Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:36:41.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASSESSMENT OF NAPIER GRASS ACCESSIONS IN LOWLAND AND HIGHLAND TROPICAL ENVIRONMENTS IN EAST AFRICA: PRODUCTIVITY AND FORAGE QUALITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2016

S. W. MWENDIA ,
I. A. M. YUNUSA ,
B. M. SINDEL ,
R. D. B. WHALLEY  and
I. W. KARIUKI
S. W. MWENDIA*
Affiliation:
International Center for Tropical Agriculture, PO Box 823-00621, Nairobi, Kenya
I. A. M. YUNUSA
Affiliation:
Grains Research and Development Corporation, PO Box 5367, Kingston, ACT 2604, Australia
B. M. SINDEL
Affiliation:
School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
R. D. B. WHALLEY
Affiliation:
School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
I. W. KARIUKI
Affiliation:
Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organisation, 30148-00100, Nairobi, Kenya
*
‡Corresponding author. Email: mwendia2007@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Ten accessions of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach.) were evaluated for their dry matter (DM) yield and forage quality in a semi-arid lowland (Katumani) and a relatively wet highland (Muguga) over seven growth cycles from 2011 to 2013 in tropical Kenya. Three biomass yield clusters were identified from the 10 accessions as high-yielding (HYC), medium-yielding (MYC) and low-yielding (LYC) clusters for both sites. Total biomass (shoot and root) yields (t ha−1) over the seven growth cycles were 25.3 for HYC, 22.2 for MYC and 19.6 for LYC at Katumani and 40.0, 41.4 and 29.1 at Muguga. Total biomass yield averaged over the study period was DM 22.4 t ha−1 at Katumani and 36.8 at Muguga. Rainfall productivity was higher at Katumani (28.8 kg ha−1 mm−1) than 20.8 kg ha−1 mm−1 at Muguga. Neutral detergent fibre (NDF) was lower in LYC, which was more leafy than the other clusters and there was little difference in NDF between the two sites.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 27 - 43
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ansah, T., Osafo, E. L. K. and Hansen, H. H. (2010). Herbage yield and chemical composition of four varieties of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) grass harvested at three different days after planting. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America 1:923–929.Google Scholar
AOAC. (1975). Official Methods of Analysis, 12th edn. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
AOAC. (1980). Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edn. Washington, DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.Google Scholar
Bayble, T., Melaku, B. T. and Presad, N. K. (2007). Effects of cutting dates on nutritive value of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) grass planted sole and in association with Desmodium intortum or lablab (Lablab purpureus). Livestock Research for Rural Development 19 (1). Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/1/bayb19011.htm (accessed 10 February 2016).Google Scholar
Ford, C. W., Morrison, I. M. and Wilson, J. R. (1979). Temperature effects on lignin, hemicellulose and cellulose in tropical and temperate grasses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 30:621–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genstat. (2011). GenStat Statistical Software, Version 14 for Windows, Hertfordshire, UK: VSN International Ltd.Google Scholar
Hamblin, A. and Tennant, D. (1987). Root length density and water uptake in cereals and legumes: How well are they correlated? Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 38:513–527.Google Scholar
International Livestock Research Institute. (2013). Getting superior Napier grass to dairy farmers in East Africa. EIARD Available at: http://www.ard-europe.org/fileadmin/SITE_MASTER/content/eiard/Documents/Impact_case_studies_2013/ILRI_-_Getting_superior_Napier_grass_to_dairy_farmers_in_East_Africa.pdf (accessed 15 October 2014).Google Scholar
Jaetzold, R., Schimidt, H., Hornetz, B. and Shisanya, C. (2006). Farm Management Handbook of Kenya Vol. II. Natural Conditions and Farm Management Information, 2nd edn. Nairobi, Kenya: Ministry of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Jank, L., De Lima, E. A., Simeão, R. M. and Andrade, R. C. (2013). Potential of Panicum maximum as a source of energy. Tropical Grasslands – Forrajes Tropicales 1:92–94.Google Scholar
Jeranyama, P. and Garcia, A. D. (2004). Understanding relative feed value (RFV) and relative forage quality (RFQ). College of Agriculture & Biological Sciences/South Dakota State University/usda. Available at: http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/ExEx8149.pdf (accessed 18 April 2015).Google Scholar
Kabirizi, J., Muyekho, F., Mulaa, M., Msangi, R., Pallangyo, B., Kawube, G., Zziwa, E., Mugerwa, S., Ajanga, S., Lukwago, G., Wamalwa, N. I. E., Kariuki, I., Mwesigwa, R., Nannyeenya-Ntege, W., Atuhairwe, A., Awalla, J., Namazzi, C. and Nampijja, Z. (2015). Napier grass feed resource: production, constraints and implications for smallholder farmers in east and Central Africa. The Eastern Africa Agricultural Productivity Project (EAAPP) Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/281556114 (accessed 27 November 2015).Google Scholar
Karcher, D. E., Richardson, M. D., Hignight, K. and Rush, D. (2008). Drought tolerance of tall fescue populations selected for high root/shoot ratios and summer survival. Crop Science 48:771–777.Google Scholar
