19. Pro-poor Community Forage Production Programme in the Nepal Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project, Nepal. Rameshwar Singh Pande (Published in : Proceedings of the Workshop on Fodder Oats , Fodder Technology Packages and Small Farm Income generation, Chapter XXIX, Kathmandu, Nepal, 8-11 March 2005 . TCP/NEP/2901-Capacity building for fodder oat technologies in Nepaland, sixth Meeting of the Temperate Asia Pasture and Fodder Network. www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/Proceedings/nepal2005/chapter29) SUMMARY The Community Forestry (CF) programme has been ongoing since 1978 and has proved useful and successful in giving communities access to forest resources and improving forest management.It has however, neglected non-timber forest resources, especially forage and has also had limited success in making resources available to the poorest and disadvantage groups. To increase equity in access to community forest the Nepal -Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project has initiated a Community Forage Programme focusing on landless poor, women and disadvantaged groups on a pilot basis, aiming to enhance fodder supply as well as stopping further degradation of forest resources. This paper describes the methodology of organising such work, socially and technically and reports on preliminary results of fodder production technques. Key words: Pro-poor, Dalit, Community forest, Forest user group, forage programme, Forage plants. BACKGROUND Community Forestry (CF) was devised in 1978 to improve the condition of forest and meet household needs of forest products. Poor households especially rural ones, depend on community resources to meet their daily needs in fodder, bedding, firewood and other).However, small land- holders or households with few on-farm activities have not been benefited as envisaged by the Community Forage programme (Richards et al 2003; Malla et al, 2003; Bhatta & Dhakal 2004; Singh 2004; Chhetri, 2004). Forest products are inequitably distributed among the poor within the community Forest User Groups (FUG) (Timsina 2002; Neupane 2003; Kandel & Subedi 2004; Kanel, Statz and Sharma 2004; Nurse et al 2004; Shrestha and Khadka, 2004). Even so, the significance of Community Forestry has been well proved in empowering users to manage forest resources for their own benefit (Kanel, 2004). Over time, the priority of Community Forestry has shifted from forest protection and management to poverty alleviation & livelihoods improvement (NACRMLP, 2003; LFP, 2003; Allison et al, 2004; Kanel and Niraula, 2004). Since the inception of Community Forestry, over 1010,740 ha of forest have been handed over to 13,300 FUGs, comprising over 1422,301 households (CFD, 2004). Most Community Forests are close to the human settlement and contribute significantly products: timber and firewood, their value (in FUG fund) is high, but the need for fodder by all strata of people is more important. In Community Forest management, priority has been given to timber and firewood rather then other lower priced but more important products such as fodder which contribute to livelihoods of poor households. Studies and suggestions for fodder improvement in Community Forestry have been scant. To avoid the further degradation and to increase equity and equality among FUG members incorporation of forage program in Community Forestry was urgently needed. To this end, the Nepal-Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project (NACRMLP) has initiated Community Forage Program (CFP) focusing on landless poor, women and disadvantage groups on a pilot basis, aiming to enhance fodder supply as well as to stopping further degradation of forests resources. ISSUES Over 90 percent of the total poor of the country live in rural areas. Due to lack of on-farm economical opportunities they have to rely on subsistence on community forest and marginal lands. Livestock is a vital source of livelihood for such communities who rear small livestock (goats, pigs, poultry) and cattle and buffaloes (in part-ownership); .they rely on community resources for fodder. The Project districts Kabhre & Sindhu are major milk producers, supplying about 60 percent of the raw milk in national milk market. Milk production is based on feeding concentrates so over 60 percent of income is spent to buy feed. Forage based livestock farming is cheapest as well as environmentally sound. The Project districts contain 200,344 ha of natural forests (Kabhre 73,801 ha and Sindhu 126,543 ha) of which 45,278 ha have already been handed over to 811 FUGs, comprising 79,200 households (CFD, 2004); 85- 87 percent of households keep livestock (NACRMLP, 2004). Fodder is becoming scarce day by day. Most women members spent about 3 hours to collect a load of grasses and tree leaves. A preliminary study of the feed balance of NACRMLP districts showed that the deficit is up to 60 percent compared to production requirements (NACRMLP, 2003). At national level, MPFS, 1988 estimates that the over all deficit of fodder would be 14.5 