 252 130 117 2201 




20 19 20 21 22 21 21 20 20 20 21 21 

PCA, Davao Mean rainfall (mm) 139 63 96 165 277 247 215 247 243 254 158 110 2215 




21 22 21 21 22 20 21 20 20 21 20 20 

Cotabato Mean rainfall (mm) 68 65 87 101 232 238 173 116 165 126 134 85 1593 

(Carmen, No. of rain days not available 

M'lang) Mean max. temp. ( o C) not available 

Mean min. temp. ( o C) not available


Appendix 3. Actual climatic data at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 


Gamu, Rainfall (mm)-1995 - - - - - 92 313 121 304 425 280 545 2078 

Isabela Rainfall (mm)-1996 54 24 7 54 145 47 241 223 209 484 439 57 1984 

Rainfall (mm)-1997 31 71 118 61 102 293 157 133 147 238 196 70 1616 

No. of rain days - 1995 - - - - - 7 17 14 21 20 17 20 116 

No. of rain days - 1996 5 6 2 6 14 7 13 10 8 19 20 11 121 


Mean max. temp. ( o C)-1995 - - - - - 36 33 33 32 29 29 25 

Mean max. temp. ( o C)-1996 28 28 32 33 35 36 30 34 34 32 29 26 


Mean min. temp. ( o C)-1995 - - - - - 25 25 25 24 25 23 20 

Mean min. temp. ( o C)-1996 20 20 22 23 24 26 26 26 25 25 23 20 


Aglipay, Rainfall (mm)-1995 84 23 3 2 227 77 264 206 267 351 161 249 1914 

Quirino Rainfall (mm)-1996 68 17 5 102 373 58 238 150 155 151 389 34 1741 

Rainfall (mm)-1997 18 68 54 - - - - - - - - - 139 



No. of rain days - 1997 11 15 12 - - - - - - - - - 38 



Mean max. temp. ( o C)-1997 27 27 30 - - - - - - - - - 



Mean min. temp. ( o C)-1997 25 18 18 - - - - - - - - - 

Bicol Mean max. temp. ( o C)-1995 28 29 29 31 32 33 31 31 31 31 - 28 



Mean min. temp. ( o C)-1995 23 23 23 25 25 25 25 24 25 24 - 23 



IRRI, Rainfall (mm)-1995 11 83 0 5 136 58 262 234 521 274 446 382 2412 

Laguna Rainfall (mm)-1996 46 10 31 68 95 176 461 161 207 196 393 62 1905 

Rainfall (mm)-1997 17 29 5 5 195 225 373 252 252 34 41 31 1459 




Mean max. temp. (oC)-1995 29 30 32 35 34 34 33 32 31 31 31 28 




Guba, Cebu Rainfall (mm)-1996 - - - - - 426 41 68 51 372 247 49 1693 

Rainfall (mm)-1997 140 113 34 0 17 40 381 26 333 136 22 37 1278 

No. of rain days - 1996 - - - - - 21 7 6 10 17 12 10 128 


Mean max. temp. ( o C)-1996 - - - - - 32 32 32 33 32 30 29 


Mean min. temp. ( o C)-1996 - - - - - 25 26 25 25 25 25 24 



91


Appendix 3 (cont.). Actual climatic data at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 


Matalom, Leyte Rainfall (mm)-1995 107 32 151 38 62 216 253 257 325 264 167 286 2159 

(San Salvador, Rainfall (mm)-1996 214 355 38 114 33 162 113 157 91 161 389 182 2010 

Montealegre) Rainfall (mm)-1997 85 220 137 7 60 165 141 42 258 116 73 81 1385 










Cagayan de Oro Rainfall (mm)-1995 87 35 48 15 82 258 253 167 273 168 55 288 1727 

(Pagalungan Rainfall (mm)-1996 72 137 20 189 103 126 146 122 163 144 187 21 1429 

and CCC) Rainfall (mm)-1997 100 47 93 25 34 192 208 89 263 163 40 27 1280 










CMU, Bukidnon Rainfall (mm)-1992 6 6 3 31 139 219 372 235 100 257 152 120 1641 

Rainfall (mm)-1993 69 78 152 32 141 350 493 322 388 274 195 197 2691 

Rainfall (mm)-1994 43 80 139 84 452 322 199 301 284 156 10 90 2160 










PCA, Davao Rainfall (mm)-1996 214 92 130 324 289 197 418 318 284 312 201 86 2865 

Rainfall (mm)-1997 557 97 116 302 348 245 229 162 340 331 153 65 2945 







Cotabato Rainfall (mm)-1996 161 120 107 70 71 79 56 85 137 33 43 61 1024 

Carmen, M'lang Rainfall (mm)-1997 56 35 34 17 48 92 287 15 58 72 46 40 799 

92


Appendix 4. Establishment success of forages at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 

Species 

A. Grasses for Cut-and-Carry 

Davao-PCA 

IRRI 

Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621 - a 2 a 1 0 0 4 3 4 - 2 3 - 0 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 16318 - 4 - - - - - - - 3 - - - 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 16827 2 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 16835 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 26110 1 4 - 2 2 - - - - 4 4 4 2 


Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780 2 2 4 0 2 4 4 4 - 4 4 - 2 

Pennisetum purpureum cv. Capricorn 4 4 4 - - 4 - - - 4 4 - - 

Pennisetum purpureum cv. Mott 4 4 - 4 4 - - - - 4 4 - 2 

Pennisetum hybrid ‘Florida’ 4 4 - - 4 - 4 - - 4 4 4 2 

Pennisetum purpureum ‘Local’ 4 4 - - 4 - - - - 4 4 4 2 

Pennisetum hybrid ‘King’ grass 4 4 - 4 - - - - - 4 4 - - 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 2 4 4 4 3 - - - - 3 4 - 1 

Panicum maximum T58 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Panicum maximum cv. Tanzania - - - - - 4 - - - - 4 - - 

Paspalum atratum BRA 9610 4 4 - 4 4 - - - - 4 4 4 4 

Paspalum guenoarum BRA 3824 - 2 - - - - - - - - 0 - - 

Setaria sphacelata cv. Golden Timothy 4 4 - 4 4 - - - - - - - 1 

Setaria sphacelata cv. Splenda - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 


B. Grasses for Grazing 

4 4 3 4 3 - - - - 4 4 - 2 

Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk 2 4 3 - 2 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 2 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 6133 3 4 - - 2 4 - - 4 3 4 4 2 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT16886 - 4 4 - - 4 - - 4 4 - - - 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 26149 - 2 - - - 4 - - - - - - - 

Brachiaria humidicola cv. Tully 0 3 - - 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 - 2 

Brachiaria ruziziensis - 4 - - - 4 - - - - - - - 

Cynodon plectostachyus - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - 


C. Shrub/tree Legumes 

3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Calliandra calothyrsus ex. Indonesia 4 1 - 4 - - - - - - 3 - - 

Calliandra calothyrsus ATF 2014 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Cratylia argentea CIAT 18516 - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Desmanthus virgatus ex. IRRI - 2 4 - 4 - - - - 2 3 - 1 

Desmanthus virgatus CPI 40071 3 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Desmanthus virgatus CPI 52401 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Desmanthus virgatus CPI 82285 (=cv. Bayamo) - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 


Desmanthus virgatus CPI 92803 (=cv. Uman) - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Desmodium cinerea ex. MBRLC 4 4 4 4 4 - 2 - - 4 3 3 1 

Desmodium cinerea CPI 46561 - 4 - - - 4 - - - - - - - 

Desmodium cinerea CPI 76099 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Flemingia macrophylla CIAT 17403 - 4 - - - 4 - - - 4 - - - 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Monterrico’ 4 2 - 4 4 - 3 - - 3 - - 1 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Retalhuleu’ 4 2 - 4 4 - 3 - - 3 - - 1 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Belen Rivas’ 4 2 - 4 4 - 3 - - 3 - - 1 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Local’ 3 - 3 - 4 3 - - - 3 2 2 1 

Leucaena diversifolia ex. MBRLC 1 - - 4 3 - - - - 1 - - 1 

Leucaena leucocephala ‘ Local’ 1 - 4 - 3 - - - - - 3 - 1 

Leucaena leucocephala K584 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Leucaena leucocephala K636 2 4 2 4 3 4 - - - 1 2 2 1 

Leucaena pallida CQ3439 0 4 - - 3 - - - - - - - - 

Sesbania rostrata ex. IRRI - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

Sesbania grandiflora - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - 

a Rating scale: 0=did not emerge, 1=poor, 2=moderate, 3=good, 4=excellent. (continued next page) 

Montealegre 

Guba 

Carmen 

CMU 

Gamu 

Aglipay 

Bicol 

San Salvador 

CCC 

Pagalungan 

M'lang 

93


Appendix 4 (cont.). Establishment success of forages at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 

Species 

94 

Davao-PCA 

IRRI 

D. Herbaceous Legumes 

Aeschynomene histrix CIAT 9690 - a 4 a - - - - - - - 4 - - - 

Arachis glabrata cv. Florigraze - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Arachis glabrata IRFL 3112 2 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Arachis glabrata CPI 12121 - 2 - 1 - - - - - - - - - 


Arachis hybrid IRFL 3014 - 3 - - - - 2 - - - - - - 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 17434 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 3 1 - - - - 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 18744 - 3 - - - 4 - 3 - - 4 3 - 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 18747 - 3 - - - 4 - - - - - - - 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 18748 - 3 - - - 4 - 3 - - - - - 


Arachis pintoi CIAT 22160 4 4 3 4 1 - 3 4 - 3 4 4 1 

Calopogonium caeruleum CIAT 7304 4 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Calopogonium mucunoides CIAT 772 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 


Calopogonium mucunoides CIAT 17856 4 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 


Centrosema acutifolium CIAT 5277 4 4 3 - - 4 - - - 4 4 3 - 

Centrosema acutifolium CIAT 5568 - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - 

Centrosema macrocarpum CIAT 25522 4 4 - 0 - - - - - - 2 - - 

Centrosema macrocarpum CIAT 5713 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Centrosema pascuorum cv. Cavalcade 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Centrosema pubescens ex. Davao 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Centrosema mix (CIAT5277, 15160, 15470, 438, 442) - - - - - 4 - - 4 - - - - 

Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160 4 4 - - 3 - 3 4 - 4 4 4 2 

Centrosema pubescens cv. Cardillo - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Clitoria ternatea - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 

Desmodium heterophyllum CIAT 349 3 2 - - - - - - 3 - 1 - - 

Desmodium intortum 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Desmodium ovalifolium CIAT 130329 - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - 

Desmodium ovalifolium CIAT 13305 3 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Desmodium ovalifolium CIAT 350 - 2 - - - 4 - - - - - - - 

Desmodium ovalifolium CIAT 3666 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Lablab purpureus cv. Highworth - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

Lablab purpureus cv. Rongai - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 

Macroptilium atropurpureum cv. Aztec - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Macroptilium atropurpureum cv. Siratro - 4 - - - - - - - - - - 3 

Macroptilium gracile cv. Maldonado 2 3 - - - - - - - - - - 2 

Mimosa invisa ex. MBRLC (spineless) - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Mucuna pruriens CIAT 9349 4 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Pueraria phaseoloides ex. Davao 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Pueraria phaseoloides CIAT 7182 4 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 


Pueraria phaseoloides CIAT 9900 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - 

Pueraria phaseoloides CIAT 32118 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 - 4 4 4 4 

Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Cook - 4 - - - - 4 4 - - - - - 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT FM05-1 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 






a Rating scale: 0=did not emerge, 1=poor, 2=moderate, 3=good, 4=excellent. 

Montealegre 

Guba 

Carmen 

CMU 

Gamu 

Aglipay 

Bicol 

San Salvador 

CCC 

Pagalungan 

M'lang

Appendix 5. Yield of forages at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 

Species 


Davao-PCA 

IRRI 

Montealegre 


Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621 - a 4 a 2 - - 4 3 4 - 3 2 - - 






Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780 2 4 4 - 3 3 4 4 - 3 4 - 2 










Paspalum guenoarum BRA 3824 - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 





4 4 4 4 3 - - - - 4 3 - 2 





Brachiaria humidicola cv. Tully - 3 - - 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 - 3 





2 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 




Desmanthus virgatus ex. IRRI - 4 3 - 3 - - - - 3 2 - 






Desmodium cinerea ex. MBRLC 4 3 4 4 3 - 2 - - 3 4 3 - 




Gliricidia sepium ‘Monterrico’ 4 4 - - 4 - 3 - - - - - - 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Retalhuleu’ 4 4 - - 4 - 3 - - - - - - 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Belen Rivas’ 4 3 - - 4 - 3 - - - - - - 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Local’ 3 - 4 - 4 4 - - - 3 3 4 - 

Leucaena diversifolia ex. MBRLC 2 - - 4 4 - - - - - - - - 

Leucaena leucocephala ‘Local’ 1 - 4 - 3 - - - - - 3 - - 


Leucaena leucocephala K636 2 4 3 4 4 4 - - - - 3 2 - 

Leucaena pallida CQ3439 - 4 - - 4 - - - - - - - - 



a Rating scale: 1=poor, 2=moderate, 3=good, 4=excellent. (continued next page 

Guba 

Carmen 

CMU 

Gamu 

Aglipay 

Bicol 

San Salvador 

CCC 

Pagalungan 

M'lang 

95


Appendix 5 (cont.). Yield of forages at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 

Species 

96 

Davao-PCA 

IRRI 





















Centrosema macrocarpum CIAT 25522 4 4 - - - - - - - - 4 - - 


































a Rating scale: 1=poor, 2=moderate, 3=good, 4=excellent. 

Montealegre 

Guba 

Carmen 

CMU 

Gamu 

Aglipay 

Bicol 

San Salvador 

CCC 

Pagalungan 

M'lang


Appendix 6. Persistence of forages at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 

Species 


Davao-PCA 

IRRI 





Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 26110 1 4 - - 3 - - - - 3 4 4 3 

















1 4 3 4 3 - - - - 4 3 - 3 










1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 


Calliandra calothyrsus ATF 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Desmanthus virgatus ex. IRRI - 4 4 - 3 - - - - 2 1 - - 






Desmodium cinerea ex. MBRLC 4 4 4 2 3 - 2 - - 3 4 3 - 




Gliricidia sepium ‘Monterrico’ 3 4 - - 3 - 3 - - 3 - - - 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Retalhuleu’ 3 4 - - 3 - 3 - - 3 - - - 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Belen Rivas’ 3 4 - - 3 - 3 - - 3 - - - 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Local’ 2 - 4 - 3 3 - - - 4 4 3 - 


Leucaena leucocephala ‘Local’ 2 - 4 - 3 - - - - - 4 - - 


Leucaena leucocephala K636 2 4 3 3 3 4 - - - 1 4 3 - 




a Rating scale: 1=poor, 2=moderate, 3=good, 4=excellent. (continued next page) 

Montealegre 

Guba 

Carmen 

CMU 

Gamu 

Aglipay 

Bicol 

San Salvador 

CCC 

Pagalungan 

M'lang 

97


Appendix 6 (cont.). Persistence of forages at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 

Species 


98 

Davao-PCA 

IRRI 
























Centrosema mix (CIAT 5277, 15160, 15470, 438, 442) - - - - - 2 - - 4 - - - - 































Montealegre 

Guba 

Carmen 

CMU 

Gamu 

Aglipay 

Bicol 

San Salvador 

CCC 

Pagalungan 

M'lang


Appendix 7. Seed yield potential of forages at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 

Species 


Davao-PCA 

IRRI 

Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621 - a 4 a 2 -2 - 2 2 3 - 3 2 - - 




Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 26110 0 4 - - - - - - - 3 4 3 - 


Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780 0 2 2 - - 2 1 2 - 3 4 - - 

Pennisetum purpureum cv. Capricorn 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Pennisetum purpureum cv. Mott 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Pennisetum hybrid ‘Florida’ 0 - - - - - 0 - - - - - - 

Pennisetum purpureum ‘Local’ 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Pennisetum hybrid ‘King’ grass 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 3 4 2 - - - - - - 3 2 - - 

Panicum maximum T58 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - 


Paspalum atratum BRA 9610 0 4 - - - - - - - 2 - - - 


Setaria sphacelata cv. Golden Timothy 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Setaria sphacelata cv. Splenda - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk 1 2 2 - - - 1 2 - 2 3 3 - 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 6133 1 3 - - - - - - - 2 2 2 - 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT16886 - 2 2 - - - - - - 2 - - - 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 26149 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Brachiaria humidicola cv. Tully - 2 - - - - 1 2 - 2 1 - - 

Brachiaria ruziziensis - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Cynodon plectostachyus - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 




Desmanthus virgatus ex. IRRI - 4 3 - 4 - - - - 3 2 - - 






Desmodium cinerea ex. MBRLC 3 4 4 4 4 - - - - 3 3 3 - 



Flemingia macrophylla CIAT 17403 - 4 - - - - - - - 3 - - - 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Monterrico’ 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Retalhuleu’ 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Belen Rivas’ 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Local’ 0 - - - - - - - - 2 - - - 


Leucaena leucocephala ‘Local’ 0 - 4 - 3 - - - - - - - - 


Leucaena leucocephala K636 0 4 3 4 2 2 - - - - 2 - - 




a Rating scale: 1=poor, 2=moderate, 3=good, 4=excellent. (continued next page) 

Montealegre 

Guba 

Carmen 

CMU 

Gamu 

Aglipay 

Bicol 

San Salvador 

CCC 

Pagalungan 

M'lang 

99


Appendix 7 (cont.). Seed yield potential of forages at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 

Species 


100 

Davao-PCA 

IRRI 




Arachis glabrata CPI 12121 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Arachis glabrata CPI 93483 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 


Arachis pintoi CIAT 17434 - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - 





Arachis pintoi CIAT 22160 3 3 3 - 1 - 0 - - 3 - - 1 












Centrosema mix (CIAT 5277, 15160, 15470, 438, 442) - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - 

Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160 1 4 - - 2 - 3 4 - 3 2 - 3 



Desmodium heterophyllum CIAT 349 1 2 - - - - - - - - - - - 
















Pueraria phaseoloides CIAT 9900 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Cook - 4 - - - - - 4 - - - - - 








Montealegre 

Guba 

Carmen 

CMU 

Gamu 

Aglipay 

Bicol 

San Salvador 

CCC 

Pagalungan 

M'lang


Appendix 8. Pest and disease damage of forages at regional evaluation sites in the Philippines. 

Species 


Davao-PCA 






















1 0 0 0 0 - - - - 0 0 - 0 










1 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 




Desmanthus virgatus ex. IRRI - 0 0 - 0 - - - - 0 1 - 0 






Desmodium cinerea ex. MBRLC 0 0 1 0 1 - 0 - - 0 4 0 0 




Gliricidia sepium ‘Monterrico’ 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Retalhuleu’ 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Belen Rivas’ 0 0 - 0 0 - 0 - - 0 - - 0 

Gliricidia sepium ‘Local’ 0 - 0 - 0 0 - - - 1 0 0 0 

Leucaena diversifolia ex. MBRLC 1 - - 0 2 - - - - 0 - - 0 

Leucaena leucocephala ‘Local’ 2 - 0 - 2 - - - - - 2 - 0 


Leucaena leucocephala K636 2 2 0 0 2 2 - - - 0 1 0 0 




IRRI 

a Rating scale: 0=no pest/diseases, 1=little damage, 2=moderate damage, 3=severe damage, 4=plants killed. (continued next page) 

Montealegre 

Guba 

Carmen 

CMU 

Gamu 

Aglipay 

Bicol 

San Salvador 

CCC 

Pagalungan 

M'lang 

101


Appendix 8 (cont.). Pest and disease damage of forages at regional evaluation sites in the 

Philippines. 

Species 

102 

Davao-PCA 













































Pueraria phaseoloides CIAT 9900 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 










a Rating scale: 0=no pest/diseases, 1=little damage, 2=moderate damage, 3=severe damage, 4=plants killed. 

IRRI 

Montealegre 

Guba 

Carmen 

CMU 

Gamu 

Aglipay 

Bicol 

San Salvador 

CCC 

Pagalungan 

M'lang


Developing and evaluating forage 

technologies with farmers 

103


Farmer evaluation of forages in the Philippines: Progress, 

experiences, and future plans 

E. Magboo 1 , F. Gabunada 2 , L. Moneva 3 , E. Balbarino 4 , P. Asis 5 , W. Nacalaban 6 , J. Mantiquilla 7 , and C. 

Subsuban 8 

104 

On-farm evaluation of forages in cooperation with the Forages for Smallholders Project 

(FSP) in the Philippines began in 1995. From then on, the work expanded to include 

seven sites located in the Visayas and Mindanao regions (Table 1). 

Collaborators based at the sites include non-government organizations, state 

colleges/universities, local government units, and the Philippine Coconut Authority 

(PCA). These institutions have personnel based in the communities. These 

collaborators had previous working relationships with either the Southeast Asian Forage 

Seeds Project or the Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry, and Natural Resources 

Research and Development (PCARRD) through its Regional Forage Performance Trials 

(RPT) Network and Pilot Provincial Agricultural Extension Project (PPAEP). All had 

previous experience in research and development work either with forages or with 

farmers. 

Table 1. Collaborators and location of FSP sites in the Philippines. 

Site (start of work) Collaborator Forage-related activities 

Guba, Cebu 

(June1996) 

Matalom, Leyte 

(June 1995) 

Cagayan de Oro (Oct 

1995) 

Malitbog, Bukidnon 

(Oct 1996) 

Davao 

(Jul 1997) 

Cotabato – 2 sites 

(Aug 1996) 

Description of sites 

Mag-uugmad Foundation Incorporated 

(MFI) 

Farm and Resource Management 

Institute (FARMI), Visayas State College 

of Agriculture (ViSCA) 

Promotion of agroforestry 

technologies; facilitation of livestock 

dispersal 

Development and promotion of 

upland agricultural technologies 

City Veterinary Office Livestock improvement and 

dispersal; livestock extension 

Office of the Municipal Agriculturist Agricultural extension including 

livestock dispersal 

Philippine Coconut Authority Small coconut farmer development 

Philippine Carabao Centre at University 

of Southern Mindanao; 

Gagmayang Kristohanong Katilingban – 

Kidapawan Diocesan Federation of 

Cooperatives 

Forage research (USM); 

Cooperative development (GKK- 

KDFC) 

Tables 2 and 3 provide brief descriptions of FSP sites in the Philippines. A more 

detailed description of these sites is shown in Appendix 1. 

1 Forages for Smallholders Project, CIAT, c/o IRRI, College, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. 

2 Livestock Research Division, PCARRD, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. 

3 Mag-uugmad Foundation Inc., Manreza Building Inc., F. Ramos St., Cebu City, Philippines. 

4 FARMI, Visayas State College of Agriculture, Baybay, Leyte, Philippines. 

5 CVIARC-LES, Upi, Gamu, Isabela, Philippines 

6 Office of the Municipal Agriculltural Officer, Malitbog, Bukidnon, Philippines. 

7 Davao Research Cente, Philippine Coconut Authority, Bago-Oshiro, Davao City, Philippines. 

8 Philippine Carabao Center, University of Southern Mindanao, Kabacan, Cotabato, Philippines.


Table 2. Physical characteristics of FSP sites in the Philippines. 

Site 

Latitude 

Altitude 

(m) 

Annual 

rainfall (mm) 

Wet season 

(start-end) 

Wet months 

(>50 mm) 

Cebu 10 o N 550 1500 Jun – Dec 12 

Matalom 10 o N 0 - 300 1970 Jun – Dec 12 

Cagayan de Oro 8 o N 185 1500 Jun – Nov 12 

Malitbog 8 o N 700 1830 Jun – Oct 12 

Davao 7 o N 175 - 360 2210 May – Oct 12 

Carmen, M’lang 7 o N


106 

Table 3. Description of soils and farming systems at FSP sites in the Philippines. 

Site Soil Characteristics Farming system 

Cebu, 

Visayas 

Matalom, 

Leyte, 

Visayas 

Cagayan de 

Oro, 

northern 

Mindanao 

Malitbog, 

Bukidnon, 

MIndanao 

Davao, 

Mindanao 

Carmen, 

North 

Cotabatu, 

Mindanao 

M’lang, 

North 

Cotabatu, 

Mindanao 

• Sandy clay 

• PH 4.8-6.5 

• Moderate fertility 

• Well-drained 

• Eroded; rolling to steep 

topography 

• Clay loam 

• Two soil types: 

• Acid (pH4.8-7) 


• Eroded; rolling to steep 

• Clay loam 

• pH 5.8-8.8 

• Good fertility 


• Eroded 

• Rolling to steep 

• Clay-loam 

• pH 5.6 

• Low N and P 


• Eroded 


• Clay-loam 

• pH 5.1-5.6 

• Fertile 


• Eroded 


• Clay-loam 

• pH 6.5 

• Fertile 


• Eroded 


• Clay-loam 

• pH 6.5-7 

• Fertile 


• Flat 

• Both upland cropping and agroforestry (tree farms, hedgerow) system 

• Small area and intensive 

• Crops: maize, vegetable, fruit trees, flowers 

• Crops are fertilised and sold for cash 

• Animals include carabao (draft), cattle and goats 

• Ruminants are stall-fed with herbage from hedgerows; little grazing 

• Upland cropping (crop-fallow rotation) 

• Crops: maize (calcareous), rainfed rice (valleys and flat areas), upland rice 

(acid), root crops and coconut 

• Crops not fertilised; mainly for consumption 

• Animals include carabao (draft), cattle, goats 

• Ruminants tethered to graze on native vegetation with no or minimal 

supplementation 

• Upland cropping 

• Crops: maize, banana, coconut, root crops 

• Crops fertilised and for cash 

• Animals include carabao (draft), cattle (draft), horses, goats 




• Crops: maize, banana, coffee, coconut, vegetables, root crops 


• Animals include carabao (draft), cattle (draft), goats 



• Under coconut 

• Crops: coconut, maize, banana, fruit trees, vegetables, flowers 


• Animals include carabao (less use for draft), cattle (beef and dairy), goats 

• Ruminants (except dairy cattle) tethered to graze on native vegetation with no or 

minimal supplementation 

• Dairy cattle stall fed with forages with concentrate supplementation 


• Crops : corn, upland rice, coffee, coconut, vegetables, fruit trees 





• Rainfed lowland 

• Crops: maize, rice, rubber, sugarcane, fruit trees 





Table 4 shows a summary of the problems identified by farmers and those addressed by 

on-farm activities in the respective sites. Insufficiency of feed was a problem cited in all 

sites. This was the result of increased animal population and more area being devoted 

to crops. Unavailability of feed was a problem especially in the dry season in most sites. 

In M’lang, lack of feed persists during the cropping season, when most areas are planted 

to crops. Soil erosion, despite being evident in all upland sites, was recognized as a 

problem only in Malitbog and Davao.


Table 4. Summary of problems identified 1 by farmers during participatory diagnosis and 

addressed 2 by the FSP. 

Problem 

Lack of feed due to limited grazing 

area 

Cebu Matalom Cagayan 

de Oro 

Malitbog Davao Carmen M’lang 

✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ 

Lack of feed in dry season ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ - - ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ 

Uncontrolled grazing - ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ 

Increase in unpalatable weeds - - ✖ ✔ ✖ ✔ - ✖ ✔ - 

Diseases in animals - - - - - ✖ 

Poor animal performance - ✖ - - - ✖ - 

Unavailability of adapted forages - - - - ✖ ✔ - - 

High cost of concentrates - - - - ✖ ✔ - - 

Lack of food - - - ✖ - - - 

Low crop production - - - ✖ - - - 

Increasing need for fertiliser - - - - ✖ - - 

Disease in crops - - - - ✖ - - 

Soil erosion - - - ✖ ✔ - - - 

Flooding in cropped areas - - - - ✖ - - 

Low market price - - - - ✖ - - 

Lack of capital - - - - ✖ - - 

1 ✖ = Problem identified by farmers. 

2 ✔ = Problem addressed by on-farm activities. 

In most sites, farmers considered the feed unavailability problem to have just 

started. Consequently, most farmers (except in Cebu) still have access to other farmers’ 

grazing area and restrictions have not been implemented. Thus, in most sites, 

uncontrolled grazing becomes a big problem for farmers who have tried to establish 

forages. In addition, farmers in Cagayan de Oro, Malitbog, Davao, and Carmen reported 

an increase in unpalatable weeds in the grazing areas, pointing out that some degree of 

overgrazing has occurred. 

Farmers in Davao expressed a need for adapted forages. These farmers have tried 

establishing plots of Napier grass for their dairy cattle. They observed that this species 

was not able to persist under their management system (cut-and-carry with some degree 

of uncontrolled grazing). 

Farmers in the sites have evolved some coping mechanisms in times of feed 

unavailability. These include taking the animals to far-away areas to graze and 

gathering tree leaves, banana trunks, and green forage as feed for animals. 

More details on the results of the PDs are included in Appendix 2. 

Activities conducted in the sites 

Activities vary in terms of nature and time (Table 5). The basic procedure involves 

consulting the farmers (PD and planning), followed by the establishment of initial testing 

and multiplication area, and then individual testing by farmers. In between these stages, 

field days, trainings, and cross-visits are done. Regular meetings with farmers provide a 

venue for sharing experiences (participatory evaluation) and are a means for maintaining 

the initial testing area. Likewise, visits to farmers were done to gather feedback. 

107


108 

Table 5. Summary of activities at FSP sites in the Philippines. 

Cebu Matalom 

Cagayan 

de Oro 

Malitbog Davao Carmen M’lang 

Type of Activity (no. of farmers) 

Communal – formal 1 - ✔ (3) ✔ (6) ✔ (4) - ✔ (1) ✔ (1) 

Individual – formal 1 ✔ (4) ✔ (10) ✔ (12) - ✔ (1) - - 

Individual – informal 2 ✔ (30) ✔ (21) ✔ (300) ✔ (15) - 3 

✔ (2) - 3 

Method of planting material distribution 

Field days ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - - - 

Individual contact ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Possible forage types/options 

Grasses for cut-and-carry 

- in hedgerows ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

- in blocks ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Grasses for grazing - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 


- for grazing - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

- as cover crops ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - - 

- for soil improvement ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - - - 

- as relay to main crop - - - - - - - 

Tree/shrub legumes 

- in hedgerows ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - 

- in fence lines ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

- in blocks - ✔ ✔ - - - - 

1 Technicians and farmers together decide on what species and what option to test. 

2 Farmers chose the species and option by themselves. 

3 To be started. 

The initial testing and multiplication areas were established and managed by farmer 

groups. The decision on which species to try is made after consultation between 

collaborators and farmers. These areas were very useful for conducting field days and 

trainings. Farmers look at the species and decide for themselves which ones they would 

like to try individually. 

There were some cases when farmers and collaborators agreed to collaboratively 

set up more formal forage experiments, testing them for a certain option. This usually 

involves key farmers who test a range of species for a specific purpose. These 

experiments are used not only for the purpose of demonstration but also as basis of 

comparison among species. These farmers live far from the initial testing area and are 

requested to join when farmers in nearby areas choose only a limited range of species. 

The major criteria for selecting farmer-cooperators were their interest and the availability 

of their areas to try out the forages. Whenever possible, innovative farmers who 

possess leadership skills and good communication abilities were chosen. 

Planting materials were distributed either during field days or upon individual 

requests. The latter seems to lead to better establishment, since the farmer is usually 

ready at the time he makes the request for planting materials. This was done in cases 

when farmers wanted a large amount of planting materials. 

On the other hand, farmers always ask for planting materials during field days. In 

such cases farmers are advised to prepare an area before the field day. Otherwise, they 

request the farmers to plant a few hills near their house, later to serve as source of 

planting materials if farmers want to expand forages on their farm. 

More details on the activities at each site are shown in Appendix 3.


Progress of forage technology development, evaluation, and 

adoption 

General observations 

The pace and progress of on-farm work varied between sites because of the different 

starting times of the activities. Sites that started early are already into individual farmer 

testing and into trainings and field days as well as participatory evaluation of most 

forages except legume trees (still in nursery). On the other hand, sites that commenced 

on-farm work more recently are still in the initial testing and multiplication stage. Sites 

that began work between these two periods are in the process of maintaining their initial 

testing areas as well as finding more farmers to test the forages. 

In sites that started early, a major proportion of the work consists of informal testing 

with individual farmers since the more formal initial testing and multiplication areas 

(Matalom, Cagayan de Oro and Malitbog) have already been established. The other 

sites are still in the more formal stage of initial evaluation and multiplication. 

Collaborators observed that it takes time for establishing forages with farmers. 

Factors like farmer availability and occurrence of dry periods often slow down the 

process despite frequent visits and careful scheduling. 

Farmers, who have a strong need for forages, are the ones who establish forages , 

first; they even approach the technicians and get their planting materials ahead of their 

scheduled date. On the other hand, there are farmers who get planting materials only 

because of peer pressure. And then there are also the ‘wait-and-see’ types of farmers. 

Farmer visits, field days, trainings, and cross-visits were very useful in sustaining the 

interest of farmers. During these activities, farmers and technicians share ideas, learn 

from each other, and plan activities. 

It was also observed that more farmers who obtained planting materials come from 

places where livestock dispersal programs exist. This implies that forage technology 

development would be facilitated if implemented with a livestock improvement program. 

Moreover, successful forage establishment was facilitated in cases where strong farmer 

organizations exist. The existence of alayon (mutual help groups) was a big factor in the 

rapid establishment of forages in individual farmers’ fields. The same factor was 

instrumental in the establishment and maintenance of the initial testing and multiplication 

plots. 

Farmers’ feedback 

Farmers reacted well to the participatory approach. They felt involved and free to 

choose whatever species, options, and establishment method they wanted. Involving 

these farmers in field days and in training other farmers has been beneficial for both 

trainees and trainers as well. 

In establishing a structured forage set-up farmers thought that establishment of 

forage mixtures as designed by technicians was complicated. This aspect has to be 

considered when establishing species mixtures on-farm. 

In terms of individual forage species, farmer preferences varied with sites. At the 

early stages (initial testing and multiplication), farmers tended to prefer species which 

grew well and showed good yield potential. Their major criteria were adaptability to local 

conditions and ability to provide an adequate amount of herbage. 

When farmers tested forages on their own farms and started to feed them to their 

animals, new criteria surfaced. For grazing species, farmers realized the value of 

grazing tolerance, ability to spread and produce ground cover, and palatability to 

109


110 

animals. For instance, Matalom farmers found B. humidicola to spread fast, to tolerate 

close grazing, and to be palatable. 

Arachis pintoi was found to thrive well under shade, making it useful as a cover crop 

(in Cagayan de Oro and Cebu) and was palatable to rabbits (in Davao). A farmer in 

Malitbog observed improved egg production when his ducks started feeding on A. pintoi. 

Farmers favoured tall and upright grasses like Napier (King, cv. Mott and Florida), 

P. maximum, Setaria sphacelata var. splendida, Brachiaria brizantha and B. decumbens 

as cut-and-carry species because of their good yield and palatability. In addition S. 

sphacelata var. splendida was found to have good regrowth/tillering ability and good 

tolerance for occasional flooding and did not cause itchiness when cut. 

Two farmers in Malitbog (P. maximum CIAT 6299) and the farmer group in Cagayan 

de Oro (Napier grass) evaluated the effect of fertilisation on the cut-and-carry species. 

They observed that yield was increased and they were able to take cuttings as frequently 

as every 2 weeks. 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780 was observed to be affected by Rhizoctonia (or 

Cercospera?) in some sites. A rare case of bacterial and fungal infection occurred in 

upright grasses like Napier, B. brizantha and P. maximum CIAT 6299 at the initial testing 

and multiplication area of Matalom. The case occurred in the dry season with the species 

left uncut for a long time. The symptoms were alleviated and did not recur at the start of 

the wet season and thereafter. 

Farmers have also observed that legumes like Centrosema pubescens and 

Stylosanthes guianensis 184 were not as palatable to animals as grasses. These cases 

were noted when these species were planted side by side with grasses. Moreover, these 

legumes were found to have low persistence under heavy grazing. In addition, farmers 

observed that Desmodium heterophyllum CIAT 349 and Arachis pintoi did not persist 

when weeds dominated them. 

Farmers favoured legumes like Stylo 184, Desmanthus virgatus, and Desmodium 

cinerea because of their good growth, palatability, and yield. These species have been 

tried and found suitable as hedgerows in some sites. 

Farmer management of different species 

As of this stage, most individual farmers are still planting the species in small plots 

(either in blocks or short hedgerow lines) either near their houses or in portions of their 

farms. The species are either grazed or cut and fed to animals from time to time. 

A farmer in Carmen planted Napier near a spring that supports the community’s 

water needs. He observed that since the forages were planted, the well did not dry up as 

quickly during dry season and it did not become flooded with muddy water in the wet 

season. 

Other upright grasses (Napier grass) and shrub legumes (D. virgatus) were also 

planted as live fence. Arachis pintoi was established by a farmer in Cagayan de Oro in 

her yard and became a good lawn material. A farmer in Cebu also planted this species 

as a cover crop for his grapes. Both are now expanding their planted area. 

Many farmers have started expanding the areas planted to forages. These are 

mostly cut-and-carry species. 

Learning from participatory evaluation 

Participatory evaluation (PE) has been done in most sites especially in the initial testing 

and multiplication area. Farmers observed the species and commented on their 

performance. In some sites where individual testing has been done, farmers’


observations of the forages that they established were also taken. An open-ended 

evaluation method was used. 

Farmers’ comments varied, depending on whether they have planted and used the 

species in their own farms. Most comments of farmers who have not used the species 

were just perceptions on how good and useful the species are. The perceptions are 

usually related to their previous experiences with native species and what they have 

heard during training. For instance, it is not unusual to hear comments about the 

usefulness of a species (Leucaena diversifolia) in providing firewood and improving soil 

fertility even at the seedling stage. 

In evaluations at this stage, the most useful information is the farmers’ criteria for 

choosing the species that they want to adopt. These are ‘high herbage yield that gives 

plenty of feed even from a small area’ or ‘the good adaptation of the species because of 

its good growth’. Similarly, insights on how farmers could integrate forages in their farms 

are also obtained. Comments like ‘this species can be used for hedgerow/fence’ provide 

ideas on how farmers may utilise different species. 

On the other hand, evaluation of farmers who have established the species 

themselves can give information on the characteristics related to the utilization of a 

particular species. This includes information on regrowth ability, itchiness when cutting, 

persistence, reaction to utilization, as well as palatability and effect of forages when fed 

to animals. 

There is still a need to gain more experience and skills in evaluation techniques 

such as probing and asking questions as well as getting farmers’ criteria in selecting a 

certain species. In the process of evaluation, many things can happen and the person 

handling the evaluation must know how to deal with the situation. These skills can only 

be obtained by practice, reflection, and training. Every evaluation session is different 

from another. 

Technical issues 

In working with forages on-farm, a major issue is the production and handling of seeds. 

At this stage, most forage establishment is done using vegetative planting materials. 

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that there is no existing commercial market for 

forage seeds in the Philippines. Moreover, seed production attempts at the farmers’ 

level have not been successful. Greater attention must be given to seed production 

research to induce rapid adoption of forages. 

111


112 

Appendices 

Appendix 1. Detailed Description of FSP Sites in the Philippines. 

Guba, Cebu: 

General description of the area 

• Guba is located in the uplands of Cebu, central Philippines (10 o 25’ N). 

• Average annual rainfall is about 1495 mm, with peak rainfall from June to December. 

Considerable rains (>50 mm) are experienced throughout the year. 

• Soils are sandy clay and moderately fertile with pH varying from 4.8 to 6.5. 

• It is an upland area consisting of slightly rolling to steep hills. 

• About 50% of the area (slightly rolling to moderately steep) is used for cropping (maize, 

vegetables, and flowers) and agroforestry while steeper areas are either used as tree farms 

(mangoes, fruit trees, and forest species). There are few areas with native vegetation which 

are used as pasture land. 

Description of the community 

• Farmers in Guba have been cultivating their areas since 1945 when the area was forested. 

These farmers were traditional suppliers of vegetables and flowers for Cebu City. 

• There are two dominant upland farming systems: purely cropping and agroforestry (contour 

hedgerows and trees inter-planted with crops). Livestock are also kept to support cropping as 

well as a source of income and food. 

• They grow maize (basically for home consumption) as well as cash crops like flowers, 

vegetables, and fruits like mangoes. Forest tree species like Gmelina are likewise grown in 

small tree farms. Commercial and organic fertiliser application is a common practice. 

