Towards an integrated cereal crop-forage production for improved cattle productivity: the Malawi experience

J.T.K. Munthali¹, H.D.C. Msiska¹, A.W.C. Zimba¹ and B.H. Dzowela²

¹ Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, P. O. Box 158, Lilongwe, Malawi.
² International Livestock Centre for Africa, P. O. Box 46847, Nairobi Kenya.

Introduction
Available technology
Utilization of research results
Suggestions to improve the utilization of forage research results
References

Introduction

Intercropping is traditionally a widely accepted practice in Malawi and it represents approximately 94% of the country's total cultivated area (NSO, 1970; 1981). Intercropping, as practiced by the smallholder farmers, is deliberately planned to provide the farmer with a variety of returns to land, labour and other inputs, minimize the risk of dependence upon one crop that could easily succumb to environmental damage, and the farmer also takes advantage of the differences among crops in time to maturity. The overall benefit to the smallholder farmer is increased food security and efficiency with which scarce resources are used to produce food.

The concept and advantages to the following cereal crop of including legumes such as groundnuts in a rotation, is widely acknowledged by farmers, particularly those in Lilongwe and Kasungu Agricultural Development Divisions. For cattle owners, it has been demonstrated by trials at Chitedze Agricultural Research Station that the inclusion of groundnut tops to basal diets of maize stover doubles the liveweight gains of fattening steers (Addy and Thomas, 1976; Mtukuso et al., 1984; Munthali, 1987). The prices of major inorganic fertilizers such as ammonium sulphate (21% N), calcium ammonium nitrate (26% N) and 20:20:0 have risen by an average of nearly nine from 1969/70 to 1986/87 whereas the price of the major cereal grain, maize, increased only sixfold during the same period (ARMP, Ministry of Agriculture, Malawi, unpublished). Inorganic fertilizers are therefore well above the reach of most smallholder farmers.

Since the integration of cereals with food legumes is already widely practiced by the smallholder farmers, who also keep more than 90% of the cattle in Malawi, a well planned integration of cereals forage legumes through N-fixation should improve soil fertility status for the subsequent or associated food crop, whilst producing adequate quantities and added quality of the residue dry matter which would benefit both a crop and a cattle farmer.

This paper will review available information in the field of integrating cereal crop-forage production, the degree of acceptance of success, reasons for success or failure and suggestions for improving the system in Malawi.

Available technology

Lessons Learnt

Research on integrating cereal crops (maize) with forage (Rhodes grass and legumes) started at Chitedze Agricultural Research Station in 1971/72 wet season.

The objective was to find a simple method and time of undersowing forages with maize without reducing maize grain yield whilst increasing total herbage dry matter to support the smallholder cattle stallfeeding schemes. The studies showed no reduction in maize grain yield although total herbage was increased by undersowing maize with forages (Thomas and Bennett, 1975a, b). Recent studies conducted by Dzowela (1987a) and the Pastures Research Commodity Team, Chitedze (unpublished) confirmed the reports made by Thomas and Bennett, 1975a, b). In one trial at Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, maize was grown on the same ridges with forage legume undersown on the same ridges only once at the beginning of the experiment. Results persistently showed no appreciable reduction in maize grain yields (Table 1) and maize grain yields compared favourably with those obtained when maize was either a sole crop or intercropped with food legumes (Table 2).

Maize stover yields dropped after the establishment year but stayed the same during the subsequent years (Table 1) whereas legume dry matter yields increased from the establishment year onwards (Table 1). Total dry matter yield did not show any pattern but yields during the following years never exceeded those obtained during the establishment year of the trial (Table 3).

Although the total dry matter yield declined after the establishment year, total herbage crude protein yield (Table 3) increased substantially by 1988 over that of 1986, except in the maize - C. pascuorum combination. In 1988, the maize herbage crude protein yield came from the forage legume except again for the maize - C pascuorum combination. Therefore the overall quality of the herbage improved with time as a result of legume inclusion in maize crop.