percent during 2000-2001 and rise to 21.9 percent by 2010/2011 (demand 4896.7 and supply 3796.7 MT TDN; MPFS, 1988). Ppro-poor households are gradually abandoning livestock farming and shifting in other occupation or seasonal migration. The feed deficit hinders environment conservation; the mid-hills are ecologically sensitive ; soil are poor, infertile and of poor water holding capacity. Over the decades, these degraded community lands have lost their ability to regenerate grass and useful vegetation. Palatable plants have vanished and noxious, weedy ones dominate open patches e.g. Eupatorium spp. They are devoid of ground vegetation and pose a threat to the livelihoods by way of shortage of fodder, fuel, potable water, depletion of ground water, loss of production due to soil erosion and landslide. Encroachment of the community land by some elite is common, so. the area is shrinking. Community Forestry is a major source for generating FUG funds, for development of social, physical and human resources in the community. Most revinue is from the sale of timber and firewood. Pines are widely used for afforestation, this transformed denuded land into greenery but. the growth of herbaceous species has been drastically reduced, and has affected the availability of forest fodder. Most FUGs use of funds on small rural enterprises, mainly in livestock rearing without giving due considerations on fodder development. The project has facilitated 27 FUGs in preparing “Livelihoods Improvement Plan (LIP)” for the social and, economical development of users. To empower the women especially from disadvantage community; the project is facilitating Women Empowerment Program (WEP). The LIP and WEP groups are keen to begin community forage programmes; the line agencies such as District Livestock Services Office, District Forest Office, District Soil Conservation Office are implementing forage programmes with limited resources and small coverage. The Livestok and Forest Department jointly implement a Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Programme in 34 districts The concept is very useful but the result has not been as envisaged (Singh 2004). The line agencies have technical expertise but no specific programme for pro-poor groups, their experience and manpower could be used for pro-poor community forage programmes. The aim of the HMG/Nepal, Tenth Plan (2002-2007) is poverty reduction and intensive management of forest resources. Alternative ways should be explored to use community resources for livelihoods improvement of the FUGs. Oopen and degraded community forests, which are still barren and under utilized provide opportunities for forage cultivation. There is ample scope for the development of understory forage in plantations using shade tolerant perennials In addition to the community forage, assistance to the well- off households with on-farm forage production through incorporation of forage in farming systems would enhance their forage supply. Over-sowing of forage mixture on landslide and roadside could improve the forage supply to pro-poor households as well as contribute in their stabilization. OBJECTIVES • Generate awareness to develop and manage community resources, diversify the productivity, mitigate further environmental degradation and facilitate the pro-poor FUG members in benefit sharing of community resources. • Facilitate formation of Forage Sub-group comprising poor, Dalit (persons outside the class system of Hinduism who was formerly termed as Untouchable) and women members for establishment of a Community Forage Block with mixed perennial forage species for better fodder and seeds & planting materials production and opportunities for income generation. • To mitigate the pressure on forest resources by developing alternative means of forage production from community forests. STRATEGIES: • Easy access on enhanced forage supply from community resources to pro-poor and landless farmers to reduce over exploitation of forest resources, • Diversification of forest products and income especially from degraded community forests; • Create awareness and enhance skills of FUG members on improved forage cultivation; • Promotion of on-farm forage production (without affecting the crop farming), establishment of forage resource centres for planting materials and use of degraded lands (landslide/roadside), • Opportunities for income generation from the sale of green forage/ seeds/ planting materials. PROCEDURES Schematic steps for the facilitation of pro-poor CFP is presented in Figure –1 Figure –1: Process of Pro-poor Community Forage Program Community Forage Program -Lar Mobilization of FUG: Interaction/orientation of the concept, approaches and modalities on community forage programme with LIP/ FUG, WEP groups and other groups/individuals. • Identification of the potential sites; selection/identification of potential users/households focusing on poor, DAG and women within the FUGs. • Discussion on interests, role and responsibilities of selected households as community forage users, • Formation of forage