• Almost all of the farmers (90%) keep livestock for draft (carabao), cash income, and food for 

special occasions. These animals are either owned or availed of from dispersal programs. The 

predominant production system is breeding or reproduction. Few farmers attempt to fatten 

cattle for slaughter. These animals are marketed through middlemen who purchase them on a 

per head basis. 

• Ruminants are mainly stall-fed with cut-and-carry herbage from hedgerows and vegetation 

around the farm with some grazing within the farm area. Due to limitations in area, farmers do 

not allow other animals to graze in their own farm. Inputs like de-wormers and veterinary 

medicine are used. Commercial feed supplements are not used. 

• Farmers in the area are either owners or tenants in the farms. 

• Cropping system shifts from monocropping to intensive farming (agroforestry integrating 

livestock). Livestock management is gradually changing from purely grazing/tethering to stallfeeding. 



• Matalom is located on the southwest coast of Leyte island, Central Philippines (10o17’ N). 

• Average annual rainfall is about 1972 mm, with peak rainfall from June to December. 

Considerable rains (>50 mm) are experienced throughout the year. The area is prone to 

typhoons that occur between June and December. 

• Soils are clay loam and moderately fertile. Two types of soil exist in the area: a) acid soils (pH 

4.5-5.5, low P, and high Al saturation) and b) calcareous soils (pH >7). 

• It is an upland area consisting of rolling to steep hills. Slightly rolling areas have acid soils and 

form the dominant landscape (47% of total area), covering the coastal portion and lower 

elevations (up to around 100 m asl) while calcareous soils are in the steeper and higher 

altitude areas (up to 300 m asl) inland. 

• The flat areas near the coast are used mainly for rice production. Most of the sloping areas are 

used for upland cropping under a crop-fallow rotation system. The system involves cropping 

for a few seasons before the area is left fallow to regenerate soil fertility. During the fallow 

period, these areas become dominated by native vegetation and are used as common grazing 

areas for livestock. In the steeper slopes which are not suitable to grazing, fallow areas are 

often dominated by trees (predominantly Leucaena leucocephala) which are used for firewood. 

Sloping areas are planted to upland crops during the cropping period while valleys, where 

water catchment is possible, are planted to rainfed lowland rice. There is a recent increase in 

irrigated areas in the slightly sloping portions where irrigation is possible.



• Farmers in Matalom have been cultivating their areas since 1910 when the area was forested. 

Upland crops are planted. 

• The dominant farming system in the sloping areas is upland cropping with livestock being kept 

to support cropping as well as a source of income and food. Valleys and water catchment 

areas are used for rainfed lowland rice. 

• The slightly sloping and undulating acid soil areas are planted to upland rice, sweet potato and 

peanut. The higher calcareous areas are planted to maize and root crops such as sweet 

potato, yam, and gabi. Rainfed rice is planted in valleys both in the acid soil and calcareous 

areas. Most of the produce is used for home consumption with little surplus sold. 

• Almost all farmers keep livestock for draft (carabao), cash income and food for special 

occasions. These animals are either owned or availed of under local sharing arrangement 

(alima). The predominant production system is breeding or reproduction; fattening for 

slaughter is not practiced except for swine. These animals are marketed through middlemen 

who purchase them on a per head basis. A farm household usually raises 1-2 heads of 

carabao or cattle. Commercial de-wormers and veterinary drugs are sometimes used. 

• Ruminants are mainly tethered in vacant areas to graze on native vegetation. Supplementation 

is minimal (usually only done for draft animals during periods of peak use). No commercial 

feed supplements are used; only cut forage, corn stover and other available crop residues. 

During long dry periods when native vegetation for grazing becomes scarce, farmers use tree 

leaves and banana trunk as feed. 

• Farmers in the area are either owners or tenants in the farms. Tenure arrangements are 

unclear. 

• There is a recent move toward agroforestry in the upland areas. The area being irrigated is 

also increased with the initiative of the local government. 

• Sale of products from bamboo, coconut toddy, small stores, abaca and remittances from 

household members working in Manila or abroad are primary sources of income. Sale of 

livestock, especially cattle, is the secondary source of income. 

Pagalungan, Cagayan de Oro 


• Pagalungan is located in Misamis Oriental Province in the Mindanao Region. Farms are 

generally hilly (up to 50% slope) with reasonable soil fertility. Upland management includes 

cultivation of coconut, abaca, and upland rice. The plain valley, on the other hand, is cultivated 

for coconut, rice, and banana. 

• Soil pH ranges from 5.1 to 8.8; the lower limit of the range is more common while the upper 

limit occurs in eroded areas. Soil type is clay loam. Altitude is 185 m asl. 

• The area has two types of climate: type 2 = no dry season with a pronounced maximum 

rainfall from Nov to Jan and type 3 = relatively dry from Nov to Apr and wet for the rest of the 

year. Average annual rainfall is 1500.87 mm. 


• Pagalungan is 19 km from the capital of Misamis Oriental which is Cagayan de Oro. The area 

is hilly with vast expanses of uncultivated bushlands and grasslands (cogon). About 80% of 

the people belong to the Higaonon tribe, native to the place but assimilated to lowland culture. 

• There are more than 850 ha of public timber and only 192 ha of alienable and disposable land. 

• Maize constitutes the main product of 90% of the farm families. Only 7% rely on coconut as a 

major source of income. Root crops and bananas are regular crops. Patches of flat and lightly 

rolling country are suitable for a variety of crops such as pineapple with pasture intercropped. 

There are only a few work animals. 

• Livestock ownership varies among species: carabao and horse are 100% owned; cattle is 75% 

owned, 15% on loan coming from the Cattle Breeding Program funded by PPAEP, and 10% 

from the Cattle Dispersal Program funded by the City Vet; and pigs and goats are 90% owned. 

• Animals are tethered among native vegetation in vacant areas; some are left to graze along 

the road, river, or under coconut trees with minimal or no supplements at all (farmers use corn 

bran). Only a few farmers practice cut-and-carry. 

• Farmers are now integrating forage into their farming system. Others increased the number of 

their livestock due to the good performance of their animals. 

113


114 



• Malitbog is located in Bukidnon which is a landlocked province in the central part of northern 

Mindanao. 

• It is predominantly an agricultural province with about 38% of the total land area devoted to 

agricultural crops, livestock/poultry, and vegetables. With rich fertile soil, big 

processing/manufacturing firms put up large-scale plantation-type farms in the area. 

• Wet season occurs from June to October with an average annual rainfall of 1826.15 mm. 

• Soil has a pH range of 5.6 – 6.5 and has three major soil types: clay loam, sandy loam, and 

loam. 


• Brgy. San Luis ,Malitbog, Bukidnon, located at 700 m asl, was formerly inhabited by natives 

(Bukidnons). With an estimated land area of 38,867.75 ha., farming (90.2%) is the major 

source of income. This is followed by employment in government (2.5%), private firms, 

(2.2%), and self-employed (1.9%). 

• Maize, rice, banana, coffee, coconut, a variety of root crops, and vegetables are the major 

crops planted by farmers while cows, carabao, chickens, pigs, horse, ducks, and goats are 

being raised in the municipality as draft animals (carabao), for market (cattle, chicken) and for 

home consumption (chicken). 

• 95% of the farmers are keeping livestock. Ruminants are usually tethered. But now, it can be 

observed that cut-and-carry is being done specially in pilot areas. There are still farmers 

though with large areas who are still not concerned with forage cropping. Corn bran feeding is 

done during the bumper harvest of corn in the months of August-September and November- 

December. 

Riverside, Davao 


• Riverside is located in Calinan District (7o05’ N), Davao City in the island of Mindanao. 

• Average annual rainfall is 2215 mm with peak rainfall from May to October. Considerable rains 

(>50 mm) are experienced throughout the year. 

• Soils vary from silty loam in the flat areas to clay loam in the higher areas. In the upland 

areas, soil pH is around 5.1-5.6. Drainage and fertility are good. 

• The barangay is located at an elevation around 175 m asl. Topography is generally rolling in 

the upper portions and flat in the valleys and lower portions. 

• Most of the area is used for agricultural purposes (97%). Only a small portion (3%) is used for 

residential and other purposes. 


• Farmers in Riverside settled in the area from as early as 1965. Majority were settlers from the 

Visayas while the rest were from Luzon. The area was originally forested. As early as 1940s, 

the natives and the Japanese were already practicing agriculture in the area. The Japanese 

introduced abaca cultivation while the natives were cultivating food crops. The abaca was later 

wiped out with a disease. This paved the way for cultivation of other crops. In 1965, the area 

was offered to settlers who then settled and cultivated the land. 

• Upland farming with high-value cash crops is the dominant system. Small flat areas have 

irrigation and are planted to lowland rice. Vacant lands are used as common grazing areas. 

• Most of the flat portions in the area are planted to rice or vegetables. Areas near the house are 

used for flower production. The sloping areas are often planted to coconut and other fruit trees. 

Maize is planted either as intercrop to coconut or in the open. Fertilisation and use of chemical 

inputs are widely practiced. 

• Livestock raised include carabao, cattle (both beef and dairy), goats, swine, chickens and 

ducks. Almost all farmers keep livestock for draft (carabao to a little extent due to presence of 

tractors), cash income, and food for special occasions and domestic consumption. These 

animals are mostly owned except for dairy and Brahman beef cattle, which are obtained as 

loan from a government program. The predominant production system is breeding or 

reproduction fattening for slaughter is not practiced except for swine and broiler poultry. These 

animals are marketed through middlemen who purchase them on a per head basis. There are 

fewer carabao than cattle in the area because of availability of tractors for ploughing. Dairy 

cattle are intensively managed for milk production (complete with commercial and homemixed 

concentrates, supplements, and biologics). Beef cattle and carabao are managed to a 

lesser extent, with minimal supplementation; however, veterinary medicines and de-wormers 

are also used.


• Ruminants except dairy cattle are mainly tethered in vacant areas to graze on native 

vegetation. Supplementation is seldom practiced. No commercial feed supplements are used; 

only cut forage and other available crop residues. On the other hand, dairy cattle are stall-fed 

with cut forages and provided with commercial supplements and concentrate (either homemixed 

or purchased as premix). 

• Almost all of the farms are owned by the farmers themselves. 

• Tractors replaced carabao for draft. With the expansion of dairy production and the use of 

vacant areas for high-value crops, availability of grazing space has decreased. Commercial 

poultry and swine operations as well as conversion of some areas for commercial or industrial 

purposes are also evident. 

• Sale of agricultural products (coconut, milk, and other farm products) is the primary source of 

income. Working in the city as well as in other farms is the next major source of income. 

Malagos, Davao 

General description of area 

• Malagos is located in Bagio District (7o05’ N), Davao City in the island of Mindanao. 

• Average annual rainfall is 2215 mm with peak rainfall from May to October. Considerable rains 

(>50 mm) are experienced throughout the year. 

• The soil is clay loam, generally fertile, and well drained with good texture. Soil pH is around 

5.2-5.6. 

• The barangay is located at an elevation around 354 m asl. Topography is generally rolling to 

steep in the upper portions and flat in the valleys and lower portions. 

• Most of the area is used for agricultural purposes (82%). Only a small portion (18%) is used 

for residential, resort, and government reserve purposes (basically the highest part which is a 

forest and watershed of Davao City). 


• The present farmers in Riverside settled in the area as early as 1970. Majority came from 

Visayas while the rest were from Luzon. The area was originally forested. Since the early 

1940s, the natives and Japanese were already practicing agriculture in the area. The Japanese 

introduced abaca cultivation while the natives were cultivating food crops. Abaca was later 

wiped out with a disease (1950s). This paved the way for cultivation of other crops. In 1970, 

the area was offered to settlers who then settled and cultivated the land. From the late 1970s 

to the 1980s, most of the area was abandoned due to unstable peace and order situation. 

However, when the situation stabilized, a greater number of farmers came and settled in the 

area. 

• Upland farming with high-value cash crops is the dominant system. Commercial poultry and 

swine production is likewise practiced. Small flat areas have irrigation and are planted to 

lowland rice. Vacant lands are used as common grazing areas. 

• Most of the flat portions in the area are planted to rice or vegetables. Areas near residences 

are used for flower production. The sloping areas are often planted to coconut and other fruit 

trees. Maize is planted either as intercrop to coconut or in the open. Fertilisation and use of 

chemical inputs are widely practiced. 

• Almost all of the farmers (96%) raise livestock -- these include carabao, cattle (both beef and 

dairy), goats, swine, chickens, and ducks. Almost all of the farmers keep livestock for draft 

(carabao to a little extent due to presence of tractors), cash income, and food for special 

occasions and domestic consumption. These animals are mostly owned except for dairy and 

Brahman beef cattle, which were loaned from a government program. The predominant 

production system is breeding or reproduction fattening for slaughter is not practiced except 

for swine and broiler poultry. These animals are marketed through middlemen who make 

purchases on a per head basis. There are fewer carabao than cattle in the area because 

availability of tractors for ploughing. Dairy cattle are intensively managed for milk production 

(complete with commercial and home-mixed concentrates, supplements, and biologics). Beef 

cattle and carabao are managed to a lesser extent, with minimal supplementation; however, 

veterinary medicines and de-wormers are also used. 

• Ruminants except dairy cattle are mainly tethered in vacant areas to graze on native 

vegetation. Supplementation is seldom practiced. No commercial feed supplements are used; 

only cut forage and other available crop residues. On the other hand, dairy cattle are stall-fed 

with cut forages and provided with commercial supplements and concentrate (either homemixed 

or purchased as premix). 

• Majority of the farms (70%) are owned by the farmers. The rest are either tenanted or under 

lease. 

• There is a recent change from carabao to tractors as source of draft power. With expansion of 

dairy production and use of vacant areas for high-value crops, grazing space availability has 

115


116 

decreased. Commercial poultry and swine operations as well as conversion of some areas for 

commercial or industrial purposes also occur. 

• Sale of agricultural products (coconut, milk, and other farm products) is the primary source of 

income. 

Carmen, Cotabato 


• Carmen is located in the north-western part of Cotabato province (7o17’ N) in the island of 

Mindanao. 

• Average annual rainfall is 1593 mm with peak rainfall from May to November. Considerable 

rains (>50 mm) are experienced throughout the year. 

• Soils are clay loam with pH around 6.5 and of good fertility. 

• The southern portion is somewhat flat, and gradually becomes rolling, then steep, as one goes 

to the north. 

• Most of the area is used for agriculture. There is still a small forest in the municipality. Only a 

small portion is used for residential and commercial purposes. The flat areas are planted to 

rice (especially irrigated) and maize. Rolling areas are planted to maize and upland rice. 

Steeper areas are used for rubber and other plantation crops. 


• Farmers in Carmen settled in the area as early as 1940. Majority were settlers from Visayas 

while the rest were from Luzon. There are also some natives in the area. The area was 

originally forested. The settlers and loggers started clearing the area and paved the way for 

settled cultivation. 

• Upland farming is the dominant system. Small flat areas have irrigation and are planted to 

lowland rice. Vacant lands are used as common grazing areas. 

• Maize and upland rice are the dominant food crops in the upland area. Rubber, cotton, 

mungbean, peanut, coffee, banana, coconut, and mangoes are also cultivated. Rice is the sole 

crop in irrigated areas. Fertiliser and chemicals are applied to all these crops. 

• Majority of the farmers (75%) raise livestock. These include carabao, cattle, goats, swine, 

chickens, and ducks. Almost all farmers keep livestock for draft (carabao), cash income, and 

food for special occasions and domestic consumption. These animals are either owned or 

availed of under a local sharing arrangement. The predominant production system is breeding 

or reproduction. Fattening for slaughter is not practiced except for swine. These animals are 

marketed through middlemen who purchase them on a per head basis. A farm household 

usually raises 1-2 heads of carabao or cattle and a few heads of goat. Commercial dewormers 

and veterinary drugs are sometimes used. 

• Ruminants are mainly tethered in vacant areas to graze on native vegetation during the day 

and then they are kept near the house at night. Supplementation is seldom practiced (usually 

only done for draft animals during periods of peak utilization). No commercial feed 

supplements are used, only cut forage and other available crop residues. 

• Presently, some areas which were once vacant or planted to maize have been converted for 

planting of sugarcane and other high-valued crops (e.g. durian, mangoes, rambutan, and 

others). This change has also caused a decrease in grazing/tethering area for livestock. 

• Sale of agricultural products (both crops and livestock) is the main source of income. Running 

small businesses like stores and acting as middlemen in the sale of agricultural products are 

secondary sources of income (15 % of households). 

M’lang, Cotabato 


• M’lang is located in the south-eastern part of Cotabato province (7o10’ N) in the island of 

Mindanao. 

• Average annual rainfall is 1593 mm with peak rainfall from May to November. Considerable 

rains (>50 mm) are experienced throughout the year. 

• Soils are clay loam pH ranging from 6.5 to 7.0 and of good fertility. 

• The town has the widest flatlands in the Philippines (38,900 ha). 

• Most of the area is used for agricultural purposes (77%). The rest are either used as fishponds 

(15.57%), institutional areas, residential, commercial, and road areas. 


• Farmers in M’lang settled in the area in the early 1930s. Majority came from the Visayas 

(Panay Island) while the rest came from Northern and Central Luzon (Ilocos, Pampanga).


There are also some ethnic groups/natives in the area. The area was originally forested. The 

settlers themselves started clearing the area and paved the way for settled cultivation. 

• Rainfed farming is the dominant system, representing two-thirds of the total agricultural area. 

The rest is irrigated rice area which is located near two major rivers. Freshwater fishponds are 

also common. 

• Rice is the dominant crop in both irrigated and rainfed ecosystems. In the rainfed area, the 

other crops planted include rubber, sugarcane, coconut, banana, fruit trees, and coffee. All 

crops are fertilised and food crops are raised both for commercial and household 

consumption. 

• Livestock raised include carabao, cattle, goats, swine, chickens, ducks and turkeys. Almost all 

farmers keep livestock for draft (carabao), cash income, and food for special occasions and 

domestic consumption. These animals are either owned or availed of under a local sharing 

arrangement. The predominant production system is breeding or reproduction fattening for 

slaughter is not practiced except for swine. These animals are marketed through middlemen 

who purchase them on a per head basis. A farm household usually raises 1-2 heads of 

carabao or cattle and a few heads of goat. Commercial de-wormers and veterinary drugs are 

sometimes used. 

• Ruminants are mainly tethered in vacant areas to graze on native vegetation. Supplementation 

is minimal (usually only done for draft animals during periods of peak utilization). No 

commercial feed supplements are used; only cut forage and other available crop residues. 

During the dry season, when native vegetation for grazing becomes scarce, farmers cut and 

carry native grasses and tree leaves for feeding. A similar practice is done while the rice crop 

is growing due to limitations in grazing area. 

• Sale of agricultural products (both crops and livestock, especially goats), working as hired 

labourers (both agricultural and non-agricultural) and remittances from household members 

working in Manila or abroad are primary sources of income. 

Appendix 2. Results of Participatory Diagnoses at FSP sites in the Philippines. 


• Attendance : The 24 farmers participating in the PD were members of alayon groups coming 

from Barangay San Salvador, Matalom, Leyte. 

• Problems identified by farmers : 

1) Lack of feed during dry season caused by the limited grazing area and insufficient 

knowledge of new technologies; 

2) poor animal nutrition and performance leading to low productivity (parasite/disease 

susceptibility especially in carabao; underweight and overworked animals) 

3) uncontrolled grazing. 

• Coping mechanisms: 

1) Bringing animals to faraway places for grazing 

2) Using tree leaves and banana trunks for feed when all the native vegetation dries out 

3) Consulting livestock experts regarding animal diseases and giving supplementary inputs 

to animals; 

4) Getting exchange/hired labour to help in land preparation 

• Decision: The farmer group agreed to work with FSP to evaluate forages for cut-and-carry and 

for grazing on their own land. First, they will try the species as a group. The results of the 

group activity will be used to decide which species the farmers will try individually. The species 

they plan to test will include those that can be used as hedgerows and fence lines. 

Pagalungan, Cagayan de Oro 

• Attendance: The 26 farmers participating in the PD were members of existing farmer 

associations (Tribal and Settlers Association, Women’s Association) in the barangay. Some 

barangay officials likewise attended the meeting. 

• Problems identified by farmers : 

1) Lack of feed especially during the dry season 

2) Increase in unpalatable weeds (especially Chromolaena odorata) in existing grazing areas 

3) Insufficient feed due to increase in number of animals and areas devoted to cropping 

4) Uncontrolled grazing 


1) Use of cut-and-carry native forages existing near rivers and waterways as well as using 

banana trunks and rice bran for feeding during the dry season 

2) Grazing in vacant areas owned by other farmers 

117


118 

3) Establishing their own forage areas – only a few; problem of illegal grazing and decline of 

forage productivity 

• Decision: The farmer groups agreed to test the species for cut-and-carry and for grazing. The 

plan was to try out as a group first. The results of the initial trial will be the basis for selecting 

species for individual farmer testing. The species for testing also include those which could be 

used as fence lines, cover crops/weed control, and contour hedgerows. 


• Attendance: Three participatory diagnoses were done involving members of farmer 

associations (rural improvement clubs [women’s groups] and cooperatives) in sitios within 

Barangay San Luis, Malitbog, Bukidnon. These farmers were beneficiaries of the animal 

dispersal programs of the Department of Agriculture (either goat or cattle). 

• Problems identified by farmers: 

1) Lack of food for the household due to low production and income 

2) Low crop production due to surface runoff 

3) Soil erosion 

4) Insufficient quality and quantity of feed due to limited area for grazing brought about by an 

increase in cropping area 

5) Increase in unpalatable weeds (especially Imperata cylindrica) in existing grazing areas 



1) Establishment of contour hedgerows using forages and stones 

2) Adopting multi-cropping technology (banana-maize-vegetable) 

3) Planting of other food crops like banana, ubi, gabi, and sweet potato 

4) Tethering animals in faraway areas 

5) Establishing forages in marginal areas and small plots near houses 

6) Cut-and-carry system for native forages and trees existing near rivers and waterways as 

well as using banana trunk and rice bran as feed during the dry season 


• Decisions: The farmer groups agreed to test the species for cut-and-carry and for grazing. The 

plan was to establish forages both in individual and common farms with the help of the whole 

group (alayon). 

Aroman, Carmen 

• Attendance: The 26 farmers who participated in the PD were members of a cooperative 

coordinated by a non-government organization (Gagmayng Kristohanong Katilingban- 

Kidapawan Diocesan Federation of Cooperatives). 


1) Lack of feed due to increase in cropped area, number of animals, and number of 

unpalatable weeds 

2) Poor animal performance due to feed scarcity 

3) Lack of feed specially during the dry season 


1) Planting of forages such as Napier grass, Desmodium cinerea, and Flemingia 

macrophylla; 

2) Using stunted maize plants to feed the animals. 

• Decisions of the farmers will test different forage species for grazing and cut-and carry. They 

will at first establish and manage the evaluation in a common farm as a group. The results of 

the initial evaluation will be the basis for selecting the species that will be tested individually. 

The area shall therefore serve as initial multiplication and testing site. The species that they 

plan to test will include those which can be used as hedgerows and fence lines. 


• Attendance: The 24 farmers who participated in the PD came from different barangays around 

Pag-asa, M’lang, Cotabato. All were members of cooperatives coordinated by a nongovernment 

organization (Gagmayng Kristohanong Katilingban-Kidapawan Diocesan 

Federation of Cooperatives). 


1) Lack of feed due to increase in cropped area and in numbers of animals 

2) Lack of feed in the dry season and during the rice cropping period 

3) Occurrence of diseases in animals (diarrhoea, respiratory symptoms, liver fluke) 


1) Cut-and-carry native forages whenever feed is scarce (especially during rice cropping 

season)




• Decision: The farmer groups agreed to test species for cut-and-carry, grazing, as well as those 

that can be used as relay crops for rice (during dry season). Some of these species were 

useful as fence lines. The plan was to try out as a group first. The results of the initial trial will 

be the basis for selecting species for individual farmer testing. One of the cooperatives located 

in the common testing area was assigned to maintain the plots but all the other cooperatives 

were to help in the planting and in the evaluation. The initial evaluation area was also intended 

to serve as source of planting materials for individual testing. 

Malagos, Davao City 

• Attendance: The 16 farmers participating in the PD were members of either small coconut 

farmers’ organization (SCFO) or a dairy cooperative or both. Barangay officials likewise 

attended the meeting. 


1) Diseases and low market price of crops and livestock 

2) Decreasing feed supply due to increase in cattle population and cropped areas 

3) Increase in cost of concentrate feeds for dairy animals 

4) Unavailability of adapted and productive forages 

5) Lack of capital for proper establishment of forages 

6) Increasing need of fertiliser for crops 




2) Maintaining a manageable number of animals by selling and sharing excess animals 



• Decision: A field day was conducted after the PD. The farmers made a list of species they 

would try in their area. The plan is to try out as a group first. The results of the initial trial will 

be the basis for selecting species for individual farmer testing. The species farmers wanted to 

test include those that were useful for grazing, cut-and-carry, and as cover crops under 

coconut. The initial testing area shall serve as source of planting materials for individual 

farmer testing. 

Riverside, Davao City 

• Attendance: The 10 farmers who participated in the PD were members of either a small 

coconut farmer organization (SCFO) or a dairy cooperative or both. Some barangay officials 

likewise attended the meeting. 


1) Lack of capital for farm inputs (e.g. fertiliser, fencing of forage area, feed supplements) 

2) Crops need more fertilisers and time to produce well 

3) Increasing cost of commercial supplements for dairy cattle 

4) Lack of feed due to increase in cropped areas and in animal number 

5) Diseases in crops 

6) Lack of adapted forages 


8) Occasional flooding in flat areas 

9) Increase in unpalatable weeds in grazing areas 

10) Erosion in sloping farms 





• Decision: A field day was conducted after the PD. The farmers made a list of species they 

would try in their area. The plan is to try out as a group first. The results of the initial trial will 

be the basis for selecting species for individual farmer testing. The species farmers wanted to 

test include those that were useful for grazing, cut-and-carry, and as cover crops under 

coconut. The initial testing area was to serve as source if planting materials for individual 

farmer testing. 

119


120 

Appendix 3. Description of activities conducted at each site in the Philippines 


1995 

• Participatory diagnosis and planning of activities conducted with alayons from San Salvador 

and Montealegre. 

• Establishment of initial testing and multiplication areas in San Salvador and Montealegre. 

Alayon leaders from the barangay provided the areas. The plots were established and 

managed by the alayon members. In addition, FARMI established a backup area for 

multiplication of the same species. 

• The species tested in San Salvador (acid soil) and Montealegre were as follows : 

Species San Salvador Montealegre 

Aeschynomene histrix CIAT 9690 - 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 22160 

Centrosema acutifolium CIAT 5277 

Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160 - 

Desmanthus virgatus CPI 40071 

Desmodium cinerea (ex) MBRLC 

Flemingia macrophylla CIAT 17403 - 

Gliricidia sepium (Local) 

Leucaena leucocephala K636 - 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184 

Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780 

Brachiaria decumbens CIAT 606 (cv. Basilisk) 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 16886 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 

Paspalum atratum CIAT 9610 - 

Pennisetum purpureum cv. Capricorn 

Florida Napier - 

Setaria sphacelata var. splendida (ex) Indonesia 

• Distribution of small amount of planting materials/seeds to interested alayon leaders. A total of 

26 farmers were able to receive planting materials in small amounts (10 g of seeds or 10-20 

pieces of vegetative planting materials). 

• Open-ended evaluation of forages planted by alayon leaders. Only 16 alayon leaders were 

successful in establishing the forages. The species evaluated and their comments were as 

follows: 

Grasses 

A. gayanus CIAT 621 (vegetative) – moderate establishment; good vigour and palatability 

B. brizantha CIAT 6780 (vegetative) – moderate establishment; good vigour and 

palatability 

B. humidicola CIAT 6133 (vegetative) – poor establishment 

Florida Napier (vegetative) – good establishment, growth, and palatability 

P. purpureum cv. Capricorn (vegetative) – good establishment; palatable to carabao only 

S. splendida (vegetative)– good growth and palatability (3 farmers) 

Legumes 

A. pintoi (vegetative) – moderate establishment; slow growth 

C. acutifolium CIAT 5277 (seeds) – good germination poor vigour (yellow) 

C. pubescens CIAT 15160 – moderate germination; poor vigour (yellow) 

D. cinerea (seeds) – moderate establishment; poor vigour (yellow) 

D. virgatus CIAT 40071 (seeds) – moderate germination; good vigour 

P. maximum CIAT 6299 (vegetative) – poor establishment 

S. guianensis CIAT 184 – good germination; poor vigour in calcareous soil; good 

palatability


1996 

• Group evaluation of forages in the initial testing and multiplication areas. Among the legumes 

tested, all farmers in San Salvador (acid soil area) favoured Stylo 184, and C. pubescens 

CIAT 15160. In Montealegre, all farmers favoured D. cinerea and Stylo 184. Their major 

criteria were vigour and herbage yield. Among the grasses tested, all farmers in San Salvador 

favoured B. humidicola CIAT 16886, P. purpureum cv. Capricorn, Florida Napier, and S. 

sphacelata var. splendida. In Montealegre (with less acidic and relatively fertile soil), all 

farmers favoured B. brizantha CIAT 6780 and P. maximum CIAT 6299. The farmers expressed 

the same criteria in selecting these grasses. The other species were favoured by some 

farmers but not by others. 

• Conduct of quarterly alayon leaders’ meeting. At the end of the year, an annual alayon leaders’ 

meeting was done to report what has been accomplished by the groups and plan out their 

activities for the next year. 

• Farmer-training in forage and livestock management. Three trainings were conducted: (a) San 

Salvador alayon, attended by 8 farmers, (b) Montealegre alayon, attended by 12 farmers, and 

(c) general training for alayon leaders, attended by 20 farmers. The topics covered were on the 

importance of good feeding to ruminants, the different types of forages and where forages can 

be integrated into their farms. The trainings were conducted, with farmers taken to existing 

forage plots and asking them to choose what species they were interested to plant. 

Arrangements were then made as to when those interested would establish the forages. 

• Establishment of more or less structured experiments in their farmers’ fields. These 

experiments involved comparison of forage species as used for different purposes: (a) cutand-carry, 

(b) hedgerows, (c) grazing, and (d) fence lines. Two farmers were able to establish 

the experiments late in the year. 

• Establishment of a larger range of forage species in a nursery in Matalom (managed by 

FARMI). This nursery aimed to produce planting materials for distribution to farmers. The 

species planted were as follows : 

Grasses 

Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780 



Brachiaria decumbens CIAT 606 (=cv. Basilisk) 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 6133 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 16886 

Brachiaria humidicola cv. Tully 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 



Pennisetum hybrid (Florida grass) 

Pennisetum hybrid (King grass) 

Setaria sphacelata var. splendida (ex) Indonesia 

Legumes: 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 22160 

Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160 

Desmodium cinerea (ex) MBRLC 

Flemingia macrophylla CIAT 17403 

Gliricidia sepium cv. Monterrico 

Gliricidia sepium cv. Retalhuleu 

Gliricidia sepium (ex) Belen Rivas 

1997 

• Assisted farmers in establishing structured experiments. Eight more on-farm experiments were 

established. Details of the experiments were as follows: 

Option Calcareous Soil Acid Soil 

Total number 

of farmers 

Hedgerows 1 1 2 

Block 

Grazing: 

2 2 4 

Under shade - 1 1 

Open area 1 2 3 

Fence line Seedlings still in nursery 

121


122 

• Conducted two field days for 18 farmers in Inopacan, Leyte (a nearby municipality) 

• Conducted a field day for 20 farmers in Barangay Sta. Paz, Matalom. Farmers from San 

Salvador and Elevado who have planted the forages served as resource persons in the field 

day. A planning session was done as part of the field day. 

• Establishment of initial multiplication and demonstration area at Sta. Paz, Matalom, Leyte. 

• Conduct of quarterly alayon leaders’ meeting. At the end of the year, an annual alayon leaders’ 

meeting was done to report what has been accomplished by the groups and plan out their 

activities for the next year. 

Guba, Cebu 

1996 

• Visit of four farmer-instructors to the FSP nursery and distribution of planting materials. 

• Establishment of forages by farmer-instructors. The species established by the farmer 

instructors were as follows : 

Grasses 

A. gayanus 

B. brizantha CIAT 26110 

P. maximum CIAT 6299 

P. atratum BRA 9610 

S. sphacelata var. splendida (ex) Indonesia 

P. purpureum cv. Mott 

Legumes 

A. pintoi CPI 12121 

A. pintoi CIAT 17850 

A. pintoi CIAT 26110 

A. glabrata CPI 93483 

C. macrocarpum CIAT 25522 

D. cinerea (ex) MBRLC 

F. macrophylla CIAT 17403 

L. leucocephala K636 

S. guianensis CIAT 184 

1997 

• Distribution of planting materials to other farmers trained by farmer-instructors (32 farmers). 

• Meeting with farmers in Cambinocot and Tag-ubi on extension of forage trials. 

• Seminar on forage production and management in Cambinocot and Tag-ubi. 

• Distribution of planting materials to 30 farmers in Guba and Cambinocot. 

• Cross-visit of farmers in Cambinocot and Tag-ubi to farm of Teo Llena in Balisong, Guba. 

Cagayan de Oro 

1995 

• Participatory diagnosis and planning of activities with farmers in Pagalungan. 

• Establishment of initial multiplication area at Cagayan Capitol College (CCC) and Pagalungan. 

The area for establishment of the different forages was provided by CCC and a farmer-leader 

in Pagalungan, respectively. Establishment and management were done by CCC students and 

farmer association members in Pagalungan, respectively. The different forages established 

were as follows: 

Species CCC Pagalungan 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 18744 - 

Arachis pintoi CIAT 22160 

Calliandra calothyrsus (ex) Indonesia - 

Centrosema acutifolium CIAT 5277 

Centrosema macrocarpum CIAT 25522 - 

Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160 - 

Desmanthus virgatus (ex) IRRI - 

Desmodium heterophyllum CIAT 349 - 

Desmodium cinerea (ex) MBRLC 

Gliricidia sepium (Local) - 

Leucaena leucocephala K636 

Leucaena leucocephala (Local) - 

Pueraria phaseoloides CIAT 9900 - 


Table (cont.) 


Species CCC Pagalungan 

Sesbania sesban - 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184 

Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621 - 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780 - 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 26110 

Brachiaria decumbens CIAT 606 (cv. Basilisk) 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT 6133 

Brachiaria humidicola CIAT cv. Tully - 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 - 

Panicum maximum cv. Tanzania - 

Paspalum atratum BRA 9610 

Paspalum guenoarum BRA 3824 - 

Pennisetum purpureum cv. Mott - 

Pennisetum purpureum cv. Capricorn - 

Pennisetum purpureum (Local) 

Florida Napier 

Pennisetum hybrid (King grass) - 

Setaria sphacelata var. splendida (ex) Indonesia 

1996 

• Conduct of farmer training on livestock and forage management at CCC to interested farmer 

groups. A field day was always a part of the training. It consists of bringing the farmers to 

forage plots and discussing the forage trials. Four training courses involving 135 farmers from 

six barangays were conducted. 

• Distribution of forage planting materials to members of farmer groups attending the farmer 

trainings. Farmers who received planting materials from CCC plots came from Pagalungan 

(33), Bayanga (39), Canituan (14), San Simon (16), Indahag (19), and Mambuaya (14). 

• Conduct of field days/cross-visits to farms/areas where forages are established and used. 

This was done with 24 farmers from Pagalungan. 

• Monthly regular meeting and cooperative work (pahina) to maintain the initial multiplication 

area with farmers in Pagalungan. 

• Open-ended evaluation of forages in the demonstration area done with Pagalungan farmers. 

1997 

• Establishment of initial multiplication areas at Bayanga, Indahag, and San Simon. 

• Monthly regular meeting and cooperative work (pahina) to maintain the initial multiplication 

area with farmers in Pagalungan, Bayanga, Indahag, and San Simon. 

• Monitoring and feedback from farmers on their experiences with forages. 

• Conduct of two field days attended by 20 farmers in Pagalungan. The topics discussed were 

feed requirement of animals and importance of fertilisation in fast-growing cut-and-carry 


• Distribution of planting materials to interested farmers. A total of 215 farmers coming from 10 

upland barangays in Cagayan de Oro received forage planting materials for the year. 

• Conduct of farmer training courses for 16 farmers from Lumbia. The training covered topics on 

forage and pasture. 

• Conduct of cross-visits to successful agroforestry farmers in Cebu. A total of 9 farmers and 3 

technicians from Cagayan de Oro were involved. 


1996 

• Conduct of participatory diagnosis and planning at Kaluluwayan, San Luis. The activity was 

attended by 16 farmers. 

• Cross-visits to Cagayan de Oro and Bukidnon. Thirty farmers participated in the activity as 

part of the visit, the farmers were shown the forages and were able to get planting materials 

for their communal initial establishment area. 

• Establishment of forages in a common area and in individual farmers’ fields. Farmers 

organized themselves into alayons (cooperative groups) to facilitate establishment. Three 

individual farmers were able to plant. 

1997 

• Conduct of participatory diagnosis and planning in two more barangays at Malitbog. The 

farmers involved also decided to test forages in their farms, starting with common area and 

using the alayon method in establishing the forages. 

123


124 

• Establishment of forages in common areas and individual farmers’ fields. Fourteen farms 

were able to establish forages. The alayon method was adopted to facilitate the work. Aside 

from forage establishment, the farmers were also able to establish contour hedgerows. 

• Distribution of legume tree seeds to seven farmers. The agreement was that farmers will 

establish the seeds in plastic bags for later transplanting of seedlings. 

• Cross-visits to other areas and farms in Bukidnon where forages were planted and used. 

Twenty farmers participated in the activity. 

• Conduct of farmer training on developing forage technologies with 21 farmers attending. 

• Regular meetings and visits to exchange experiences and feedback on forage performance. 

Carmen, Cotabato 

1996 

• Participatory diagnosis at Aroman. The activity was attended by 26 farmers coming from 

barangays around Aroman. The farmers decided that they would test forages, first in a 

common area and later to individual farms. 

• Establishment of forages managed by farmer groups. The farmers provided the area and 

labour for establishment and management. 

• Regular meetings and visits to share experiences and get feedback on forages trials. 

1997 

• Farmer training and field day on forages. The topics included use and integration of forages 

on-farm. An evaluation and planning session was done as part of the training. 

• Distribution of planting materials to interested farmers. Two farmers were able to receive 

planting materials and establish forages in their farms. 

• Regular meetings and visits to exchange experiences and feedback on forages. 


1996 

• Participatory diagnosis at Aroman. The activity was attended by 26 farmers coming from 

barangays around Aroman. The farmers decided that they would test forages, first in a 

common area and later to individual farms. 

• Establishment of forages managed by farmer groups. The farmers provided the area and 

labour for establishment and management. 

• Regular meetings and visits to compare experiences with forages. 

1997 

• Farmer training and field day on forages. The topics included use and integration of forages 

on-farm. An evaluation and planning session was done as part of the training. 

• Regular meetings and visits to get feedback on forages performance. 

Riverside, Davao 

1997 

• Participatory diagnosis with farmers. Ten farmers participated in the activity. The farmers 

decided to evaluate forages, first in a common area, then to individual farms. 

• Conduct of a field day at the PCA research centre. The farmers were shown different forages 

and options for integration of forages. From these, the farmers planned and decided what 

species they would try. 

• Distribution of planting materials and establishment of initial evaluation and multiplication 

area. The area was provided by one farmer who established and managed the area himself. 

He plans to expand his area and to distribute planting materials to other interested farmers. 

Malagos, Davao 

1997 

• Participatory diagnosis with farmers. The activity was participated in by 10 farmers. The 

farmers decided to evaluate forages, first in a common area, then to individual farms. 

• Conduct of a field day at the PCA research centre. The farmers were shown different forages 

and options for integration of forages. From these, the farmers planned and decided what 

species they would try. 

• Distribution of planting materials for establishment of initial testing and multiplication area.


Impact of participatory approaches on sheep production in 

North Sumatra, Indonesia 

Tatang Ibrahim 1 

Introduction 

The low annual per capita meat consumption in North Sumatra (Disnak Sumut 1994) is 

mainly due to the limited supply of meat. Only 45% of North Sumatra's demand for 

small ruminants is met by local suppliers (Karokaro et al. 1993). This short supply is a 

reflection of the low animal population and the low productivity in the region where most 

of the ruminants are raised by smallholders. There is a need to increase both the 

population and productivity of ruminants within this region. 

