Date post: | 03-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | clemence-mathews |
View: | 221 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Comparative growth responses of range grasses to varying watering schedules in the rangelands of
Kenya
KOECH OSCAR KIPCHIRCHIR
Prof. Robinson Kinuthia NgugiDr. George Karuku
Dr. Raphael Wanjogu
NIB RESEARCH AND PROPOSAL PRESENTATION, KSMSNIB RESEARCH AND PROPOSAL PRESENTATION, KSMS
13TH TO 14TH JUNE 2013
Comparative growth responses of range grasses to varying watering schedules in the rangelands of
Kenya
KOECH OSCAR KIPCHIRCHIR
Prof. Robinson Kinuthia NgugiDr. George Karuku
Dr. Raphael Wanjogu
NIB RESEARCH AND PROPOSAL PRESENTATION, KSMSNIB RESEARCH AND PROPOSAL PRESENTATION, KSMS
13TH TO 14TH JUNE 2013
INTRODUCTION
African dry lands have been facing challenges of food insecurity due to frequent droughts and other extreme climatic events
L/s production is the main activity in the D/L of Kenya
Plays crucial role in Kenyan economy, contributing ~10% of NGDP and 40% of AGDP (GoK, 2004)
In ASALS, L/s contributes ~90% of employment opportunities and ~ 95% of family incomes
Potential productivity KSh212.5 billion annually
The main constraint is loss of livestock due to high annual mortality (Serna, 2011)
Estimated value of losses is KES 2 billion annually (ILRI 2011)
This is due to low Q and Q of feed, high disease incidences, poor management
Pastoralism/irrigated agriculture complex
Manure, draft power, capital for inputs in crop lands
Water for growth, nutrients
Control of siltation, hydrological flow maintenance
Nu
trie
nts
flo
w f
rom
fee
ds
Wat
er f
or
cro
p g
row
th,
nu
trie
nts
cyc
lin
g
CROP LAND LIVESTOCK
WATER RESOURCE/IRRIGATION
PASTURE LANDS
HUMAN
Nu
trie
nts
flo
w/m
anu
re,
uri
ne,
dis
per
sal
My study
This study seeks to evaluate irrigated pasture species production in the drylands of Kenya, and how scarce water resource can be optimized
Currently during dry seasons, fodder is sourced from far and at higher price due to transportation costs and is of poor quality
This calls for local fodder production within the dry lands of Kenya, to ensure timely supply and of good quality
Objectives
The main objective of this study is to increase feed availability for livestock in pastoral areas through integration of crop and pasture production under irrigation.
Specific objectives 1. To determine the growth responses (aboveground biomass yield, tiller density, leaf-
stem ratio, seed quantity/quality) of six range grasses growing singly, to different watering schedules.
2. To determine the interspecific competition growth responses of five range grasses growing in mixtures, to different watering schedules.
3. To determine the effect of different watering schedules on forage quality, curability and storability of forage from the six grass species.
4. To estimate water use efficiency and water stress tolerance of the six grass species.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area This study is being conducted in Tana river county-Bura and Katilu
Methodology Field experiments were set up in 6x4 factorial experiments in Completely
Randomized Design. There are two treatments: One; watering schedules at 80%, 50% and 30%
Field Capacity), and two; six range grass species.
Data collection Data collection on primary productivity, forage quality and seed yield and
quality, water stress tolerance and calc8ulation of WUE using evapotranspiration.
