Farmers' perceptions on importance and constraints facing Napier grass production in Central Kenya

Mwendia S W, Wanyoike M*, Wahome R G* and Mwangi D M

Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Muguga South, Box 30148 Nairobi 00100
^*University of Nairobi, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Services, Department of Animal Production Box 29053, Kabete, Kenya
mwendia2007@yahoo.com

Abstract

Farmers Focus Group Discussions (FFGDs) were done with groups of farmers in the intensive and semi-intensive farming systems in central Kenya. This was in the administrative districts of Nyeri (semi-intensive) and Kiambu and Thika (both intensive). The exercise was to provide qualitative information on importance of napier grass in the systems and the status of the napier grass head smut disease. It was also to give some information on the delivery pathways for the head smut resistant cultivar "Kakamega I".

The discussions revealed that napier grass was an important component of the basal diet for cattle in the systems but was being threatened by the disease. Some farmers had acquired "Kakamega I" to counter the disease while others had not, although they were aware of its existence. Farmers who had planted "Kakamega I" had received it either through their local dairy cooperative or school Parents Teachers Association (PTA) in the areas that the FFGDs were held. To some extent some of these farmers had shared the smut resistant planting material with other farmers especially when they are friends or relatives.

Key words: Farmers focus group discussions, head smut, Kakamega I, Napier grass

Introduction

Napier grass is reported as a tall, perennial grass indigenous to tropical Africa that performs well from sea level to an altitude of 2000m. It is the dominant grass in zero-grazing systems, even in areas above 2250 m, which may be too cold for optimal performance of this grass (Boonman 1993). Napier grass can out-yield many other grasses such as guinea grass (Panicummaximum) and Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) (Relwani et al 1982). It has the advantage of withstanding repeated cutting, and four to six cuts in a year can produce 50-150 tonnes fresh herbage per ha (Purseglove 1972). During the dry season, napier grass is the main feed for dairy cows, supplemented by crop residues such as maize stover, bean haulms, banana leaves and pseudo-stems and indigenous fodder trees (ICRAF 1997). A survey by Lekasi (2000) showed that farmers commit 21-28% of their land to napier grass production. Nyaata, et al (2000) reported that, fodder production in central Kenya is largely from napier grass grown on small plots and contour strips where it acts both as a fodder source and a biological barrier to soil erosion. Napier grass has many uses in different parts of the world which include fire breaks, mulch, green manure, wind break, grazing, soil erosion control and constituent of fish ponds (Farrell et al 2002). McLeod et al (2001) ranked napier grass fodder highest (40%) among other fodder types available to cattle in Kiambu. One of the current constraints to napier grass production in central Kenya is napier grass head smut disease caused by Ustilago kameruniensis that reduces the napier grass yields (Farrell 1998). According to Farrell (1998), almost all farmers obtain napier grass planting material from within the farm or from neighbours and usually do not know the variety they cultivate. The lack of awareness is a reflection of ubiquity and non-commercialization of the grass. Although its value is recognized, some farmers do not undertake all necessary husbandry practices to improve yields. It is with the arrival of the smut disease that farmers began looking for advice on napier grass cultivation and management though some farmers were not aware that the disease was present in their napier grass plots (Farrell 1998).

The specific objectives of this study were to document the role and importance of napier grass in intensive and semi- intensive cattle production systems as well as napier grass production constraints and farmers coping strategies.

Materials and methods

Study sites and farmer description

Six farmers' focus group discussions (FFGDs) were done in areas of central Kenya where napier grass is important as a fodder crop and is under threat from napier grass head smut. The sites selected represented intensive farming system where dairy cattle are kept under zero-grazing (Kiambu and Thika districts) and semi-intensive (Nyeri district) where there is some grazing thus semi-intensive system. Two types/groups of farmers were involved; contact and non-contact. In this undertaking, "contact" farmers were those provided with some planting material of napier grass smut resistant variety from Agricultural Research Centre- Muguga South (ARC-Muguga south) either directly or indirectly through their local dairy cooperative or school PTA. "Non-contact" constituted a group of farmers selected from within about 5 km radius of the contact farmers to allow assessment of diffusion of the resistant cultivar from contact to non- contact farmers. The six FFGDs in the intensive and semi-intensive systems were held in the following sub-locations; Endarasha and Watuka (Nyeri), Kiambaa and Njoro (Kiambu) and Gakoe and Njahi (Thika). Endarasha and Watuka are in Lower Highland 5 (LH₅) zone, where dairy, wheat and some horticulture farming are done. Kiambaa and Njoro are in Upper Medium 2 (UM₂) where dairy and coffee are the major farming activities. Gakoe and Njahi are in Lower highland 1 (LH₁) where tea and dairy are the main agricultural activities (ILRI 1994)

Participant identification and registration

The groups meetings were organized through extension officers in the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development or the management of dairy co-operatives. The meetings were held either in a farmer's compound, tea buying centre, dairy co-operative compound or in classrooms. The group sizes depended on farmers' willingness to participate and were as follows: Gakoe (18), Njahi (30), Endarasha (29), Watuka (36), Kiambaa (33) and Njoro (18). This was captured as farmers registered their names on arrival for the discussions.