A new settlement at Marenu, South Tapanuli in North Sumatra Province aimed to 

organise smallholders whose main source of income is sheep production. A flock of 25 

ewes and 2 rams were given to each transmigrant by the government in 1996. In 

addition, a simple woody house, a barn, and 1 ha of upland area were also made 

available to them. Approximately 0.5 ha of this land was planted to King grass 

(Pennisetum hybrid), while another 0.5 ha was used to grow cash crops to augment the 

still meagre income from sheep production. A cost of living allowance and feed 

supplements were also provided by the government for the first year. Income projections 

show that each transmigrant family with 40 ewes would earn a monthly income of 

350,000 rupiah by selling 6 young rams per month. 

Field visits in 1996 observed the poor condition of both sheep and forages, resulting 

in poor sheep production at Marenu. Therefore, this site was selected by the Forages for 

Smallholders Project as a pilot area for developing forage technology to improve sheep 

production. The participatory research (PR) method was used with farmers to ensure 

active and equal participation. Through this approach, their needs and their perceptions 

of the new technologies would be clear from the beginning (Horne 1996). 

This paper discusses the impact of the PR approach on the performance of sheep 

production at Marenu. 

Material and methods 


The site is located at Marenu village, in sub-district Barumun Tengah, Tapanuli Selatan 

district, North Sumatra Province. This is a new settlement which has been occupied by 

some 100 families of transmigrants since 1996. These families depend on sheep 

production for livelihood. The Government provided some facilities to assist them. Soil 

is classified as a Tropudult; it has low fertility and low organic matter, nitrogen, and 

phosphorous content. Annual rainfall ranges from 2,500 to 3,000 mm and there are 

distinct dry and wet seasons. The rainy season can be expected from December to 

March. The driest months are July to October. 

Marenu is contrasted with a lowland site, Pulau Gambar, near Medan where a 

women’s group raises goats in pens. Feed is available from rice fields and nearby oil 

palm and rubber plantations. 

1 Balai Pengkajian Teknologi Pertanian, BPTP Gedong Johor, Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia. 

125


126 

Stratification of farmers and sheep husbandry 

The farmers were classified into the PR group and the non-PR group. Farmers in the 

first group were introduced to forage technologies through the PR approach. The non- 

PR group were farmers who only availed of the facilities offered by the government and 

whose main source of forages is King grass. A semi-intensive system was used by both 

groups, including both grazing and cutting forages, to feed their animals. 

Farmers in the PR group were involved in all stages of the PR approach including 

participatory diagnosis, planning, experimentation and evaluation. Ibrahim (1997) 

reported that farmers agreed to try forage species with drought tolerance to improve 

sheep production. Using their own criteria, the farmers ranked Paspalum atratum BRA 

9610 as the best accession among the grasses tested. This was followed by Paspalum 

guenoarum, Brachiaria humidicola, Brachiaria brizantha, Paspalum atratum cv. 

Pantaneira, and Brachiaria humidicola CIAT6133. These species were valued higher 

than King grass and are still being developed and used. Among the legumes, farmers 

ranked Gliricidia sepium as the most preferred species followed by Leucaena 

leucocephala, Stylosanthes guianensis, Centrosema pubescens, and Calliandra 

calothyrsus. However, due to its limited number, these introduced legumes did not 

develop at the expected pace and were not used as fast as the grasses. 

Measurements of impact of the PR approach 

The parameters used to evaluate sheep production – present population, time allocated 

for collecting cutting material and grazing, body weight of sheep and income – were 

measured in both PR and non-PR groups. 

The data were obtained from a survey using five farmers per group as respondents. 

The body weights of sheep were measured monthly but comparison was made only 

between the two groups at the same age. The present population of sheep owned by a 

farmer, the time consumed for feeding, and the income generated by the PR and non-PR 

groups were also obtained. 

Results and discussion 

Starting with the same number of animals (2 rams and 25 ewes in 1996), it was shown 

that the total number of sheep owned by an individual farmer belonging to the PR group 

was considerably higher than those of the non-PR group after two years (Table 1). 

Table 1. Average numbers of sheep own by farmers in January 1998, stratified by age (months). 

Farmer group


claimed that diarrhoea was the most common cause of death of sheep. However, the 

real reason for the high mortality must be further investigated, although irregular timing 

of drenching and lack of feed were thought to be responsible. 

In general, the PR group used less time for cutting forages and grazing activities 

than did the non-PR group at Marenu, Tapsel (Table 2). This time reduction was 

attributed to the shorter distance travelled to get forage. The larger amount and easier to 

cut forages available in their backyard also reduced the time allocated for grazing. 

Table 2. Time needed for obtaining feed for animals. 

G 

roup 

Marenu 

Time 

(hours/day) 

Cutting forages Grazing 

Location 

Time 

(hours/day) 

Location 

– PR group 1 Backyards 4 Backyards 

– Non-PR group 

Pulau Gambar 

2 Swamps 6 Forests 

– PR group 2 Backyards 3 Rice fields 

– Non-PR group 3 Plantations 5 Rice fields 

At the Marenu site, the sources of cut forages of the non-PR group farmers where 

the swampy areas almost 2 km away from their barns. Grazing was done on open native 

grassland available around the forest. The average body weight of sheep reared at 

Marenu was observed to be higher in the PR group than in the non-PR group (Table 3). 

Table 3. Average body weight (kg) of sheep. 

Ages (month) 

3 4 5 6 7 8 

Marenu 

Rams 

- PR group 10.8 11.1 11.7 12.5 13.2 12.5 

- Non-PR group 

Ewes 

5.8 7.0 7.0 8.1 8.9 8.5 

- PR group 9.4 10.2 11.1 11.3 11.5 12.2 

- Non-PR group 7.2 7.7 8.0 8.6 9.3 9.9 

Pulau Gambar 

Rams 

- PR group 8.8 9.1 11.9 - - - 

- Non-PR group 7.1 11.0 12.2 - - - 

Ewes 

- PR group 8.8 9.1 12.0 - - - 

- Non-PR group 7.5 9.7 12.0 - - - 

Table 3 shows that differences in body weight between the two groups remained 

similar (about 4 kg) at any given age. This would indicate that the difference started 

from birth; the weight might have been related to both quantity and quality of feed given 

to the pregnant ewes. 

Since concentrates are expensive, the need for protein may be met by legumes. 

Therefore, the practice of planting and using legumes (herbaceous, shrubs, trees) is an 

important component of sheep husbandry of smallholders. Farmers in the PR group had 

already planted some legumes, using them as animal feed. 

At Marenu, because of the greater body weight and better physical condition, the 

sheep owned by the PR group commanded better prices (Table 4). Manure production 

was also higher in the PR group because of the larger population. Therefore, farmers in 

127


128 

the PR group obtained an income which was 31% higher than that earned by the non-PR 

group. 

Table 4. Income per month per farmer from sheep sales. 

Sheep (head/Rp) Manure (bags/Rp) Total (Rp) 

Marenu 

- PR group 2 / 105,000 8 / 12,000 117,000 

- Non PR group 

Pulau Gambar 

2 / 80,000 6 / 9,000 89,000 

- PR group - 1 - - 

- Non-PR group 

1 

No regular sales 

- - - 

However, the present monthly income of Rp 117,000 at Marenu is only 33% of the 

target of Rp 350,000. Each farmer has to sell around 6 young rams per month to 

achieve this target. This number may be produced from a flock of 40 ewes. Each 

farmer currently owns only 26 ewes on average and they are able to sell only 2 rams per 

month. Further subsidies from government are needed to achieve the ideal flock size of 

40 ewes. A larger flock needs more feed. Because forages (grasses and legumes) are 

relatively cheap sources of feed further development on this aspect is important. 

Conclusions 

The application of forage technology through the PR approach improved sheep 

production of smallholders at Marenu. This was closely related to problems faced by 

farmers. The opinions and criteria used by farmers in selecting the technology were the 

factors that mattered most in the development and adoption process of the said 

technology. 


The authors acknowledge the financial assistance of the Australian Agency for 

International Development (AusAID) through CIAT and FSP. They also thank the 

Regional Office of Transmigration of North Sumatra for their hospitality during the field 

visits. 

References 

Disnak Sumut 1994. Peternakan dalam angka di Sumatera Utara Tahun 1993. 

Pemerintah Propinsi Daerah Tingkat I Sumatera Utara, Dinas Peternakan Tkt I 

Sumatera Utara, Medan. 

Horne, P.M. 1996. Partnership in research and technology transfer for livestock 

production through farmers’ involvement. Paper presented at the 18th Annual 

Conference of the Malaysian Society of Animal Production ‘New Perspectives in 

Animal Production’, 28-31 May 1996, Kuching. 

Ibrahim, T.M. 1997. Participatory research in North Sumatra. Paper presented at the 2nd 

Annual Meeting of Forages for Smallholders Project at Hainan, China. 

Karo-karo, S., Juniar, S. and Knipscheer, H.C. 1993. Farmers, shares, marketing, margin 

and demand for small ruminants in North Sumatra. SR-CRSP Working Paper No. 

150.


Developing and evaluating forage technologies with farmers 

in Lao PDR 

Viengsavanh Phimphachanhvongsod 1 and Phonepaseuth Phengsavanh 2 

The livestock sector in Lao PDR is almost exclusively smallholder-based. The livestock 

practices of smallholders are very traditional, with minimal or no inputs used. Animals 

are generally left to graze, either on native grass that is available in forests and 

grassland or on crop residues in harvested fields. 

Although the livestock production systems of Lao PDR are highly diverse, four 

broad categories exist: 

1. Livestock in association with lowland agriculture 

These systems are dominated by intensive rice cultivation and livestock play a vital 

role in providing draft power and manure and in stubble recycling. The opportunities 

for forage development in these systems are often limited by lack of land for 

planting forages. 

2. Livestock associated with long-rotation shifting cultivation systems. 

In these areas (predominantly in the northern part of the country), livestock 

producers often have very low-input systems of livestock management. Frequently, 

buffalo and cattle are allowed to graze in the mountains and forests year-round. 

They are only brought back for work or for sale. The opportunities for forage 

development in these systems appear limited, as farmers perceive few problems 

with the existing feed resource. However, in some areas, there is growing activity at 

the farm level and animal raisers plan to sell livestock to neighbouring countries, 

especially to Thailand, Vietnam, and China. Under these situations, livestock 

management systems are likely to change rapidly and a demand for forages may 

emerge. 

3. Livestock in association with short-rotation shifting cultivation systems 

In these areas (principally in the central north area such as Luang Phabang, Xieng 

Khouang), few forests remain. Agricultural systems are under increasing pressure 

from shorter fallow cycles and increasing populations. Livestock, especially in the 

more remote areas, is a major buffer against calamity in the household or 

community. Only a few other commodities exist that can be produced with little 

labour and resources, that can be sold at any time, and that are relatively easy to 

bring to market regardless of distance. 

In these systems, the opportunities for forage development appear to be very 

high. Many farm communities are recognising both the value of livestock in 

maintaining their livelihoods and the need for better livestock management. Interest 

in managed forages is already high, with farmers in some areas already attempting 

to manage their feed resources by cultivating grasses. 

1 Livestock Development Division, Department of Livestock and Fisheries, Vientiane, Lao PDR. 


129


130 

4. Livestock in the southern sandstone regions and Pek savannas 

These areas in the southern provinces have very poor soils, long dry seasons, and 

low population densities. The livestock management systems are based on 

extensive grazing. The opportunities for improvement with forages appear limited, 

partly because the existing feed resource (though poor) is extensive and partly 

because farmers are heavily occupied with trying to support their fragile agricultural 

livelihood. However, the government is trying to promote livestock production for 

smallholders in these areas. 

The Forages for Smallholders Project (FSP) has been working in Lao PDR to 

develop forage technologies with farmers in these regions. Some common problems are 

experienced by farmers in raising livestock across these regions: 

• Disease. 

• Lack of feed throughout the dry season. 

• Lack of feed at critical times during the wet season (such as planting and 

harvesting), when animals must be kept penned to prevent damage to crops but 

there is not enough labour to care for animals. 

• Loss of animals (that graze in far villages) to thieves and predators. 

• Damage to other farmers’ fields, causing conflicts in villages. 

Many of these problems can be addressed by planting forages. Therefore, the FSP 

began on-farm development of forage technologies in 1997. The sites initially selected 

were those identified by local agriculture officers or rural development workers as having 

potential for forage development. These are found in two provinces: Xieng Khouang and 

Luang Phabang. The characteristics of these two areas are listed in Table 1. 

Table 1. Physical characteristics of locations for on-farm forage evaluations. 


(m) 

Xieng 

Khouang 

Luang 

Phabang 

18.5-20 o 1100 

to 

>2000 

19-21 o 300 

to 

1900 

Annual 

rainfall 

(mm) 

1300 

to 

1700 

1300 

to 

1700 

Wet 

season 

April 

to 

September 

May 

to 

October 


Chomphet, Luang Phabang 


months 

(>50 mm) 


8 − pH (1:5 H 2O): 5.4 (4.7-7.7) 

upland; 4.8-5.0 on the plain. 

− Loam – clay loam (upland). 

− Alluvium (plain). 

− Moderately fertile upland. 

− Very infertile (plain). 

− Well drained. 

− P deficient to extremely 

deficient. 

7 − pH (1:5 H2O): 5-7. 

− Loams, sandy loam. 

− Well drained. 

− Infertile to moderately fertile. 

− Low organic matter content 

and low base saturation. 

− Wetland rice in 

valleys and shifting 

cultivation on the slopes. 

− Some shifting 

cultivation on ploughed 

savanna grassland. 

− Upland crops in pine 

tree zone (rice, maize, and 

other crops) with 

integration of livestock 

production. 

− Shifting cultivation 

and upland cropping on 

slopes. 

− Rainfed rice in 

lowland with livestock 

production integrated. 

General description 

Chomphet is located opposite of Luang Phabang township on the other side of the 

Mekong River. About 80% of the area is mountainous or hilly. Altitude varies from 300 

to 1900 m. The upland area has mostly been cleared for shifting cultivation. Rice


production is practiced in the lowlands. Annual rainfall ranges from 1100 to 1800 mm. 

The dry season lasts from November to March, with December to February being 

particularly dry (about 1-3% of total rainfall). Soil is mostly infertile and moderately 

acidic (pH 5-6). 

Description of community 

There are three main ethnic groups in Chomphet: the Lao Lum, Lao Theung and Lao 

Soung. The latter groups normally live in upland areas. The farming systems common 

in Chomphet District are subsistence cultivation of rainfed paddy and upland rice 

integrated with livestock raising. In upland and mountainous areas, farmers cultivate 

upland rice in swidden fields as the primary crop and staple food. The crops are 

sometimes inter-planted with additional food and cash crops such as maize, cassava, 

taro, eggplant, and cucumber. Rice is mostly planted in narrow valleys. Most of the 

fields in the district are rainfed; only a very small portion is set aside for irrigated dry 

season rice. In addition to rice, farmers also plant maize, soybean, garlic, spring onion, 

and other vegetables. The livestock raising system in Chomphet varies from village to 

village. In the lowland areas where rice is grown, farmers keep buffalo. In some villages, 

there are no cattle at all. In these areas, villagers do not like to eat cattle meat. Cattle 

are mostly kept in the upland areas. Animals provide food, income, savings, draft power, 

transport, and manure. Ruminants in the upland areas can freely graze on native 

grasslands and forests year-round. They are brought back to the village only when they 

are sick or if they will be sold. In lowland areas, livestock are released into the forest 

during the dry season, after which they are taken back to the village to be used for land 

preparation. The agricultural land for each household ranges from 0.5 to 2 ha, 

depending on the availability of labour in each household. Family cash income is mostly 

derived from the sale of animals and occasional crop surpluses (including maize, 

vegetables, cotton, and rice). Other off-farm activities (such as handicraft, off-farm work) 

can also be an important source of income for villages that are not too remote. 

Participatory diagnosis 

Participatory diagnosis was conducted at Ban Thapho. The problems identified by 

farmers (in order of priority) were 

• Animal diseases, especially in pigs and poultry. 

• Shortage of feed for working animals during the planting season. 

• Poor-quality forage during the dry season. 

• Long calving interval (24-30 months). 

Farmers tried to solve these problems by 

• Using vaccination (but only against haemorrhagic septicaemia in buffalo). 

• Storing rice straw to feed their working animals during the planting season. 

On-farm activity 

1996 

• Establishment of regional evaluation of forages managed by farmers. 

• Organising field trips to forage evaluation nursery. 

• Training of farmers on basic forage agronomy. 

1997 

• On-farm work started this year with individual farmers and groups of farmers in five 

surrounding villages. The forages selected by the farmers from the regional nursery 

were B. brizantha CIAT 6780, B decumbens cv. Basilisk, B. ruziziensis, Panicum 

maximum TD58, Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184, and Centrosema pubescens 

cv. Cardillo. 

131


132 

Xieng Ngeun, Luang Phabang 


Xieng Ngeun is one of 11 districts within Luang Phabang Province. It is located about 30 

km to the south of Luang Phabang City. Mountains and hills dominate the area, with 

elevation varying from 300 to 1900 m. The area has mostly been cleared for shifting 

cultivation. Annual rainfall ranges from 1100 to 1800 mm. The dry season lasts from 

November to March, with December to February being particularly dry (about 1-3% of 

total rainfall). Soil is mostly infertile and moderately acidic (with soils on the limestone 

bluffs being more fertile). 


The farming systems in Xieng Ngeun District are based on various practices of rice 

production: (1) subsistence swidden farming system, (2) subsistence paddy rice, and (3) 

mixed swidden and paddy farming systems. Many similarities exist between the farming 

systems of Xieng Ngeun and Chomphet districts. In the upland and mountainous areas, 

farmers cultivate upland rice in swidden fields as the primary crop and staple food and 

often interplant with additional food and cash crops such as maize, cassava, taro, 

eggplant, cucumber, squash, kale, etc. Separate upland fields may be also used for 

maize, ginger, and soybean. Paddy rice is mostly practiced in narrow valley bottoms by 

the Lao Loum ethnic group. Most of the agriculture in the district is rainfed and only a 

small portion is reserved for irrigated dry-season paddy rice. Livestock is an integral part 

of all farming systems. They provide food, income, saving, draft power, means of 

transport, and manure. The dominant livestock are cattle, buffalo, goat, pigs, and 

chickens. The cattle usually graze freely on native pastures in high mountain areas or in 

swidden areas for the whole year and are brought back to the village only for sale. 

Family cash income is derived from various sources but the main source is livestock 

(especially cattle). Occasional crop surpluses (including maize, ginger, vegetable, 

cotton, rice) are sold locally. Off-farm activities include making handicrafts and 

providing labour (but many villages are too remote for this). 


Participatory diagnosis was conducted once in this district at Ban Kieuw Taloun Yai (a 

Hmong village). The problems identified by farmers, in order of priority, were: 

• Livestock disease. 

• Feed shortages in both dry and rainy seasons due to competition for land from 

cropping and shortening fallow periods. 

• High mortality among young animals (falling from high mountains, starvation during 

dry season, cold weather). 

• Animals wandering off and becoming lost or causing damage to other farmers’ 

fields. 

The interventions the farmers have been able to make to minimise these constraints 

include: 

• Vaccination. 

• Regularly visiting and caring for their animals in the grazing area. 

• Growing elephant grass be used as feed in the dry season. 

• Establishing village rules allocating specific areas for grazing and cropping. 


1995 

• A forage evaluation nursery (60 species) was established at Houakhoth. It was 

managed by provincial and district livestock officers. 

1996 

• Establishment of regional nurseries throughout the province; best species planted 

and managed by farmers.


• Farmers were brought to the forage evaluation nursery to see what forage species 

were available and to get feedback on which species looked promising and why. 

• Farmer training on basic forage agronomy was provided. 

1997 

• On-farm evaluation of the best forage species started in May 1997 at six villages in 

the area with both individual farmers and farmer groups. The species included in 

the evaluation are Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780, B. decumbens cv. Basilisk, B. 

ruziziensis, Panicum maximum TD58, Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184, and 

Centrosema pubescens cv. Cardillo. Some farmers have already started to expand 

the area of their preferred species (Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780, B. ruziziensis, 

and Panicum maximum TD58). They are beginning to change their opinions on 

which species they like after seeing the dry season performance. There is 

substantial interest from other farmers to join the evaluations this year and some 

farmers already started to expand their areas. 

Luang Phabang district, Luang Phabang 


Luang Phabang District is located between Chomphet and Xieng Ngeun districts and has 

similar climate, soils, topography, and land use systems. Mountains and hills dominate 

the area, but not as much as in the other two districts. The sloping areas have mostly 

been cleared for shifting cultivation. Annual rainfall ranges from 1100 to 1800 mm. The 

dry season lasts from November to March, with December to February being particularly 

dry (about 1-3% of total rainfall). Soil is mostly infertile and moderately acidic (with soils 

on the limestone bluffs being more fertile). 


The farming systems in Luang Phabang are similar to those in Chomphet and Xieng 

Ngeun. In the upland and mountainous areas, farmers cultivate upland rice in swidden 

fields as the primary crop and staple food and often use additional food and cash crops 

such as maize, cassava, taro, eggplant, cucumber, squash, kale, etc as interplant. 

Separate upland fields may be also set aside for maize, ginger, and soybean cultivation. 

Paddy rice is grown in the valleys of the Mekong and Khan rivers. Livestock is an 

integral part of all farming systems, especially in the upland areas. As in the other 

districts, the animals provide food, income, saving, draft power, means of transport, and 

manure. The dominant livestock are cattle, buffalo, goat, pigs, and chickens. The cattle 

and buffalo usually graze freely in the cropland (dry season only) and among the 

swidden fields. They are generally kept closer to the villages. Family cash income is 

derived from various sources. Being close to Luang Phabang, markets for many 

products exist and livestock plays a less dominant role in augmenting family cash 

income. 


• Participatory diagnosis has not yet been conducted. 


1995 

• A forage evaluation nursery (57 species) managed by provincial and district 

livestock officers, was established at Houakhoth. 

1996 

• A regional nursery of the best species (planted and managed by farmers) was 

established in the district. Farmers were brought to the forage evaluation nursery to 

see what forage species were available and to obtain feedback on what species are 

promising and why. 

• Farmers were given training on basic forage agronomy. 

133


134 

1997 

• On-farm evaluation started without having conducted a PD, as the district livestock 

officer had already identified farmers who appeared keen on planting forages and 

wanted to begin immediately. Seeds of the most promising species were given to 

five individual farmers. The species distributed were Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 

6780, B. decumbens cv. Basilisk, B. ruziziensis, Panicum maximum TD58, 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184, and Centrosema pubescens cv. Cardillo. All 

these farmers have not been successful. This maybe attributed to the lack of 

diagnostic work at the beginning – they were not able to identify problems and 

farmers who are most motivated to solve these problems. 

Nonghet, Xieng Khouang 


Nong Het is located in the western part of Xieng Khouang Province (about 150 km from 

the provincial capital Phonsavanh). The area is mountainous with altitudes up to 2000 m. 

Rainfall data are not available for this district, but it is likely to be in 1800-2000 mm 

range. The dry season lasts from November to March. Soils are moderately fertile and 

moderately acidic (soil pH varies from 5.0 to 5.5). For many years, the land has been 

cleared for shifting cultivation and growing upland rice and other cash crops. 


The communities in Nong Het District are dominated by the Hmong people who cultivate 

valley areas for wetland rice and practise shifting cultivation on slopes, growing upland 

rice and maize. There are also separate upland fields used for maize and soybean 

production. These crops are normally used to feed pigs but are also reserved for human 

consumption in case of rice shortages. The district is well known for its pig production. 

Most communities keep small to moderate-size herd of cattle and buffalo, which graze 

on abandoned upland rice fields, roadsides, and native pasture. The cleared areas 

utilised for grazing on the upper hill slopes are dominated by Imperata cylindrica. 

Livestock provide food, income, slaughter for traditional ceremony, draft power, 

transport, and manure. Goats, pigs, and chickens are also common. Cattle and buffalo 

are normally left in the forest, being brought back only when needed. The main source 

of family cash income is cattle and cash crops. Handicrafts and non-timber forest 

products are also occasional sources of farmer income. 


• Participatory diagnosis has not yet been conducted. 


1997 

• On-farm work commenced here without conducting a PD. The provincial livestock 

officers reported farmers who planted elephant grass to feed their animals at critical 

times of the year, but who were not satisfied with its performance. The provincial 

officers decided to begin work as soon as possible with the species they had seen 

growing in the regional nursery in Lat Sen. On-farm evaluations started with 

individual farmers from two villages participating. The species evaluated were: 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780, B. decumbens cv. Basilisk, B. ruziziensis, Panicum 

maximum TD58, Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184, and Centrosema pubescens 

cv. Cardillo. 

Pek, Xieng Khouang 


Pek District is near the capital of Xieng Khouang Province. The area consists of rolling 

hills interspersed with lowland paddies, savannah, and large areas of grassland. The 

upland areas are cleared for planting upland rice and other crops. The lowland areas are


used for paddy rice. Average rainfall varies from 1000 to 1500 mm. The rainy season 

lasts from April to October. Altitude varies from 800 to 1200 mm. Soil in the grasslands 

is extremely infertile and very acidic (pH 4.0-5.0) but soil in the hills can be neutral and 

relatively fertile (as a result of the underlying limestone). 


Members of the communities in Pek District are often of mixed ethnic origin, mostly Lao 

Loum and Lao Soung with some Lao Theung. Farmers in upland areas cultivate rice 

through shifting cultivation on slopes. Only very small areas of rice are found in narrow 

valleys. In addition to rice, many crops, including maize, soybean, cucumber, taro, 

cassava and peanut are either planted with rice or in separate fields. These crops are 

mostly for home consumption; occasional surpluses are sold in local markets. Most 

villagers keep cattle, buffalo, pigs, and chickens. The cattle and buffalo graze on vacant 

upland rice fields, roadsides, and in large native grassland on mountain tops. The 

cleared area used for grazing on the upper hill slopes are often dominated by Imperata 

cylindrica. In some places, livestock is an essential source of manure for maintaining 

fertility in crop fields. Livestock also provides income, and draft power and is 

slaughtered for traditional ceremonies. In some places, animals are left in the forest 

year-round and brought back to the village only when needed (for land preparation or for 

sale). In other villages, animals are allowed to graze in the high grasslands during the 

wet season but they return to the village to graze on fallow cropland in the dry season. 

Family cash income is derived mainly from livestock and crop surpluses (if there are 

any). Non-timber forest products and hunting are also occasional sources of farmer 

income. 


The on-farm work in Pek District is a collaboration between the FSP, the GTZ 

NAWACOP project (a broad-based rural development project), and the Provincial 

Agriculture and Forestry Office. In 1995 and 1996, detailed PRAs were conducted by the 

GTZ project in eight villages. In all the villages, farmers identified livestock feeding as a 

major concern (after diseases), because of their dependence on livestock for livelihood 

security and manure. In two villages, farmers had already started to plant forages on 

their own initiative. The collaboration with FSP was a result of the outcome of these 

PRAs. 


1997 

• On-farm evaluation of forages began this year with individual farmers in three 

villages ( Ban Sang, Ban Phousy, and Ban Ta). In all locations, Brachiaria brizantha 

CIAT6780, Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk, Panicum maximum TD58, and 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT184 have performed well. These trials have 

generated substantial interest from other farmers (within the same villages and from 

surrounding villages). The number of farmers evaluating forage technologies will be 

greatly expanded in 1998. 

Results and lessons learned after one year of on-farm activities 

The on-farm work described above involves 71 individual farmers and 7 groups of 

farmers in 23 villages. In some locations (especially Xieng Ngeun and Pek districts), 

there is significant and spontaneous demand from farmers for expansion of the 

evaluations in 1998. In most of the on-farm evaluations, Brachiaria brizantha CIAT6780, 

B. decumbens cv. Basilisk, Panicum maximum TD58, and Stylosanthes guianensis have 

performed very well and have been selected as promising by farmers. Before the end of 

the first wet season five farmers and three farmers groups had already expanded the 

forage area. 

135


136 

We have learned some useful lessons from the first year that should help us make 

plans for expansion of activities in 1998. 

1. Careful selection of sites and farmer participants is essential 

We learned that choosing locations and farmer participants very carefully is critical 

to the success of the program. The FSP is working with district development 

workers, most of whom have not had any experience with participatory methods. 

Often, their role is to promote livestock raising rather than try to solve existing 

problems. For this reason, we find that they are sometimes too keen to nominate 

some farmers who do not even own livestock yet but who are just trying to get credit 

to start a livestock business. These are not the farmers who will innovate and 

expand forage technologies to solve the widespread local problems. More 

participatory diagnosis activities will help us understand farmers’ needs and enable 

us to select innovative farmers for on-farm evaluation. 

2. Working with informal farmer groups was not very successful 

In some cases, farmers were keen on planting forages in a single village plot 

controlled by an informal group of farmers. This has not worked well as enthusiasm 

for maintaining and evaluating the forages disappears when farmers have no feeling 

of ‘ownership’. 

3. Evaluations must be done over several seasons 

It is critical that we continue evaluating forages with farmers over several seasons 

rather than for one season. Their preferences will change as they see how species 

perform over seasons. For example, in some of our sites, farmers liked the 

performance of Brachiaria ruziziensis and expanded it to other areas. However, in 

the current dry season it has not performed well. Most farmers now prefer 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT6780 because of its better dry season growth. 

4. More training and planning activities for farmers are needed 

We have not provided farmers with enough basic information about forages from 

the beginning of the evaluations. For example, sowing rates have frequently been 

too high. We need to put more efforts into familiarising farmers with the basic 

features of forages and answering any of their questions before planning what 

evaluations they would like to do. 

5. Opportunities exist for bargaining with farmers 

A possible trap with the participatory approach is that, early in the process, farmers 

may reject technologies with broader, long-term benefits. In these cases, we could 

bargain with farmers to try some technologies that they may not prefer initially but 

which we think have long-term promise. For example, at initial stages, farmers 

almost always select species for intensively managed plots. However, we may also 

see opportunities for forages for gully stabilisation. We should provide the species 

that the farmers want for cut feed, but we should also encourage them to establish 

an area for planting forages to be used for gully stabilisation. 

6. Seed must be made available early 

Last year, at some sites, farmers obtained seed rather late. The start of the wet 

season varies, depending on the area. Farmers use local indicators to decide when 

to plant. We need to supply them with seed early enough so they can decide to 

plant whenever they see fit.


7. On-going, informal training is needed 

Under the project, we have so far focused on formal training (FPR and forage 

agronomy). However, district officers must be provided informal training 

opportunities. Participatory evaluation, for example, is an activity that needs to be 

learned, practiced, and refined. Bringing groups of district officers together to 

practice and revise these skills on-site is both helpful for the evaluations and also 

for building their enthusiasm. These are the people who hold the key to the 

successful development of forage technologies in villages. 

8. The evaluation methodology may have to be improved 

Simply ranking the species does not tell us how much farmers like one species over 

the other. We are trying a modified preference-ranking methodology to include 

‘rating’ of species. The change involves asking farmers to rate how much they like 

each species on a scale of 0-10 (where 0=extremely poor species and 10=excellent 

species). A rating evaluation might look like the example in Table 2. 

Table 2. Example of preference rating. 

Species A 

Farmers 

B C 

Average 

Rating 

Rank 


farmers 

P 8 9 6 7.6 1 3 

Q 7 9 7 7.6 1 3 

R 4 4 4 4.0 3 3 

S 0 - 3 1.5 5 2 

T - - 3 3 4 1 

This will give an indication of the relative performance of the species. It also allows 

for evaluation of different numbers of species by farmers (which is going to be 

common at our sites). 


The farmer participatory research approach requires a substantial commitment of time 

from researchers and development workers. In Lao PDR, the major activities are being 

planned for the next year: 

• Conduct at least one training course on ‘Developing forage technologies with 

farmers’ to increase the skills of district officers. 

• Conduct regular on-site farmer training in forage management . 

• Continue to work with farmers who are currently testing and developing forage 

technologies. 

• Expand the on-farm evaluations in Luang Phabang and Xieng Khouang and begin 

work in Oudomxay, Luang Namtha and Savannaket provinces. 


We are grateful to Mr. Thongvanh, Soukanh, Soulivanh, Situk, Hongthong and Ms. 

Tongbay who worked directly with farmers in Xieng Khouang and Luang Phabang 

provinces. We also acknowledge the collaboration with GTZ in Xieng Khouang and the 

assistance of Peter Horne. 

137


Farmer evaluation of forages in Vietnam: Progress and 

plans 

Bui Xuan An 1 , Le Van An 2 , Truong Tan Khanh 3 , Le Hoa Binh 4 and Bui The Hung 5 

138 

Farmer participatory research with forages began at four locations in Vietnam in 1997. A 

brief description of the four sites is presented in Table 1. The aim of this work was to 

identify which broadly adapted forage species are preferred by farmers and why. 


The descriptions of each of the locations where the project has commenced on-farm 

evaluations are as follows: 

M’Drak, Daklak Province 


M’Drak District is located in the central highlands of Vietnam. Of 196,600 ha, more than 

65,000 ha are Imperata grasslands and ‘bare hills.’ Rolling hills dominate the landscape 

with a high degree of sloping land (>70% of land has a slope >10%). Soil is moderately 

infertile and acidic (pH: 5.0-5.5). The altitude varies from 500 to 900m. Average annual 

rainfall is 2000 mm, with 8 wet months. 

Table 1. Physical characteristics of sites for on-farm forage evaluations. 


(m) 

M’Drak 

Xuan Loc, 

Hue 

Annual 

rainfall 

(mm) 

Wet 

season 


months 

(>50 mm) 

12 o N 500 1890 May-Dec 8 − PH (H 2O): 5.0-5.5 

− Sandy loam 

− Well drained 

− Moderately fertile 

− P deficient 

16 o N 150 2300 Jul-Feb 8 − PH (H 2O): 5.0-5.5 

− Sandy loams 

Ha Giang 22 o N 70 1800 Apr-Nov 8 − PH (H 2O): 5-6 

− Fertility medium 



Tuyen Quang 21 o N 40 1640 Apr-Oct 7 − PH (H 2O): 5-6 

− Fertility medium 




− Shifting cultivation on steep hills 

− Extensive grasslands 

− Home-gardens 

− Small areas of paddy rice in the 

valleys 

− Slash-and-burn cultivation on 

steep hills 

− Light to medium-textured− 

Irrigated rice 

− Well drained − Home gardens 

− Livestock 

1 University of Agriculture and Forestry, Thu Duc, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. 

2 College of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Hue, Hue, Vietnam. 

3 Department of Agriculture, Tay Nguyen University, Buon Ma Thuot, Daklak, Vietnam. 

4 National Institute of Animal Husbandry, Thuy Phuong, Tu Liem, Hanoi, Vietnam. 

5 Vietnam-Sweden Mountain Region Development Program, Hanoi, Vietnam. 

− Wetland rice in the lowlands 

− Forestry 

− Home-gardens of fruit trees 

− Intensive upland cropping 

− Wetland rice in the lowlands 

− Forestry 

− Home gardens of fruit trees 

− Intensive upland cropping



There are two main ethnic groups in M’Drak: the Ede and Kinh. The Ede, a local 

minority group, has been living in the M’Drak area for a long time. Their main farming 

system is shifting cultivation. Maize and upland rice are grown. After 3-4 crops, when 

soil fertility is exhausted, they move to another place. Since 1975, there have been 

attempts by the government to settle the Ede people and discourage shifting cultivation. 

Consequently, the main farming system consisted of replanting forests, keeping livestock 

(mainly cattle), and cultivating intensive annual crops (mainly wetland rice, upland rice, 

maize, and beans). The Kinh people migrated from different areas to M’Drak 10 years 

ago. This group has experience in agricultural production. Their intensive farming 

includes industrial crops (coffee, pepper, rubber), intensive upland cropping, lowland 

rice, and livestock (raising cattle). Most families in the area raise cattle and goats, with 

income from livestock contributing about 30-40% to total household income. The main 

feed resource for cattle is Imperata grassland. Agricultural and forest land was allocated 

to farmers, according to the capability of each family to work that land. Few farmers 

have private land for grazing. Some are now trying to improve Imperata grassland and 

to plant forages to maintain a regular feed for their animals. 

Xuan loc, Thua Thien Hue Province 


Xuan loc commune is located in Phuloc District, Thua Thien Hue Province at 16 o 15’N. It 

is an upland area with an altitude ranging from100 to 300 m and a high proportion of 

sloping land. The original forest vegetation was destroyed by herbicides during the war, 

slash-and-burn cultivation and timber harvesting. Imperata grassland has rapidly 

replaced all areas where forests were destroyed. The total land area of the commune is 

42,000 ha. Of this, cultivated agricultural land occupies only 120 ha, with 30 ha for 

wetland rice and 90 ha for cassava and other upland crops. The climate is monsoonal 

with a short dry season from March to July. Annual rainfall is about 2,600 mm, with 80% 

falling in September-November. Soils are mainly infertile, well-drained sandy loam, with 

pH - (H2O) ranging from 5.0 to 5.5. 


There are two ethnic groups in the commune – the dominant lowlanders (Kinh) and the 

Vankieu. The population of the commune is more than 2,000 people who belong to 450 

households. Lowlanders migrated to this district from the coast in 1976. Many were poor 

fishermen seeking a better future. The Vankieu people migrated from another province 

in the north in the 1980s. The main agricultural activity of the Kinhs is cultivating 

irrigated rice and food crops such as cassava, sweet potato, and beans. The Vankieus 

practice slash-and-burn farming with cassava and upland rice as main crops. With the 

clearing of the forest in the early 1980s, 4,000 ha of communal grazing land (mainly 

Imperata) became available. Cattle number increased rapidly, providing a new and 

reliable source of income, requiring little investment or labour. About 60% of farmers in 

the commune depended on cattle raising for their livelihood. However, deforestation 

also created problems. The intensive rainfall in September-November and the 

steepness of the slopes resulted in erosion problems. In 1993, a reafforestation program 

was implemented. This included a ban on cattle grazing in the reafforested areas. 

Suddenly the increased cattle number and reafforestation efforts left farmers with 

insufficient feed for their animals. Cattle and buffalo are a major source of income for 

most households. There are more than 1600 cattle and 200 buffaloes. Some families 

have 10–30 head of cattle. A few farmers have started to raise goats. Most animals 

graze freely on the Imperata grasslands, with cut native forages provided as additional 

feed. Some locally available by products (rice straw, sweet potato leaf and root, rice 

bran) are also used. 

139


140 

Ha Giang and Tuyen Quang provinces 


Ha giang and Tuyen Quang are located in the northern mountain region of Vietnam. 

Winters are cold with strong winds. Rainfall ranges from 1600-1800 mm (with some 

mountain areas receive as much as 4800 mm). The wet season begins in April and last 

7-8 months. The soils of the mountainous and hilly regions are medium-textured, 

moderately fertile, and well drained. The land use systems are mainly wetland rice in 

lowlands, home gardens with fruit trees, forest plots, and shifting cultivation and natural 

grassland (in a few areas). Cattle and buffalo are kept for sale, meat, and draft power. 

The demand for meat increases at about 6% per year in this northern region, while the 

number of animal is increases only 2-3% per year. Animals graze freely on natural 

grasslands, forest, and fallow cropland during the day and are brought back to the 

houses at night. Some farmers supply extra feed at night, especially during cold weather 

or during ploughing. Feed shortages are becoming severe in these communities. 

Procedures and outcomes of participatory diagnoses 

Xuanloc Commune, Hue 


A PRA conducted at Xuanloc in 1995 showed that livestock provides a vital source of 

income for most villagers. But their major problem is year-round feed shortage because 

of reduced land areas for grazing. In 1996, the College of Agriculture and Forestry in Hue 

conducted a PD of 50 households within the commune. 

Problems identified by farmers, in order of priority, were: 

• Lack of feed for their cattle. Farmers said that their cattle have very low weight gain 

and are thin. Some die during the cold, wet weather. 

• Less land available for grazing. Most land was used for replanting forest trees. 

Animals were forbidden to graze in the new forests. 

• Poor quality of animal breed. The farmers wanted to try crossbred cattle which have 

become common in other districts. 

• Children spend a lot of time taking care of the animals. They do not have enough 

time for their studies. 

• Wandering animals destroy crops. 

• Soil erosion as a result of heavy rain. 

Current coping mechanisms: 

• Feeding animals with agricultural by products. 

• Planting elephant grass for use as cattle feed. 

• Obtaining credit to acquire crossbred cattle. 

• Make plans for forest land use. 

