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

okkoech@yahoo.com

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

okkoech@yahoo.com

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.