Preliminary Results-Yields
ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS
Results on yields of the six species
Ch ga shows continued production >10000kg/ha at all irrigation levels; no significant differences on yields (P>0.05)
So bi produces high biomass at 80% FC irrigation level, and lowest at 30% FC (13664kg/ha) and 7664kg/ha respectively (P<0.05) . No sig diff btw 80 and 50 % Irrigation level
Ce ci and En ma produced least biomass yield at 80%, does best at 50 % (9132kg/ha, 10464kg/ha) respectively. Significant diff btw 80 %, FC 50% FC and 30% FC
Er su does better at 80%FC (5600kg/ha) than all the two levels (P<0.05) Chl rox has no significant differences (P<0.05) in yields at all irrigation levels (btw 2000-
3500kg/ha)
QUALITY- CP %Species Week 8 Week 10 Week 12 Week 14 Week 16
C R 14.6a ±3.1 13.1a ±4.1 13.1a ±2.1 11.4c ±1.8 10.6c ±2.1
E S 13.2a ±2.4 12.8a ±2.2 12.6a ±3.3 12.4a ±1.6 12.1a ±1.6
EM 12.6a ±1.5 12.7a ±3.1 12.3a ±1.6 12.1a ±2.3 11.6a ±3.4
C C 12.1b ±2.3 11.8b ±2.3 12.1a ±4.2 11.4c±2.7 10.7b ±3.2
CG 13.3a ±3.4 12.6a ±4.1 12.5a ±2.1 12.6a ±4.5 11.6b ±3.3
SB 10.4c ±2.1 9.6c ±2.6 8.7b ±3.1 7.1c ±2.4 6.8c ±1.9
All the forages had above minimum CP at wk 14. So bi had below 7% cp at wk 16
Species Week 8 Week 10 Week 12 Week 14 Week 16
C R 65.0a ±8.1 64.3a ±4.1 65.0a ±8.7 65.0a ±1.8 62.4a ±2.1
E S 69.0a ±2.4 65.2a ±2.2 61.0a±3 .3 61.2a ±1.6 60.3a ±1.6
EM 57. 6b ±11.5 57.0b ±3.1 52.0c±1.6 51.6c ±2.3 53.2c ±3.4
C C 68.1a ±2.5 69.0a ±2.3 65.0a ±4.2 63.5a ±2.7 61.3b ±3.2
CG 68.3a ±6.1 65.0a ±4.1 63.2a ±6.1 59.8b ±4.5 54.6b ±3.3
SB 59.4b ±7.1 57.8b ±2.6 57.2b ±7.5 52.1c ±2.4 47.3c ±1.9
Insacco DMD %
IVDMD decreased with growth stages of the sppSB and CG declined faster with maturityCR, ES and CC showed higher D even at wk 16
-So bi showed significant decline in seed yields at lower moisture levels -Ch ga and Ch rox showed higher seed yields at lower moisture levels-Ce ci had lowest yield with no significant diff in both irrigation schedules-Er su and enma had no significant difference in seed yields across the irrigation levels
Seed yields on dry matter basis (Kg/ha) of six range grass species at 80, 50, 30 % FC
Returns from biomass
So bi Ch ga
Kg/haNo. of bales
Sale at KES 150/bale Kg/ha
No. of bales
Sale at KES 150/bale
Harvest at week
12 9464 556.705 83,505.88 7932 466.588 69,988.23Harvest at week
161366
4 803.764 120,564.70 10864 639.058 95,858.82
COSTSPLOUGHING 3000/HA
FERTILIZER 4500/-LABOUR ? TOTAL ?
Returns from seed yields
Kg/ha KES 600/kg
SOBI 1250 750000
CHR GA 1066 639600
Number of Animal (TLU’s) to be sustained for 3 months
So bi Ch ga
Kg/haNo. of bales
No. of animals 3 months Kg/ha
No. of bales
No. of animals 3 months
Harvest at week
12 9464 556.705 16 animals 7932 466.588 14 animalsHarvest at week
16 13664 803.764 24 animal 10864 639.058 19 animals
Animal sustainance in a year and salesAnimals kept after 3 months harvest for 3 months considering yields from 1 ha
One year, productivity under irrigation-3 months harvests…. One can keep 14 animals for whole year
Sales @20,000/head
20,000*14
1 ha=14 animals 14 animals 280,000/-
250,000 ha=3,500,000 animals
3,500,000 animals 20,000,000,000
Conclusion
Soil moisture levels affects range grass species primary productivity differently, either positively, negatively and others not affected
Seed yields of the six range grasses are also influenced by soil moisture levels
There is potential for cultivation of range grasses as source of L/S feed and income. The final results out of this study will provide more insights into pragmatism of this.
The range grass seeds production from irrigated pastures can also be used for rangeland rehabilitation in pastoral grazing lands to enhance sustainability of livestock production.
Recommendations
Irrigated pasture production should be up-scaled and establishment of fodder banks for use during harsh climatic conditions.
From the preliminary results, a few species can be piloted on large scale production. These are Sorghum bicolor, Chloris gayana and Eragrostis superba.
There is need for increased awareness and training on irrigated pasture cultivation in the study areas.
The communities are not used to pasture production, grass seed bulking, hay baling and pasture sales and marketing.