A nursery of forage species established in the commune in 1996 became a useful 

demonstration area. Farmers were able to see what the forage species look like. 

On-farm activities 

1996 

• Established a forage nursery of 53 species. The nursery was set up on 2,000 m2 of 

a farmer’s field. 

• Farmer’s meetings convened to discuss potential use of forages according to their 

farming system. 

• Data collected on growth and development of forage in the nursery every month. 

1997 

• Farmer participation in the nursery evaluation was encouraged to gain initial 

feedback on what species are liked and why. 

• Data collection from the nursery continued.


• 5000 seedlings of Leucaena leucocephala; Calliandra calothyrsus and Gliricidia 

sepium were produced and distributed to eight farmers for evaluation. 

• It was initially planned to begin on-farm evaluation in 1998, but some farmers were 

so keen in getting started that seeds of Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT184; 

Brachiaria brizantha, B. decumbens, B. ruziziensis, and Panicum maximum were 

distributed to eight farmers ahead of schedule. 

1998 

• The number of farmers evaluating the forages will be expanded. 

• A training course on developing forage technologies with farmers was conducted in 

February 1998. 

M’Drak, Daklak 


Participatory diagnosis has not yet been conducted in M’Drak but is planned for April 

1998. However, on-farm work began in 1997 because the FSP local partners have 

considerable experience in the area. Moreover, farmers at the Chu’ kroa commune had 

substantial livestock feeding problems which they were anxious to solve. Chu’ kroa 

commune was established in 1987 by the Kinh migrants from the over-populated areas 

of north Vietnam. The commune consists of 320 families in six villages situated on 

20,000 ha of land. However, the commune has very little rice land (65 ha) and Imperata 

dominates large areas of the hills. After the commune was established, land was 

allocated to farmers according to their capacity to use the land. In this way, families with 

excess labour received more land than families with none. As a result, large differences 

in land area exist: some households have more than 90 ha and others have less than 1 

ha. The primary agricultural activities are upland cropping (cassava, beans, sweet 

potato), forest plots (government pays farmers for maintaining small plots of Eucalyptus 

and Acacia), and livestock (cattle, pigs, chickens and fish). Approximately 1500 head of 

cattle are kept by 90% of the households, with number per household ranging from 1-2 

up to 90 animals. Cattle raising is an essential source of livelihood for these farmers, 

providing income and using land that cannot be used for any other activity (the Imperata 

grasslands). Usually, the cattle graze during the day and are put in pens at night. The 

most common problem mentioned by farmers is the very poor quality of grassland. As a 

result, they have to take the animals over long distances to find green feed each day. 

During the wettest time of the year (November and December), animals are frightened 

by the thunderstorms and become lost. They, therefore, need to keep their animals 

closer to home during this time. 


1995/1996 

• A nursery evaluation (comprising 70 grasses and legumes) was established on a 

farmer’s field in M’Drak District. After two years of evaluation, 20 promising 

(adapted) species emerged. The best species were Andropogon gayanus CIAT 621, 

Brachiaria brizantha (several accessions), Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk, 

Panicum maximum CIAT6299, Brachiaria humidicola (various accessions), 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184, Chamaecrista rotundifolia cv. Wynn and Arachis 

pintoi CIAT 17434. 

• These species were planted in three other regional sites to confirm their broad 

adaptation (one in an area near M’Drak, one at Buon Don, and one at Kontum). The 

broad adaptation of these species was confirmed. The regional evaluations 

generated interest among the local farmer groups who visited the nurseries and 

brought home some planting materials. 

1997 

• Farmers from Chu’ kroa commune visited the forage nursery and identified forage 

species that they want to test. 15 farmers in the commune and 5 farmers who have 

141


142 

been allocated land by the Daklak Livestock Production Company planted these 


• The species planted were Andropogon gayanus cv. Kent, Brachiaria brizantha 

CIAT6780, Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk, Panicum maximum TD58, Brachiaria 

ruziziensis, and Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184. 

• Regular meetings with farmers were held. Some farmers have already begun to 

expand the area that they are cultivating. A significant demand exists from other 

farmers in the commune who have seen these forages growing and who want to 

become involved in the project. 

Ha Giang and Tuyen Quang Provinces 


The work in Ha Giang and Tuyen Quang is conducted in collaboration with the Vietnam 

Sweden Mountain Rural Development Program (MRDP). This program has been going 

on for 7 years. Detailed PRAs were conducted in the target villages over the first 5 

years. A consistent finding was the identification of livestock feed shortage as a major 

problem. As a result, the MRDP invited FSP to participate in forage technology 

development in their target areas. 

The main problems identified by the farmers in raising livestock were: 

• Lack of good animal breeds. 

• Disease. 

• General feed shortages (particularly in the dry season). 

• Lack of cheap feeds for fish and pigs. 

To overcome feeding problems, farmers use many agricultural residues and by-products 

as substitute feed. 


1997 

• Innovative farmers were identified in each location to take part in the evaluation of 

forages for intensive backyard systems. The species originally offered were those 

that performed well in a regional nursery established at the Forestry Research 

Centre in Vinh Phu. These were legumes: Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184, 

Stylosanthes hamata, Centrosema pubescens cv. Cardillo, Centrosema brasilianum; 

and grasses: Brachiaria brizantha CIAT6780, Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk, 

Brachiaria ruziziensis, and Panicum maximum TD58. 

• In Ha Giang, 11 farmers planted forages. However, within the same wet season, 10 

other farmers multiplied the species they liked (vegetatively) and planted these on 

their own land. 

• In Tuyen Quang, a similar situation occurred. Seven households initially planted 

forages and 3 others joined spontaneously using vegetative planting material. 

• Most forages were planted in small backyard plots. Participatory evaluation showed 

that the most preferred species are Brachiaria, Panicum maximum TD58, and 

Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT184. The main reason is that these species can also 

be fed to fish and pigs. 

Conclusions and future activities 

Farmer evaluation of forages began in 1997. At four locations, we have started working 

with a small number of farmers. In the process we have gained a lot of experience in 

using participatory methodologies. These methodologies, though time-consuming, are 

an effective way of working with poor farmers. If we really want to help these poor 

farmers solve their livestock feeding problems, we need to commit ourselves to working 

closely with them over a number of years, not months.


We have learned that, at all sites, there is considerable demand and potential for 

expanding on-farm work in 1998. The species that proved to be broadly adapted include 

Brachiaria brizantha CIAT 6780, Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk, Panicum maximum 

TD58, and Stylosanthes guianensis CIAT 184. 

The activities planned for 1998 include: 

1) Getting more farmers involved in each site. 

2) Expanding to other villages in the target areas. In Ha Giang, we will collaborate with 

World Neighbours in an area where Hmong farmers have started to manage grasses 

and Leucaena to feed their livestock. In Daklak, we will begin collaborative work 

with a GTZ rural development project that has found many farmers who want to 

eradicate Imperata (a problem similar to that in Chu’ Kroa) Also, in Daklak, we will 

start evaluating cover crop species for erosion control in smallholder coffee 

plantations with DANIDA. 

3) Commencing on-farm evaluations in Binh Thuan Province under the supervision of 

the College of Agriculture and Forestry in Ho Chi Minh City. 

4) Conducting regular participatory evaluations of forages at existing sites and new 

sites. 

5) Introducing some potentially promising species for evaluation, including Setaria 

sphacelata cv. Solander (for the north), Chamaecrista rotundifolia for ground cover 

in fruit orchards, earlier flowering lines of Stylosanthes guianensis for the north, and 

Flemingia macrophylla for fish feed. 

6) Conducting a training course on ‘Developing forage technologies with farmers’ (in 

February 1998) and provide follow up field experience and informal training for 

participating farmers. 

7) Training farmers on forage production, management, and utilisation. 

8) Continuing other activities which support our on-farm work, including forage tree 

legume evaluations and seed production in Daklak (OFI), Gliricidia evaluations on 

farm in Quang Ninh province (FAO), and Brachiaria seed production trials in Daklak. 

9) Translating and publishing the manual ‘Field experiments with forages and crops. 

Practical tips for getting it right the first time’. 


The authors thank the following for supporting the program with funds, facilities, and 

staff: the FSP regional program, local villages and districts authorities at all sites, Hue 

University of Agriculture and Forestry, Tay Nguyen University, College of Agriculture, 

(Ho Chi Minh City), National Institute of Animal Husbandry, and all the farmers in the 

various sites. 

143


Developing forage systems with smallholder farmers in 

Malitbog, Bukidnon, Philippines 

Willie Nacalaban 1 

144 

The development of viable forage systems is needed to sustain ruminant production in 

Malitbog. This can only be achieved by making improved forage species available to 

smallholder farmers and working with them to integrate these forages into the existing 

farming system. From the farmers’ perspective, their limited landholdings have to be 

intensively developed for crop production while animal production is usually regarded as 

a by-product which is less important. In the past little effort was made to integrate 

improved forage species because of lack of access to planting materials and the 

perception that livestock has less commercial value than crops. This situation is likely to 

change as policymakers realise the negative influence of increased beef imports on the 

domestic economy. 

As land becomes more and more limiting, the potential for integrating ruminants 

with cash crops will have to be explored. Successful exploitation of these resources 

requires that suitable forage species and management strategies are developed. This 

case study describes how farmers established and evaluated different forage options to 

select a range of forages suited to their situations in Malitbog. 

Forage establishment options 

Rows of forages in crops 

Where time, labour, and capital are substantially limited, smallholders were able to 

integrate forage species with a standing corn crop. After the hilling-up operations, 

species, which were erect and perceived as shade-tolerant, were planted in between the 

corn furrows. Farmers who grew forages this way said that it is practical and 

economical. The system, they added, can provide them with food and their animals with 

feed in just one cycle of land preparation. In some sites, a number of farmers were able 

to establish five or more different grass and legume varieties. 

To ensure food availability, vegetables such as okra and eggplant, were 

incorporated in between rows of cut-and-carry forages. Farmers expected competition 

between lines of Napier, Panicum maximum, Setaria sphacelata and Andropogon 

gayanus and the food crops. Thus, they applied manure to fertilise food and forage 

crops to minimize this competition. 

Almost all farmers involved in the project have expanded their forage area with cutand-carry 

species grown in rows. Forage grasses and tree legumes were planted 

separately in rows adjoining each other or alternately in 10 m rows. One farmer said that 

due to area limitation and personal preferences, cut-and-carry species were wanted more 

than grazing species. Between the cut-and-carry rows farmers can still grow crops such 

as vegetables. 

Plots 

Several farmers involved in the FSP planted cut-and-carry species in separate plots. 

Each farmer has 4 - 5 plots. These forage species were planted along or under banana 

and coconut trees and also in open areas. The farmers grew the various species to 

1 Municipal Agriculture Office, Malitbog, Bukidnon, Philippines.


establish their yield performance and ability to survive. Arachis pintoi, Stylosanthes 

guianensis and Centrosema pubescens may also be noticed as intercrops in some 

cases. 

Arachis pintoi was also planted in blocks, usually in front of the farmer s’ house as 

an ornamental and soil cover. Growing forages in this way not only makes the 

surroundings clean but also provides a feeding ground for ducks which relish on the 

protein-rich flowers and leaves. As a result of this better nutrition, egg production 

doubled. 

Hedgerows 

To arrest soil erosion, which is a major agricultural problem in the community, farmers 

planted Napier as hedgerows. To get more yield, better quality feeds, and reduce 

surface runoff, Calliandra calothyrsus, Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena leucocephala 

(K636) were grown as newly established hedgerows. 

Participatory diagnosis identified problems of soil erosion, low income, and 

inadequate livestock feed. Instituting an option such as planting forages in hedgerows 

has positive consequences in terms of reduced water run off. Though the aim of farmers 

in the earlier stage of FSP is to assure a plentiful supply of livestock feed (almost all 

have established forages in blocks or home gardens for feed availability) efforts to 

establish hedgerows still continue after farmers realize its importance in the long run. 

Conclusions 

The participatory process proved to be crucial in finding solutions to major problems in 

the farming systems. One farmer commented that although the participatory process 

itself is new to them, the whole system itself is understandable. The information given 

helps them to make decisions on forage development objectively. The farmers added 

that the farmer participatory approach faces problems and needs squarely. It also 

encourages positive outlook and advocacy toward a self-reliant farming community. 

145


Farmer evaluation of forages in Indonesia: Progress, 

experiences and future plans 

Maimunah Tuhulele 1 , Ibrahim 2 , Heriyanto 3 , Tugiman 4 , M. Taufiq 5 , A. Heriadi 5 , S. Hasyim 5 , T. Ibrahim 6 , 

R. Hutasoit 6 , Radianto 7 , Z. Tanjung 8 , G. Zainal 9 , Mansur 9 , T. Bustari 9 , Susilan 10 and I. Labantu 10 

146 

Introduction 

On-farm evaluation of forages with the Forages for Smallholders Project commenced in 

East Kalimantan in 1995. Since then farmer evaluation of forages expanded to seven 

sites in East and Central Kalimantan, Aceh, North Sumatra and North Sulawesi. 

Collaborators based at these sites are from Provincial and District Livestock Services, 

and the Agency for Agriculture Technology Assessment, all under the Ministry of 

Agriculture. These institutions have personnel based in the communities where the FSP 

is working (Table 1). 

Table 1. Sites and collaborating institutions of the FSP in Indonesia. 

Site Collaborators 

Saree, Aceh Provincial Livestock Services 

Pulau Gambar, North Sumatra Assessment Institute for Agriculture Technology 

Marenu, North Sumatra Assessment Institute for Agriculture Technology and 

the Transmigration Office of North Sumatra 

Sepaku, East Kalimantan Provincial Livestock Services 

Makroman, East Kalimantan Provincial Livestock Services 

Kanamit, Central Kalimantan Provincial Livestock Services 

Gorontalo, North Sulawesi Provincial Livestock Services 

Collaborators from East and Central Kalimantan worked already with the Southeast 

Asian Forage Seeds Project from 1992 to 1994. All collaborators had experience in 

research and / or development work either with forages or with farmers. 


Table 2 shows the location and brief climatic summary of FSP sites in Indonesia. A brief 

description of soils and the farming system is presented in Table 3. 

Most of the sites are upland areas, except for Pulau Gambar and Kanamit which are 

flat. Kanamit is in an areas which is seasonally flooded and recent efforts to drain the 

area have resulted in large areas of acid sulphate peat soils with extremely low pH. The 

site in Gorontalo is dominated by smallholder coconut plantations with farmers growing 

annual food crops under the plantations. Sepaku is located in Imperata grasslands which 

have partially been allocated to farmers (1-2 ha per farmer). Wild pigs make upland 

1 

Bina Produksi, Directorate General of Livestock Services, Jakarta Selatan. 

2 

Dinas Peternakan TK.l Kaltim, Samarinda, East Kalimantan. 

3 

BPP Sepaku and Semoi, Balikpapan, East Kalimantan. 

4 

Dinas Peternakan Samarinda, East Kalimantan. 

5 

Dinas Peternakan Kuala Kapuas, Central Kalimantan. 

6 

Assessment Institute for Agriculture Technology North Sumatra, Medan, North Sumatra. 

7 

BPP Pulau Gambar, North Sumatra. 

8 

BPP Marenu, Norht Sumatra. 

9 

Dinas Peternakan Aceh, Aceh, Indonesia. 

10 

Dinas Peternakan Gorontalo, Limboto, North Sualwesi.


cropping difficult at this site and farmers rely more on cattle and pepper for cash income. 

Generally, soils are of clay type, with pH varying from very acidic to slightly acidic and 

low to moderate fertility. Topography varies from flat to steep. Altitude ranges from sea 

level to more than 500 m above sea level in Saree, Aceh and Marenu, North Sumatra. 

All sites have farms that are crop-based but livestock play an important role as a 

source of draft, cash income and manure. Often, corn and cassava are the major food 

and crops; rice is cultivated in valleys or flat areas. Farmers in North Sumatra plant fruit 

crops, vegetables and oil palm. Fruit crops, vegetables and peppers are cultivated in 

East Kalimantan. Farmers in Central Kalimantan plant banana, coconut and coffee as 

cash crop. Most farmers in all sites use fertiliser and manure for their crops, and some 

also sell manure. 

Sale of crops is a major source of cash income in all sites. Chicken and goats are 

used for religious ceremonies, festivals, or provide cash for immediate needs, while 

cattle or buffalo is sold when the family needs a large amount of cash; like for schooling, 

weddings, or building a house. In some cases, during dry season, male members of the 

families, go to adjacent towns, working off-farm. All the sites experience an increase in 

area devoted to crop production, thereby reducing the grazing areas available for 

ruminants. 

In most areas, except in Aceh and Central Kalimantan, cattle and buffalo are 

tethered or graze freely on native vegetation in vacant areas during the day with 

basically no or minimal supplementation of salt. Only animals kept in pens or tethered 

near the house for fattening are supplemented with rice bran and extra cut feed. Farmers 

cut native grasses from roadsides, rice fields, forest areas, or near plantation crops, for 

night feeding. In Aceh, large areas of natural grassland are still available, but these are 

in poor condition. Farmers graze their animals on these grasslands, relying solely on the 

vegetation available there. Since forages became available through the FSP, farmers 

grow forage banks near their communal sheds and use this feed for night feeding. In 

Central Kalimantan most of the cattle are kept near the houses and are supplemented 

with grasses cut by the farmers. 

Table 2. General description of FSP sites in Indonesia: Physical characteristics. 

Site Latitude 

Altitude 

(m) 

Annual rainfall 

(mm) 

Wet season 

Wet months 

(>50mm) 

Saree, Aceh 5 0 N 500 1580 Oct - Apr 4-8 

Marenu, North Sumatra 4 0 N 300 2330 Oct - Apr 7-10 

Pulau Gambar, North Sumatra 3 0 N 2000 Oct. - Apr 7-10 

Sepaku, East Kalimantan 1 0 S


148 

Table 3. General description of FSP sites in Indonesia: Soils and farming system. 

Site Soil Characteristics Description of farming system 

Saree, Aceh • Clay-loam 

• Slightly acidic 

• Moderately fertile 


• Flat to steep 

Pulau Gambar, 

North Sumatra 

Marenu, North 

Sumatra 

Sepaku, East 

Kalimantan 

Makroman, East 

Kalimantan 

Kanamit, Central 

Kalimantan 

Gorontalo, North 

Sulawesi 

• Clay 

• Slightly acidic - neutral 


• Poorly drained 

• Flat 

• Clay-loam 

• Extremely acidic 

• Very low fertility 


• Rolling 

• Red-yellow podsolic 

• Very acidic 

• Low fertility 



• Podsolic 

• Very acid 


• Low to moderate 

fertility 


• Acid sulphate peat 

• Clay soils in higher 

areas 

• Extremely acidic soils 

• Seasonally flooded 

• Low fertility 

• Flat 

• Clay-loam 

• Seasonally flooded 


• Flat 

• Intensive upland farming and grassland 

• Crops: corn, sweet potato, peanuts, vegetables, for 

consumption and cash 

• Crops fertilised with manure and inorganic fertiliser 

• Animals: locally-breed beef cattle 

• Grazed native vegetation with salt supplementation 

• Intensive rainfed rice and access to oil palm and rubber 

plantations 

• Crops: lowland rice, vegetables for consumption and cash 


• Animals: sheep 

• Pen-feeding 

• Intensive upland farming 

• Crops: corn, upland rice, vegetables, and oil palm for 


• Crops fertilised with manure 

• Animals: sheep 

• Pen-feeding 

• Large areas of Imperata grasslands 

• Crops: small areas of lowland rainfed rice and small areas of 

upland vegetables (home garden), and upland pepper for 


• Crops are fertilised with manure 

• Animals: beef cattle (Brahman crossbred) 

• Tethered to graze native vegetation during the day, and cut 

and carry for night feeding 

• Mixed lowland rainfed rice and upland crops 

• Crops: corn, rainfed rice (valleys and flat areas), cassava, 

sweet potato, vegetables for consumption and cash 

• Crops are fertilised with manure and inorganic fertiliser 

• Animals: beef cattle and goats 

• Mostly pen-feeding 

• Under lowland rain-fed rice and upland crops 

• Crops: coconut, corn, banana, fruit trees, coffee, vegetables; 

for consumption and cash 


• Animals: beef cattle 

• Animals tethered near the house, and fed cut and carry 

forages during the day and for night feeding. 

• Large areas are under coconuts; upland crops are grown 

under coconuts 

• Crops: coconut, corn, banana, fruit trees, vegetables; for 


• Crops fertilised with manure 

• Animals: beef cattle 

• Animals tethered to graze native vegetation, and cut and 

carry for night feeding. During dry season feeds are bought. 

Some farmers grow a third corn (leave only, no cobs) for 

feeding animals during the dry season.


Procedure and results of participatory diagnosis 

Participatory diagnosis (PD) has been done at all sites. The basis for selecting farmers in 

the activity were their membership in farmer groups that already had a good working 

relationship with the collaborators and their perceived need for forages. Table 4 shows a 

summary of the problems expressed by farmers and those that are being addressed by 

on-farm activities. 

Lack of feed during dry season, poor animal performance and unavailability of 

adapted forage species were problems expressed at most sites. This problem was 

mostly due to increases in animal population and a declining area available for grazing. 

At some sites, a lack of feed during cropping season, when most areas are planted to 

crops, was also a problem. Farmers did not see soil erosion as a major problem, despite 

it being clearly evident at some sites (eg. Saree). Uncontrolled grazing is a problem for 

farmers in Saree and Pulau Gambar where farmers have tried to establish forages which 

were then damaged by animals of other farmers. 

Farmers in East Kalimantan and Marenu expressed a need for new forage varieties. 

These farmers had previously grown giant Napier grass (King grass) or Setaria 

sphacelata var. splendida for their animals. They observed that these species were not 

able to persist under their conditions. 

Table 4. Major problems identified by farmers in Participatory Diagnoses in Indonesia. 

Problem 

Saree 

Lack of feed in dry season + 

✔ 

Uncontrolled grazing + 

Increase in unpalatable weeds + 

Diseases in animals - 

Poor animal performance + 

Unavailability of adapted forages + 

✔ 

Pulau 

Gambar 

+ 

✔ 

Marenu 

++ 

✔ 

Sepaku 

++ 

✔ 

Makroman 

+ 

✔ 

+ - - - - - - + 

- - - - - - - - 

+ + + - - - + - 

+ + + + - - + + 

+ 

✔ 

+++ 

✔ 

1 + = moderate priority; ++ = high priority; +++ = very high priority. 

2 ✔ = Problem is being addressed by on-farm activities. 

+ 

✔ 

+ 

✔ 

Kanamit 

+ 

✔ 

+ 

✔ 

Gorontalo 

++ 

✔ 

+ 

✔ 

Kanamit 

- 

Gorontalo 

++ 

✔ 

- - 

Farmers are coping with the lack of feed by using rice straw and other agricultural 

by-products, taking their animals to far away areas to graze, gathering tree leaves and 

banana trunks, gathering native forages from areas along roadsides, rice fields, or near 

plantation and forest areas, and carrying these to their animals. Some farmers also 

provide salt supplementation. 

149


150 

Activities conducted at the sites 

Activities vary between sites (Table 5). The basic procedure, however, involves 

consulting with farmers (PD and planning), followed by establishment of initial testing 

and multiplication areas, followed by individual testing by farmers on their own land. In 

between these stages, field days, trainings and cross-visits are arranged. Regular 

meetings with farmers were done to exchange experiences (eg. participatory evaluation) 

and maintain the initial testing area. Likewise, farmers were visited to gather feedback. 

The initial testing and multiplication areas were established and managed by farmer 

groups. The decision on which species to try was made in consultation between site 

collaborators and farmers. These multiplication areas were very useful for conducting 

field days and trainings. Farmers could see the species and decide for themselves which 

ones they would like to try on their farms. 

The major basis for selecting farmer-co-operators was their interest and availability 

of land to plant forages. Whenever possible, innovative farmers with leadership and 

communication skills were chosen. 

Distribution of planting materials was done either during field days or by individual 

request. The latter seemed to result in better establishment since the farmers are keen 

and ready to plant before they gets the planting materials. This was done in cases when 

farmers wanted large amount of planting materials. 

On the other hand, farmers always ask and get planting materials during field days. 

In this case, collaborators ask the farmers to plant just a few plants near their houses to 

later serve as source of planting materials if farmers want to expand. 

Table 5. Summary of FSP site activities in Indonesia. 

Saree 

Pulau 

Gambar 

Marenu 

Sepaku Makroman Kanamit Gorontalo 

Type of activity 

Communal – formal 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Individual – formal 1 ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ - ✔ 

Individual – informal 2 ✔ - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Method of planting material distribution 

Field days - - - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

From FSP ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Individual contact - - - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Possible forage types/options 

Grasses for cut-and-carry 

- in hedgerows - - - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

- in blocks ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Grasses for grazing 


✔ - - - ✔ ✔ ✔ 

- for grazing 

- as cover crops 

- for soil improvement 

- as relay to main crop 

✔ 

- 

✔ 

- 

- 

- 

✔ 

- 

- 

- 

✔ 

✔ 

- 

- 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

- 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

✔ 

Tree/shrub legumes 

- in hedgerows - - ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

- in fence lines ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

1 Technicians and farmers together decide on what species and what option to test. 

2 Farmers chose the species and option by themselves.


Progress of forage technology development, evaluation and 

adoption 

Validation of the result of PD was conducted two to three months after the PD. If the 

farmers still expressed their needs for forages, the meeting continued to participatory 

planning. During participatory planing, farmers proposed what they need individually and 

as a group. Later on, the technicians and the field extension workers, assisted by the 

chairman of the group, helped the farmers in setting up their forage plots. 

The pace and progress of on-farm work varied between sites, but most sites are 

now into individual farmer testing (except Aceh), trainings and farmer field days as well 

as participatory evaluation, except legume trees in East Kalimantan and Gorontalo (still 

in early stages of growth) and Central Kalimantan (have not started individual planting). 

Collaborators at all sites report that it takes time for establishing forages on-farm 

with the farmers. Factors like farmers’ access to other cash crops, income sources other 

than livestock, the availability of native species often slow down the process despite 

frequent visits and discussions. 

It is the farmers with a strong need who are the ones establishing forages, even to a 

point where they approach the technicians or pay some money to get planting materials.. 

On the other hand, there are farmers who succumb to peer pressure or to an impulsive, 

but temporary instinct, to get planting materials. Moreover, there are also ‘wait-and-see’ 

types of farmers. 

Farmer visits, field days, trainings and cross-visits were very useful in sustaining 

interest of farmers. It is during these activities that farmers and technicians share ideas, 

learn from each other and plan activities for the next few weeks. 

It was also observed that there were more farmers who obtained planting materials 

in sites where livestock dispersal programs exist. This implies that forage technology 

development would be facilitated if implemented with livestock improvement program. 

Moreover, successful forage establishment was facilitated in cases where strong 

farmer organisations existed. The existence of ‘kelompok tani ternak’ (farmer groups) 

also was a big factor in rapid establishment of forages in individual farmers’ fields. 

Farmers’ feedback 

Farmers reacted well to the participatory approach. They felt involved and free to choose 

whatever species, options and way of establishment they wanted. Involving these 

farmers in field days and in training other farmers has been beneficial for the trainees 

and the farmer trainers as well. 

In terms of individual forage species, farmer preferences varied with sites. At early 

stages (initial testing and multiplication), farmers tended to prefer species which grew 

well and showed good yield potential. Later, other major criteria were palatability, easy 

establishment and management, and persistence during dry season. 

For grazing species, farmers started to realise the value of grazing tolerance (for 

grazing species), ability to spread and produce ground cover and palatability. For 

instance, farmers in East Kalimantan found that Brachiaria humidicola spread fast, 

tolerate close grazing and possess good palatability. Even for cut and carry species, 

farmers in Central Kalimantan found it very useful. 

A farmer in East Kalimantan observed that the meat quality of his cattle improved 

when his cattle grazing this grass. 

Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160 was found to suppress Imperata in Makroman, 

making it a useful cover crop and was palatable to goats and cattle. They also observed 

151


152 

that when they intercropped it with corn and cassava, the taste of the crop did not 

change while the need for fertiliser and weeding decreased, the yield of corn increased 

and the yield of cassava was reduced only slightly. 

Farmers favoured tall and upright grasses like Napier (King and elephant grass), P. 

maximum, Setaria sphacelata var. splendida, Paspalum atratum, Paspalum guenoarum 

and Andropogon gayanus for cut-and-carry, especially because of their good yield and 

palatability. In addition, P. atratum and P. guenoarum were found tolerant to occasional 

flooding and was not itchy when cut, but P. atratum has sharp leaves which may reduce 

its spread. 

Farmers have also observed that legumes like Stylosanthes guianensis 184 were 

not as palatable as grasses for cattle. These cases occurred when these species were 

fed with grasses during wet season. 

Desmodium cinerea (previously called D. rensonii) was found to posses de-worming 

effects in Saree, while Desmodium heterophyllum CIAT 349 died during dry season, 

even though it formed a dense ground cover during wet season. 

Farmers’ management of forages 

As of this stage, many individual farmers in East and Central Kalimantan, and Marenu 

are planting larger areas, while farmers in Pulau Gambar and Gorontalo are still planting 

the species in small plots (either in blocks or short hedgerow lines), either near their 

houses or in portions of their farms. The farmers’ group in Aceh has not yet expanded 

the initial area of the pasture; the species are either grazed or cut and fed to animals 

from time to time. 

The farmers’ group in Saree also planted Panicum maximum, Paspalum atratum, 

and Brachiaria brizantha near the communal shed, and they cut them every 2 – 3 weeks, 

even during dry season. They said that if they let them grow more than 3 weeks, leaves 

are too coarse for the animals. This is also the case with Brachiaria humidicola in 

Central Kalimantan. 

Grasses and shrub/tree legumes were also planted in fence lines. A farmer in 

Makroman started planting Centrosema pubescens CIAT 15160 and Stylosanthes 

guianensis CIAT 184 between the rows of corn and cassava. He then observed that C. 

pubescens preserved the moisture of the soil, suppressed the weed, kept the soil friable, 

reduced the need for fertiliser, as well as providing good feed for his goat. Learning 

these results, his neighbours were excited to try this ‘new technology’ to the point that 

they planted Paspalum atratum between the rows of corn. When they were told that the 

grass may reduce the yield of the corn, they said it did not matter, since they also 

needed the forages for their animals. 

Experiences with participatory evaluation 

Participatory evaluation (PE) has been carried out at most sites. This was done mostly 

in the initial testing and multiplication area. Farmers observed the species and gave 

their comments. In some sites where farmers have planted forages on their own farms, 

farmers’ observations on the forages that they established were also taken. Open-ended 

evaluation and preference ranking were used for PE. 

Farmers answered on characteristics related to the utilisation of a particular species. 

This includes information on yield, palatability, regrowth ability, itchiness, persistence, as 

well as easy management and time saving effect of forages when planted near the 

house.


There is still a need to gain more experience and skills in evaluation techniques like 

probing and asking questions as well as obtaining farmers’ criteria in selection of a 

certain species. In the process of evaluation, a lot of things can happen and the person 

handling the evaluation has to learn how to deal with the situation. These skills only be 

obtained by practice, reflection and training. Every evaluation session is different from 

another. 

Technical issues 

A major issue for expanding on-farm evaluation is the production and handling of seeds. 

At this stage, most of the grasses are established using vegetative planting material. 

Legume species are usually established from seed. The problem is there is no 

commercial production of forage seeds in Indonesia. Government stations only produce 

a small amount of legume seed, due to their location and climatic factors. Moreover, 

there has been no successful seed production attempt at the farmers’ level. With the 

hot, humid climatic conditions in most of Indonesia, it is difficult to store seeds for any 

length of time. This problem needs close attention if rapid expansion of forages is to be 

attained. 

153


Forage research papers 

154


Seed production potential of Brachiaria species in northeast 

Thailand 

Ganda Nakamanee 1 and Chaisang Phaikaew 2 

Introduction 

The northeast region of Thailand, which accounts for approximately one-third of the 

national land area, has a tropical climate with pronounced dry and rainy seasons. The 

mean annual rainfall is 1300 mm with 85% falling from mid-April to mid-October (Shelton 

1982). The majority of cattle and buffalo in Thailand are concentrated in this region. 

Feed shortages are a major concern, especially during the 6-months long dry season 

when livestock are mainly fed rice straw. To ease this problem, Thai research 

organisations have been developing improved forages and appropriate management 

guidelines for their use. As a result, Ruzi grass (Brachiaria ruziziensis) has become 

widespread, primarily because of its high seed yields and ease of establishment. 

However, although seed production is relatively easy, Ruzi is poorly adapted to areas 

with long dry seasons. 

Within the same genus, one species (B. decumbens) has been identified in several 

agronomic trials as having better dry season growth (Thinnakorn and Kreethapon 1993, 

Phaikaew et al. 1996). However, its use in Thailand is constrained by low seed yield 

and poor seed quality (Boonpukdee et al. 1996, Gobius et al. 1996). 

The approach taken in the present study was to screen a larger range of Brachiaria 

accessions for their seed production potential. Accessions with promising seed yields 

will be further tested for their environmental adaptation, with particular emphasis on dry 

season performance. 

Materials and methods 

The experiment was conducted at Pakchong Animal Nutrition Research Centre, 

Nakornratchasima, northeast Thailand (latitude 14 o 42’N, longitude 101 o 25’E, altitude 330 

m, mean annual rainfall 1100 mm – see Fig. 1). Myanmar 

The soil is a red clay with a pH 5.8. 

Lao PDR 

Thirty two accessions of Brachiaria spp., 

 

comprising five species (B. brizantha, B. 

decumbens, B. humidicola, B. jubata and B. 

 

Nakornratchasima 

 

ruziziensis,) introduced from CIAT Colombia, were 

established along with a control (B. ruziziensis). As 

 

Packchong 

 

 

the quantity of seed available was very limited, 

seed was pre-germinated in polyethylene bags in 

May 1996 and transplanted to the field in August 

1996. Plots were arranged in a randomised 

 

Cambodia 

complete block design with three replications. Each 

plot consisted of nine plants arranged in a 0.4x- 

 

0.4m grid pattern. 300 kg/ha compound fertiliser 

(15-15-15) and 60 kg/ha urea were applied at 

 

Malaysia 

transplanting. Plants were cut back after seed Fig. 1. Experimental site. 

1 Division of Animal Nutrition, Department of Livestock Development, Bangkok, Thailand. 

2 Pakchong Animal Nutrition Research Centre, Nakornratchasima, Thailand. 

155


156 

harvest in the first year (Jan 1997) and were sampled for dry matter yield during the dry 

season (May 1997). 

Data collection and seed harvesting 

Dry matter yields during the dry season and at initial flowering were recorded for 

each plot. Regrowth after cutting and drought tolerance were visually estimated. To 

measure seed yield, seed heads were tied together into manageable bunches. When 

seed was almost ripe, the bunches were covered by nylon net bags which remained 

there for the duration of the harvest. Inflorescence density and number of tillers per 

plant were recorded in December 1997. Tiller fertility was expressed as the number of 

inflorescences divided by the total number of tillers. 

Random samples of 15g seed were used to measure seed purity (in accordance 

with ISTA rules for seed testing) and one-thousand seed weight. The pure seed 

component was estimated as the number of caryopses in a sample of 100 spikelets. A 

germination test will be conducted in March/April 1998, and a tetrazolium test will 

determine the viability of seed that fails to germinate. Data on dry matter yield and seed 

yield were recorded only in the second year because of late transplanting in the first year. 


The experiment was conducted in a year of adverse rainfall conditions. The 1997 total 

rainfall was 663 mm, which was only 60% of the long-term mean annual rainfall for 

Pakchong (Fig. 2). This makes the drought tolerance measurements particularly 

relevant. However, seed production is likely to have been adversely affected by 

moisture stress. 

All the accessions established well, but B. humidicola CIAT 16886 and 26149 died 

during the first year. In 1996, only 20 accessions flowered due to late planting (Table 1). 

It is likely that some accessions need a long juvenile phase before they reach their 

critical daylength for flowering. 

In 1997, all accessions flowered except B. brizantha CIAT 16306 (Table1). Flower 

initiation varied from June to October (31-161 after closing cut on 22 May 1997). Ten 

accessions initiated flowers by June, three accessions by July, four by August, five by 

September and seven by October. 

There was a large variation in inflorescence density, noted on 12 December 1997 

(Table 2). Flowering in most species was adequate, except in B. brizantha CIAT 16288, 

CIAT 26566, and B. decumbens CIAT 26297. 

Rainfall (mm) 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Jan 

Feb 

Mar 

Apr 

May 

Jun 

Jul 

Month 

Mean (1986-1995) 

Year 1997 

Aug 

Sep 

Nov 

Dec 

Fig. 2. Mean monthly rainfall (1986-95) and 

monthly rainfall in 1997 at Pakchong.


Table 1. Survival and flowering of 33 Brachiaria accessions. 

Species 

CIAT Accession 

Number 

Survival 

Flowering 

1996 1997 

Brachiaria brizantha 667 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 6387 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 6780 ✔ ✘ ✔ 

“ 16288 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 16306 ✔ ✘ ✘ 

“ 16307 ✔ ✘ ✔ 

“ 16309 ✔ ✘ ✔ 

“ 16311 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 16319 ✔ ✘ ✔ 

“ 16444 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 16463 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 16464 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 16472 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 16488 ✔ ✘ ✔ 

“ 16549 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 16779 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 16827 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 16829 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 16830 ✔ ✘ ✔ 

“ 16835 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 26110 ✔ ✘ ✔ 

“ 26566 ✔ ✘ ✔ 

Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 16497 ✔ ✘ ✔ 

“ 26112 ✔ ✘ ✔ 

“ 26297 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ Brazil ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Brachiaria humidicola cv. Tully ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 6133 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

“ 16886 ✘ – – 

“ 26149 ✘ – – 

Brachiaria jubata 26188 ✔ ✔ ✔ 

Brachiaria ruziziensis ‘Ruzi’ ✔ ✔ ✔ 

157


158 

The seed yield components are presented in Table 2. There was wide variation in 

tiller fertility, from 9% in B. brizantha CIAT 16488 to 68% in B. ruziziensis. The highest 

inflorescence density occurred in B. decumbens CIAT 16497. Inflorescence density was 

not always associated with high seed yield because soil moisture was limiting during the 

flowering period. The number of racemes per inflorescence varied: 2.2 - 9.8 in B. 

brizantha, 2.4 – 7.0 in B. decumbens, 2.6 - 3.7 in B. humidicola, 3.9 for B. jubata, and 4.9 

for B. ruziziensis. 

Table 2. The components of seed yield in Brachiaria species. 

Accessions 


Onset of 

flowering 

Tiller Inflorescence Racemes/ Raceme Spikelet 

fertility density inflorescence length density 

(%) (no./plant) (no.) (cm) (no./cm) 

CIAT 667 5 Aug 34 50 4.0 4.0 7.2 

CIAT 6387 20 Jun 60 75 7.3 2.2 5.5 

CIAT 6780 1 Oct - 1 - 3.4 7 5.3 

CIAT 16288 5 Jun 27 11 3.0 11.6 4.3 

CIAT 16306 x 2 x x x x x 

CIAT 16307 1 Oct - - - - - 

CIAT 16309 20 Sep - - - - - 

CIAT 16311 25 Jun 32 41 5.0 7.0 5.1 

CIAT 16319 25 Oct - - - - - 

CIAT 16444 20 Jun 17 33 3.1 7.6 5.2 

CIAT 16463 20 Jun 29 55 2.6 7.7 5.1 

CIAT 16464 20 Jun 23 54 3.4 7.7 6.1 

CIAT 16472 25 Jun 38 93 2.7 5.2 6.0 

CIAT 16488 14 Jul 9 19 5.4 6.4 6.0 

CIAT 16549 20 Jun 45 100 4.1 5.5 5.6 

CIAT 16779 23 Sep - - 3.2 7.2 3.8 

CIAT 16827 14 Oct 22 22 3.9 9.4 4.7 

CIAT 16829 23 Sep - - 4.0 7.2 4.8 

CIAT 16830 23 Sep 40 39 2.9 7.0 5.6 

CIAT 16835 30 Aug 55 80 3.0 9.8 4.5 

CIAT 26110 28 Oct 13 19 4.5 6.8 4.6 

CIAT 26566 


14 Oct 28 14 4.6 9.6 4.8 

cv. Basilisk 23 Sep - - 4.0 3.3 8.3 

CIAT 16497 27 Jun 57 141 2.4 5.0 7.3 

CIAT 26112 16 Jul - - 3.0 5.8 6.7 

CIAT 26297 14 Oct - - 3.5 6.2 4.8 

BRAZIL 


23 Sep - - 4.6 7.0 5.2 

cv. TuIly 18 Jul 26 61 2.6 4.8 4.0 

CIAT 6133 

Brachiaria jubata 

23 Jun 40 35 3.7 4.2 4.5 

CIAT 26188 22 Aug 56 35 2.8 3.9 7.5 

Brachiaria ruziziensis 5 Aug 68 75 2.6 4.9 9.3 

1 - = data unavailable 

2 x = did not flower


Seed yields are presented in Table 3. Significant differences were observed among 

the 31 accessions. Pure seed yield ranged between 0 and 601 kg/ha. Brachiaria 

ruziziensis and B. brizantha CIAT 16835 were the most productive accessions, yielding 

601 kg/ha. All other accessions produced significantly lower yields, mostly less than half 

of these two accessions. The very high seed production potential of B. ruziziensis has 

been reported earlier (Phaikaew and Pholsen 1993). However, the result for Brachiaria 

brizantha CIAT 16835 was new. 