sub-group(s) within the respective FUGs comprising poor and DAG and WEP members (See boxes 1 & 2), • Facilitation to formulate policies, guidelines, action plan for community forage development field /implementation. • Orientation/hands on training on improved forage cultivation and demonstration on forage program to the LIP/WEP facilitator’s. • Support of forage seeds and planting materials through distribution of mini kits to the FUG/LIP facilitators. • Establishment of forage block (using minimal tillage operation); manual works and local planting materials from the respective FUG- sub groups and improved seeds and planting materials from project support. • Facilitation on protection, management, harvesting, and use of forage materials, whenever needed. • Monitoring and follow- up. Salient feature of Community Forage programme: Selection of CF for forage development: • Open/degraded grazing areas within the CF comprising at least 2,500 sq m of land, • Willing to form Forage Sub-group comprising Dalit, women and poorest households, • Willing to provide required labor and other facilities for its management, • Willing to raise the nominal cost of the seeds and planting materials, which could be used for the welfare activities of the poorest households in the communities, • And others as decided by respective FUGs. Types of mini kits packets: A standard forage mini kit comprising 500 gm seed mixture which contain 13 different forages including grasses and legumes. The forage mixtures are designed to provide a range of legumes, grasses, shrubs, herbs and climbers as well as to maximize the land use while increasing the biomass per unit of area. The proportion of the forages was on the basis of availability of seeds; the number of mini kit packets supplied to the FUG/FSGs is based on the size of the forage block. Tillage: Minimum tillage was used for sowing seeds at of 4 kg/ha. Seed were sown in summer (June/July). No fencing were erected. Experiences and outcomes Number of FUGs involved and performance of the forage species in CFP Up to December 2004, 42 FUGs (22 in Kabhre and 20 in Sindhu) have formed "Forage Sub-groups" and established forage block s. A total of 324 kg (144 kg in Kabhre and 210 kg in Sindhu) has been used on about 80- 100 ha.Members involved in CFP are over 535 (including 417 women). The forage establishment, flowering performance and biomass yield was observed. Seven FUGs were selected for data collection, five FUGs (Sungure (Box 2), Siddhiganesh, Ansetar and Jalpa) and two FUGs in Kabhre (Hokse and Saparupa) (Table 1). The performance of the forage in Sindhu FUGs is good conditions to Kabhre FUGs mainly due to late sowing and poor soil conditions. Box –1 Case study: Community Forage Block of Pro-poor disadvantage groups A Pioneer FUG in Community Forage Programme: Bhedigoth, Thulosirubari VDC, Sindhu The Bhedigoth FUG is in Thulosirubari VDC Ward No. 1 & 6, Sindhu Palchok. The FUG comprises 124 households with 56 ha. CF most`of which is planted with Pines and about 20 percent is still open degraded land, used for grazing. The Operational Plan (OP) was approved in July 1998 . The altitude ranges from 1200 to 1350 m. All most all members rear few livestock. The major sources of fodder are grasses and tree leaves collected from CF, agricultural by-products and grazing. Most women members collect fodder and bedding materials. The community Forage programme was conceptualized and tested in June/July 2003 in a Dalit tole Bhedigoth FUG, Thulosirubari, Sindhu Palchok. After a rigorous interaction and steps to implement “Community Forage Programme”, the FUG formed a “ Forage Sub-groups” comprising 25 households of Dalit families. The role and responsibilities of the sub-group was discussed in general assembly and FUGC agreed to allocate an open block for forage development. A field level training required forage seeds (Stylo, joint vetch, Ipil-ipil, Gamba grass, Rhodes, Glycine, Joint vetch, Maku lotus and Wynn cassia and some slips of Mott napier, forage peanut and other local species of fodder trees) were provided and forage block established in August 2003. The chairperson Mr Chandra Dulal was also provided with an additional training on forage seed production at Palpa in January 2004 to enhance the skills on forage and forage seed production and management. Last year, the FSG members have expanded the area under forage as well as in terrace risers on individual’s backyards. Mr Dulal proudly says “the FSG have sold the grasses and generated a fund equals to Rs 3300 (1US$=71 NRs) last year, and that amount has been invested in other economical activities such as off- season vegetable production, goat and pig farming to the poorest members of the group in soft loan. This year, they can earn about Rs 10,000 from the sale of seeds and grasses and the amount will increase in time”. He also added that “Since the establishment of Community Forage block, open grazing of stray animals has been completely stopped, much time have been saved in collection of fodder, the group members are empowered and