Kubota, F., Matsuda, Y., Agata, W. and Nada, K. (1994). The relationship between canopy structure and high productivity in Napier grass, Pennisetum purpureum Schumach. Field Crops Research 39:105–110.Google Scholar
Larcher, W. (2003). Physiological Plant Ecology, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Liya, D. (2013). Collaboration with Brazil expands Napier grass diversity in ILRI's forage genebank. Available at: http://clippings.ilri.org/2013/12/31/expanding-napier-grass-diversity/ (accessed 11 April 2015).Google Scholar
Lowe, A. J., Thorpe, W., Teale, A. and Hanson, J. (2003). Characterisation of germplasm accessions of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum and P. purpureum x P. glaucum hybrids) and comparison with farm clones using RAPD. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 50:121–132.Google Scholar
Man, N. V. and Wiktorsson, H. (2003). Forage yield nutritive value, feed intake and digestibility of three grass species as affected by harvest frequency. Tropical Grasslands 37:101–110.Google Scholar
McCuistion, K. C., Bean, B. W. and IIIMcCollum, F. T. (2010). Nutritional composition response to yield differences in brown midrib, non-brown midrib, and photoperiod sensitive forage sorghum cultivars. Forage and Grazinglands, 8: doi:10.1094/FG-2010-0428-01-RS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minitab, Inc. (2007). Minitab Statistical Software, Release 17 for Windows, State College, PA, USA: Minitab Inc.Google Scholar
Moran, J. (2012). Managing High Grade Cows in the Tropics, Victoria, Australia: CSIRO Publishing. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mwendia, S. W. (2015). Physiological and productivity evaluation of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach.) cultivars under variable water supply, temperature and carbon dioxide conditions. PhD thesis, University of New England, Australia.Google Scholar
Mwendia, S. W., Yunusa, I. A. M., Whalley, R. D. B., Sindel, B. M., Kenny, D. and Kariuki, I. W. (2013). Use of plant water relations to assess forage quality and growth for two cultivars of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) subjected to different levels of soil water supply and temperature regimes. Crop and Pasture Science 64:1008–1019.Google Scholar
Njarui, D. M. G., Gatheru, M., Wambua, J. M., Nguluu, S. N., Mwangi, D. M. and Keya, G. A. (2011). Feeding management for dairy cattle in smallholder farming systems of semi-arid tropical Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development 23: Article number 111. Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/5/njar23111.htm (accessed 28 April 2013).Google Scholar
Pieterse, P. A. and Rethman, N. F. G. (2002). The influence of nitrogen fertilisation and soil pH on the dry matter yield and forage quality of Pennisetum purpureum and P. purpurem X P. glaucum hybrids. Tropical Grasslands 43:199–206.Google Scholar
Quinn, G. P. and Keough, M. J. (2002). Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists, Edinburgh, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sheaffer, C. C., Petersen, P. R., Hall, M. H. and Stordahl, J. B. (1992). Drought effects on yield and quality of perennial grasses in the North Central United States. Journal of Production Agriculture 5:556–561.Google Scholar
Sinclair, T. R., Tanner, C. B. and Bennett, J. M. (1984). Water-use efficiency in crop production. BioScience 34:36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staal, S. J., Chege, L., Kenyanjui, M., Kimari, A., Lukuyu, B., Njubi, D., Owango, M., Tanner, J., Thorpe, W. and Wambugu, M. (1998). Characterisation of dairy systems supplying the Nairobi milk market: A pilot survey in Kiambu district for the identification of target producers. KARI/MoA/ILRI Collaborative Research Project Report. Available at: www.reading.ac.uk/ssc/media/ILRI_2006Nov/Publication/Full%20Text/Staal.pdf (accessed 12 March 2014).Google Scholar
Stotz, D. (1983). Production techniques and economics of smallholder livestock production systems in Kenya. Farm Management Handbook of Kenya. Nairobi Kenya: Ministry of Livestock Development.Google Scholar
Tessema, Z. K., Mihret, J. and Solomon, M. (2010). Effect of defoliation frequency and cutting height on growth, dry matter yield and nutritive value of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum (L.) Schumach). Grass and Forage Science 65:421–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tudsri, S., Jorgensen, S. T., Riddach, P. and Pookpakdi, A. (2002). Effects of cutting height and dry season closing date on yield and quality of five Napier grass cultivars in Thailand. Tropical Grasslands 36:248–252.Google Scholar
Wijitphan, S., Lorwilai, P. and Arkaseang, C. (2009). Effects of plant spacing on yields and nutritive values of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schum.) under intensive management of nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 8:1240–1243.Google Scholar
Yunusa, I. A. M, Thomson, S. E., Pollock, K. P., Youwei, L. and Mead, D. J. (2005). Water potential and gas exchange did not reflect performance of Pinus radiata D. Don in an agroforestry system under conditions of soil-water deficit in a temperate environment. Plant and Soil 275:195–206.Google Scholar
Yunusa, I. A. M., Zolfaghar, S., Zeppel, M. J. B., Li, Z., Palmer, A. R. and Eamus, D. (2012). Fine root biomass and its relationship to evapotranspiration in woody and grassy vegetation covers for ecological restoration of waste storage and mining landscapes. Ecosystems 15:113–127.Google Scholar