Table 3. Pure seed yield (kg/ha), 1000-seed weight (g), and caryopsis content 

(%) of 31 Brachiaria accessions. 

Accession 

(kg/ha) 

Pure seed yield 

Relative 

yield 1 

Rank 

1000 seed 

weight 

(g) 

Caryopsis 

content 

(%) 


CIAT 667 43 7 20 5.6 14 

CIAT 6780 249 41 7 7.7 30 

CIAT 16288 75 12 18 7.9 35 

CIAT 16306 0 0 27 0 0 

CIAT 16307 0 0 27 0 0 

CIAT 16309 0 0 27 0 0 

CIAT 16311 150 30 12 7.4 16 

CIAT 16319 9 2 26 7.5 8 

CIAT 16444 0 0 27 0 0 

CIAT 16463 158 26 11 6.9 28 

CIAT 16464 98 16 15 6 12 

CIAT 16472 128 21 13 6.8 14 

CIAT 16488 18 3 23 5.8 7 

CIAT 16549 64 11 19 5.8 12 

CIAT 16779 281 47 6 7 38 

CIAT 16829 286 48 5 7.2 30 

CIAT 16830 220 37 8 7.3 14 

CIAT 26110 15 2 24 8.4 6 

CIAT 26566 28 5 21 7.8 15 

CIAT 6387 333 55 3 7.2 30 

CIAT 16835 601 100 1 7.1 43 

CIAT 16827 


311 52 4 7.5 43 

cv. Basilisk 19 3 22 43 93 

CIAT 16497 168 28 10 6.4 23 

CIAT 26112 178 30 9 5.6 25 

CIAT 26297 86 14 16 9.8 18 

Brazil 


11 2 25 5.6 2 

cv. TuIly 0 0 27 - 0 

CIAT 6133 


84 14 17 4.9 34 

CIAT 26188 102 17 14 5.6 36 

Brachiaria ruziziensis 601 100 1 6.2 41 

LSD (p < 0.05) 171 

1 Pure seed yield (%) relative to the B. ruziziensis control. 

159


160 

Seven accessions produced little or no seed (B. brizantha CIAT 16306, CIAT 16307, 

CIAT 16309, CIAT 16319, CIAT 16444, B. humidicola cv. Tully and B. decumbens 

Brazil). Of these, B. brizantha CIAT 16307, CIAT 16309, CIAT 16444, and B. humidicola 

cv. Tully showed good flowering but failed to set seed. 

From these results, it appears that seed yield was related to flowering time. 

Accessions that flowered during severe moisture stress (June and July) produced low 

seed yields. The exception was B. brizantha CIAT 6387, which had a series of flowerings 

throughout the year. The highest seed yields were obtained from accessions which 

flowered in August, probably because of the better soil moisture conditions. Continuous 

soil moisture availability is one of the factors needed for high seed production in grasses 

(Loch, 1980). 

Dry matter yields over a period of 114 days (27 Jan-22 May) were measured to 

assess forage production potential in the dry period. B. decumbens Brazil was the most 

productive accession, yielding 22.5 t dry matter/ha or 215% of the yield of the control (B. 

ruziziensis). Brachiaria decumbens CIAT 16497, CIAT 26112, and B. brizantha CIAT 

16472 produced yields of about 20 t/ha, or about 200% of the yield of the control. The 

lowest yield was obtained from B. brizantha CIAT 26566 (3.2 t/ha). 

Visual scoring for drought tolerance, conducted during the dry period, revealed that 

B. decumbens cv. Basilisk, CIAT 26112, and CIAT 26297 were the most tolerant, 

remaining green throughout much of the dry season (Table 4). Visual scoring for 

regrowth potential was conducted 7 days after cutting in January 1997 (Table 4). B. 

decumbens CIAT26297, CIAT 26112 and Brazil and B. brizantha CIAT16472 had the 

highest regrowth scores, with fast, dense regrowth after cutting. The regrowth scores of 

22 accessions were superior to that of the control. 

Conclusions 

Based on seed production potential, seven B. brizantha (CIAT 16835, CIAT 6387, CIAT 

16827, CIAT 16829, CIAT 16779, CIAT 6780 and CIAT 16830) and two B. decumbens 

accessions (CIAT 26112 and CIAT 16497) appear promising for northeast Thailand. In 

particular, B. brizantha CIAT 16835 equalled the seed yield of B. ruziziensis. The other 

accessions produced half or less of the pure seed yield of these two high-yielding 

accessions. However, not all of these accessions performed well in the dry season. 

The highest yielding accession in the dry season was B. decumbens Brazil, but this 

accession produced almost no seed. The most promising accessions on the basis of 

both seed yields and dry season performance were: 

B. brizantha CIAT 6387 (which produced 64% of dry matter of the highest yielding 

accession and 55% of the pure seed yield of B. brizantha CIAT 16835) 

B. decumbens CIAT 26112 and CIAT 16497 (which both produced 88% of the dry matter 

yield of the highest yielding accession but produced only about 30% of the pure seed 

yield of B. brizantha CIAT 16835). 

Further monitoring is needed on both seed production and forage production 

potential in the dry season. This trial will be continued in the 1998 season, with the 

addition of 19 more accessions. On-farm trials will start in 1998 using promising 

accessions from this trial, to gain early feedback from farmers about their potential.


Table 4. Drought tolerance, regrowth score, and dry matter yield over 114 days 

in the dry season of Brachiaria species. 

Accession 


Regrowth 

score 1 

Drought 

tolerance 1 

DM Yield 

t/ha Relative 

yield 2 Rank 

CIAT 667 2 4 11.4 51 11 

CIAT 6780 2 4 10.3 46 14 

CIAT 16288 4 4 9.1 40 18 

CIAT 16306 4 2 14.0 62 9 

CIAT 16307 1 2 8.6 38 19 

CIAT 16309 2 1 8.4 37 20 

CIAT 16311 3 3 8.3 37 21 

CIAT 16319 2 1 7.4 33 22 

CIAT 16444 1 3 3.4 15 26 

CIAT 16463 2 3 12.1 54 10 

CIAT 16464 1 4 14.8 66 6 

CIAT 16472 5 4 20.5 91 2 

CIAT 16488 3 3 11.5 51 13 

CIAT 16549 1 3 6.7 30 23 

CIAT 16779 1 2 9.4 42 16 

CIAT 16829 3 4 9.2 41 17 

CIAT 16830 1 4 5.8 26 24 

CIAT 26110 2 2 11.1 49 12 

CIAT 26566 1 4 3.2 14 27 

CIAT 6387 3 4 14.5 64 7 

CIAT 16835 3 3 9.2 41 17 

CIAT 16827 


4 3 4.7 21 25 

cv. Basilisk 3 5 17.1 76 5 

CIAT 16497 4 4 19.8 88 4 

CIAT 26112 5 5 19.8 88 3 

CIAT 26297 5 5 13.1 58 9 

‘Brazil’ 


5 4 22.5 100 1 

cv. TuIly 1 3 10.2 45 14 

CIAT 6133 


2 3 8.8 39 19 

CIAT 26188 2 4 14.2 63 8 

Brachiaria ruziziensis 1 3 10.5 47 15 

LSD (5%) 9.1 

1 

Visual scores: 1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = fair, 4 = good, 5 = excellent. 

2 

DM yield (%) relative to the highest yielding accession (B. decumbens Brazil). 

161


162 


The authors thank Dr. Werner Stür and Dr. Peter Horne for their advice and support. 

Thanks are also due the Director of the Division of Animal Nutrition, and the Director and 

staff of the Pakchong Animal Nutrition Research Centre who through their support, 

contributed greatly to the success of the study. 

References 

Boonpukdee, W., Udchachon, S., Phoophasoock, T. 1996. Effect of some plant 

hormones and boron on seed production of Signal grass (Brachiaria decumbens). 

Annual Report, Division of Animal Nutrition, Department of Livestock 

Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. p173 - 181. 

Gobius, N.R., Phaikaew, C., Pholsen, P., Rodchompoo, O., Susena, W. 1996. Effect of 

varying rates of nitrogen on seed production components of Brachiaria decumbens 

cv. Basilisk, Andropogon gayanus cv. Kent, and Digitaria milanjiana cv. Jarra. 

Final Report, Pasture Research Chiang Yuen Animal Nutrition Station, 

Mahasarakarm, Thailand. 

Loch, D.S. 1980. Selection of environment and cropping system for tropical grass seed 

production. Tropical Grasslands 14:159 - 168. 

Phaikaew, C. and Pholsen, P. 1993. Ruzi grass (Brachiaria ruziziensis) seed production 

and research in Thailand. In: Chen C P, Satjipanon C (eds.). Strategies for suitable 

forage-based livestock production in Southeast Asia. Proceedings of the Third 

Meeting, FAO Regional Working Group on Grazing and Feed Resources of 

Southeast Asia, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 31 Jan-6 Feb 1993, FAO, Rome, Italy. p 

148 - 173. 

Phaikaew, C., Udchachon, S., Pholsen P. and Chompoosor B. 1996. Annual forage yield 

from mixed and pure pasture of Ruzi and Signal grasses. Annual Report, Division 

of Animal Nutrition, Department of Livestock Development, Ministry of Agriculture 

and Cooperatives. p 148 - 159. 

Shelton, H.M. 1982. The physical and socio economic environment for pasture and beef 

production in northeast Thailand. 1981-82 Annual Report, Khon Kaen University 

Pasture Improvement Project, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon 

Kaen, Thailand. p 4 - 7 

Thinnakorn, S. and Kreethapon, I. 1993. Demonstration trial on suitable backyard 

pasture utilization for small dairy farms in Pakchong. In: Chen C P and Satjipanon 

C (eds.). Strategies for suitable forage - based livestock production in Southeast 

Asia . Proceedings of the Third Meeting, FAO Regional Working Group on 

Grazing and Feed Resources of Southeast Asia, Khon Kaen , Thailand, 31 Jan- 6 

Feb 1993, FAO, Rome, Italy. p 59 - 62.


Evaluation of Stylosanthes species for resistance to 

anthracnose and suitability for leaf meal production 

Liu Guodao, Zhuo Jiasuo, Bai Changjun and Hong Caixiang 1 

Stylosanthes species very important legumes in South China which are used for green 

cover, leaf meal production, and pasture improvement. New accessions of the 

Stylosanthes species have been introduced from the Centro Internacional de Agricultura 

Tropical (CIAT, Colombia), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 

Organization of Australia (CSIRO, Australia) and CIAT/IRRI (Philippines). Together with 

four Chinese Academy of Tropical Agriculture Sciences (CATAS) released varieties as 

controls, these accessions were evaluated in an experiment to determine their resistance 

to anthracnose and their suitability for leaf meal production. 


The accessions included in the experiment are listed in Table 1. 

Table 1. Stylosanthes spp. used for leaf meal production. 

Accession Source of seed 

S. capitata multiline 5 B. Grof 

S. capitata/S. macrocephala GC 1580 CIAT 

S. guianensis CIAT 10417 CIAT (Philippines) 

S. guianensis CIAT 11833 CIAT 


S. guianensis CIAT 136 China (from CIAT in 1982) 



S. guianensis CPI 55848 CSIRO 



S. guianensis CPI 87830 CISRO 

S. guianensis cv. Cook China (from Australia in the early 1980s) 

S. guianensis cv. Cook (L1-82) CSIRO 

S. guianensis cv. Graham China (from Australia in the early 1980s 

S. guianensis cv. Graham (L7-84) CSIRO 

S. guianensis cv. Mineirao CIAT 

S. guianensis cv. Semilla negra China, selected from CIAT 184 

S. guianensis FM05-1 CIAT (Philippines) 




S. guianensis FM9405 Parcela 3 CIAT 




163


164 

Table 1 (cont.). Stylosanthes spp. used for leaf meal production. 

Accession Source of seed 

S. guianensis GC 1578 CIAT 



S. scabra cv. Siran (L3-93) CSIRO 

S. scabra cv. Seca China (from Australia in the early 1980s 

S. guianensis CIAT 184 China (from CIAT in 1982) 

S. hamata cv. Verano China (from Australia in the early 1980s) 

S. guianensis L8 China, selected from CIAT 184 

S. guianensis E3 China, selected from CIAT 184 

The experiment was designed as a randomised complete block with three 

replications. The experimental units were 5-m-long, single-row plots, 1.5 m apart. 

Anthracnose damage was visually estimated every month (Table 2). 

All plots were cut three times a year to measure dry matter yield. Seed was 

harvested at the end of each season to measure seed yield. 


Table 2. Anthracnose damage ratings. 

Rating Symptoms 

0 no visible disease symptom 

1 1-3% of tissue is necrotic 









Most of the accessions have no visible disease symptom or have very low anthracnose 

severity visual scale (Table 3). Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Cook (CATAS) and S. 

guianensis cv. Cook L1-82 were nearly destroyed by the disease at the seedling stage. 

Stylosanthes scabra cv. Seca, S. guianensis cv. Mineiro, S. guianensis CIAT 11844, 

S. guianensis FM07-2, S. guianensis L3 98, S. guianensis, 58719, S. guianensis L8, S. 

guianensis E3, S. guianensis CIAT 184, S. guianensis cv. Semilla negra, S. hamata cv. 

Verano, S. guianensis CIAT 184 (CATAS), S. guianensis FM03-2, S. guianensis CIAT 

10417, S. guianensis FM05 3, and S. guianensis GC1578 Parcela 3, showed very strong 

resistance to anthracnose, while S. guianensis cv. Graham L7 84 was destroyed by the 

disease in the second year. S. guianensis cv. Graham (CATAS), S. guianensis 87830 

scored very high in the anthracnose severity visual scale. 

1 Tropical Pasture Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Tropical Agriculture Sciences, Hainan, P.R. China.


Table 3. Mean anthracnose damage rating, biomass yield and seed yield. 

Accession 

Mean Anthracnose Damage 

Seedlings Year 1 Year 2 

Dry matter 

yield 

(kg/plot) 

S. capitata / S. macrocephala GC 1580 0 1 0.4 0 3 

Seed 

yield 

(g/plot) 

S. guianensis CIAT 10417 1 1 1 0.2 0.1 

S. guianensis CIAT 11833 1 1.3 1.2 4.0 0 


S. guianensis CIAT 136 2 2 2 10.5 43 



S. guianensis CPI 55848 2 1.2 2.2 1.4 7 

S. guianensis CPI 58719 0 0.9 0.3 1.0 0.1 



S. guianensis cv. Cook 9 4.7 6.1 1.0 12 

S. guianensis cv. Cook (L1-82) 6 7.8 6.9 1.4 3 

S. guianensis cv. Graham 1 1.5 5.5 6.0 226 

S. guianensis cv. Graham (L7-84) 1 1.2 6.8 2.3 18 

S. guianensis cv. Mineirao 0 0.8 0.3 10.6 0 

S. guianensis cv. Semilla negra 2 1.9 1 18.2 25 

S. guianensis FM05-1 0 1.3 0.6 1.1 172 

S. guianensis FM05-2 0 1.3 0.3 0.1 96 

S. guianensis FM05-3 1 1.3 1 3.4 104 

S. guianensis FM07-2 1 1.3 1 3.4 240 

S. guianensis FM9405 Parcela 3 2 1.4 1.3 5.0 187 



S. guianensis GC 1578 1 1.1 1 1.8 162 

S. guianensis GC 1579 3 4.2 2.9 7.2 152 

S. guianensis GC 1581 2 2.1 2.2 17.3 0.1 

S. scabra cv. Siran (L3-93) 0 1.2 0.3 3.21 6 

S. scabra cv. Seca 0 1 0 6.3 11 


S. hamata cv. Verano 1 1 1 1.4 104 

S. guianensis L8 0 1.2 0.6 9.0 21 

S. guianensis E3 1 1 1 5 315 

In the early part and toward the end of the year, the plants showed very low disease 

severity visual scores (Table 4). In June, July, August, and September very high disease 

severity scores were noted. 

Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Semilla negra, S. guianensis CG1581, S. guianensis 

CIAT 184 (CATAS), S. guianensis cv. Mineirao, S. guianensis CIAT 136, and S. 

guianensis L8 had very high dry matter yield. Those of S. capitata/S. macrocephala GC 

1580, S. guianensis FM05-3, S. guianensis CIAT 10417 and S. capitata Multiline-6 had a 

very low yield. 

Stylosanthes guianensis E3, S. guianensis FM03-2, S. guianensis cv. Semilla 

negra, S. guianensis FM9405 Parcela 3, and S. guianensis FM05-1 showed very high 

potential for seed production, while S. guianensis FM9405 Parcela-6, S. guianensis cv. 

165


166 

Mineirao, S. guianensis CIAT 11844, and S. guianensis 87830 cannot get seed in the 

second year. 

Eighty percent of S. guianensis CIAT 11833, 50% of S. guianensis FM05-3 and S. 

guianensis FM9405 Parcela-6, and 40% of S. guianensis CIAT 11844 and S. guianensis 

FM9405 Parcela-5 died in low temperatures (


Some natural and induced grasslands of the Lao PDR 

JB Hacker 1 , Soulivanh Novaha 2 and Vanthong Phengvichith 3 

The raising of livestock is a major industry in the Lao PDR. Livestock is not only a major 

source of livelihood security for rural families but also livestock exports contribute 

approximately 15% to gross domestic product. The Lao Department of Livestock and 

Fisheries is therefore interested in supporting and promoting this industry, particularly 

ruminants (Sihanath 1995). Currently, all of the ruminant livestock (cattle, buffalo, and 

goats) of Laos are raised by farmers in rural communities. The AusAID-funded Forages 

for Smallholders Project (FSP) is contributing to the improvement of ruminant production 

through the introduction, development, and distribution of high-yielding, adapted forage 

species and promoting their adoption by smallholders through participatory techniques 

(Stür et al. 1995, Hacker and Kerridge 1997). 

Although the adoption of high yielding, adapted forages should make a substantial 

impact on livestock productivity, most production will continue to be dependent on 

traditional feed sources, including natural and induced grasslands and savannas. There 

is therefore an interest in the production potential of these grasslands and savannas, the 

extent to which they have been degraded, and the relative abundance of the more 

productive and palatable species. This led to a request to the FSP to assemble botanical 

information on the grasses of Lao PDR, with particular emphasis on pek savannas 

(dominated by the dwarf bamboo known as ‘pek’) and the grasslands of Xieng Khouang 

Province. The results of surveys covering these two regions have been published 

(Hacker et al. 1997, 1998), and the present paper provides an overview of findings. 

Why are there grasslands in tropical Lao PDR? 

Southeast Asia is more typically a region of forests than of grasslands and savannas. 

The presence of these vegetation types is likely to be due to environmental constraints, 

or previous management, that has prevented a forest cover from developing. In Lao 

PDR, environmental constraints include a long dry season and low soil fertility. 

Management effects include burning, cultivation, and fire. The presence of natural 

grasslands does not necessarily indicate a rich grazing resource, but may indicate that 

the soils are too poor to support a forest cover. This is apparently the case on the Plain 

of Jars, Xieng Khouang, where poor calving percentages and extremely low animal 

production are attributable to low soil fertility, with very low phosphorus (P) percentages 

(Gibson 1997), rather a grass flora comprising species which are intrinsically low in 

quality. 

Pek savannas 

Pek savannas occur in Lao PDR south of about latitude 17 o N, and at altitudes up to 

about 500 m. They have an understorey which is dominated by two species of dwarf 

bamboo, previously known as Arundinaria ciliata and A. pusilla and since 1990 known as 

Vietnamosasa ciliata and V. pusilla. This new genus includes a third species, V. 

darlacensis, restricted to southern Vietnam (Nguyen To Quyen 1990). Vietnamosasa 

pusilla is known as pek in Thailand and Lao and grows in dry dipterocarp forest from the 

1 ATFGRC, CSIRO Tropical Agriculture, 306 Carmody Rd, St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia. 

2 Northern Cattle Station, Lat Sen, Xieng Khouang Province, Lao PDR. 

3 Department of Livestock and Fisheries, P.O. Box 811, Vientiane, Lao PDR. 

167


168 

Korat Plateau in Thailand to Vietnam. 

Vietnamosasa ciliata, known as 'chote' 

in Thailand, ‘chawd’ in Lao, is larger 

than 'pek', and grows wild in any open 

place in dipterocarp forest throughout 

the same range (Sujatmi Dransfield, 

pers. comm. to J. Veldkamp). 

Twenty sites where pek was a 

significant component of the 

herbaceous vegetation were examined 

during the survey (November 1995). 

These ranged from relatively small 

areas of several hectares to extensive 

areas of many square kilometres. In 

general, areas which were more remote 

from habitation, and hence from 

grazing, had an understorey which was 

close to 100% dominated by 

Vietnamosasa pusilla, growing to 

heights of 1.6 m tall. Few other species 

of grass could tolerate this level of 

competition, together with the shade 

from the trees. These species were all 

growing to heights of 2 m or more. In 

areas which had evidently been 

subjected to heavier grazing, low 

shrubs tended to dominate the 

Fig. 1. Location of surveyed grasslands in Lao PDR 

understorey, together with a few lower 

growing grasses (Table 1). In tracks 

and pathways, grasses were annuals or weakly perennials (checks), producing large 

numbers of seed, thus ensuring success at reestablishment. 

Table 1. Some grasses characteristic of pek savannas (Species tabulated are those considered 

to be of more value to livestock – after Phengvichith and Hacker 1997). 

Competition from pek 

Strong Moderate 

Heteropogon triticeus a 

Schizachyrium sanguineum a 

Themeda arundinacea a 

Sorghum nitidum a 

Andropogon chinensis 

Chionachne ?koenigii 

a 

Heteropogon contortus a 

Isachne globosa a 

Diectomis fastigiata a 

Eulalia trispicata a 

a 

Generally considered a useful species for livestock. 

b 

In areas subjected to heavy grazing. 

Xieng Khouang 

Tracks and bare areas Glades 

Aristida cumingiana 

Gymnopogon delicatulus 

Eragrostis brownii 

Eragrostis tremula 

Schizachyrium brevifolium 

Chrysopogon aciculatus b 

Germainia capitata 

Germainia ?khasyana 

Paspalum scrobiculatum 

A very diverse province, much of Xieng Khouang is not readily accessible. Hacker et al. 

(1998) recognised four agro-ecological zones: the Plain of Jars, the Pine Tree Zone, the 

Upland Zone, and the Valley Zone. The latter zone, being of more significance to 

cropping than to livestock, was not surveyed.


The Plain of Jars 

As defined by Hacker et al. (1998), the Plain of Jars is a plain 1,100 m above sea level 

and is probably an old lakebed. It is a natural grassland, devoid of trees. Soils are 

acidic, with a high aluminium saturation, and are low in nitrogen and phosphorus (Table 

2). Areas close to the provincial capital of Phonsavanh were too heavily grazed for 

botanical analysis. In other areas, the flora was dominated by Themeda triandra, which 

comprised 70-90% of the vegetation, with other grasses as minor components of the 

vegetation (Table 2). Small valleys and other areas protected from grazing commonly 

include tall-growing species such as Themeda intermedia and Sorghum nitidum. 

The Pine Tree Zone 

The Pine Tree Zone is a hilly area to the west, south and east of the Plain of Jars. It 

includes forested areas dominated by conifers Pinus merkusii and P. kesiya and areas 

where trees are occasional or absent, which are presumed to have been cleared of 

forest. Soils are similar to those of the Plain of Jars (Table 2) and, where cleared, 

support a generally similar grass flora, dominated by Themeda triandra (Table 3). In the 

one forested area surveyed, Eulalia phaeothrix was the dominant grass, with a range of 

herbaceous legumes which were absent in nearby cleared areas. 

Table 2. Soils (0-10 cm) of the Plain of Jars, Pine Tree Zone, and Upland Zone of 

Xieng Khouang (Hacker et al. 1998). 

pH (1:5 water) 

NO3 (mg/kg) 

P (Colwell) (mg/kg) 

Al saturation (%) 

Plain of Jars Pine Tree Zone Upland Zone 

4.9 (4.8-5.0) 

0.6 (0.2-1.3) 

2 (2-3) 

77 (74-79) 

4.9 (4.7-5.2) 

3.0 (0.4-10.8) 

2 (1-2) 

62 (43-81) 

5.4 (4.7-7.7) 

14.9 (0.4-58.5) 

7 (3-15) 

34 (0-79) 

Table 3. Some grasses characteristic of the Plain of Jars and open grasslands in 

the Pine Tree Zone. 

Dominant species 

Minor species 

Palatable Palatable when young Unpalatable 

Themeda triandra Eulalia spp. Hyparrhenia diplandra 

Hyparrhenia newtonii 

Sorghum nitidum 

Arundinella nepalensis 

Arundinella setosa 

Cymbopogon nardus 

The Upland Zone 

The Upland Zone is extremely variable in topography, geology, and soils (Table 2), with 

some soils as infertile as those on the Plain of Jars and others alkaline and fertile. 

Altitude is up to 2,450 m; the sites surveyed were restricted to 1,000-1,450 m, owing to 

difficulty of access to higher altitudes. 

The only true grasslands seen in the Upland Zone apparently resulted from previous 

management. These were either grasslands comprising almost pure stands of Imperata 

cylindrica or small areas of heavily grazed grass in the vicinity of villages. A high 

proportion of the Upland Zone is subject to slash-and-burn farming for the production of 

upland rice, maize and other crops. 

169


170 

Table 4. Some grasses characteristic of the Upland Zone. 

Palatable 

Often growing in full sun 

Palatable when young Unpalatable 

Shaded (palatable) 

Leersia hexandra a 

Imperata cylindrica Miscanthus floridulus 

Thysanolaena latifolia Neyraudia arundinacea 

Saccharum spontaneum 

Themeda arundinacea 

b Centotheca latifolia 

Cyrtococcum accrescens 

Microstegium spp. 

a 

swamps 

Panicum spp. 

b 

in Xieng Khouang, considered to be palatable when young. 

While not being actively farmed, this land has varying proportions of native grasses, 

shrubs, and trees, with shrubby weeds Chromolaena odorata, Tithonia diversifolia, and 

Artemisia sp. frequently being dominant components of the vegetation. In these 

situations (and also in Imperata grasslands), large tussocks of the robust grasses 

Neyraudia arundinacea, Thysanolaena latifolia, Miscanthus floridulus, and Saccharum 

spontaneum are significant features of the vegetation. Other frequently encountered 

grasses are listed in Table 4. Some Upland Zone grasses only occur in moderately 

shaded conditions; these include palatable grasses such as Panicum and Isachne spp., 

and grasses of forest margins which scramble over vegetation in order to access better 

lit situations, such as Microstegium spp. and Panicum sarmentosum. Most grasses under 

shaded conditions are reputedly palatable to livestock, although most do not yield a high 

biomass. 

Heavily grazed areas in the Upland Zone tend to be dominated by stoloniferous 

grasses or low-growing tussock grasses (Table 5). A high proportion of the unpalatable 

Sporobolus indicus is indicative of serious overgrazing and reduced productivity. Similar 

grasslands almost certainly occur at lower altitudes, as all the species listed in Table 5 

are widespread. 

Table 5. Some grasses of heavily grazed areas in the Upland Zone. 

Dominant/subdominant 

Palatable species Unpalatable species 

Axonopus compressus 

Chrysopogon aciculatus 

Paspalum conjugatum 

Occasional 

Sporobolus indicus Cynodon dactylon 

A comparison between the grass floras of pek savannas and 

Xieng Khouang 

Although not geographically widely separated, the grass floras of the Plain of Jars 

(together with the Pine Tree Zone), the Upland Zone, and the pek savannas were 

radically different. As the surveys were of short duration, some species present in the 

three regions would not have been collected. However, although 66 grass species were 

collected in Xieng Khouang and 41 species (excluding bamboos) in the pek savannas, 

only 14 species were common to the two regions. The most notable variations were the 

complete absence of Heteropogon spp. from Xieng Khouang and of Miscanthus, 

Neyraudia and Saccharum spp. from the pek savannas. These differences reflect 

variation in climatic and edaphic adaptation of the species, differences which are also 

likely to occur with introduced forage species.

Some general principles 


It is frequently possible to obtain information about the environmental conditions of a site 

and its management history from the species present, and their abundance. Several 

examples come from the present studies: 

• Some grass species are indicative of degraded, infertile soils and overgrazing. 

These include Schizachyrium brevifolium and Aristida cumingiana. 

• A high proportion of unpalatable grasses, such as Sporobolus indicus, in a pasture is 

likely to be associated with overgrazing. 

• A high proportion of low shrubs in pek savannas is likely to be indicative of long 

periods of heavy grazing. However, Vietnamosasa ciliata appears not to be 

susceptible to heavy grazing pressure over periods of up to 4 years (Gutteridge 

1985). 

• In Xieng Khouang, dominance of Themeda triandra in grasslands is indicative of 

extreme infertility (this is not necessarily the case in other regions). 

Opportunities for improving production from Lao grasslands 

Opportunities for improving pek savannas without total replacement of the native 

vegetation appear to be limited. In northern Thailand, Vietnamosasa ciliata provides 

reasonable forage in the early wet season and after fire, but quality rapidly declines. 

Attempts to introduce exotic legumes into pek savannas (following tree removal and 

slashing) were unsuccessful, the legumes failing to persist for more than 2-4 years 

(Gutteridge 1985). The slashing treatment also failed to result in a long-term increase in 

the proportion of native grasses other than bamboos. The best opportunity for improving 

production from pek savannas in Lao PDR is probably to maintain undisturbed areas of 

pek savanna as a sustainable resource, while fully improving smaller areas around 

villages with introduced grasses and legumes such as Brachiaria decumbens and 

Stylosanthes spp. In northern Thailand, liveweight gain per hectare was four times higher 

from improved pasture than from pek grasslands, whether or not any attempt had been 

made to improve the pek grasslands (Gutteridge et al. 1983). Also in Thailand, 

supplementation of cattle grazing pek grasslands with salt doubled liveweight gain, this 

being an inexpensive treatment which could be recommended in Lao PDR. 

On the Plain of Jars and in the Pine Tree Zone, the dominant grass is Themeda 

triandra, a species which is widely accepted as being a high-quality and productive grass 

for grazing (Bogdan 1977), although not always persistent in grazed pastures (Mannetje 

and Jones 1992). As the soils are so P-deficient, any improvement will necessitate P 

input into the system. Improvement in ruminant production will be limited by the low P 

status of the soils, rather than the intrinsic quality of the grass. Management will need to 

avoid fertility transfer (through corralling cattle and using manure for cropping), and 

hence further reduction in soil fertility. However, the tendency in some countries for T. 

triandra not to persist with moderate to heavy grazing is a matter of concern. 

In the Upland Zone, many native grasses are used by smallholders as cut-and-carry 

feeds. Many are locally and widely known to be palatable species. However, these are 

growing naturally, often at some distance from smallholder farmsteads. For cut-and-carry 

systems, adequate areas of planted forage close to homesteads would reduce the time 

and effort required for a smallholder to feed his stock. One farmer was already doing 

this, of his own initiative, with the annual Coix lacrima-jobi. Productive and leafy exotic 

forages could be used, but there could also be opportunities for planting local species of 

grass. The species selected for this purpose should be those which are high-yielding and 

retain a high percentage of leaf throughout growth. The late-flowering Thysanolaena 

latifolia is a species which could be considered for this purpose. 

171


172 

Acknowledgement 

We are grateful to AusAID for the provision of funding through the Forages for 

Smallholders Project. 

References 

Bogdan, A.V. 1977. Tropical Pasture and Fodder Plants. Longman, London. 

Gibson, T. 1997. The plain of jars: an example of phosphorus deficiency for forages and 

livestock. SEAFRAD News 4: 2. 

Gutteridge, R.C. 1985. The productivity of native grasslands oversown with legumes and 

grazed at five stocking rates in northeast Thailand. J. of Agric. Sci., 104: 191-198. 

Gutteridge, R.C, Shelton, H.M., Wilaipon, B. and Humphreys, L.R. 1983. Productivity of 

pastures and response to salt supplements by beef cattle on native pasture in 

northeast Thailand. Trop. Grassl. 17: 105-114. 

Hacker, J.B. and Kerridge, P.C. 1997. The Forages for Smallholders Project – aims, 

activities and achievements. In: Stür, W.W., Ed. Feed resources for smallholder 

livestock production in Southeast Asia. CIAT Working Document No. 156. Centro 

Internacional Agricultura Tropical, Colombia. 

Hacker, J.B., Simon, B.K. and Phenvichith, V. 1997. The pek savannas of the Lao 

People’s Democratic Republic. Genetic Resources Communication No. 23. CSIRO 

Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia. 

Hacker, J.B, Phimphachanhvongsod, V., Novaha, S., Kordnavong, P., Veldkamp, J. and 

Simon B K 1998. A guide to the grasses of Xieng Khouang Province, Lao PDR, 

and some notes on the ecology of grazing lands in the province. Genetic 

Resources Communication No. 28. CSIRO Tropical Agriculture, St. Lucia, 

Queensland, Australia. 

Mannetje, L. ‘t and Jones, R.M. (eds.) 1992. Plant Resources of Southeast Asia. 4. 

Forages. Pudoc: Wageningen, The Netherlands. 

Nguyen To Quyen. 1990. New taxa of bamboo (Poaceae, Bambusoideae) from Vietnam. 

Bot. Zhurn. 75: 221-225. 

Sihanath, G., 1995. Forage development in Lao PDR. In: Wong, C.C. and Le Viet Ly 

(eds.). Enhancing sustainable livestock-crop production in smallholder farming 

systems. Proceedings of the Fourth Regional Working Group on Grazing and Feed 

Resources in Southeast Asia, Nha Trang, Vietnam, 20-24 Mar 1995. p 17-23. 

FAO, Rome. 

Stür, W.W., Horne, P.C., Hacker, J.B. and Kerridge, P.C. 1995. The Forages for 

Smallholders Project. In: Wong, C.C. and Le Viet Ly (eds.) Enhancing Sustainable 

Livestock-Crop Production in Smallholder Farming Systems. Proceedings of the 

Fourth Regional Working Group on Grazing and Feed Resources in Southeast 

Asia, Nha Trang, Vietnam, 20-24 Mar1995. FAO, Rome. p. 63-66.


New forage developments in Bali, Indonesia: Arachis pintoi 

as a cover crop and Calliandra calothyrsus for cattle 

fattening 

I Ketut Rika1 

Calliandra Calothyrsus (Calliandra) provides fuel, shade, soil stabilisation, and feed for 

ruminants in several villages in Bali (Kintamani, Besakih, Petang, Pempatan, Rendang 

and others). These villages are located in upland areas above 500 m altitude with good 

rainfall. Calliandra was introduced to Bali some time between 1970 and 1975, after the 

eruption of Mount Agung in 1963. At the beginning, it was introduced for reforestation in 

areas in the south and west of Mount Agung. Calliandra grew very well and spread on 

sloping lands on the foothills of Mount Agung. At present, Calliandra has spread out 

from the forestry area into the farmers’ fields and is planted by farmers, mostly as living 

fences, for feed for cattle and for firewood. 

Calliandra can grow on low-fertility soil, grows throughout the year in high rainfall 

areas and is not attacked by psyllids. For feeding of ruminants, Calliandra is used in the 

cut-and-carry system. It has now spread from the Besakih area (region of Karangasem) 

to other areas bordering the Besakih village. 

Recent research in Australia showed that the digestibility and voluntary feed intake 

of Calliandra was higher for fresh than for dried or wilted material (Palmer et al. 

1994). In Bali, the farmers feed Calliandra fresh to cattle as soon as it is cut. The 

taxonomy, botanical description, phenology, and breeding system of Calliandra are well 

covered in the literature (Wiersum and Rika 1992). 

Arachis pintoi cv. Amarillo, known as Kacang Pinto in Bali, was first evaluated in 

1988-89 in small plots (2-m x 2-m) at Pulukan village in Bali, as one of the species from 

37 legumes and 35 grasses (Rika et al. 1990). Kacang Pinto was one of the species 

selected from the evaluation, and this was based on its good growth and ability to grow 

well in shade (about 50-60 % shading). All selected species were evaluated in a larger 

area at the same site (Pulukan village) under a coconut plantation. Kacang Pinto was 

found suitable under shade in plantations (50% light) as well as a cover crop (Rika et al. 

1994). 

Kacang Pinto has also shown high potential as a cover crop in coffee, banana, oil 

palm, macadamia and hearts of palm (Cruz et al. 1994). It was found capable of 

controlling weeds and fixing large amounts of nitrogen. In Bali, Kacang Pinto has been 

used as cover crops under orange plantations at Bangli (about 700 m above sea level). 

It is presently evaluated in Petang (30 km north of Denpasar, about 600 m above sea 

level with average rainfall of 3000 mm/year) as forage (in cut-and-carry system with dual 

purpose as forage and cover crop under cassava). The evaluation aims to observe 

effect on cattle weight, as well as on cassava growth and tuber production. Smallholder 

farmers are interested to adopt Kacang Pinto both as a cover crop and as a forage. 

Kacang Pinto is not only eaten by ruminants but also by pigs and kampong chickens. 

This adds to its potential for adoption by small farmers. 

1 FAPET, Udayana University, Jl. P.B. Sudirman, Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia. 

173


174 

Spread and use of Calliandra as forage in Bali 

After Mount Agung erupted in 1963, most of the villages around it were swept by lava or 

covered by sandy material. Since 1970, the forest and the farm land bordering the forest 

area were replanted by trees and forage. For food purposes, smallholder farmers tried to 

plant cassava. To plant cassava, they had to dig out the sand first (30-40 cm depth) to 

find the top soil. 

In the forestry area, the government planted Calliandra in 1980. The Forestry 

Department contracted smallholders farmers to look after the plantation trees (mainly 

Pinus trees) which had been planted by government at the border area (just beyond the 

land belonging to farmers), at the southern and western parts of Mount Agung (mainly 

around Besakih village). As compensation, the farmers were allowed to plant Calliandra 

and Pennisetum grass under Pinus trees and to harvest the branches of Calliandra and 

Pennisetum grass regularly for forage (seeds of Calliandra and planting materials of 

Pennisetum were provided by the government). This system has been successful up to 

now and has spread to other villages bordering the forest in the other areas in Bali 

(Bangli, Gianyar, Badung, and Tabanan at 700 – 1,100 m above sea level). 

Farmers currently plant Calliandra in their land as live fence together with 

Pennisetum grass planted at about 2 m width from the fence. As a live fence Calliandra 

produces about 1.8 - 3 t dry matter per km of fence in 10 months (Wiersum and Rika 

1992). The spread of Calliandra was through the efforts of farmers themselves, upon 

learning that Calliandra was good forage for cattle. 

Table 1. Production of major tree/shrub legumes used in five areas of Bali. 

Tree/shrub legume Badung Tabanan Gianyar Bangli 

Gliricidia 

16.3 

Leucaena 

1.0 

Calliandra 

0.2 

Erythrina 

2.3 

Source: Forage Survey in Bali, 1992 

(Dry Matter yield in tonnes/year) 

12.0 1.9 8.5 

8.3 0.4 2.1 

7.1 13.9 17.8 

14.1 2.2 7.8 

Karangase 

m 

Table 1 shows the amount of tree/shrub legumes produced in five areas of Bali. 

Bangli has the highest production of Calliandra, followed by Gianyar and Tabanan. 

Calliandra is the second most popularly used tree forage after Gliricidia despite the fact 

that it was the most recently introduced species. 

Utilisation and benefits of Calliandra 

Calliandra is used both as forage and firewood by farmers. Trees of Calliandra planted 

in 1985 at Besakih were sampled and measured for wood production (Table 2). 