In all the undersowing trials conducted at Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, little emphasis was placed on the possible contribution of nutrients by the undersown legumes to the soil. Soil samples were collected from one maize-legume intercropping trial, three years after establishing the experiment. Soil analysis results (Table 4) did not show any difference in the parameters analyzed between plots intercropped with or without legumes. There were also no differences among the maize-legume intercrops even though large differences among legumes regarding their ability to fix nitrogen have been reported (MOA, 1983). The application of recommended rates of fertilizer to the maize crop in the maize-legume intercropping trials might have reduced the ability of the legume to fix nitrogen.

Table 1. Grain; maize stover and legume forage dry matter yields (kg/ha) in maize-forage legume mixed cropping.

Maize-Forage Combination	Grain			Stover			Forage Legume
	1986a	1987	1988	1986a	1987	1988	1986a	1987	1988
Maize-N. wightii	6149	5531	7420	8240	4074	3862	68	1225	2622
Maize-C. pubescens	6222	7427	6945	8445	5493	4105	269	1409	2311
Maize-C. pascuorum	5939	9230	8558	8017	6651	4207	571	456	1237
Maize-D. uncinatum	6816	5793	7725	8002	4286	5460	457	2360	2889

^a From 1986 to 1988, maize was grown on the same ridges with legumes sown only in 1986.

Source: Adapted from Dzowela (1987b)

In an attempt to quantify animal production from maize-forage legume residues, a feeding trial was conducted on-station using the 1988 maize-forage combination residues. There were five treatments and three steers per treatment. Unfortunately the quantity of the residues was poorly assessed in the field so that all the maize stover-forage residues were used up by the end of the month. The trial was, however, continued using groundnut tops to finish the steers. All steers received 5kg of maize bran to which 25g of salt had been added, but the residues were fed ad libitum. Steers were dewormed at the beginning of the trial. All steers lost weight during the first month during which the maize-stover legumes were fed (Table 5), but started gaining weight during the second and third months when groundnut tops substituted for the forage legumes. Roughage dry matter intake was also very low during the first month (Table 5) but improved dramatically during the following months for all treatments.

Table 2: Grain yield (kg/ha) of maize grown as an intercrop with selected food legumes

	Intercrop
Year	Sole maize	Groundnuts	Soybeans	Cowpeas	P. beans	G. beans
1987	6182	5807	6129	6319	6473	5795
1988	6653	6383	6055	6338	6323	6609

Source: Kabambe et al. (1987, unpublished and Munthali (1988, unpublished)

Table 3: Total dry matter yield (kg/ha) and crude protein yield (kg/ha) in maize-forage legume-mixed cropping.

Maize-Forage combination	Total DM yield			Total CP1
	1986	1987	1988	1986	1987	1988
Maize - N. wightii	8308	5927	6484	505	436	644
Maize - C. pubescens	8704	6902	6416	545	531	577
Maize - C. pascuorum	8588	7113	5444	564	465	431
Maize - D. uncinatum	8459	6646	8349	543	584	727

¹ Crude protein of maize, N. wightii, C. pubescens, C. pascuorum and D. uncinatum was 6.0%, 15.7, 14.3%, 14.5 and 13.9% respectively

Table 4. Soil analysis results (maize) legume undersowing trial

Maize-Forage	H										P		EXCH Cations
combination	H2O		C%		OM%		N%		C/N		(PPM)		Me K
	TOP	SUB	TOP	SUB	TOP	SUB	TOP	SUB	TOP	SUB	TOP	SUB	TOP	SUB
Maize	5.7	5.8	2.87	2.81	4.95	4.84	.25	.24	12	11.7	3.3	4	.66	.47
Centrosema pubescens	5.7	5.8	2.80	2.68	4.79	4.65	.23	.23	12	11.8	2.5	2.2	.43	.45
Centrosema pascuorum	5.7	5.9	2.56	2.64	4.41	4.56	.23	.23	11.5	11.7	3.2	3.1	.57	.53
Neonotonia wightii	5.7	5.8	2.86	2.85	4.92	4.91	.25	.25	11.8	11.7	4.8	2.5	.50	.44
Silverleaf desmodium	5.7	5.8	2.93	3.02	5.05	5.20	.25	.25	12	12	3.2	2.7	.52	.44

Table 5. Liveweight changes (kg/day) dand daily intake of roughage dry matter (kg/steer/day) of steers fed maize-forage legume combinations.