Focused group discussions and scoring

The discussions were interactive and participatory guided through a prepared checklist with non-leading open-ended questions to ensure completeness. The items on the checklist were related to napier grass management and rainfall seasonal calendars (Wilde 1998), napier grass head smut disease and coping strategies, sources of napier grass planting materials and other fodder used in the areas. Where applicable according to the check list, farmers were asked to score for importance of some parameters they had generated like uses of napier grass, feeds offered to cattle and problems of napier grass on a scale of 0 to 10 where the higher the score the more the weight/importance against that parameter. The feeds offered to dairy cattle were listed and scored on the basis of value of the feed to the animal, availability, acceptability to cattle, frequency of use, cost, perceived nutritional value and actual usage. Farmers were allowed to discuss scores as a group and gave a unanimous score for each item. All the responses from the farmers were recorded on a flip chart to stimulate the farmers' contribution. Finally, general comments, opinions or recommendations relating to napier grass were recorded.

Data analysis

All quantitative data was input in excel spread sheet and tabulation and distribution calculated.

Results and discussions

Feedstuffs offered to dairy cattle and their importance

Different feedstuffs were offered to the dairy cattle across the systems and farmer groups and their mean scores are as shown in table1. In both systems napier grass scored higher than any other fodder giving the impression that it is the most important feedstuff in both systems.

Napier grass is known to out yield other fodder grasses (Relwani et al 1982), hence its use increased with intensification. In a study (Boonman 1997), napier grass was given the highest score of 9 for both yield and dry-season performance on a rating of 1 -10 among 15 grasses.

Reported on-farm napier grass dry matter yields from different places in the country averaged about16 t ha^-1 per year with little or no fertilizer (Wouters 1987). This was within reported yields range between 10 and 40 t ha^-1 (Schreuder et al 1993) and depended on climate, soil fertility and management. This was higher than other common grasses such as Rhodes grass that yielded in the range of 6.6 - 18.9 t/ha and Guetamala grass 2.4 - 10.3 t/ha in different districts in Kenya (Boonman 1997). Various authors have indicated the importance of napier grass as a fodder (McLeod et al 2001; Bayer 1990; Stotz 1983, Staal, et al 1998; Mwangi 1994). In the intensive system the only other fodder grass was the giant setaria used by non-contact group farmers. Other fodder grasses were annuals and only important in the semi-intensive system. Being annuals they would require to be planted every year. Dannhauser (undated) indicated that kow kandy and sorghums have primary use for grazing and this would explain why they were mentioned in the semi-intensive system where relatively more land was available and grazing possible. Grazing was only practiced in the semi-intensive system while grass gathering from road sides and other common land areas and purchased hay were important only in the intensive system.

Energy concentrates and mineral supplements were used in the intensive system where producers would want to maximize on the yields and the two were not even mentioned in the semi-intensive system. Under the category of others, vegetables like cabbages and carrots were utilized in the semi-intensive system but were fed to cattle only to salvage what failed to get market.

Crop residues such as maize stover, wheat straw, banana pseudostems and leaves were important in both systems. Other feedstuffs including grevillea leaves, stinging nettle, lantana, avocado leaves, indigenous trees and weeds contribute to varying degrees across the two systems. These were especially important during periods of feed scarcity such as dry months (Waithaka et al 2002). From the discussions it was clear that there was a larger variety of feedstuffs offered to cattle under the semi-intensive system implying that the producers are more opportunistic and feed whatever becomes available while under intensive system feeding was more organized and systematic.

In the intensively managed farms, meeting the nutritional requirements of high yielding dairy cows is a constant challenge to farmers. Even during the rainy season, the amount of feed available is often inadequate (Romney et al 1998) thus some feeds are obtained off-farm (Lekasi 2000).

Other uses of napier grass

In addition to its use as feed for cattle, napier grass had other uses. Table 2 shows these uses in the intensive and semi-intensive systems by contact and non contact farmers.

The two major uses in order of importance were reducing soil erosion and sale under the two systems of dairy production. Growing napier grass for sale was more important in the semi-intensive system as the mean score of 4 indicates against 2.5 for the intensive. It is an emerging economic activity. A complex market in napier grass, maize stover and road side grass as animal feed has developed in much of central Kenya. Households without cattle or those with adequate grazing are known to grow napier grass as a cash crop (Omore 2003). In both systems the crop was of equal importance in its use for control of soil erosion as was also reported by Nyaata et al (2000) when planted along the soil erosion control terraces and contour lines. Napier grass was used for mulching but this was more important under the semi-intensive system with a mean score of 1.5 compared to 0.25 for intensive. Napier grass was introduced in Kenya as a mulch crop for coffee during the colonial times (Boonman 1993). As innovators, farmers soon realized its potential as animal feed and currently napier grass is intimately associated with the smallholder dairy production as the most important feedstuff. Napier grass was used for crop-rotation in the intensive system where by it was rotated with beans and tomatoes which did well on land previously under napier grass. As cited by Boonman (1997), Stephens (1967) found that yields of beans and maize relative to a hundred, for plots that previously 4 seasons were under napier grass yielded more maize and beans than those continuously under maize and beans. Some farmers indicated the canes were used in making chicken houses and others that napier grass refusals by the cow was useful as material for making manure.

Lekasi (2000) had found that the feed refusals were used in the cow stalls as bedding with the aim of getting manure later. The different alternative uses for napier grass show the versatility of the crop. Napier grass has multiple uses in different parts of the world which include fir