Table 2. Wood production of Calliandra at Besakih. 

Yield component 

When cut 4 

times a year 

6.3 

0.4 

1.3 

1.0 

When cut at the 

onset of flowering 

Tree diameter (cm) 20.5 23.5 

Tree height up to branches (m) 2.0 2.5 

Fresh weight of young branches and leaves (kg) 5.1 5.9 

Fresh weight of branches for fire wood (kg) 0.8 5.5


Farmers cut Calliandra 3 – 4 times a year. If more branches are needed for fuel, 

they wait until Calliandra produces flowers. Because of lack of knowledge and extension 

efforts from the government, legumes are not always used as a source of high-protein 

feed for cattle. Calliandra and Pennisetum grasses are only given in the dry season. 

During the rainy season, when Pennisetum and other pioneer grasses grow very well, 

some farmers use these for feed and Calliandra is cut for fuel. 

Calliandra is eaten by cattle when fed fresh. If wilted, it is not eaten, and the leaflets 

drop to the ground. In addition to Calliandra, Erythrina leaves are also fed to cattle and 

farmers around Besakih boil 2 – 3 kg sweet potato, mix it with water, and give this 

mixture to cattle every 2 days. In most cases, feed for fattening cattle in Besakih 

consists of 70-80% Calliandra and Pennisetum; the remainder being pioneer grass, 

broadleaf weeds, and sweet potato pulp in drinking water. Farmers who fatten two head 

of cattle can earn Rp 2,000,000 – 2,500,000 per year from cattle sales. In addition, they 

can earn about Rp 75,000 per year from manure sales. 

Cattle in the Besakih area command a higher price per kg than cattle from other 

areas in Bali and often win national competitions for best animals (Table 3). 

Table 3. Winners in the 1991 National Cattle Contest (Balinese cattle) at Magelang. 

Rank Growing Bull Growing Female Bull Male 

First prize Besakih a 

Rendang 

696 kg 

a 

Pempatan 

260 kg 

a 

Panasan 

800 kg 

a 

410 kg 

Second prize other area from 

outside Bali 

Third prize 

Pempatan a 

(700 m) 

650 kg 

a Villages at foothills of Mount Agung near Besakih. 

Source: The Livestock Services in Bali, 1996. 

other area from 

outside Bali 


outside Bali 

Arachis pintoi a cover crop 

Bangli a 

647 kg 


outside Bali 

Blega 

449 kg 


outside Bali 

After 6 years of research in Bali, Kacang Pintoi was identified as having good potential 

as forage and ground cover. As a result, Kacang Pinto has spread to 15-20 villages in 

northern Denpasar. These villages are located in a relatively dry upland areas, about 

600 – 800 m above sea level with annual rainfall about 2,500 – 3,000 mm. 

Kacang Pinto has a high degree of shade tolerance (up to 50 % light), and has 

shown high potential as a cover crop (Rika et al. 1994). It has shown good capacity to 

control weeds and can fix large amounts of nitrogen. Kacang Pinto has been used as 

cover crop in orange plantations in demo plot area in Bangli (700 m above sea level). 

Because of its high degree of shade tolerance, Kacang Pinto finds application not only as 

a pasture legume in tree plantations but also as a ground cover (cover crop) in plantation 

(Cook 1992). Release of nutrients (N,P,K and Ca) from the litter of Kacang Pinto is 

extremely rapid (Thomas, 1994). 

As a cover crop Kacang Pinto has been used in coffee, banana, and oil palm. 

Preliminary research on the crop has indicated its general capacity for weed control, as 

175


176 

well as nematode control in tomato and coffee. Other uses include soil protection, soil 

improvement and as ornaments in urban areas, (Cruz et al. 1994). 

Kacang Pinto therefore has potential to contribute to physical and chemical 

improvement (as well as protection) of the soil to supply nutrient, and to increase feed 

availability and organic matter production. Research in Bali, using Kacang Pinto, 

Stenotaphrum grass (cv. Floratam and ex. Vanuatu) as cover crop in cassava, showed 

that Kacang Pinto on its own did not reduce cassava tuber yield significantly (Table 4). If 

grown with grasses, cassava tuber yields were affected. On the other hand, forage 

production was increased. 

Table 4. Production of cassava (tuber and leaves + young stem) and composition and 

production of cover crop (1 st and 2 nd harvest) 1 . 

Treatment 

Cassava leaves and 

young stem yield 

(DM g/plant) 

Tuber yield 

(DM g/plant) 

Botanical composition 

(%) 

Forage Yield 

(DM t/ha) 

H-1 H-2 H-1 H-2 H-1 H-2 H-2 

Control (cassava only) 114 143 505 745 0 0 1.6 

Cassava with 

- K. Pinto 

- Weeds 

Cassava with 

- K. Pinto 

- Floratam 

- Weeds 

Cassava with 

- K. Pinto 

- Vanuatu 

- Weeds 

Cassava with 

- K. Pinto 

- Vanuatu 

- Floratam 

- Weeds 

108 152 559 681 - 

93 

7 

145 89 617 461 - 

78 

12 

10 

132 73 515 407 - 

72 

22 

6 

162 63 482 377 - 

47 

32 

21 

1 1 st harvest in 9-months-old cassava (after 1st harvest, cassava is replanted in the same hole). Cover crop was 4 

month old. 2 nd harvest in 10-months-old cassava. Cover crop was 14 month old. Plot size: 5 m x 5 m. Cassava 

planted at 1 m x 1 m. Forage harvest 3 times in 10 months. 

As a cover crop, Kacang Pinto forms very good stolons and also produces a lot of 

seed in the soil. At Manado and Bali (Surabrata), Kacang Pinto plots were burned in the 

dry season without any stolons left behind. At the beginning of the rainy season many 

young seedlings grew from seeds in the soil. 

Arachis pintoi as forage 

In Bali (Pulukan area), Kacang Pintoi established in mixtures under coconut plantations, 

were found to be very resistant to heavy grazing (Rika et al. 1994). In vitro digestibility 

varied from 60 to 76%, N content ranged from 2.5 to 3 %, and P was in the 0.18 – 0.37% 

range (Cook 1992). Kacang Pinto (Arachis pintoi) pasture has resulted in increased live 

weight gains 20 - 200% and milk yields (17 - 20%) compared with pasture consisting of 

- 

88 

12 

- 

94 

6 

0 

- 

71 

26 

3 

- 

60 

32 

8 

4.4 

3.9 

4.2 

4.0


grass alone. Highest gains occurred when there was 30% legume in the pasture. Even 

in heavily grazed pasture and in the dry season, live weight gains are higher in pasture 

with A. pintoi than in pasture with grass alone (Cruz et al. 1994). 

Annual liveweight gains in pasture with A. pintoi have ranged from 160 to 

200kg/head/year and from 250 to 600 kg/ha depending on the species of the companion 

grass and the dry season stress existing in the location (Lascano 1994). 

References 

Cruz, R. de la, Suares, S. and Ferguson, J.E. (1994). The contribution of Arachis pintoi 

as a ground cover in some farming systems of tropical America. In: Biology and 

agronomy of forage Arachis, CIAT. 

Cook, B.G. 1992. Arachis pintoi Krap and Greg., nom. pud., PROCEA, 4, Forages. 

Pudoc Science Publishing Wageningen. P 48-50. 

Lascano, C.E. 1994. Nutritive value and animal production of forage Arachis. In: 

Biology and agronomy of forage Arachis, CIAT. 

Mendra, I.K., Rika, I.K., Suarna, I.M., Kaca, I.W., Mullen, B.F. and Stür, W.W. 1994. 

Grass – legume mixture for coconut plantation in Bali. Integration of ruminants 

into plantation systems in Southeast Asia. (ACIAR Proceedings. No. 64). 

Rika, I.K., Mendra, I.K., Nurjaya, M.G., Oka and Oka Mgusti. 1990. New forage species 

for coconut plantations in Bali. Forages for plantation crops, ACIAR Proceedings 

No.32. 

Rika, I.K., Kaca, I.N., Stür, W.W. and Mullen, B.F. 1994. Pasture establishment and 

grazing management in Bali. Observations from the Pulukan grazing trial 

(Integration of ruminants into plantation systems in Southeast Asia. (ACIAR 

Proceedings No. 64. 

Palmer, B., Macqueen, D.J. and Bray, R.A. 1994. Opportunities and limitations in 

Calliandra, ACIAR Proceedings No. 57. 

Thomas, R.J. 1994. Rhizobium requirements, Nitrogen fixation and nutrient cycling in 

forage Arachis (Biology and agronomy of forage Arachis CIAT. 

Wiersum, K.F. and Rika, I.K. 1992. Calliandra calothyrsus Meissn. PROSEA 4, 

Forages. Pudoc. Science Publishing, Wageningen. p. 68-70. 

177


The use of Leucaena leucocephala in farming systems in 

Nusa Tenggara, eastern Indonesia 

Jacob Nulik 1 

178 

Nusa Tenggara consists of three provinces -- East Timor, East Nusa Tenggara, and 

West Nusa Tenggara which are a group of islands in eastern Indonesia known as 

Kawasan Timur Indonesia (KTI). 

The province of East Timor lies in the western part of Timor island, stretching 

between 125 o and 127 o 19’ S. The northern part is bordered by the Wetar Strait, the 

eastern part by the Maluku Sea, the southern part by the Timor Sea, and the western 

part by East Nusa Tenggara. It has a total area of 14,609 km 2 and is administratively 

divided into 13 Kabupaten (districts), 62 Kecamatan (subdistricts), and 442 villages. 

East Timor is in the tropics. The southern part is influenced by climate conditions in 

Australia, where the lowest temperature can reach 18 o C in June-August, the maximum 

temperatures 32-34 o C, and annual rainfall is 800 to 1500 mm. In the southern coastal 

areas, average annual rainfall is in the 1500-2000 mm range, while it could reach 2500 

to 3000 mm in the mountain region. Potential areas for animal grazing can be found in 

Kabupaten Kovalima, Manufahi, Viqueque, Lautem, and Baucau dan Bobonaro (IPPTP 

Comoro, 1997). 

The East Nusa Tenggara Province lies between 12-18 o S and 118-125 o E. It is an 

archipelago with 156 islands; 4 are large islands (Timor, Flores, Sumba, and Alor) and 

the remainder are small islands which may or may not have inhabitants. 

Administratively, this province consists of 12 Kabupaten and 1 Kotamadya, with a 

total area of 47,350 km 2 and a population of about 3.3 million people in 1993. The 

climate is influenced by its geographic position, which is between the Flores Sea and the 

Indian Ocean. The southern parts are drier than the northern parts. The dry condition is 

significantly influenced by the dry wind blowing from the Australia continent. The island 

of Flores, which lies quite far from Australia, generally, has better rainfall than Timor and 

Sumba islands. Based on the analysis of Pramudia et. al. (1997) East Nusa Tenggara in 

general has single rainfall pattern (91%). This indicates a clear difference between total 

rainfall in the rainy season and that in the dry season. Double rainfall patterns were only 

found in some places (6%) such as at Bajawa and Weluli (Kabupaten Belu), Lewa 

(Kabupaten Sumba Timur) and at Palla and Medakalada (Kabupaten Sumba Barat) 

(Basuki et al. 1997). The double pattern indicates no clear differences between rainy 

and dry season, although rainfall is not evenly distributed in all years. 

The province of West Nusa Tenggara consists of two large islands, Lombok and 

Sumbawa. Total area is around 20,153 km 2 , with Lombok having around 4,738 km 2 

(23% of province size) and Sumbawa, 15,414 km 2 (77%). The province has a tropical 

climate. Maximum temperature is 33.2 o C and minimum temperature is 19.0 o C, with 

maximum relative humidity of 93-98% and a minimum of 48-65%. The average rainfall 

ranges from 1000 to 2000 mm/yr with 36-86 rainy days/year; 4-5 months are wet months 

and 7-8 are dry months. The dominant soil types are Complex Regosol, Lithosol, 

Mediterranean, and Rendzina which cover 67% of West Nusa Tenggara. The rest (23%) 

of the soils consists of complex brown forest and nonalcic brown; the remaining 10% 

consist of alluvial, Grumosol, and Andosol types. The soils are grouped into Alfisols, 

Entisols, Inceptisols, and Vertisols. The agroecology characterized is by dry land with 

1 BPTP, Jl. Tim Tim K. 32, Naibonat, Kupang NTT, Indonesia.


dry climate, especially in Sumbawa Island and in the north and south parts of Lombok 

(IPPTP Mataram, 1997). 

The development and use of Leucaena leucocephala in the farming system are 

much more pronounced in East Nusa Tenggara, especially in Amarasi on Timor island 

and Sikka on Flores Island. There are some small areas in West Nusa Tenggara and 

East Timor through where L. leucocephala can be seen. This paper focuses on the two 

locations mentioned. 

Farming systems in Nusa Tenggara 

Except for those in Lombok island in West Nusa Tenggara and Flores Island in East 

Nusa Timor, which have better rainfall and where the agricultural sector has been 

intensively managed, Nusa Tenggara farmers are subsistence farmers. They work to 

obtain enough food to support their family and only a small amount of production is sold 

to earn extra income for their daily needs. 

Livestock industry 

Nusa Tenggara plays an important role in the supply of beef as well as breeding animals 

to other areas of Indonesia. Bali cattle are one of the leading ruminant livestock 

exported from Nusa Tenggara. In Lombok Island, West Nusa Tenggara, the cattle 

industry is currently engaged in cross breeding with larger size cattle such as Aberdeen 

Angus and Simmenthal Sumbawa, on the other hand, is the source of pure Bali cattle. 

East Nusa Tenggara is concentrating on Bali cattle in Timor and Flores islands, 

while Ongole cattle are produced on Sumba island. In Timor, extensive cattle raising is 

mainly practiced in the eastern part where more land is available for grazing and only 1 

or 2 animals are tethered per farm household for fattening. Animals are sold whenever 

the farmer needs cash. This region provides breeding cattle for other parts of the island. 

Meanwhile, at Amarasi, cattle are mainly tethered for fattening. In Sumba Island, cattle 

are extensively raised and allowed to graze in native grasslands. 

East Nusa Tenggara exported up to 50,000-70,000 cattle per year for beef and 

breeding animal. These cattle come mainly from Timor. However, with the increasing 

occurrence of Brucellosis, fewer breeding cattle are exported now from Timor. East 

Timor’s Bali cattle industry is just developing. It has good potential for raising the breed. 

The use of Leucaena leucocephala in farming systems 

Development of Leucaena leucocephala 

Leucaena leucocephala is well known by farmers in Timor, East Nusa Tenggara. This 

legume/tree shrub was introduced in the 1930s. At that time, under the strong rule of the 

Amarasi King (Raja Koroh), farmers in Amarasi were obligated to plant L. leucocephala 

in rows in an effort to get rid of Lantana camara weeds in the region. Farmers practicing 

shifting cultivation were not allowed to move to another land until they establish 

Leucaena in the former land. The short variety of common Leucaena (also called 

shrubby Leucaena) used in this activity had been widely distributed in the west part of 

Timor by the 1960s, especially around Kupang (the provincial city of East Nusa 

Tenggara) and was an important source of firewood. Planting was still encouraged 

through primary school students in Kupang who facilitated seed collection. 

This practice of Leucaena planting was well undertaken and became a specific 

system of farming in the Amarasi region. It became known as the Amarasi model. By 

the 1970s, large areas in Amarasi were covered by L. leucocephala and the Dinas 

Peternakan (Government Livestock Services) started promoting cattle fattening through 

179


180 

the introduction of the PUTP system Panca Usaha Ternak Potong or Five Efforts in Beef 

Cattle Fattening). By this time, the ‘K-number’ varieties of L. leucocephala from the 

University of Hawaii, were starting to be widely used. Planting of the K varieties started 

in early of 1960s at Flores Island. The district of Sikka used the local variety, while the K 

varieties were grown at about the same time in Amarasi, Timor. The system of planting 

is currently known as the Sikka model. 

A detailed history of Leucaena development in East Nusa Tenggara was described 

by Piggin and Parera (1984). Planting of Leucaena in West Nusa Tenggara was done 

mainly through seed production programs started by IFAD at the sub-district of Sekotong 

in Lombok where L. leucocephala cv. Cunningham from Australia was used. However, in 

as much as many areas in Lombok, especially the rice fields are intensively cultivated, 

farmers are more interested in planting Sesbania grandiflora along the rice bunds. This 

legume provides less shade so beans such as Dolichos lablab may be planted under the 

trees. On the other hand, a Leucaena stand makes heavy shade, thus preventing any 

other plant to grown under it. 

With the arrival of Heteropsylla cubana (psyllid insect) in 1986-87 many L. 

leucocephala areas have been greatly reduced and alternative legume trees have been 

planted to support animal production in the region. Recently, however, Leucaena in 

Nusa Tenggara seems to have made a good recovery and is again being considered an 

important fodder plant in the region besides Sesbania grandiflora, G. sepium, and Acacia 

angustissima and lesser species in use such as Calliandra calothyrsus, C. tetragona as 

well as other fodder sources from non-legume trees such as Macaranga tanarius, 

Hibiscus tileaceus, and Ficus spp. 

Practical use of Leucaena in farming systems 

Initially, planting of L. leucocephala was done by establishing thick rows of Leucaena 2-3 

m apart in poor degraded lands (mainly hilly) with contour arrangement. After 3-4 yeas 

of planting of L. leucocephala, a good cover is achieved, and the land was then used for 

planting food crops such as maize, peas, and other preferred crops. In the model, the 

rows of L. leucocephala were cut to the ground level. The materials cut (leaves and 

wood) were used as animal fodder and firewood or left in the field and burned when dry. 

Leucaena transformed this degraded land into fields suitable for food crop cultivation. 

When the soil condition improved, farmers started to grow banana, coconut, and other 

useful food crops. This turned degraded Lantana camara land to arable land for the 

Amarasi farmers. 

As years went by, the area became thick with L. leucocephala but farmers continued 

to cultivate the land using row plantings of Leucaena or land that was already covered by 

a thicket of Leucaena where rows could no longer be identified. Such slash-and-burn 

systems are still practiced in many areas in Amarasi today. 

In the 1970s, as the ‘K varieties’ of Leucaena were being introduced, farmers in 

Amarasi began to use these taller varieties. In the Sikka model, Leucaena was planted 

in wider rows (5-6 m apart) and the land in the alley was used for planting food crops. 

No slash-and-burn cultivation was introduced. Livestock was thus of secondary 

importance to farmers in Sikka, where only a few owned cattle. By the 1980s intensive 

cattle raising become popular in Sikka, before the arrival of psyllids. The Psyllid forced 

farmers to use alternative trees such as G. sepium and C. calothyrsus. In some places 

of Flores (Manggarai), Timor (TTS), and East Sumba (Lewa), farmers are used 

Leucaena as a shade tree for coffee plantations (Momuat et al. 1990). 

With the close distance between rows in the Amarasi system, better control of soil 

erosion was observed. Also, farmers spent less time in weeding their crops because 

weeds were effectively controlled.


Animal fodder 

In the past, Amarasi farmers used L. leucocephala leaves alone. In some places where 

water was scarce, banana stems were fed to the animals. This practice is still being 

followed today. 

Farmers in Amarasi still practice fallow systems using land grown with local 

Leucaena. A family with 5-7 members can manage to fallow 2-4 ha of Leucaena land to 

grow corn and peas and to establish 1.5-3 ha of forage garden grown 2-3 m apart in rows 

of mixed legumes such as L. leucocephala (K varieties), G. sepium (local) and Sesbania 

grandiflora. This forage garden is usually established 2-3 km from the farmers’ house 

and is used as source of fodder from the middle to the peak of the dry season when it is 

difficult to get enough forage for the tethered animals. During the rainy season, many 

diverse varieties of fodder can be obtained – native grasses (Sorghum timorensis and an 

annual Pennisetum spp.) or introduced grasses (P. purpureum) or Pennisetum hybrids 

mixed with Leucaena leaves (local or K varieties). The current practice of forage 

cultivation may still be improved through the introduction of other grasses into the rows 

of the legume trees which grow better in shade such as Panicum maximum and 

Andropogon gayanus (Nulik 1996). At present, only native grasses such as the annual 

Pennisetum spp. and S. timorensis occupy the rows; they can only produce fodder during 

the rainy season. 

The daily weight gain of Bali cattle under the fattening system in Amarasi can reach 

up to 0.4-0.5 kg/day (Field 1988; Ataupah 1983) which compares with 0.1-0.2 kg/day 

under natural range conditions in Timor (Field 1988). 

Future use of Leucaena 

Although Leucaena in Nusa Tenggara has made a good recovery, farmers, have learned 

that there is a need to plant a larger variety of species of tree legumes. Varieties of 

psyllid-resistant Leucaena also have been tried and evaluated in Timor Island (in 

Besipae) and some promising species/varieties have already been identified for further 

development (Piggin et al. 1982). However, because of lack of seeds and the scant 

information given to farmers, these species/varieties are still not adopted by farmers in 

the region. 

Research on Leucaena establishment in various types of soils in Timor and possible 

forage production has been conducted by Field (1988). Thus, a technology exists for 

growing the legume under Nusa Tenggara conditions. 

Leucaena planting in other areas of Nusa Tenggara is promising – the legume may 

be grown in the eastern part of Sumba and eastern part of West Timor in East Nusa 

Tenggara, in East Timor, and in the eastern part of Lombok and Sumbawa in West Nusa 

Tenggara. 

Conclusions 

The use of Leucaena in the farming system in Nusa Tenggara has long been practiced 

for a variety of reasons: to prevent invasion of Lantana camara weeds, to improve the 

quality of degraded lands, and to prevent erosion. The arrival of H. cubana in 1986-87 

has set back Leucaena development, but its recent recovery promises a brighter future in 

areas of Nusa Tenggara where it fits well into the farming practices. Inadequate 

technology transfer and unavailability of seed are slowing the adoption of the psyllidresistant 

Leucaena species/varieties. Farmers are interested to grow other Leucaena 

varieties and other tree legume species as well as grasses as sources of fodder. There 

181


182 

thus is an immediate need to provide seed/seedlings to the farmers and to let them 

select the type of fodder suited to their system of farming. 

References 

Basuki, T., daSilva, H., Wirdahayati, R.B., Subandi, Bamualim, A. 1997. Karakterisasi 

zona agroekosistem (AEZs) di Nusa Tenggara Timur. Hasil-hasil Penelitian 

NTAADP, BPTP, Naibonat, p.1-38. 

Burke, T., Rachmawati, I., Agung, K. and Pa, S.M. 1995. Investigation on traditional and 

introduced agroforestry systems in Timor, Rote, and East Suma. Balai Penelitian 

Kehutanan Kupang. 

IPPTP Comoro. 1997. Rencana strategis instalasi penelitian and pengkajian teknologi 

pertanian mataram 1997-2007. IPPTP Mataram. 

Jones, P.H. 1983. Leucaena and the Amarasi model from Timor. Indonesia-Australia 

Eastern Universities Project, LPIU Nusa Cendana University (unpubl). 

Momuat, E.O., Field, S.P., Mamualim, A. 1990. Forage production systems in Nusa 

Tenggara. Paper presented at the seminar on Production and Utilization of Shrub 

Legumes in the Tropics, 31 Jul – 1 Aug 1990, Denpasar. 

Nulik, J. 1996. Pengembangan tanaman hijauan makanan ternak di Nusa Tenggara dan 

Timor. Laporan konsultan pada Eastern Islands Veterinary Services Project, 

Phase II, Kupang. 

Piggin, C.M., Parera, V. 1984. The use of Leucaena in Nusa Tenggara Timor. In: 

Proceedings of the Shrub Legume Research Meeting in Indonesia and Australia, 2 

February 1984, Balai Penelitian Ternak Ciawi-Bogor. ACIAR.


Forage research and development in the Kingdom of 

Bhutan 

Walter Roder 1 

The Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan has an area of about 46,500 km 2 and a population of 

0.6 million. Its mountainous topography was aptly described by an early visitor 

(Marakham 1876) as ‘a succession of lofty and rugged mountains, separated by gorges 

and a few valleys somewhat wider than the generality of ravines.’ The elevation ranges 

from about 200 m in the south to almost 8000 m in the north. 

The climate is dominated by the monsoon with a dry winter season and high 

precipitation during June-September. Influenced by topography, elevation, and rainfall 

pattern, Bhutan has a wide variety of climatic conditions and, consequently, a wide 

diversity in vegetation and farming systems. 

Agriculture is the main economy of the country. About 85% of the population live in 

rural areas and depend on agriculture. Due to the mountainous topography, only a very 

small percentage of the land is suitable for agriculture. Crops cultivated (in order of 

importance) are maize, rice, millet, wheat, buckwheat, potato, mustard, and barley 

(Table 1). Rice is cultivated on small terraces made on slopes with gradients up to 80%. 

Topography and market accessibility favour livestock production, especially in regions 

with elevations above 2000 m. Livestock production is traditionally an integrated part of 

the Bhutanese farming system. 

Table 1. Land use and livestock statistics. 

Land use 1 Area (‘000 ha) 

Forest (x1000ha) 

Lowland rice (x1000ha) 

Upland agriculture (maize, wheat, barley, buckwheat) (x1000ha) 

Shifting cultivation (Tsheri and Pangshing) (x1000ha) 

Horticulture plantations (apple, orange, cardamom) (x1000ha) 

Natural pasture (x1000ha) 

Improved pasture (x1000ha) 

Livestock (1995 data) b (x1000 head) 

Cattle (x1000 head) 

Buffalo (x1000 head) 

Yak (x1000 head) 

Equine (horse, mules, donkeys) (x1000 head) 

Goat (x1000 head) 

Sheep (x1000 head) 

1 Source: MOA, 1997; b Source: MOA 1995. 

Research institutions 

2904 

39 

182 

88 

6 

155 

1 

1000 

The Ministry of Agriculture was reorganized during the period 1993-95. Separate 

divisions were formed: 1) Research, Extension and Irrigation; 2) Crop and Livestock 

Service Division (mostly input supply); and 3) Forest Service Division (territorial forest 

1 Renewable Natural Resources Research Centre, Jakar, Bhutan. 

305 

1 

30 

26 

16 

31 

183


184 

management). Under the Research, Extension and Irrigation Division, four national 

renewable natural resources research centres (RNR-RCs) were established and given 

specific regional and national mandates (Table 2). Each research centre was assigned 

to lead one of the national programs that deal with field crops, horticulture, livestock and 

forestry. Additionally, the farming systems program under each centre also includes 

socio-economic, cross-sectoral, and other activities not directly associated with a single 

program. 

Table 2. Existing research centres, mandates, and regions. 

Research centre National mandate Region 

Yusipang Forest Western Region 

Bajo Field crops West Central Region 

Jakar Livestock East Central Region 

Kangma Horticulture Eastern Region 

In its respective region, each centre is responsible for the implementation of all 

research activities. Besides the main task of importing, adapting, or generating 

technologies to be used in the extension programs, the centres are responsible for 

building up a pool of expertise and information and for supporting the extension and 

development programs by way of technical assistance, training, and general 

backstopping. 

The National Livestock Research Program, coordinated by the Research Centre in 

Jakar, has been divided into 3 subprograms: breeding and management, feed and 

fodder, and health. 

With the assumption that technologies under the subprograms breeding and 

management and health can, to a certain extent, be imported from other countries with 

little or no further adaptation, major emphasis is given to the subprogram feed and 

fodder with an allocation of 70-80% of the available resources (RNR-RC 1997). 

Research needs, priorities, and constraints 

Matching the limited resources available with the needs of the tremendously variable 

production systems and climates has and will always be a challenge. Rigorous priority 

setting and judicious planning are given due importance. In a recent attempt to prioritise 

research needs and opportunities, the identification of main nutritional limitations was 

given the highest priority (Table 3), followed by fodder produced from intensively 

managed permanent grasslands. 

The same areas received top ranking when research priorities were set in the late 

1980s. Compared with earlier rankings there was a shift toward fodder resources in 

integrated systems. Similarly, crop residues were given more importance. This is 

largely attributed to the change in the research system. Through the integration of crop, 

horticulture, livestock, and forestry research, more emphasis is given to fodder 

production in crop or horticulture systems. 

Regional priorities deviate from national priorities. At higher elevations, extensively 

managed permanent grasslands will have priority, whereas at lower elevations, arable 

fodders, tree fodders, and crop residues become important. Regional research priorities, 

needs, and opportunities are currently reviewed by the newly formed research centres.


Table 3. Ranking of research priorities at the national level 1 . 

Rank Area of research 

1 Identification of main nutritional limitations to animal production (seasonal fodder production, 

deficiencies in energy/protein/minerals, etc.). 

2 Intensively managed permanent grassland (small plots in the vicinity of settlements, also includes 

orchards). 

3 Arable fodder (in rotation or in combination with annual crops, winter fodder) for fodder, soil 

improvement, and/or soil conservation. 

4 Extensively managed permanent grassland (range land). 

4 Tree fodders, agroforestry and silvopastoral systems. 

4 Use of crop residues and by-products (rice straw, maize stems, buckwheat stems, home brewing). 

5 Technology development to support various programs (seed production, fodder conservation, etc.). 

5 Grazing effects on forest systems. 

6 Social and cultural aspects (migration, culling of unproductive animals, land ownership, communal 

agreements on protection of crops, etc.). 

1 

Source: RNR-RC 1996. 

A review of earlier research activities showed that the main constraint was the lack 

of rigorous priority setting (Table 4). Insufficient interaction with farmers and herders and 

poor representation of target environments as well as insufficient academic background 

of research personnel were considered the second most important constraints. 

Table 4. Constraints to successful research in feed and fodder 1 . 

Rank Constraint/limitation 

1 Lack of focus or realistic identification of research needs 

2 Insufficient interaction with farmers and herders and poor representation of target environments 

2 Insufficient academic background of research personnel 

3 Insufficient access to information 

3 Insufficient research personnel 

4 Wrong priorities 

5 Most experimental activities limited to on-station work 

6 Lack of coordination with extension activities 

7 Lack of motivation of Bhutanese research personnel 

7 Lack of fund 

8 Lack of equipment 

9 Too much dependence on expatriate advice 

10 Insufficient support by the Ministry 

11 Too much time absorbed in administrative work 

1 

Source: RNR-RC, 1996. 

Current research activities 

All four research centres are strongly committed to regional research activities under the 

feed and fodder subprogram. Activities largely focus on: 

• Description of resources and their management. 

• Monitoring trends in the resource base and production. 

• Identification and import of pertinent available information and technologies. 

• Adaptation of technologies. 

These activities are carried out in three sub-projects (Table 5). In addition, various 

activities are conducted in collaboration with other programs (forestry, field crops and 

horticulture). 

185


186 

Field work is done on-station and on-farm, with various levels of farmers’ 

participation. Depending on the objectives of the individual activity, attempts are made to 

include extensionists and farmers or herders at all stages of the technology development 

and adaptation process. 

Table 5. Sub-projects under the feed and fodder subprogram 1 . 

Subproject Purpose/objective 

Description of past and present 

management, monitoring trends 

• Document past research and development 

activities 

• Describe existing fodder resource in terms of 

their management and potential 

• Monitor trends in resource quality and production 

Genetic evaluation and improvement • Characterize native grassland and fodder species 

• Import and evaluate exotic species 

Production management 

1 

Source: RNR-RC (1997). 

• Verify/adapt/develop technologies to optimise 

production and improve production efficiency 

and/or optimise synergistic effects between 

fodder production and other components 

Past and present management systems and monitoring trends 

The extreme variations in climate, soils, and topography and the resulting adaptations by 

farmers and herders result in a huge range in vegetation, fodder sources, and production 

systems. Documenting fodder resources and existing management practices is thus a 

tremendous challenge for the small research team. Taking on the challenge, a process 

was initiated in 1996 to: 

• Review past fodder research and development efforts. 

• Document existing and potential fodder resources, farmers’ practices, nutritional 

constraints to livestock production and quality of existing fodder. 

• Generate information on farmers’ practices, effect of management interventions, 

and productivity of natural grasslands. 

The information collected and synthesized will provide inputs for planning and policy 

decisions and will also serve as basis for planning future research activities. 

With increasing confidence in the accumulated base line information, monitoring 

trends in the resource base is gradually becoming more important. Considering the 

fragility of the grassland resources and the potentially harmful effects any management 

interactions may have on biodiversity, as well as on forest, water, and agricultural 

resources, it is important to build up mechanisms and develop key indicators which can 

quantify trends and changes over time. 

Genetic evaluation and improvement 

The species selected in the early phase of the fodder development program have many 

positive properties and have shown good potential over a wide range of prevailing 

conditions. There is, however, an urgent need to select additional species for 

• All environments in the subtropical regions (woody and herbaceous). 

• Temperate legumes with better adaptation to P and moisture stress. 

• Fodder species providing winter feed for temperate and subtropical regions (woody 

and herbaceous). 

• Species, especially legumes, for fodder production in cropping systems with field 

crops.


• Species for soil and moisture conservation (woody and herbaceous), soil cover, 

green manure, and/or weed suppression. 

Native and exotic materials are included in the program. Emphasis is laid on the 

acquisition and testing of plant materials to be used in integrated field crop, horticulture, 

or forestry systems and for soil conservation. 

Production management 

The subproject on production management includes a wide range of activities with 

emphasis on establishment, soil fertility management, seed production, and winter feed 

(Table 6). 

Cross-sectoral activities 

Various silvopastoral studies focusing on fodder and timber production and the 

interaction of the two are carried out in collaboration with the forestry program. 

Similarly several studies focus on systems which integrate fodder production in 

apple or citrus production systems. 

Table 6. Ongoing activities in sub-project 3: Production Management. 

Subproject 3 Activity 

Establishment • Studies of temperate herbaceous species in bamboo-dominated 

grassland focusing on species, establishment methods, and P 

effects. 

• Studies of subtropical species in maize and rice systems with 

main focus on species, effect of planting date relative to crop 

maturity, and planting method. 

• Nursery methods for Ficus roxburghii. 

Management • Effects of fertiliser (N and P) and cutting interval effects on yield 

and species composition of temperate grassland systems. 

• Willow in combination with herbaceous fodder: studies 

evaluating the effect of plant density and plant height on dry 

matter production of both components of the system. 

Seed production • Various studies evaluating the effect of location, plant density 

and irrigation. 

• Effects of other management interventions on Lotus 

pedunculatus and Greenleaf Desmodium and Lucerne seed 

production (aim is to develop technologies that will result in 

economically viable seed production of these species). 

Fodder preservation – 

winter fodder 

• Testing of selected winter fodder species in potato, maize and 

rice systems. 

• Development of systems to optimise use of existing fodder 

resources with studies focusing on deferred grazing, use of 

willow leaves, and the preservation of arable fodder biomass in 

the field. 

187


188 

Selected research findings 

Past research activities have identified or generated a wide range of information and 

technologies: 

• Description of major fodder resources and farmers’ management practices. 

• Characterisation of selected native grassland and fodder species. 

• Selection of suitable herbaceous and woody fodder species for major environments 

and farming systems. 

• Establishment methods (including inoculation) for temperate and subtropical 

species. 

• Quantification of the effects of fertilisers (mainly P and N) on selected species and 

mixture of species and development of recommendations for fertiliser use. 

• Evaluations of effects of micronutrients on establishment and dry matter production 

• Development of appropriate seed production technologies for selected grass and 

legume species. 

In this section, selected results from these activities are described in detail. 

Introduction and initial screening of exotic species 

Planned germplasm introduction and evaluation started in the early seventies. Over the 

past two decades, more than 150 legume species and 70 grass species have been 

introduced and evaluated for their fodder production potential across a wide range of 

environments. Substantial information was generated on the performance of temperate 

species over several locations and years (Table 7). With a few exceptions, white clover 

and cocksfoot produced the highest yields. Good yields were also observed in lotus, red 

clover, Lucerne, tall fescue, and Italian rye grass. 

Table 7. Yield of selected temperate perennial fodder species 1 . 

Location Batbalathang, Bumthang Karsumphe, Bumthang 

Elevation 2,650 m 2,700 m 

Period/duration 1980-82 (3 yr) 1983-85 (3 yr) 

(legume yield relative to white clover) 

White clover 100 100 

Lathyrus silvestris - 43 

Lotus corniculatus 92 24 

Lotus pedunculatus 111 17 

Medicago glutinosa 94 - 

Medicago media - 66 

Medicago sativa 72 87 

Trifolium hybridum 76 - 

Trifolium pretense 103 84 

Trifolium semipilosum 89 - 

Vicia tenuifolia - 53 

(grass yield relative to cocksfoot) 

Cocksfoot 100 100 

Arrhenatherum elatior 79 - 

Festuca arundinacea 105 96 

Festuca pratensis 93 - 

Festuca rubra 87 99 

Lolium multiflorum 112 93 

Lolium perenne 78 - 

Paspalum notatum - 76 

Poa pratensis 73 98 

Phleum pratense 86 -


1 


Species recommended for dissemination 

A considerable number of annual and perennial species and varieties have been 

recommended for fodder production in specific environments (Table 8). Some of them 

have been included in extension programs, while others are still under investigation or 

have been discarded because of seed production problems, limited potential for Bhutan, 

or other reasons. 

Table 8. Species recommended for use in Bhutan 1 . 

Species Year 2 Area (ha) Present status 

Annual species 

Oat


190 

Experiences with white clover 

White clover is the most widely used exotic fodder species in Bhutan. The first recorded 

introductions were made in 1970 (RNR-RC 1998). Within a relatively short time, white 

clover has proven to be the most suitable legume for grassland improvement over a 

wide range of conditions within the altitude belt of 2000-4000 m (Gyamtshso 1996). Its 

introduction was, however, only successful with inoculation and P application. White 

clover not only increased dry matter yield but also substantially increased fodder quality 

and potential milk production (Tables 9 and 10). 

The exceptionally successful introduction of white clover has alarmed among 

various parties. While some are mainly concerned by its bloat-inducing property, others 

have called for caution in future extension programs because they see it as a serious 

weed, even considering it as a threat to the existing biodiversity (Roder 1997). Although 

this may be largely an overreaction, there clearly is a need to reassess the status of 

white clover in future fodder development activities and to identify techniques and 

species that 

• have lower P requirements and/or are more efficient in P uptake, 

• can accumulate good-quality fodder over the entire growing season which will be 

available for winter feed, and 

• are less susceptible to water stress. 

Table 9. Fodder quality of white clover compared with local species. 

Crude protein 

(%) 

Crude fibre 

(%) 

Schizachyrium delavayi (before flowering) 5.4 42 0.11 

Lespedeza sp. (before flowering) 14 35 0.16 

White clover (at flowering) 18 22 0.29 

Local hay 5.0 40 0.17 

Hay from grass/clover mixture 


11.0 30 0.21 

Table 10. Milk production potential of selected fodder sources. 

Fodder type 

Milk potential 

(kg/animal) 

Local pasture winter

Extension network 


The Animal Husbandry Department begun to build up a network of extension centres in 

the seventies. These centres located at the Gewog level (subunit of a district comprising 

150-800 households) were generally staffed with veterinary compounders. The main 

objectives are to provide health care and to supervise crossbreeding activities. Extension 

workers (pasture assistants) for fodder development were trained from 1978 onwards. 

While some of these fodder specialists were placed at Gewog levels, others were 

attached to the district headquarters. 

Extension programmes 

Promotion of perennial herbaceous fodder species in temperate regions 

The earliest documented and sustained extension activities focusing on fodder 

development started in Bumthang. District in 1978 (RNR-RC 1998). The package of 

practices recommended in 1978, included: 

• Species and seed rate (kg/ha): white clover, 4 kg; Italian rye grass, 8 kg; cocksfoot, 

4 kg or tall fescue, 4 kg. 

• Inoculation: clover seed were inoculated and coated with gum arabic and rock 

phosphate. 

• Subsidies: seed were charged a nominal rate of Nu 2.0 kg-1 (approximately 10% of 

the production cost). Phosphate fertiliser was provided free of cost. 

• Establishment: undersowing into sweet buckwheat was recommended as the 

preferred method. Other establishment methods recommended were seeding after 

cultivation or transplanting white clover without cultivation. 

• Management: grazing and cut-and-carry were recommended. Scythes were 

introduced and distributed at subsidized rates. 

• Preservation: winter feed preservation through hay or silo making was 

recommended. Simple pit silo systems were introduced. 

This package of practices became the model for nationwide extension programs 

promoted by the Department of Animal Husbandry, with the first countrywide activities 

initiated in 1978. Minor changes introduced over the years included the following: 

• With more cocksfoot and tall fescue seed available, it became possible to replace 

some of the Italian rye grass seed by these species. 