Maize-forage combinations	Liveweight changes in months				Intake in months
	1	2	3	Overall change	1	2	3	Overall
Maize stover only	-0.97	1.0	0.64	0.22	1.97	5.33	7.06	4.79
Maize stover - N. wightii	-0.18	1.21	0.68	0.57	2.81	5.58	6.65	5.01
Maize stover - C. pubescens	-0.02	1.43	0.73	0.71	2.38	5.68	6.95	5.01
Maize stover - C. pascuorum	-0.02	0.96	0.84	0.59	2.66	5.28	6.86	4.93
Maize stover - D. uncinatum	-0.77	1.38	0.79	0.47	2.45	5.26	7.00	4.90

Although it is premature to discuss one month's data of any feeding trial, it is important to note here the changes in the proportion of forage legumes in the field, harvested and ready to feed residues and orts. This factor might influence the performance of animals fed harvested residues as is the case with most stallfeeding operations in Malawi. In all cases except in the C. pubescens combination, there was a big loss in the proportion of forage legumes between field samples and those sampled at the time of feeding (Table 6.) The difference in the proportion of legumes between the field and harvested residues was mainly due to legume leaves falling to the ground before and during harvesting as maize was stocked whilst some legumes such as Centrosema pubescens and Neonotonia wightii were still relatively green. Centrosema pascuorum is a creeping legume whereas Desmodium uncinatum falls to the ground after growing to a given height. Therefore very little of these legumes were harvested together with the crop residues.

Table 6: Proportion of legume dry matter in total dry matter in 1988

Maize-Forage combination	Field Residues	Harvested Residues	Orts
	%
Maize stover - N. wightii	40.4	33.0	9.0
Maize stover - C. pubescens	36.0	36.0	23.0
Maize stover - C. pascuorum	22.7	4.6	3.0
Maize stover - D. uncinatum	34.6	1.7	1.0

For stallfeeding purposes, the method and stage of harvesting the legume hay needs to be carefully monitored, as fallen leaves and dry prostrate legumes if left in the field would be subject to termite damage.

Lessons Learnt

Apart from showing that intercropping maize with forages does not reduce maize grain yields' the studies gave a number of important observations on-station and even on-farm (Dzowela, 1987b; Chitedze Pastures Research Commodity, 1986 - unpublished). First, in establishing grass-legume swards, the maize can be used to suppress the growth of vigorous sown grasses, allowing the legume to establish satisfactorily, and resulting in mixed swards with much higher legume content than that achieved by broadcasting the seed directly. Second, the serious weed problem of Eleusine indica (rapoko grass) is eliminated because sowing is done after a thorough weeding of the maize. Third, on many light soils in the country, stoloniferous grasses such as Rhodes grass, established by conventional direct seeding cannot be grazed in the year of sowing because of risk of sward damage. Therefore, undersowing in the previous year permits pasture to sufficiently establish themselves to allow grazing. Fourth, the nutritional quality of the crop residues is improved by the presence of forage legumes. Fifth, to allow maize to have a vigorous start, the legumes should be cut back about three days before planting maize where maize is continuously cropped on the same ridges with legumes. Sixth, early leaf fall by some legumes such as Neonotonia wightii encourages termite attack of maize. Therefore, forages with late leaf fall should be sought.