• Seed costs were fully subsidized from 1983 onward. 

• Fertiliser subsidies were discontinued in 1996. 

An early assessment after 3 years of field activities mentioned the following 

problems (Roder 1981): 

• Extreme variations in climate exist. 

• Some ambiguity in the rules and regulations regarding grazing land are not 

resolved. 

• Farmers are not motivated enough as the idea of cultivating fodder is new to them 

and no examples are available. 

• High phosphate inputs are required. 

• Very expensive inputs in the form of seeds are given to farmers free or at nominal 

cost, resulting in farmers’ complacency not motivated to optimise coverage and 

establishment success). 

• Inoculation failures are common due to poor inoculum quality. 

191


192 

Promotion of herbaceous fodder species in subtropical regions 

Because seed and suitable methodologies are lacking the extension activities in 

subtropical regions were less successful. The species recommended changed with every 

plan period. The species recommended were (RNR-RC, 1998): 

• Fifth plan: Kikuyu grass, Guinea grass, Setaria sphacelata, Rhodes grass, and 

Napier, Silverleaf desmodium, Glycine, and Stylosanthes guianensis. 

• Sixth and seventh plan: Signal grass, Molasses grass, Guinea grass, Setaria 

sphacelata, Greenleaf desmodium, Silverleaf desmodium, Glycine, centro 

(Centrosema pubescens), siratro (Macroptilium atropurpureum), and Stylosanthes 

guianensis. 

A review carried out in 1992 (Wangdi 1992) concluded that the main achievement 

made in subtropical areas was the creation an awareness for fodder development. It was 

observed that many sites had reverted back to weeds or shrubs. The main constraints 

listed were wild boar damage, overgrazing by wild animals, fencing problems, weed 

dominance and failure of establishment. 

Promotion of tree fodder or woody species 

Fodder tree extension activities were launched in 1982, with local fodder tree species 

(RNR-RC 1998). Farmers were advised to plant the following species: Artocarpus 

lakoocha, Bauhinia variegata, Bauhinia purpurea, Lytsea polyantha, Ficus roxburghii, 

Ficus nemoralis, Brassaiopsis hainla, Saurauia napaulensis, Prunus creasoides and 

willow. During the fifth plan, the farmers were paid US$ 0.012 as subsidy for each tree 

planted. 

The only exotic fodder tree species recommended and distributed to farmers were 

Leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala) and Robina pseudoacaicia (RNR-RC 1998). The 

acceptance of these exotic species with farmers was, however, marginal at best. Psyllid 

infestation on Leucaena was observed at various locations. 

The number of species recommended was reduced for the sixth plan to Artocarpus 

lakoocha, B. variegata, B. purpurea, F. roxburghii, F. cunia, F. lakoor and Celtis australis. 

Where suitable, farmers show a strong preference for F. roxburghii. This species is 

preferred for its wide adaptation, good biomass yield, availability during the dry season, 

and relatively good fodder quality (Tshering et al. 1997). 

Paddy straw treatment, urea molasses block 

Urea treatment of paddy straw was an important component of the extension program 

during the sixth and part of the seventh plan. Farmers were given free urea and training 

on treatment methods. An extension booklet was issued in 1987 (RNR-RC 1998). The 

advantages of urea treatment were supposed to include higher palatability and intake, 

better digestibility, higher N intake (from the urea) and reduction of liver fluke 

infestations. 

Following a survey carried out in 1996, the technology was, however, not adapted. 

This in spite of the fact that almost all rice growers feed paddy straw to their cattle and 

consider liver fluke as a serious problem. The reasons cited for non-adoption include 

reduced intake, additional labour required and urea cost. 

Impact of extension activities 

Based on the progress reports the following were achieved through the extension 

activities during the fifth, sixth and seventh plan period (1982-1997): 

• Pasture development: 34,000 acres. 

• Fodder trees planted: 735,819 trees.


• Large coverage for paddy straw treatment (>50% of rice-growing households in 

selected districts. 

The impact of these activities can be quantified at different levels: dry matter 

production, fodder quality, livestock production, socio-economic issues, and environment 

(Table 11). 

Table 11. Impact of fodder development activities 1 . 

Component of the system At national level 

Selected pockets in 

temperate regions 

Dry matter production increase


194 

Impact on migration 

The traditional system of cattle migration to lower elevations during the dry/cold winter 

period has many disadvantages including spread of livestock diseases, limited 

production potential of livestock, and limited options for field crop and horticulture 

production in the lower areas. 

Changes in migration are, however, only possible if alternative feed sources for the 

critical periods can be found. Fodder development activities in the temperate regions 

have had substantial impact on cattle migration. For Bumthang District, a 19% reduction 

in migration was already reported for 1983 (RNR-RC 1998). 

References 

AHD. 1987. Proceedings of the departmental conference. Thimphu, Bhutan. 

AHD. 1987. Urea treatment of straw. AHD Extension Division Leaflet No. 1. Thimphu, 

Bhutan. 

Gyamthso, P. 1996 Assessment of the condition and potential for improvement of high 

altitude rangeland of Bhutan. Diss. ETH No. 11726, Zurich. 

Marakham, C.R. 1876. Narratives of the mission of George Bogle to Tibet and of the 

journey of Thomas Manning to Lhasa. Reprinted 1971. Manjusri Publishing House, 

New Delhi. 

Ministry of Agriculture. 1995. LUPP Dzongkhag data sheets for Bhutan Land Use 

Planning Project, Thimphu, Bhutan. 

Ministry of Agriculture. 1997. Atlas of Bhutan. Land Use Planning Project, Thimphu, 

Bhutan. 

RNR-RC Jakar. 1996. Annual report, Bhumtang, Bhutan. 

RNR-RC Jakar. 1996. RNR-RC Jakar, 1997. Proceedings of the 1st Annual National 

Feed and Fodder Research Workshop, Bathplathang, Bumthang, Bhutan. 

RNR-RC Jakar. 1997. Proceedings of the 2 nd Annual National Livestock Research 

Workshop, Bathplathang, Bumthang, Bhutan. 

RNR-RC Jakar. 1997. 8th Five-year plan document (draft). Bumthang, Bhutan. 

RNR-RC Jakar. 1998. Feed and fodder resources - Review of research and 

development activities. Bhumtang, Bhutan. 

Roder, W. 1981. Fodder development. Annexure IX. p 26-33 In: Proceedings of the 

departmental conference. AHD, Thimphu, Bhutan. 

Roder, W. 1982. Fodder trees. Report form a study tour to Nepal. RDP, Bhumthang, 

Bhutan. 

Roder, W. 1982. Pasture/fodder development. In: Seminar on pasture/fodder 

development. AHD/RGOB, Thimphu, Bhutan. p 1-42. 

Roder, W. 1983. Fodder growing -- experimental activities under RDP project and 

Animal Husbandry Department Bumdmg, 1974-1982. Helvetas, Thimphu, Bhutan. 

Roder, W. 1984. Controversial tree -- Robinia pseudoacacia. Bhutan J. Husb. 7:93-97. 

Roder, W. 1989. Master plan for fodder research activities. AHD, Thimphu, Bhutan. 

Roder, W. 1996. Experiences in feed and fodder research in Bumthang. In: Proceedings 

of the 1st Annual National Feed and Fodder Research Workshop Bathplathang, 

Bumthang. RNR-RC Jakar. p. 17-20. 

Roder, W. 1996. White clover a dangerous weed? In: Proceedings of the 1st Annual 

National Feed and Fodder Research Workshop, RNR-RC Jakar. Bathplathang, 

Bumthan, Bhutan. p. 53-56.


Roder, W., Thinley, P., Wangdi, K. 1997. Experiences with temperate mixtures – a 

review. In: Proceedings of the 2 nd Annual National Livestock Research Workshop, 

RNR-RC Jakar, Bathplathang, Bumthang.. p 69-78. 

Roder, W., Wangdi, K., Gyamtsho, P. 1997. Introduction of white clover in native 

grasslands of Bhutan - impact, potential, and problems. In: Proceedings of the 8th 

International Grassland Congress, Winnipeg and Manitoba, Canada. 

Tshering, G., Gyeltshen, T., Penjor, T., Wangdi, R., Roder, W. 1997. Tree fodder in 

subtropical regions of Bhutan. In Proceedings of the 2 nd Annual National Livestock 

Research Workshop, RNR-RC Jakar, Bathplathang, Bumthang, Bhutan. 

Wangdi, K. 1992. Those five years - review of pasture development in eastern 

Dzongkhags. HLDP/AHD Thimphu, Bhutan. 

Wangdi, K. 1996. Experiences of the Highland livestock development project in feed and 

fodder research. In: Proceedings of the 1st Annual National Feed and Fodder 

Research Workshop, RNR-RC Jakar. Bathplathang, Bumthang, Bhutan. p. 13-16. 

195


The use of forages for soil fertility maintenance and erosion 

control in cassava in Asia 

R.H. Howeler 1 , A. Tongglum 2 , S. Jantawat 3 and W.H. Utomo 4 

196 

Introduction 

Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) has the reputation to extracts large amounts of 

nutrients from the soil. However, Howeler (1991) and Putthacharoen et al. (1998) have 

shown that on an area basis, less nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are removed in the 

harvested cassava roots than in the harvested products of most other crops, while the 

amount of potassium (K) removed in the harvested roots is similar to that removed by 

many other crops. Thus, continuous cassava production on the same land without 

nutrient inputs is likely to result in depletion of soil K, followed by that of N, and finally P. 

To maintain soil productivity, nutrients lost from the system should be compensated by 

application of chemical fertilisers and animal manures, by fallowing of natural vegetation, 

or by ‘improved’ fallows using mainly forage legumes as green manures and cover crops, 

or as hedgerows in alley cropping. In the latter case, the legumes add N to the system 

through biological N-fixation, and recycle P and K by absorbing these nutrients from the 

lower soil strata and returning them to the soil surface in leaf litter, in leaf pruning, or 

plant residues. After cutting, burning, mulching or incorporation of the vegetation, the 

surface soil tends to be enriched with these nutrients, which enhances the production of 

crops. 

When crops are grown on slopes, heavy rains may cause dislodging and movement 

down-slope of soil particles resulting in soil erosion. Over time, this will reduce soil depth 

and a loss of soil productivity due to the loss of organic matter (OM), nutrients and 

beneficial soil microorganisms, such as mycorrhiza. Putthacharoen et al. (1998), 

Wargiono et al. (1998) and Howeler (1995) have shown that production of cassava tends 

to result in more erosion than that of other crops, mainly because cassava is planted at a 

wide spacing and has a slow initial growth, resulting in poor protection of the soil from 

direct rainfall impact during the first three months of the crop cycle. However, it was 

found (Howeler 1987 and 1994; Ruppenthal et al. 1997) that erosion can be markedly 

reduced by soil/crop management practices, such as minimal tillage, mulching, contour 

ridging, fertilisation, intercropping, closer plant spacing, or the planting of cover crops or 

contour hedgerows of grasses or leguminous species. 

The objective of this paper is to review research conducted in Asia on the use of 

forage species for improving soil fertility through green manuring, alley cropping and 

cover cropping, or for reducing erosion by the planting of contour hedgerows in cassava 

fields. The research summarized in this paper spans a 11-year period, from 1987 to 

1998, and was conducted in three locations in Thailand and one location in Indonesia. 

1 CIAT Regional Cassava Office for Asia, Dept. of Agriculture, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand. 

2 Rayong Field Crops Research Centre, Huay Pong, Rayong, Thailand. 

3 Kasetsart University, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900, Thailand. 

4 Brawijaya University, Malang, East Java, Indonesia.



The principal climatic and soil conditions at the experimental sites are summarized in 

Table 1. Most experiments were conducted in Thailand, at Rayong Field Crops 

Research Centre in Huay Pong, Rayong; at the King’s Project site, in Pluak Daeng, 

Rayong; and at Kasetsart University Research Station in Khaw Hin Sorn, Chasoengsao. 

These sites have similar climatic and soil conditions, characterized by a year-round hot 

climate, a 6-month dry season, and sandy clay or sandy clay loam soils with low levels of 

OM, and intermediate levels of soil nutrients. In Indonesia, the experiment was 

conducted at Jatikerto Experiment Station in Malang district of East Java. The soil is 

derived from volcanic ash, has a clay texture, a slightly acid pH, and is low in OM and P, 

but high in Ca, Mg and K. 

The experimental methods used in each experiment are summarized in Table 2, 

and will be discussed in more detail below together with the results obtained. 

Table 1a. Principal climatic of the experimental sites in Thailand and Indonesia. 

Experimental sites 

1. Rayong Field Crops Research Centre, 

Rayong Thailand 

Elevation 

(masl) 

Annual 

rainfall (mm) 

Rainy season 

Mean air 

temp. ( 0 C) 

20 1350 May-Oct 28 

2. Pluak Daeng, Rayong, Thailand 1200 May-Oct 28 

3. Khaw Hin Sorn, KU Exp. Station., 

Chachoengsao, Thailand 

50 1200 May-Oct 28 

4. Jatikerto, Brawijaya Univ. Exp. Station, 

Malang, Indonesia 

400 2000 Oct-May 27 

Table 1b. Principal soil characteristics of the experimental sites in Thailand and Indonesia. 

pH OM P Al Ca Mg K Al-sat. Texture sand silt clay 

% ppm –––––– me/100g –––––– % % % % 

1. Rayong 5.0 1.3 8.8 0.20 1.10 0.15 0.11 13 sandy clay 

loam 

63 8 29 

2. Pluak Daeng 6.4 0.8 8.0 0 1.12 0.17 0.22 0 sandy clay 67 15 18 

3. Khaw Hin Sorn 6.2 1.6 7.4 0 2.13 0.34 0.22 0 sandy clay 69 14 17 

4. Jatikerto 5.9 1.0 1.6 0.20 7.52 2.90 1.16 0 clay 25 25 50 

Table 2. Experimental methods used in the experiments. 

Location Years Cassava 

variety 

Planting method Forage species and methods used 

Rayong 1987-1988 - evaluation 32 accessions of leguminous species 

Pluak Daeng 1988-1991 Rayong 1 green manuring 10 green manure species 

Pluak Daeng 1991-1994 Rayong 1 green manuring 6 green manure species x 2 management practices 

Rayong 1994-1998 Rayong 90 green manuring 4 green manure species x 3 management practices 

Pluak Daeng 1988-1990 Rayong 1 cover cropping 9 forage legumes 

Pluak Daeng 1991-1993 Rayong 1 cover cropping 7 forage legumes x 2 cassava spacings 

Rayong 1990-1991 - evaluation 12 accessions of leguminous shrubs 

Malang 1991-1995 Faroka alley cropping 2 tree legumes as hedgerows, 1 cover crop, 

intercrop, grass hedgerows 

Khaw Hin Sorn 1996-1998 KU-50 hedgerows 15 grass species 

197


198 


The use of forages as green manures for soil fertility improvement 

Adaptation of grain and forage legumes to conditions in Rayong, Thailand 

Green manures can be effective only if they are productive and well adapted to the local 

soil and climatic conditions. To determine their productivity under the conditions in 

which cassava is grown in Thailand, 32 accessions of grain and forage legumes, 

including some leguminous tree species, were planted at the Rayong Field Crops 

Research Centre in Huay Pong, Rayong, Thailand in 1987/88. 

Table 3 shows some growth parameters as well as the nutrient uptake of the 

species. 

Table 3. Growth and nutrient uptake of leguminous species grown at Rayong Field Crops 

Research Centre, Rayong, Thailand in 1987. 

Stem + leaf weight 1 

Days to 50% 

flowering 

Seed yield 

(t/ha) 

(t/ha) 

fresh dry 

Nutrient content (kg/ha) 

N P K 

Grain legumes 

Peanut (Tainan 9) 32 0.48 12.8 3.50 42 6 73 

Mungbean (U-Thong 1) 32 0.24 3.5 1.00 10 1 13 

Cowpea (local variety) 33 1.55 8.6 1.69 47 5 39 

Cowpea (TVX 1193-059) 36 3.78 15.7 3.09 83 9 69 

Soybean (SJ 5) 

Green manures 

32 0.44 2.6 0.94 15 3 14 

Sesbania aculiata from IRRI 60 0.60 19.3 7.09 80 13 71 

Sesbania aculiata 67 0.85 27.5 12.31 170 17 113 

Sesbania speciosa 127 0.52 55.6 19.37 281 27 213 

Sesbania rostrata from IRRI 67 0.78 16.0 6.65 89 18 66 

Sesbania rostrata 71 1.89 19.1 7.69 81 8 78 

Indigofera sp. 106 1.59 42.6 17.69 457 32 195 

Canavalia ensiformis 50 1.30 22.4 3.91 113 9 59 

Mucuna sp. from CIAT 131 0.30 38.4 8.16 224 16 135 

Mucuna fospeada 122 1.82 42.2 11.31 244 20 119 

Crotalaria juncea 67 0.00 21.1 9.50 130 11 86 

Crotalaria spectabilis (Brazil) 60 0.15 28.0 8.00 134 14 112 

Crotalaria spectabilis 

(Colombia) 

54 0.06 20.3 5.56 95 13 31 

Crotalaria mucronata 7790 60 0.38 38.6 10.84 295 17 157 

Crotalaria mucronata 9293 54 0.02 21.6 6.06 120 13 100 

Lablab purpureus 173 0.94 29.2 7.44 171 19 119 

Pigeon pea from ICRISAT 54 0.35 25.5 10.16 240 23 112 

Pigeon pea from USA 

Cover crops 

184 0.25 105.9 40.34 980 77 867 

Macroptilium atropurpureum 50 0.22 43.8 11.28 235 20 214 

Mimosa sp. 2 147 0.87 50.9 18.34 262 29 248 

Calopogonium mucunoides 149 0.06 22.1 7.37 159 20 103 

Pueraria phaseoloides 146 - 3) 33.4 8.75 209 21 148 

Stylosanthes hamata 50 1.22 29.5 10.94 237 14 113 

Centrosema pubescens 153 0.09 13.4 3.97 101 11 66 

Alley crop hedgerow species 

Sesbania javanica 114 0.14 21.0 7.91 137 12 85 

1) 

At cutting (5 months); soybean, peanut and mungbean at harvest of each species. 

2) 

Mimosa sp. (a thornless variant of M. invisa). 

3) 

Drought at flowering caused no pod set.


From the results obtained the most promising species were separated into four 

groups according to their specific potential usage: 

• For green manures: Sesbania speciosa, S. aculeata, S. rostrata, Crotalaria juncea, C. 

mucronata, C. spectabilis, Indigofera sp., Canavalia ensiformis (sword bean), Mucuna 

fospeada (velvet bean) and Cajanas cajan (pigeon pea). 

• For cover crops: Centrosema pubescens, Macroptilium atropurpureum (siratro), 

Mimosa sp. (a spineless variant of M. invisa), Stylosanthes hamata and Indigofera sp. 

• For intercropping: peanut, mungbean, cowpea and soybean. 

• For alley cropping: Sesbania aculeata, S. javanica and perennial pigeon pea. 

Green manuring of cassava with forage legumes in Pluak Daeng, Thailand 

The use of forage legumes as green manures to maintain soil fertility in sandy clay soils 

was studied by planting 10 green manure species at the beginning of the wet season in 

Pluak Daeng of Rayong province. After 3-4 months the above-ground parts were cut 

and incorporated into the soil before planting cassava in the mid to late wet season. 

Cassava did not receive any fertilisers, except in one of the two treatments without green 

manure which received 100 kg N and 50 K2O/ha. The crop was harvested after about 8 

months at the start of the next wet season. The trial was repeated in a similar fashion in 

1989/90 and 1990/91, except that green manures were mulched on the soil surface and 

cassava was planted without land preparation. 

Table 4 shows the productivity of the green manures and their effect on cassava 

yield during the three years of testing. There was a significant effect of green manure 

application on cassava yields in the first two years, but the effect was not significant in 

the last year. Crotalaria juncea and Canavalia ensiformis were the most productive 

species, and the most effective in recycling nutrients (Tongglum et al. 1992), while 

incorporation or mulching of Crotalaria juncea usually resulted in the highest cassava 

yields; these yields were similar to those obtained with chemical fertilisers. Other 

promising species were Mucuna fospeada and Canavalia ensiformis. Nevertheless, in 

the first two years, cassava yields were extremely low because cassava could only be 

planted late in the rainy season after the green manures had been incorporated or 

mulched; as such, cassava suffered from drought stress during much of the growth 

cycle. In the third year, cassava was not harvested until Aug 1991 (11 months), resulting 

in much higher yields, but no significant response to green manure application. 

Table 4. The effect of green manures on cassava yield in three trials in Pluak Daeng, Thailand. 

Green manure treatments 1) 

DM green manures (t/ha) Cassava fresh root yield (t/ha) 

1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 

No green manure, no fertiliser - - - 3.21 cd 5.75 bcd 16.36 

Sesbania rostrata, no fertiliser 9.71 b 3.46 b 9.91 b 9.29 a 5.37 bcd 15.04 

Sesbania speciosa, no fertiliser 2.58 ef 2.15 b 9.73 b 5.61 abcd 4.46 cd 17.52 

Sesbania aculeata, no fertiliser 4.20 de 2.54 b 7.58 b 5.19 bcd 4.42 cd 13.23 

Crotalaria juncea, no fertiliser 13.46 a 6.88 a 24.79 a 9.04 ab 8.83 a 17.29 

Crotalaria mucronata CIAT 7790, no fertiliser 6.77 c 2.86 b 10.36 b 6.71 abc 5.17 bcd 11.77 

Crotalaria spectabilis, no fertiliser 5.49 cd 2.98 b 12.75 ab 5.81 abcd 3.96 d 17.64 

Canavalia ensiformis, no fertiliser 6.63 c 6.96 a 24.79 a 5.37 bcd 7.00 abc 14.67 

Indigo, no fertiliser 6.36 c 3.21 b 10.94 b 5.37 bcd 5.08 bcd 16.61 

Mucuna fospeada, no fertiliser 5.66 cd 2.70 b 10.74 b 5.21 bcd 6.08 abcd 16.45 

Pigeon pea (ICRISAT), no fertiliser 2.11 f 3.46 b 2.29 b 2.06 d 4.50 cd 14.79 

No green manure, with fertilisers 2) - - - 8.75 ab 7.71 ab 17.04 

F-test ** ** ** ** * NS 

1) 

Green manures were planted in May/June, cut in Aug/Sept and cassava planted in Oct, harvested after 8-9 

months in the first two years and after 11 months in the third year. 

2) 

100 N, 0 P, 50 kg/ha K2O. 

199


200 

Analyses of soil samples taken before planting and after harvest of cassava indicate 

that green manures had no significant effect on pH, OM and available P or 

exchangeable K (CIAT, 1992). In all treatments, soil pH gradually decreased from 6.6 to 

5.5, OM decreased slightly from 1.0 to 0.8 %, P was quite variable, while available K 

decreased from 95 to about 30 ppm during three years of consecutive cropping. 

A similar experiment was conducted for three years (1991 to 1994) in an adjacent 

field in Pluak Daeng using six species of green manures. These were again planted in 

the early wet season (May/June), cut after about 3 months, and (in subplots) either 

mulched on the soil surface or incorporated into the soil with a hand tractor. In the 

mulched subplots cassava was planted without further land preparation. Cassava was 

planted in the mid to late rainy season (Aug/Sept) and harvested after 9-10 months. For 

comparison, two additional plots without green manures were planted at the more 

traditional planting time at the start of the rainy season (May/June); these were also 

harvested after 9-10 months. At both planting times one of the two check plots without 

green manures received 100 kg N and 50 K2O per hectare as fertilisers. 

Table 5 shows that planting in the early rainy season resulted in much higher 

cassava yields than planting towards the end of the rainy season. Application of NK 

fertilisers increased yields but not significantly. Among the six green manures, Crotalaria 

juncea was consistently the most productive species, while Sesbania rostrata was the 

least productive. Crotalaria juncea, either when mulched or incorporated, also produced 

the highest cassava yields. While these yields were higher than those planted in 

September with fertilisers, they were not significantly different from yields obtained 

without fertiliser when cassava was planted in the early wet season, and they were 

considerably lower than those obtained with fertilisers and planted in May/June. Soil 

analyses again indicate that incorporation or mulching of green manures had no 

significant effect on soil fertility parameters. This indicates that nutrients leached from 

the decomposing green manures were directly absorbed by cassava roots without having 

a long-term effect on soil fertility. 

Table 5. Effect of cassava planting time, fertilisation and green manuring on green manure 

production and cassava yields in Pluak Daeng, Thailand (dates are mean values for 

three cropping cycles, 1991/92, 1992/93 and 1993/94). 

Green manure yield – DM (t/ha) Cassava fresh root yield (t/ha) 

Green manure treatments incorporated mulched incorporated mulched 1 Mean 

No green manure, June planting, no fertiliser - - 11.06 9.13 10.09 ab 

No green manure, June planting, with fertiliser 2) - - 13.69 13.17 13.43 a 

No green manure, Sept. planting, no fertiliser - - 5.76 4.45 5.11 cd 

No green manure, Sept. planting, with fertiliser 2) - - 6.49 5.57 6.03 cd 

Sesbania rostrata, Sept. planting, no fertiliser 0.84 1.11 5.25 3.63 4.44 d 

Mucuna fospeada, Sept. planting, no fertiliser 3.08 3.78 7.44 9.41 8.42 bc 

Crotalaria juncea, Sept. planting, no fertiliser 6.22 6.92 9.92 10.47 10.20 ab 

Canavalia ensiformis, Sept. planting, no fertiliser 3.27 3.64 6.83 6.94 6.88 bcd 

Cowpea, Sept. planting, no fertiliser 2.10 2.97 7.40 4.61 6.00 cd 

Pigeon pea, Sept. planting, no fertiliser 3.10 3.57 9.31 6.17 7.74 bcd 

Mean 3.10 3.66 8.32A 7.36A 

F-test for cassava yield: main plots (A) NS; green manure treatments (B) **; AxB NS 

1 cassava planted without land preparation. 

2 94 N, 0 P, 50 kg/ha K2O.


From these two experiments conducted in Pluak Daeng it was concluded that 

among the green manures tested, Crotalaria juncea was the most productive and the 

most effective in increasing cassava yields; that incorporation resulted in slightly higher 

yields than mulching (not statistically significant); and that some green manures were as 

effective or even more effective than chemical fertilisers in increasing yield. However, 

under the climatic conditions of Thailand, which has a 6-month dry season, the traditional 

use of green manures is impractical, since the better part of the rainy season is used for 

production of green manures, while the following cassava crop produces low yields due 

to drought stress in the dry season. 

Alternative management of green manure species in Rayong, Thailand 

To overcome some of the above-mentioned constraints alternative management 

practices were tested in a green manure trial conducted at Rayong Research Centre 

from 1994 to 1998, using Crotalaria juncea, Canavalia ensiformis, pigeon pea and 

cowpea as the green manures. Three methods of green manure management were 

tested: a) green manures were intercropped with cassava, pulled out at two months after 

planting (MAP) and mulched between cassava rows; b) green manures were interplanted 

into a mature cassava stand at 7 MAP; they were pulled up and mulched at the time of 

next cassava planting; or 3) green manures were grown as a conventional green manure 

crop before being pulled up at 3-4 MAP and mulched, after which cassava was planted 

without further land preparation and left to grow for 18 months. The last method resulted 

in a two-year crop cycle, while in methods 1 and 2 cassava was harvested at 11 months 

for a normal one-year crop cycle. 

The results, shown in Table 6, indicate that Crotalaria juncea usually had the highest 

dry matter (DM) production, followed by pigeon pea or cowpea. Pigeon pea was 

particularly productive as a green manure crop when interplanted at 7 MAP, in which 

case the green manure remained in the field during the dry season. Because of their 

high DM production, Crotalaria and pigeon pea were the most effective in recycling 

nutrients. 

In the first cycle almost all green manure treatments increased cassava yields 

compared with the check without green manure (T1); however, these yields were still 

below those obtained with a higher fertilisation rate (T2). In the second cycle, 

intercropping or interplanting of the green manures had no significant effect on cassava 

yields, which were again considerably below that obtained with a higher rate of 

fertilisation (T2). Leaving cassava grow for 18 months after a conventional green 

manure crop (T11-T14) resulted in very high yields while having little effect on root starch 

content. This may be an effective way for farmers to reduce production costs, since land 

preparation, weeding and harvesting is done only once in two years, while total 

production from one 2-year cycle was only slightly lower than that of two 1-year cycles. 

Again, there were no consistent effects of any of the green manure treatments on 

soil pH, organic matter (OM), available P or exchangeable K. Thus, while green 

manuring may have some short-term benefits in terms of crop productivity, the long-term 

effects on soil fertility are not very clear. Whenever labour is scarce or expensive, such 

as in Thailand, farmers will probably prefer to maximize their yields through the use of 

chemical fertilisers instead of green manures. 

Nevertheless, Paisarncharoen et al. (1990) reported that incorporation of vegetative 

cowpea (Tita-3) increased significantly the yield of the following cassava crop during five 

consecutive years in Khon Kaen in Northeast Thailand. Incorporation of Crotalaria 

juncea also increased yields, but not significantly, while pigeon pea had little beneficial 

effect (Sittibusaya et al. 1995). 

201


202 

Table 6. Effect of fertiliser application, three alternative green manure practices and four 

different species on green manure production and nutrient uptake, as well as on the 

yield of cassava (cv. Rayong 90) grown for two consecutive cropping cycles at Rayong 

Research Centre in Thailand from 1994 to1998. 

Treatments 1 

1. Cassava without green manure, with 

156 kg/ha 13-13-21 fertiliser 

2. Cassava without green manure, with 

468 kg/ha 13-13-21 fertiliser 

3. Cassava intercropped with Crotalaria 

juncea, mulched at 2 MAP 

4. Cassava intercropped with Canavalia 

ensiformis, mulched at 2 MAP 

5. Cassava intercropped with pigeon pea, 

mulched at 2 MAP 

6. Cassava intercropped with cowpea, 

mulched at 2 MAP 

7. Cassava interplanted with Crotalia 

juncea at 7 MAP and mulched 

8. Cassava interplanted with Canavalia 

ensiformis at 7MAP and mulched 

9. Cassava interplanted with pigeon pea 

at 7 MAP and mulched 

10. Cassava interplanted with cowpea at 7 

MAP and mulched 

11. Crotalaria juncea green manure, 

mulched, cassava for 18months 

12. Canavalia ensiformis green manure, 

mulched, cassava for 18months 

13. Pigeon pea green manure, mulched, 

cassava for 18months 

14. Cowpea green manure, mulched, 

cassava for 18months 

DM yield green Nutrient content of green manures (kg/ha) Cassava fresh root 

manures (t/ha) N P K 

yield (t/ha) 

1st 2) 2 nd 1st 2 nd 1st 2 nd 1st 2 nd 1st 2 nd 

- - - - - - - - 17.6 30.1 

- - - - - - - - 29.8 40.4 

1.9 4.7 44.7 94.9 3.0 12.7 27.6 31.1 23.8 29.2 

0.9 1.8 20.1 51.7 2.4 6.6 14.6 25.9 26.9 27.8 

1.1 2.1 27.0 48.7 2.2 6.7 12.5 19.0 21.4 27.0 

- 2.8 - 53.7 - 7.2 - 27.1 20.3 18.8 

9.9 1.2 262.1 21.7 23.7 4.6 102.9 7.4 8.8 31.4 

1.5 0.7 36.6 16.0 4.1 3.1 28.0 8.2 22.8 24.2 

8.9 2.3 221.7 45.5 20.0 7.3 108.8 15.9 15.9 28.8 

- 0.7 - 14.2 - 2.9 - 7.6 17.3 27.0 

1.4 4.4 39.9 79.9 3.6 17.7 14.7 31.6 46.2 3) 49.0 3) 

0.9 1.4 18.4 45.7 2.3 7.2 15.8 17.2 42.9 43.8 

1.1 2.7 25.6 68.7 2.3 13.2 12.8 21.7 38.8 46.0 

- 2.9 - 68.2 - 12.6 - 31.0 38.9 46.3 

1) 

Fertiliser applied 13-13-21 fertiliser kg/ha. In T3-T14 cassava received 156 kg/ha 13-13-21 fertiliser (like T1). In T3-T6 cassava was 

intercropped with 1 row of green manure, which was pulled out and mulched at 2 MAP; cassava was harvested at 11 months for a total 

crop cycle of 12 months. In T7-T10 the green manures were inter-planted in the cassava stand at 7 MAP; they remain after the 

cassava harvest and were pulled up and mulched at time of next cassava planting; cassava was harvested at 11 months for a total crop 

cycle of 12 months. In T11-14 the green manures were planted, pulled out and mulched at 3-4 months, after which cassava was 

planted and remains in the field for 18 months for a total crop cycle of 24 months. In the first cycle, T6, T10 and T14 had Mucuna 

pruriens as the green manure, but this species did not germinate well and was replaced by cowpea in the 2nd cycle. 

2) 

1st and 2nd refer to the two cropping cycles. 

3) 

High yields in T11-14 is mainly due to a longer (18 months) cropping cycle compared with a normal 1-year (11 months) cropping cycle 

for the other treatments. 

The use of forages as cover crops to improve fertility and reduce erosion 

Erosion losses in cassava fields were found to be high (Puttacharoen et al. 1998) mainly 

because much of the soil surface remains exposed to the direct impact of raindrops 

during the first 3-4 months after planting. This problem can be reduced by minimum 

tillage (Reining, 1992), application of mulch (Evangelio et al. 1995), intercropping 

(Reining, 1992), or by the use of forage legumes as a cover crop for cassava 

(Ruppenthal, 1995). These practices can be very effective in controlling erosion 

(Howeler, 1995) and may also improve soil fertility, but they have negative aspects such 

as weeding problems, high labour requirements, or competition effects from the cover 

crops. To determine the potential of several forage legumes for their use as cover crops 

in cassava, various experiments were conducted in Thailand.


Cover cropping of cassava with forage legumes in Pluak Daeng, Thailand 

After evaluating a large number of forage species for adaptation to soil and climatic 

conditions in Rayong, Thailand, some species were identified as potential cover crops for 

use with cassava (Table 3). Nine leguminous forage species were planted in double 

rows in between rows of cassava, cv. Rayong 1, spaced at 1.80 x 0.55 m. Cassava 

received 156 kg/ha of 15-15-15 fertiliser. 

All forage species established well, resulting in complete soil cover in 3-4 months 

after planting, except for Arachis pintoi and Stylosanthes hamata, which established 

more slowly. In the first year, cover crops were not cut back, resulting in competition 

with cassava, both for light and for soil moisture during the dry season. After the first 

cassava harvest, all cover crops were slashed back and mulched. Plots were subdivided 

and cassava was replanted at a spacing of 1.10 x 0.90 m in 60-cm wide strips prepared 

either with hand tractor or by spraying the cover crops with Paraquat. The same 

methodology was used in the third year. In the second and third year cover crops were 

regularly slashed back at 20 cm above ground level to reduce competition with cassava. 

Nevertheless, Table 7 shows that cassava yields were low and severely affected by 

competition from the cover crops. Most competitive was Stylosanthes guianensis, 

followed by Centrosema pubescens. Stylosanthes hamata and Arachis pintoi were not 

very competitive during the first year of establishment, but became very competitive in 

subsequent years. Least competitive was Centrosema acutifolium, but this was partly 

due to less vigorous growth resulting in only partial soil cover. 

Table 7. Effect of intercropping cassava with leguminous cover crops on the yield of cassava, 

cv. Rayong 1, in three trials in Pluak Daeng, Thailand. 

DM cover crops (t/ha) Cassava fresh root yield (t/ha) 1) 

Cover crop treatments 1988/89 2) 1990/91 3) 1988/89 1989/90 1990/91 

No cover crop - - 11.68 a 7.79 a 19.62 a 

Stylosanthes hamata 1.74 d 1.68 ab 10.27 ab 3.91 c 4.45 de 

Stylosanthes guianensis 9.22 a 2.19 a 3.21 d 6.56 ab 0.83 e 

Arachis pintoi 0.87 d - 8.46 bc 6.56 ab 9.71 cd 

Centrosema acutifolium 2.17 bcd 0.93 bc 7.66 bc 6.69 ab 15.33 ab 

Centrosema pubescens 1.04 d 1.34 bc 7.51 bc 5.60 bc 6.17 d 

Mimosa invisa 1.97 cd 1.36 bc 7.49 bc 6.48 ab 13.33 bc 

Desmodium ovalifolium 3.81 b 0.68 c 7.26 bc 6.78 ab 13.46 bc 

Macroptilium atropurpureum 2.19 bcd 0.78 c 6.61 c 7.70 a 8.96 cd 

Indigofera sp. 3.25 bc 1.27 bc 3.05 d 6.36 ab 8.50 c 

F-test ** ** ** * ** 

1 

Cassava received 25 kg N, 25 P2O5 and 25 K2O/ha; data for 1989 and 1990 refer to those plots with tractor 

preparation of cassava planting strips. 

2 

at 10 months after planting. 

3 

at 3 months; average of mechanical and chemical land preparation treatments. 

A similar experiment was conducted in an adjacent field. In main plots two cassava 

plant spacings were used, i.e. 1.0 x 1.0 m and 1.50 x 0.67 m, both giving a plant 

population of 10,000 plants/ha. In subplots various forage species were planted in 

between cassava rows. Cassava received 156 kg/ha of 15-15-15 fertiliser. After the first 

cassava harvest, the cover crops were slashed back and cassava was replanted in 60cm 

wide strips prepared with a hand tractor. In the second year all cover crops were well 

established and competed strongly with cassava, mainly for soil moisture during cassava 

establishment. Table 8 shows that there were no significant differences in cassava 

203


204 

yields due to plant spacing, but that nearly all cover crops reduced cassava yields, some 

more than 50%. Most competitive were Indigofera and Mimosa sp. which were also 

among the most productive forage species tested. Less productive and thus less 

competitive were Zornia glabra, Alysicarpus vaginales and Arachis pintoi, although the 

latter still caused a marked yield reduction in the second year. 

From these two cover crop experiments it can be concluded that cassava is a weak 

competitor and yields are reduced markedly if the plants have to compete with deep 

rooted and well established forage legumes used as a cover crop. This competition is 

particularly strong during cassava plant establishment, especially when this coincides 

with a period of drought. Thus, cover cropping with most forage legumes would not be 

practical since it tends to reduce cassava yields and requires considerable additional 

labour. Ruppenthal (1995) and Ruppenthal et al. (1997) showed that cover crops, once 

well established, were effective in reducing soil erosion in cassava fields in two locations 

in Colombia, but that erosion can be controlled more effectively and with less reduction 

of cassava yield with the use of contour hedgerows of vetiver grass (Vetiveria 

zizanioides). 

Table 8. Dry matter production of various cover crops and their effect on the 

yield of cassava, cv. Rayong 1, planted at either 1.0x1.0m or at 

1.5x0.67m at Pluak Daeng, Thailand. Data are average values for the 

two plant spacings. 

DM cover crops (t/ha) Fresh cassava root yield (t/ha) 

Cover crop treatments 1991/92 1992/93 1991/92 1992/93 

No cover crop - - 18.61 a 7.14 a 

Indigofera sp. 6.55 3.15 8.33 c 4.19 abc 

Zornia latifolia 9199 1.08 1.14 16.34 ab 3.94 bc 

Zornia glabra 8283 0.47 1.68 22.23 a 5.44 ab 

Alysicarpus vaginales 1.37 0.27 17.19 ab 6.70 ab 

Mimosa invisa 4.61 2.96 12.71 bc 2.15 c 

Stylosanthes hamata 3.21 5.23 13.61 bc 2.12 c 

Arachis pintoi 0.26 0.42 15.97 b 2.30 c 

F-test for cassava spacing (S) NS NS 

Cover crops (C) ** ** 

S x C NS * 

The use of leguminous tree species in alley cropping to improve soil fertility 

Growing crops between contour hedgerows of leguminous trees is called alley cropping, 

and is another alternative to improve soil fertility and reduce erosion. The space 

between hedgerows can be varied, but is usually around 4-5 meters, so that less than 

20% of total land area is occupied by the hedgerows. The hedgerows are pruned before 

and at regular intervals after planting the crop and the pruning are distributed among 

crop plants to serve as a mulch, to supply nutrients (especially N), and to control weeds 

and erosion. 

Adaptation of leguminous shrubs and tree species to conditions in Rayong, Thailand 

Various leguminous shrubs were tested in Rayong, Thailand, to determine their general 

adaptation, ease of establishment, productivity of leaf/stem biomass, resistance to 

regular pruning and drought tolerance.


Table 9 shows that several species of Sesbania were highly productive in the first 

year, but did not resist regular pruning. Perennial pigeon pea varieties were easy to 

establish, were highly productive and drought tolerant, but they will last only a few years. 

Leucaena leucocephala, Gliricidia sepium and Cassia siamea were more difficult and 

slow to establish, but once established they were highly productive, resistant to pruning 

and very persistent. Cassia siamea is a non-N-fixing legume tree and serves mainly to 

produce biomass as mulch, to recycle nutrients and protect the soil from erosion. This 

species was also found to be particularly tolerant of acid soils (Howeler et al. 1999). 

Other species like Flemingia macrophylla and Tephrosia candida have been used 

successfully in other countries. 

Some farmers in northern Thailand adopt hedgerows consisting of a mixture of fastgrowing 

pigeon pea with a slower growing but more persistent tree species like Leucaena 

leucocephala (Boonchee et al. 1997). 

Table 9. Total dry weight of pruning at three harvests as well as total nutrient 

content of the pruning of alley crop hedgerow species grown at 

Rayong Field Crops Research Centre, Rayong, Thailand in 1990/91. 

Total dry matter (t/ha) Total nutrient content 1) (kg/ha) 

Alley crop hedgerow species 

Months after planting 

3 6 13.5 

N P K 

Leucaena leucocephala 0 0.6 12.0 - - - 

Gliricidia sepium 0.1 0.02 0.7 20 2 28 

Cassia siamea 0.2 1.2 25.4 526 37 668 

Sesbania grandiflora 1.1 0.4 0.3 49 3 51 

Sesbania sesban 3.0 2.5 0 79 8 116 

Sesbania aculeata 4.8 1.3 0.4 130 12 126 

Sesbania javanica 1.6 0.7 0.4 53 4 52 

Sesbania rostrata 3.7 1.2 0 77 5 73 

Pigeon pea from USA 2.3 3.7 15.0 388 26 480 

Pigeon pea ICP 8094 3.7 2.7 12.4 345 23 403 

Pigeon pea ICP 8860 3.6 4.6 14.6 384 28 527 

Pigeon pea ICP 11890 4.0 3.2 21.0 517 33 565 

1 

Sum of nutrients in leaves and stems from 3 harvests. 

Alley cropping of cassava with leguminous shrubs in Malang, Indonesia 

The use of hedgerows of Flemingia macrophylla and Gliricidia sepium in cassava fields 

were investigated for four years in Malang, Indonesia. The experiment had eight 

treatments without replication. Eroded soil was collected in concrete channels below 

each plot. 

The two hedgerow species were initially difficult to establish and during the first 

three years they had no beneficial effect on cassava yield or erosion (Wargiono et al. 

1998). However, in the fourth year, when cassava in other plots suffered from severe Ndeficiency 

after intercropping with maize, the cassava plants in the alley-cropped 

treatments were tall and had dark green leaves, indicating that the pruning of the 

hedgerows had supplied considerable amounts of N. Table 10 indicates that during the 

fourth year the two alley-cropped treatments produced high cassava yields and had the 

lowest levels of erosion (by enhancing early canopy cover). 

In a previous experiment in the same site, hedgerows of Leucaena leucocephala 

and Gliricidia sepium also produced the highest cassava yields and lowest levels of 

erosion during the fourth year of consecutive planting; these two treatments also 

resulted in the highest levels of soil organic matter , the lowest bulk density and the 

highest infiltration rates and soil aggregate stability (Wargiono et al. 1995). Table 10 

also shows that cover cropping with Mimosa sp. reduced cassava yields only slightly in 

the first two years, but markedly in the subsequent two years. 

205


206 

Table 10. Effect of various crop/soil management practices on soil loss due to erosion and on 

cassava and maize yields during four consecutive cropping cycles on 5% slope in 

Jatikerto Experiment Station, Malang, Indonesia. 

Crop/soil management treatments 

1. C+M 1) , no fertilisers, no 

ridges 

2. C+M, no fertilisers, contour 

ridges 

3. C+M, with fertilisers, contour 

ridges 


ridges, elephant grass hedgerows 


ridges, Gliricidia hedgerows 


ridges, Flemingia hedgerows 


ridges, Mimosa cover crop 

8. C+M 1) , with fertilisers, contour 

ridges, peanut intercrop 

Dry soil loss (t/ha) Cassava yield (t/ha) Maize yield (t/ha) 

91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 91/92 92/93 93/94 

58.3 49.3 55.7 8.5 16.3 15.8 5.1 6.6 - - 0 

43.0 36.9 36.7 2.8 25.4 23.2 5.1 13.3 - - 0 

39.2 24.8 28.1 3.8 20.4 20.5 17.8 16.7 1.98 2.27 2.88 

36.9 19.8 20.8 2.4 18.4 17.4 11.8 19.3 1.36 1.42 1.96 

43.2 22.3 20.9 2.2 16.3 18.0 16.1 20.7 1.16 1.28 2.80 

41.3 17.7 17.3 1.9 17.2 18.1 14.2 21.6 1.26 1.46 3.20 

38.4 18.3 24.7 2.4 17.1 18.2 12.2 9.9 1.44 1.63 3.36 

36.4 21.7 26.3 4.5 23.7 23.7 19.9 25.3 - - 2.10 

1 During the first two years there was no intercropped maize in treatments 1, 2 and 8 ; C+M= cassava intercropped with maize. 

Thus, once well established, hedgerows of leguminous shrubs used for mulch 

significantly enhanced soil fertility and improved the soil's physical characteristics. 

However, in less fertile soils or in areas with a long dry season, hedgerows can severely 

compete with neighbouring cassava for water and nutrients (Jantawat et al. 1994); they 

also require additional labour to keep properly pruned to prevent light competition. 

The use of grasses as contour hedgerows to reduce erosion on hillsides 

Many researchers (Ruppenthal 1995; Ruppenthal et al. 1997; Vongkasem et al. 1998; 

Nguyen The Dang et al. 1998; Zhang et al. 1998) have shown that planting contour 

hedgerows of vetiver grass is a very effective way to reduce erosion when cassava is 

grown on hillsides. In farmer participatory research (FPR) trials in Vietnam and Thailand, 

farmers have consistently identified this as the most effective way of controlling erosion 

(Howeler et al. 1998). Nevertheless, few farmers have actually adopted the technology 

because vetiver grass can only be propagated vegetatively, planting material is often 

difficult to obtain, and transport and planting costs are high. Moreover, vetiver grass is 

not a good animal feed, the stems do not provide fuel wood, and the leaves do not add 

nitrogen to the soil. To overcome some of these problems, other grasses were 

evaluated for their ability to form a dense hedgerow that is effective in reducing erosion, 

without competing excessively with neighbouring cassava or spreading by seed or 

stolons into adjacent cropland. 

Contour hedgerows of grass species for erosion control in Khaw Hin Sorn, Thailand 

In 1996, cassava cv. Kasetsart 50, was planted along contour lines at a spacing of 

1.0 x 1.0 m in plots of 7 x 10 m on a gentle slope (5-6%) in Khaw Hin Sorn. Fifteen 

grass species were tested as contour hedgerows by planting them between every third 

cassava row to give three hedgerows per plot. Treatments were not replicated. Eroded 

soil was trapped in a plastic-covered ditches along the bottom end of each plot. These 

eroded sediments were collected and weighed to determine soil loss due to erosion. 

Most grasses were planted vegetatively, but Brachiaria ruziziensis, B. brizantha, Setaria 

sphacelata, Paspalum atratum and Panicum maximum were planted from seed. Three


accessions of vetiver grass were also included. Cassava was fertilised with 312 kg/ha of 

15-15-15. All grasses established well in the first year. Hedgerows were cut back at a 

height of 30 cm 2-3 times a year, and the cut leaves were mulched between cassava 

plants. After 11 months, cassava plants were harvested row by row. The same plots 

were replanted with cassava in 1997 and 1998, while hedgerows were maintained by 

regular pruning. 

Table 11 shows that in the first and second year cassava in check plots without 

hedgerows produced 19.6 and 21.5 t/ha of fresh roots, respectively. During the first year 

of establishment, some plots with grass hedgerows, i.e. Paspalum atratum and Setaria 

sphacelata, produced higher cassava yields than the check plot, but most other grasses, 

notably Napier (Pennisetum purpureum), Brachiaria ruziziensis and Panicum maximum 

CIAT 6299, competed strongly with neighbouring cassava plants, resulting in a marked 

reduction in yield. 

Table 11. Effect of contour hedgerows of various grass species planted between 

every third cassava row on cassava root yield and soil erosion when 

grown on 5% slope in Khaw Hin Sorn, Thailand in 1996/97 and 1997/98. 

Hedgerow treatments 

Cassava fresh root yield (t/ha) Dry soil loss (t/ha) 

1996/97 1997/98 1996/97 1997/98 

Control without hedgerows 19.6 21.5 3.6 3.7 

Vetiver grass ‘Nakorn Sawan’ 15.7 6.8 3.3 2.9 

Vetiver grass ‘Sri Lanka’ 16.9 8.2 4.3 1.6 

Vetiver grass ‘Songkhla 3’ 19.6 6.5 4.0 3.4 

Lemon grass 12.9 12.1 4.2 2.1 

Citronella grass 13.7 8.8 2.7 2.0 

Panicum maximum TD 58 13.3 7.1 9.0 14.8 

Panicum maximum CIAT 6299 9.6 5.5 3.4 2.2 

Paspalum atratum BRA 9610 33.0 14.8 3.1 2.1 

Setaria sphacelata 22.1 7.8 3.4 3.1 

Brachiaria brizantha 16.4 7.5 2.0 1.7 

Brachiaria ruziziensis 9.0 5.9 2.0 2.1 

Dwarf napier grass 5.1 4.6 2.9 1.7 

Normal napier grass 2.4 0.2 5.2 1.8 

King grass 10.7 1.4 7.7 3.8 

Sugarcane (for chewing) 12.5 5.8 2.5 1.5 

In the second year, cassava encountered drought during the establishment phase 

and suffered from strong competition for water from the neighbouring grass hedgerows 

of all species. Figure 1 shows that napier grass and King grass Pennisetum were 

particularly competitive, reducing cassava yields dramatically, not only in the 

neighbouring rows but also in the centre row, 1.5 meter away from the grass. Most other 

grasses affected the yield of cassava mainly in the neighbouring rows but not in the 

centre row. Paspalum atratum was again least competitive, followed by lemon grass 

(Cymbopogon citratus) and citronella grass (Cymbopogon nardus Rendle); the vetiver 

grasses were intermediately competitive. Soil erosion losses were relatively low and 

differences among the plots are probably not related to treatments. 

During the third year, 1998/99, it was observed that all grasses seriously competed 

with cassava in neighbouring rows except for lemon and citronella grass and the vetiver 

grasses; the latter have a vertical root system that does not overlap with the rooting zone 

of cassava (Tscherning et al. 1995). Paspalum atratum, which did not compete much in 

207


208 

the first two years, tended to expand somewhat laterally, causing more competition for 

light in the neighbouring cassava rows. Thus, while Paspalum atratum seems like an 

attractive option, as the grass makes an excellent animal feed and can be grown from 

seed as well as from vegetative planting material, in those areas where animal feed is 

not important to farmers, the best alternatives probably remain vetiver grass and lemon 

grass. The latter is an important ingredient in Thai cooking and thus has market value 

for the farmer. 

Fig. 1. The effect of different grass species used as contour barriers 

on the fresh root yield of cassava, cv. KU 50, grown in three 

rows between barriers in Khaw Hin Sorn, Chachoengsao, 

Thailand in 1997/98.

Summary and conclusions 


Results from the experiments described above can be summarized as follows: 

Intercropping and cover cropping – Cassava is a weak competitor and yields were 

seriously reduced when the crop had to compete with intercropped species, especially 

vigorously growing perennial species, like Stylosanthes guianensis, S. hamata, 

Centrosema pubescens, Indigofera hursita, Mimosa sp. and Pueraria phaseoloides or 

long-duration annuals like Mucuna sp. (velvet bean) pigeon pea or cowpea. However, 

intercropping with short-duration grain legumes, such as peanut, mungbean, soybean 

and erect types of cowpea, usually has little effect on cassava yield and provide farmers 

with additional income (Nguyen Huu Hy et al. 1995), protect the soil from erosion 

(Tongglum et al. 1992) and may improve fertility if crop residues are incorporated. 

Intercropping with peanut is commonly practiced in Vietnam, China and Indonesia, while 

intercropping with soybean or peanut is common on the calcareous soils of southern 

Java of Indonesia. 

Green manuring – Growing a green manure crop before cassava and either incorporating 

or mulching of the crop residues before planting cassava generally improved soil fertility 

and increased cassava yields, especially in sandy and low fertility soils. In areas with 

intermediate soil pH, the most productive species were pigeon pea, Indigofera hirsuta 

and Sesbania speciosa. In soils of higher pH in Pluak Daeng, Crotalaria juncea was 

consistently the most productive and most effective specie in increasing cassava yields, 

followed by velvet bean and Canavalia ensiformis. However, in areas with only one 

relatively short wet season, green manuring may not be practical since the green manure 

is grown during much of the wet season, resulting in low cassava yields due to drought 

stress in the following dry season. 

Alley cropping – Cassava is grown in strips (alleys) between single or double rows of 

perennial tree legumes; the legumes are cut back regularly and the leaves are mulched 

between cassava plants. Cassia siamea was found to be very productive, but there is 

little experience with the use of this species in alley cropping. In high pH soil in 

Indonesia alley cropping with Leucaena leucocephala, Gliricidia sepium and Flemingia 

macrophylla was found to be effective in increasing cassava yields and reducing erosion. 

Grass hedgerows – These are planted along the contour in hilly areas, usually at 1-2 m 

vertical distance to reduce runoff and trap eroded sediments. The most effective species 

so far identified are vetiver grass, lemon grass, citronella and Paspalum atratum. The 

latter has the advantage of being a useful animal feed, while it can be propagated either 

from seed or from vegetative material, thus reducing the cost of establishment. Napier 

grass is commonly used as a hedgerow along contours or plot borders in Indonesia 

(Wargiono et al. 1995; 1998), where it does not seem nearly as vigorous and competitive 

as in Thailand (Jantawat et al. 1994), either due to more frequent cutting or because of a 

different ecotype used. 

It may be concluded that forage legumes can play a role in improving soil fertility in 

cassava, mainly when used as a green manure before planting cassava or as a 

hedgerow (alley crop) between cassava, but whether or not it is practical depends on the 

rainfall distribution, availability of land and labour, as well as the cost and availability of 

alternative nutrient sources, like animal manures and chemical fertilisers. 

Cover cropping with perennial forage legumes in cassava does not seem practical, 

as the legumes compete too strongly with cassava, especially for soil moisture during the 

early cassava establishment phase. 

209


210 

Alley cropping with hedgerows of leguminous tree species seem to increase 

cassava yields once the hedges are well established, but may decrease yields in the 

short-term by occupying a considerable portion of the land. 

Contour hedgerows of grasses, such as vetiver and lemon grass, or Paspalum 

atratum, have been shown to be very effective in controlling erosion while not competing 

too strongly with neighbouring cassava plants. If the grass has some additional value, 

either through direct sale (lemon grass) or as animal feed, this will be an attractive option 

for farmers. 

Thus, while forage species can play an important role in maintaining soil fertility and 

reducing erosion, the use of all these species has both advantages and disadvantages. 

Ultimately, farmers themselves have to decide whether any of these are useful under 

their particular conditions. 

References 

Boonchee, S., Inthaphan, P. and Ut Pong, N. 1997. Management of sloping lands for 

sustainable agriculture in Thailand (the Chiang Mai site). In: A. Sajjapongse (Ed.). 

The Management of Sloping Lands in Asia (IBSRAM/ASIALAND). Network Doc. 

22, IBSRAM, Bangkok, Thailand. pp. 195-210. 

Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). 1992. Cassava Program. 1987- 

1991. Working Document No. 116. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. 

Evangelio, F.A., Villamayor Jr., F.G., Dingal, A.G., Ladera, J.C., Medellin, A.C., Miranda, 

J. and Sajise Jr., G.E. 1995. Recent progress in cassava agronomy research in the 

Philippines. In: R.H. Howeler (Ed.). Cassava Breeding, Agronomy Research and 

Technology Transfer in Asia. Proc. 4th Regional Workshop, held in Trivandrum, 

Kerala, India. Nov 2-6, 1993. pp. 290-305. 

Howeler, R.H. 1987. Soil conservation practices in cassava-based cropping systems. In: 

T.H. Thay, A.M. Mokhtaruddin and A.B. Zahari (Eds.). Proc. Intern. Conf. 

Steepland Agric. in Humid Tropics, held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Aug 16-21, 

1987. pp. 490-517. 

Howeler, R.H. 1991. Long-term effect of cassava cultivation on soil productivity. Field 

Crops Research 26: 1-18. 

Howeler, R.H. 1994. Integrated soil and crop management to prevent environmental 

degradation in cassava-based cropping systems in Asia. In: J.W.T. Bottema and 

D. R. Stoltz (Eds.). Upland Agriculture in Asia. Proc. Workshop held in Bogor, 

Indonesia. April 6-8, 1993. pp.195-224. 

Howeler, R.H. 1995. Agronomy research in the Asian Cassava Network-Towards better 

production without soil degradation. In: R.H. Howeler (Ed.). Cassava Breeding, 

Agronomy Research and Technology Transfer in Asia. Proc. 4th Regional 

Workshop, held in Trivandrum, Kerala, India. Nov 2-6, 1993. pp.368-409. 

Howeler, R.H, Nguyen The Dang and Vongkasem, W. 1998. Farmer participatory 

selection of vetiver grass as the most effective way to control erosion in cassavabased 

cropping systems in Vietnam and Thailand. In: Proc. International 

Conference on Vetiver, held in Chiang Rai, Thailand. Feb 4-8, 1996. pp. 259-272. 

Howeler, R.H., El-Sharkawy, M.A. and Cadavid, L.F. 1999. The potential use of grain 

and forage legumes for soil fertility maintenance and erosion control in cassava in 

Colombia. (in preparation) 

Jantawat, S., Tongglum, A., Puthacharoen, S., Poolsanguan, P. and Howeler, R.H. 1994. 

Conservation practices for sustainable production of cassava on sloping land. In: 

Sustaining environmental Quality: The Erosion Control Challenge. Proc. 25 th 

Conference, held Feb 15-18, 1994, Reno, Nevada, USA. pp. 521-526. 

Nguyen Huu Hy, Tran Dai Nghia and Pham Van Bien. 1995. Recent progress in cassava 

agronomy research in Vietnam. In: R.H. Howeler (Ed.). Cassava Breeding,


Agronomy Research and Technology Transfer in Asia. Proc. 4 th Regional 

Workshop, held in Trivandrum, Kerala, India. Nov 2-6, 1993. pp. 237-252. 

Nguyen The Dang, Tran Ngoc Ngoan, Le Sy Loi, Dinh Ngoc Lan and Thai Phien. 1998. 

Farmer participatory research in cassava soil management and varietal 

dissemination in Vietnam. In: R.H. Howeler (Ed.). Cassava Breeding, Agronomy 

and Farmer Participatory Research in Asia. Proc. 5 th Regional Workshop, held in 

Danzhou, Hainan, China. Nov 3-8, 1996. pp. 454-470. 

Paisarncharoen, K., Wibunsuk, N., Bunyong, B., Wongwiwathanachay, C., Naakwirot, C., 

Suwan, S., Sittibusaya, C., Kesawatphitak P. and Soomnat, P. 1990. Influence of 

green manures and chemical fertilisers on yield of Rayong 3 cassava cultivar. In: 

Annual Report 1990. Field Crops Soil and Fertiliser Group, Soil Science Division, 

Dept. of Agric., Bangkok, Thailand. pp. 296-312. (in Thai) 

Putthacharoen, S., Howeler, R.H., Jantawat, S. and Vichukit, V. 1998. Nutrient uptake 

and soil erosion losses in cassava and six other crops in a Psamment in eastern 

Thailand. Field Crops Research 57:113-126. 

Reining, L. 1992. Erosion in Andean Hillside Farming. Hohenheim Tropical Agric. Series 

#1. Hohenheim Univ., Germany. 219 p. 

Ruppenthal, M. 1995. Soil Conservation in Andean Cropping Systems. Hohenheim 

Tropical Agric. Series #3. Hohenheim Univ., Germany. 110 p. 

Ruppenthal, M., Leihner, D.E., Steinmuller, N. and EL-Sharkawy, M.A. 1997. Losses of 

organic matter and nutrients by water erosion in cassava-based cropping systems. 

Experimental Agriculture. 33:487-498 

Sittibusaya, C., Thiraporn, C., Tongglum, A., Cenpukdee, U., Vichukit, V., Jantawat, S. 

and Howeler, R.H.. 1995. Recent progress in cassava agronomy research in 

Thailand. In: R.H. Howeler (Ed.). Cassava Breeding, Agronomy Research and 

Technology Transfer in Asia. Proc. 4 th Regional Workshop, held in Trivandrum, 

Kerala, India. Nov 2-6, 1993. pp. 110-123. 

Tongglum, A., Vichukit, N., Jantawat, S., Sittibusaya, C., Tiraporn, C., Sinthuprama, S. 

and Howeler, R.H.. 1992. In: R.H. Howeler (Ed.). Cassava Breeding, Agronomy 

and Utilization Research in Asia. Proc. 3 rd Regional Workshop, held in Malang, 

Indonesia. Oct 22-27, 1990. pp. 199-223. 

Tscherning, T., Leihner, D.E., Hilger, T.H., Mueller-Saemann K.M., and El-Sharkawy 

M.A. 1995. Grass barriers in cassava hillside cultivation: rooting patterns and 

growth dynamics. Field Crops Research 43: 131-140. 

Vongkasem, V., Klakhaeng, K., Hemvijit, S., Tongglum, A., Katong, S. and Suparhan, D. 

1998. Farmer participatory research in soil management and varietal selection in 

Thailand. In: R.H. Howeler (Ed.). Cassava Breeding, Agronomy and Farmer 

Participatory Research in Asia. Proc. 5 th Regional Workshop, held in Danzhou, 

Hainan, China. Nov 3-8, 1996. pp. 412-437. 

Wargiono, J., Guritno, B., Sugito Y. and Widodo, Y. 1995. Recent progress in cassava 

agronomy research in Indonesia. In: R.H. Howeler (Ed.). Cassava Breeding, 

Agronomy Research and Technology Transfer in Asia. Proc. 4 th Regional 

Workshop, held in Trivandrum, Kerala, India. Nov 2-6, 1993. pp. 147-174. 

Wargiono, J., Kushartoyo, Suyamto H. and Guritno, B.. 1998. Recent progress in 

cassava agronomy research in Indonesia. In: R.H. Howeler (Ed.). Cassava 

Breeding, Agronomy and Farmer Participatory Research in Asia. Proc. 5 th 

Regional Workshop, held in Danzhou, Hainan, China. Nov 3-8, 1996. pp. 307-330. 

Zhang Weite, Lin Xiong, Li Kaimian and Hung Jie. 1998. Farmer participatory research in 

cassava soil management and varietal dissemination in China. In: R.H. Howeler 

(Ed.). Cassava Breeding, Agronomy and Farmer Participatory Research in Asia. 

Proc. 5 th Regional Workshop, held in Danzhou, Hainan, China. Nov 3-8, 1996. pp. 

389-411. 

211


Discussion papers on networking and 

impact assessment 

212


Sustaining a research and development network: 

Experiences with SEAFRAD 

Wong Choi Chee 1 and Peter Horne 2 

The South East Asia Forage and Feed Resources Research and Development Network 

(SEAFRAD) is an informal network of scientists, researchers, extensionists, and 

producers who share a common interest in improving the productivity and utility of 

tropical forages. The general objective of SEAFRAD is to provide a structure to 

enhance collaboration and communication between scientific and extension groups 

working on research, development, and promotion of tropical forages for the benefit of 

the rural communities around this region. With this set-up, it is hoped that SEAFRAD will 

be able to stimulate research programs and facilitate cooperation among groups and 

individuals. 

The SEAFRAD Network was established with the following specific objective to: 

• Facilitate communication and networking within and between countries. 

• Make new forage germplasm and forage component technology available. 

• Develop collaborative research and development activities with national scientists in 

the tropics. 

• Produce and distribute a regional newsletter with assistance from national 

coordinators. 

• Hold annual regional meetings. 

• Conduct training in forage technology and technology transfer. 

SEAFRAD activities began in 1995, are carried out jointly with Commonwealth 

Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Division of Tropical Crops and 

Pastures. Funding was provided by the Australian Government under a special project – 

the Forages for Smallholders Project (FSP) which commenced in January 1995. 

SEAFRAD collaborates with the FAO Regional Working Group on Grazing and Feed 

Resources. Linkages established with many government and non-government 

organizations in the region (e.g. the LAO-IRRI Project, Lao-Swedish Forestry Project, 

ACIAR Leucaena Project, FAO Regional Working Group on Feed Resources, FAO 

Locally Available Feed Resources Project) have been continued or expanded. 

Achievements 

In the context of the abovementioned objectives, tremendous achievements have been 

attained by SEAFRAD under the umbrella of FSP. Many of the activities were carried 

out with the help of core CIAT representatives assigned in the region and who spent 

considerable amount of time on network activities. What will happen if FSP no longer 

exists? Can SEAFRAD sustain itself without financial backing and leadership? In this 

scenario, SEAFRAD should take on a more responsible international image, with wider 

membership covering all regions of the humid tropics. External funding is needed to 

enable member countries to participate. Member countries should look into the future 

and assist each other on such matters. CIAT’s involvement in the network is crucial in 

providing financial assistance, genetic material, and tropical forage technologies. 

1 MARDI, Livestock Research Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 


213


214 

SEAFRAD newsletter 

The SEAFRAD Newsletter was put up to serve as a medium for exchanging results. 

Production is done on a rotation basis. Each member country takes charge of producing 

and distributing the newsletter. There are two issues per year. The Philippines produced 

the first issue and the succeeding issues were published by Lao PDR, then Malaysia, and 

Indonesia. 

The main problem encountered in the production and distribution of the newsletter is 

not so much the technical difficulties or workload. The responses of member countries 

reflected some degree of indifference to the newsletter. For coordinators it is an extra 

task which adds to their already high workload. The responsibility of reporting their R & 

D activities is relegated to the background. In spite of e-mail facilities provided to ensure 

greater participation, results have been disappointing. To sustain the SEAFRAD 

newsletter, some remedial measures need to be taken. 

Making national coordinators in charge of the newsletter is not a good idea. Many 

of them hold important positions and are already busy with official matters. They have 

very little time for the newsletter. To solve this problem, coordinators must be carefully 

selected. Each member country should nominate its own representative who is dynamic 

and proactive. Besides, consideration should be given to language proficiency of the 

staff. In this way, we can ensure more active participation from members within each 

country. 

This brings to the fore the question about the purpose of the newsletter. Has the 

newsletter served its objective? Judging from the renewal forms received, it appears 

that there is a lot of interest even among people outside the FSP project. There is a 

demand for it, but on a limited scale. Because it is in English, distribution in Asian 

countries is not as wide as when it would be in the local languages. The newsletter may 

have outlived its usefulness. Each country should now develop its own mode of 

information dissemination. Meanwhile the network should aim to have annual meetings 

where member countries can share and exchange knowledge and experiences.


Assessing the impact of forages at the farm level 

Peter Kerridge 1 and Sam Fujisaka 2 

Farmer participatory evaluation of forages in the FSP is usually taking place where 

farmers have expressed a need for improving feed supply for livestock and expressed an 

interest in evaluating new forage technologies. At some sites, other farmers have joined 

in the evaluation. There is now a need to move beyond evaluation and determine the 

impact of new forage technologies on various aspects of farmers' livelihoods. 

The FSP on-farm sites represent different farming systems ranging from 

agroforestry, upland, plantation, and grasslands to lowland. Different forage varieties 

and uses for grasses and legumes are being tested at each site. There is considerable 

diversity in systems, in the particular, the needs of individual farmers and the potential 

uses for improved forages. Can we take this into account and still assess impact at the 

farm level? 

We are currently using a three-step framework in evaluating forages in the FSP: 

Step 1. Identification of potential sites using PRA 

Method: We use secondary information such as data on livestock numbers and livestock 

production, look at maps, and make own observations. This includes discussions with our 

collaborators, the provincial and district officers as to how they perceive a need. 

Potential sites are visited and we may interview some farmers or groups of farmers. 

Output: The output of this PRA is a brief description of climate, soils, landscape and 

land use, a description of the farming system and an assessment as to whether the site 

has a need and is suitable as an FPR site for evaluation of forages. That is, there needs 

to be a clear indication that there is a real problem that can be solved with new forage 

technologies, there are farmers trying to solve the problems and local partners able to 

support work in the area. 

Step 2. Diagnosis of problems and possible solutions using PD 

Method: Participatory diagnosis. 

Outputs: The outputs are: 

1. Detailed description of the farming system. 

2. Problem diagnosis with farmers individually and as a group. 

3. Understanding of the causes of problems. 

4. Suggestions of possible solutions. 

5. Decision to work together (or not). 

6. Commitment by farmers and the project. 

Step 3. Planning and working with farmers 

Method: Participatory planning with farmers. 

Output: Agreement on activities and commencement of work. 

We are suggesting that there should be another step in which there would be an 

assessment of the impact of forage technologies. This might be done by some form of 

participatory evaluation, surveys, interviews with individual farmers and some data 

collection. The outputs would be knowledge of the impact of forage technologies on 

livelihoods (such increased income, less drudgery in looking after animals and more 

1 PE-5 Project Leader, Sustainable Systems for Smallholders, CIAT, Cali, Colombia. 

2 Agricultural Anthropologist, CIAT, Cali, Colombia. 

215


216 

efficient use of labour. We would also hope that there might be some positive impact of 

benefits on maintaining natural resources. 

How can we measure impact? 

Preferably we would interview individuals or groups of farmers and make our 

assessment against baseline information using a common set of indicators chosen with 

farmers and district officers. 

Which group of farmers do we choose for studying impact? We have four groups of 

farmers in the communities in which we work: 

1. Participating farmers who adopt new forages. 

2. Participating farmers who do not adopt forages 

3. Non-participating farmers who adopt forages. 

4. Non-participating farmers who do not adopt forages. 

Let us take a theoretical example: There are 300 families in the village, 40 families 

have participated in evaluating forages with us and 30 of them are still enthusiastic and 

are our friends. Surely we can get the story of impact of new forages from them. 

However, the real impact of the new technology needs to be assessed against the 

situation that existed before the technology was introduced. Also, it is important for us 

to know why some farmers adopted and why others did not and what attracted nonparticipating 

farmers to adopt and why others outside the participating group chose not to 

do so. A survey for impact needs to include both adopters and non-adopters and those 

who spontaneously chose to adopt or to reject the technology. 

How are we going to objectively assess the impact, including the rate of adoption 

and the magnitude of the impact? It is 1998, and the project has been running 3 years; 

there have been changes in staff and memories are short. It is obvious that it would help 

to know what was the situation when the project commenced. Hence we need to have 

baseline data or a baseline characterisation. And as we need to interview or assess the 

four groups of farmers we need baseline information of all four groups. When we started 

we did not know who would participate and who would adopt. Thus the baseline data 

needs to be collected once a suitable site has been selected and we are conducting the 

first participatory diagnosis. 

Suggested new procedure 

Step 1. Identification of potential sites using PRA. 

Step 2. Diagnosis of problems and possible solutions using PD. 

Step 3. Collect baseline data at villages or sites where we are conducting PD. 

Step 4. Evaluation of possible solutions and monitoring. 

Step 5. Follow-up assessment on impact of new forage technologies. 

What data do we collect for baseline characterisation? This sets us a problem. It 

takes time to collect data. Is it all going to be useful? Also, why wait until the end of the 

project to make an assessment of impact. 

It would help us and the farmers to identify indicators of impact which can be used 

to monitor the development of new technologies. Farmers innately know or can sense if 

something is likely to be successful or not. It is more difficult for us to do so. Hence, we 

need specific data or indicators that will provide us information on the direction of 

impact; and we need to be selective. When we conduct the initial PRA and then the PD 

we obtain a good idea of problems facing the farmers. 

For example, lack of forage to feed animals, the time it takes to collect feed for their 

animals, money available for purchasing household essentials, equity of income sharing


between family members, low yields low due to declining soil fertility. This gives us 

some idea of choosing a restricted set of data that can be used as indicators in 

monitoring progress and assessing impact. Table 1 shows indicators which Tatang 

Ibrahim suggested for the FSP site Pulau Gambar where the project is working with 

women to improve feed supply for sheep. 

Table 1. Suggested indicators for Pulau Gambar. 

Criteria Indicators 

Less time for feeding sheep Hours of labour required 

More rapid weight gain kg of liveweight gain over time 

Lower lamb mortality Lambing percentage 

Larger herd size Number of sheep 

Higher income Monthly cash income 

What are other examples of useful indicators to verify the output of an activity? 

• Number of cuttings distributed ➾ ha of sown grass. 

• Number of vials of semen distributed ➾ number of calves produced. 

• Number of cows distributed ➾ litres of milk produced. 

• Number of packets of seed distributed ➾ did these grow? 

It is obvious that the second set of indicators is more meaningful than the first. 

Some indicators that might be appropriate for the FSP 

Forage adoption: 

• Area of new forage grown. 

• Productivity of forages. 

• Contribution of forage towards total feed requirements. 

Animal productivity: 

• Live weight gain of small ruminants sheep and goats (girth of cattle). 

• Indirect measurements of productivity of large ruminants, e.g. sale price, body 

condition, hours can work as a draft animal. 

• Reproductive performance (calving interval, litter size). 

• Off-spring (mortality and growth). 

• Animal health (evidence of internal parasites). 

Labour productivity: 

• Time spent cutting naturally occurring forages along roads vs. cutting improved 


• Time spent herding cattle for grazing vs. time spent in tethering. 

• Time spent in land preparation following legume fallow vs. natural fallow. 

• Time spent weeding crops following legume fallow vs. natural fallow. 

For impacts additional to those directly associated with livestock production: 

• Amount and quality of manure used for crop production. 

• Crop yield following forage or legume phase. 

• Earthworm activity (due to changes in soil structure and soil fertility). 

• Weediness. 

• Change in land use, e.g. area of land terraced with erosion barriers or proportion of 

farm using some form of forage integration. 

Livelihood changes: 

• Changes in assets. 

• Income through sale of animals, forage, planting materials. 

• Value of manure through sales or used for crop/forage production. 

217


218 

• More leisure time or less hours spent in unpleasant tasks. 

It is likely that only a restricted set of the above would be used for each locality. 

In summary 

1. Conduct PRA, site selection, initial participatory diagnosis and the initial selection of 

possible problem-solving alternatives. Target communities or sites and problems 

should be tentatively identified at this stage. 

2. Conduct Participatory Diagnosis to define problems and potential technology 

solutions. 

3. Conduct a baseline survey of individual families / groups which focuses on current 

land use, labour allocation, assets, a measure of productivity output plus disposable 

income. Remember, the baseline survey is to provide a basis for comparison 

before and after adoption of forages technologies. Hence, it will be useful to develop 

specific sets of measurable indicators for each site which relate to the outputs we 

are trying to achieve. Choose indicators that can be monitored periodically 

throughout the project. Where there is expertise available, the baseline data can 

contribute to a reasonable ex-ante analysis of potential problem-solving 

alternatives. 

4. Participatory Technology Development, accompanied by monitoring of impact using 

indicators selected. 

5. Ex-post impact study at the project level. Benefits can be calculated; and 

characteristics of adopters vs. non-adopters identified. 

6. Recommendations that can be used for policy decisions. 

At this stage projects will usually not have influenced change over large areas. 

However, analysis of benefits and costs, farmers' assessments, and knowledge about 

who does and does not adopt can lead to recommendations and actions to facilitate 

adoption over the larger target area. In a sense, sound ex-post impact analysis at the 

project level will serve as an ex-ante impact analysis for national or regional efforts to 

facilitate widespread change.

List of participants 

Indonesia 

Maimunah Tuhulele 

Bina Produksi, 

Directorate General of Livestock Services 

Departemen Pertanian 

Jalan Harsono, RM 3 

Jakarta Selatan 12550 

Erwin Soetirto 

Director General 


Departmen Pertanian 

Jln. Harsono R.M. NO. 3 


Sofjan Sudardjat 

Direktur Bina Produksi 

Direktorat Jenderal Peternakan 

Jalan Harsono, R.M. NO. 3, 


Erik Nursahramdani 

Kepala Pinas Peternakan 

Dinas Peternakan 

Propinsi Daerah TK 1 Kaltim 

Jl Bhayangkara No. 54 

Samarinda 75121 

Ibrahim 

Dinas Peternakan TK. I Kaltim 

Jalan Bhayangkara No. 54 

Samarinda 

East Kalimantan 75121 

Yandri Ali 

External relations 


Departemen Pertanian 

Jalan Harsono, RM 3 


Ghozali Zainal 

Dinas Peternakan Aceh 

Aceh Besar, Aceh 

Heriyanto 

BPP Sepaku and Semoi 

Balikpapan, East Kalimantan 


Tugiman 

Dinas Peternakan Samarinda 

Samarinda, East Kalimantan 

I. Ketut Rika 

Faculty of Animal Production 

Udayana University 

Jl. P.B. Sudirman, Denpasar 

Jakob Nulik 

Balai Pengkajian Teknologi Pertanian 

Jl. Tim Tim Km. 32 

Naibonat, Kupang NTT 

China PR 

Liu Guodao 

Tropical Pasture Research Center 

Chinese Academy of Tropical Agriculture 

Sciences 

Danzhou 571737, Hainan 

Lao PDR 

Viengsavanh Phimphachanhvongsod 

Phonepaseuth Phengsavanh 

Livestock Development Division 

Department of Livestock and Fisheries 

P.O. Box 6766 

Vientianne 

Singkham Phonvisay 

Director General 

Department of Livestock and Fisheries 

P.O. Box 6766, Vientiane 

Soulivanh Novaha 

Livestock Office Xieng Khouang 

Phonsavanh 

Xieng Khouang 

Vietnam 

Le Hoa Binh 

National Institute of Animal Husbandry 

MAFI 

Thuy Phuong, Tu liem 

Hanoi 

219


220 

Bui Xuan An 

College of Agriculture and Forestry 

Ho Chi Minh City 

Truong Tan Khanh 

Tay Nguyen University 

Buon Ma Thuot, Daklak 

Le Viet Ly 

National Institute of Animal Husbandry 

Thuy Phuong, Tu liem 

Hanoi 

Malaysia 

Wong Choi Chee 

Livestock Research Centre 

MARDI 

G.P.O. Box 12301 

50774 Kuala Lumpur 

Thailand 

Chaisang Phaikaew 

Division of Animal Nutrition 

Department of Livetock Development 

Phayathai Rd. Rajthewee 

Bangkok 10400, 

Ganda Nakamanee 

Pakchong Animal Nutrition Research Center 

Pakchong 

Nakornratchasima 30130 

Reinhardt Howeler 

CIAT 

c/o Field Crop Research Institute 

Department of Agriculture 

Bangkhen, Bangkok 10900 

Philippines 

Ed Magboo 

Livestock Research Division 

PCARRD 

Los Baños, Laguna 4030 

Willie Nacalaban 

Municipal Agricultural Office 


Forages for Smallholders 

Project 

Werner Stür 

Emma Luisa Orencia 

Francisco Gabunada 

CIAT - Forages for Smallholders Project 

c/o IRRI, P. O. Box 933 

1099 Manila, Philippines 

Peter Horne 

c/o Department of Livestock and Fisheries 

P.O. Box 6766 

Vientiane, Lao PDR 

Peter Kerridge 

CIAT 

Apartado Aereo 6713 

Cali, Colombia 

Bryan Hacker 

CSIRO Tropical Agriculture 

306 Carmody Road 

St. Lucia, Qld. 4067 

Australia 

Review Team 

Walter Roder 

Renewable Natural Resource Center 

Ministry of Agriculture 

P.O. Jakar 

Bumthang, Bhutan 

Ron Staples 

Stadeve Pty. Ltd. 

P.O. Box 46 

Hall, NSW 2418 

Australi


221

Proceedings of the Third Regional Meeting of the Forages for ... - cgiar

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?