Utilization of research results

In spite of repeated demonstrations to farmers by both the extension service and researchers, the uptake of forage research results has been slow. It has been shown time and again that the smallholder dairy farmers, for whom most of the forage research work is targeted, have only been keen to adopt the research recommendation as a means of obtaining dairy cows on loan. There are a number of set requirements for smallholder dairy farmers and pasture improvement is one of them. As soon as the farmer gets the animals, his interest to manage the pastures appears to wane. Pastures are usually good during the first two to three years after which one hardly sees planted pastures on some farms.

There are, however, some exceptional smallholder farmers, particularly in Blantyre Milkshed Area, who have been able to adopt forage technology. On a national basis the problem of pasture development and management is socio-economical, and it is strongly linked with the customary land tenure system. No farmer is committed to communal grazing land improvement.

During a simple diagnostic survey conducted by the Adaptive Research Team at Chitedze, Mwafulirwa (unpublished) made a number of observations on the utilisation of results from undersowing forage research trials.

First, undersowing forages in maize is viewed by the farmer with suspicion because the general extension message is to keep a maize crop weedfree, therefore undersowing appears to be in conflict with the accepted original message. This is a serious extension message transfer of information that is narrow minded, that looks at crop enterprises in isolation of all other activities on the farm. Such farmers need on-farm verification studies to further convince them that undersowing if done at the right time does not reduce maize grain, but that it increased the quantity and quality of animal feed resources. Second, over-dependence on inorganic fertilizers for pasture establishment could be reduced by the use of good organic manure. This was demonstrated by a farmer who had applied organic manure and inorganic fertilizer on one half of the undersown field and inorganic fertilizer on the remaining half. The field that had received organic manure was superior to the one that had received inorganic fertilizer only and the difference was persistent into the second year in which no fertilizer or manure was applied. Thirdly, the survey uncovered a farmer who had harvested and cured the pasture but left it in the field to rot in spite of having animal feed shortages. This might imply that the farmer was not advised about keeping cured grass in dry condition and this is an extension problem of not educating the farmers adequately. The fourth observation was that a farmer who had successfully undersown Rhodes grass in his maize, ploughed the grass during the following year in order to grow sweet potatoes conflicting the idea of feed resource improvement for his dairy animals. In this case the farmer might not have perceived the benefits, through increased milk production, that could have resulted from feeding improved forages to his dairy cows. In all the above examples, the message is that patience and continuous follow-up is important when introducing a new technology to smallholder farmers who may not see the immediate or future benefits of such an innovation.

In some cases in Malawi, pasture development has been slow because of lack of affordable pasture seed. Pasture seed harvesting at farm level is a very new concept that requires attention by our extension service. There is need for continued collaboration between researchers and extensionists on the one side, and the farmers on the other in order to wedge a vigorous and effective campaign for pasture production and utilisation.

Suggestions to improve the utilization of forage research results

There is generally a lack of appreciation by smallholder farmers to improve forages for their animals. Furthermore, farmers appear to have accepted the low productivity of their indigenous cattle that has occurred over the past two to three decades. The decrease in cattle productivity has largely been caused by declining levels of feed intake as grazing areas have also declined over the years due to increasing land pressure for cultivation of food and cash crops. Several cattle owners, however, still recall the big productive animals they used to have in the past and this offers a good chance of improvement towards the desired type of animals through forage improvement.

In order to create awareness among farmers about the potential of feeding improved forages to their animals, there is a need to work initially with selected farmers in strategically -located places. These would be farmers willing to co-operate with both the researcher and extensionist to improve animal feed resources. The farmers would obtain seed, where the farmer cannot obtain seed easily, at a nominal fee from the government agents together with all the technical advice. Such farmers' units would act as centres of learning and dissemination of new ideas.

The second stage that would have to be conducted concurrently with the establishment of 'master farmers' would be the production of forage seed at prices that can be paid by farmers willing to invest in forages. Since no seed company would undertake pasture seed production without an assured market, the researcher or extensionist would be responsible for producing seed initially. The government would therefore, subsidize seed production until enough farmer awareness and demand for seed had been created to enable commercial seed production. Very often forage technologies never leave research stations because of lack of seed material.

Thirdly, there is a need to begin approaching forage growing from obscure angles. Research has shown that grasses such as Rhodes grass reduce the levels of nematode infestation of soils for subsequent crops and it has also been reported that soil fertility and structure are greatly improved by having grasses and forbes in fallow land (Tinsley, personal communication). It might be worthwhile to deliver a complete package of forage improvement for a number of purposes rather than livestock feeding only. Such advantages as disease control and soil fertility improvement could attract both cattle owners and non-cattle owners. The overall benefit to the country would be an increase in the hectarage under improved pastures. The same tactic could work for farmers with small land holdings. Selected annual forages (grasses or legumes) would be intercropped with food crops with the major objective of improving soil fertility and/or pest control. The residues after crop harvest would then be grazed.

There are a lot of commercial estates in Malawi that are growing grasses as part of a rotation. The scope for increasing grass production on estates is even greater if tenants would also be encouraged to grow it as part of a rotation instead of having-fallow land under fortes. Very little of the planted pastures on the estates are used for feeding cattle, and yet there are a lot of hungry cattle in the country. It might be beneficial to investigate the possibility of harvesting such grass and selling it to farmers who have an animal feed shortage. This would act as an additional source of income to the farmers growing grass whilst serving those farmers who cannot grow enough pastures. The same situation applied to maize stover and other crop residues produced on estates. There is a need to find machines, preferably mobile ones, for grinding crop residues and grass at the site of production and to be sold and to enable farmers (particularly small scale farmers) to mix complete feed rations.

The above suggestions represent only a tithe of possibilities of enhancing the utilisation of forage research results. There has been enough research done and what is required now is active production of such forages to enhance cattle production. Production does not only involve the farmer but it should encompass the researcher and extensionist as agents of change. The agents of change need to be properly co-ordinated to avoid delivering what might appear as conflicting messages to the farmer as was the case with undersowing pasture in maize versus keeping maize weed-free. Finally, there is a lot of scope to improve livestock production through a co-ordinated campaign to forage production and management and this effort should be the responsibility of governments.

References

Addy, B.L. and Thomas, D. 1976. Utilisation of crop residues, Madeya and Leucaena for winter feeding in Lilongwe District. Research Bulletin No. 2/76. Ministry of Agriculture, Malawi.

NSO, (National Statistical Office). 1970. National sample survey for Agriculture. National Statistical Office, Zomba, Malawi.

NSO, (National Statistical Office). 1981. National sample survey for Agriculture. National Statistical Office, Zomba, Malawi.

Dzowela, B.H. 1987a. Maize stover improvement with legume forages. In: J.A. Kategile, A.N. Said and B.H. Dzowela (eds), Animal feed resources for small-scale livestock producers. proceedings of the Second PANESA Workshop held at ILRAD, Kabete, Nairobi, Kenya, 11-15 November 1985. IDRC-MR165e. IDRC, Ottawa.

Dzowela, B.H. 1987b. Efforts to enhance maize stover utilisation for smallholder livestock producers in Malawi. Utilisation of agricultural by-products as livestock feeds in Africa. Proceedings of a workshop held at Ryalls, Hotel Blantyre, Malawi, September 1986. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

(MOA), (Ministry of Agriculture) 1983. Pastures handbook for Malawi. Ministry of Agriculture, Lilongwe, Malawi

Munthali, J.T.K. 1987. Cattle fattening on basal diets of maize stover and groundnut tops in Malawi. In: D.A. Little and A.N. Said (eds), Utilisation of agricultural by-products as livestock feeds in Africa. Proceedings of a workshop held at Ryall's Hotel, Blantyre, Malawi, September 1986. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Thomas, D. and Bennett, A.J. 1975a. Establishing a mixed pasture under maize in Malawi. I. Time of sowing. Experimental Agric. 11:257-263.

Thomas, D. and Bennett, A.J. 1975b. Establishing a mixed pasture under maize in Malawi. II. Method of sowing. Experimental Agric. 11:273-276.