encouraged to initiate other productive programs”. The Community forage block is serving as a demonstration and learning sites for neighboring FUGs. Preliminary results reveals that the average number of forage plants per square meter was 1058 (range 518 to 1513). The forage which established best were Melinis minutiflora (molasses grass) and Stylosanthes guianensis (stylo) which were 73 and 25 percent respectively other forage comprises only 2 percent of the population. Table –1 Description of community forage blocks SN Name of FUG Total Area (ha) Total members (Female ♀) Yield GM ton/ha 1 Ansetar FUG, Pandhera, Sangachok, SP 0.25 18 ♀ 13 2 Ansetar FUG, Khadkako ahal, Sangachok –3, SP 0.35 40 ♀ 29 3 Ansetar FUG, Devisthan, Jangachok, SP 0.75 40 ♀ 73 4 Sungure FUG, Bistako ahal chaur, Pipaldanda 1 36 ♀ 68 5 Jalpa FUG, school comp, Sanosirubari, Sp 0.25 103 (80 ♀) 73 6 Saparupa, Methinkot, Kp 0.25 24 ♀ 13 7 Panduladevi, Hokse, Kp 0.5 63 (50 ♀ ) 19 Mean yield of forage biomass 324 (264 ♀) 41 Almost all established forages (except Ipil-ipil) were flowering and bearing seeds. Profuse flowering and seeding forage were Joint vetch (Glen & Vilomix), Molasses, Stylo (Plapa, Temperano and Nina), Wynn cassia and Signal. Box –2 Case Study: Community Forage of WEP members Community Forage Programme, Sungure FUG, WEP Groups The Sungure FUG is in Pipaldanda VDC Ward number 3 Sindhu Palchok; a neighboring VDC of Chautara- the district head quarter. There are 130 households and the total community forest area is 125 ha. The major species are Sal, Chilaune, Mahuwa and others. The OP was approved in 13 May 1994. The altitude is about 1200 m. The chairperson is Mr Khadag Bahadur Rayamajhi. Mr. Rayamajhi is also a LIP facilitator. The WEP is also running, Ms Gyani Basnet is a facilitator of WEP. There are 36 WEP members. The FUG has allocated a block of land comprising 20 ropani to the WEP members for community forage development. Project provided hands-on training to the WEP members on improved forage cultivation in situ and required quantity of seeds during the first week of June 2004. Now, the forage is performing very well. The block is on the way to Chautara- Nawalpur road, “every on who passes from the road get impressed and inspired” says Mr Khadag Rayamajhi, Chairperson of Sungure FUG. He further added that “I am very much impressed from the forage program, the barren filed yielding nothings, now turned into bumper forage block, other FUG members are also keen to plant forage in all open forest areas in coming season; we will initiate improved dairy and goat farming program to facilitate the pro-poor FUG members in second stage”. The yield of the improved forage was quite satisfactory; the average yield of fodder in Sindhu is 2.3 Mt DM/ha (Pande, 1997; Pariyar 2004), compared to the normal yield, the yield of green biomass from the CFP was found 41 ton/ha in the preliminary study carried out in December 2004 (which is about 8-10 t DM/ha) Similarly, due to the proportionate legume content the quality of fodder from CFP could also be high compared to native grasses, which are mainly of low nutritive value (Pande 1997). The average production in Kabhre (16 tons green matter/ha) was very low compared to SindhuPalchok (51 tons green matter/ha). On-farm, landslide/roadside and school forage production. In addition to the community forages were established on landslides and roadsides for fodder and to control landslides. To support the land-rich FUG members on-farm forage was facilitated. About 5,400 members on-farm grew improved forage. The main purpose of the FRC was to multiply the vegetative materials for distribution to other members at a nominal charge,distribution of planting materials has begun and is earning income. A separate programme to create awareness on improved forage was started under which over 42000 packets of forage seeds were distributed to students of 161 schools, which created awareness among the students and parents. THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE SUCCESS OF Community forage At the initial stage, start in a demonstration- test site. Take account of all issues raised by the community and refine for further trial. Avoid sites, which are under dispute and encroachment. Preferably choose the site, which is close to the sub-group members hamlet. Take the consensus of the entire community in addition to the respective FUGC; if possible focus on poor and disadvantage groups and/or WEP group. Form the Forage Sub-Group within the FUG from the very beginning and encourage the sub-group to plan, implement and take decisions with the support of main FUGC. Organize training at field level, ensure the participation of the actual beneficiaries (women in most cases)Provide material support such as forage seeds and planting materials which are not available locally. Avoid direct financial support to purchases. Ensure compulsory manual involvement by each households of the sub-group in establishing the forage block (land preparation, live fencing, sowing, management and others), encourage voluntary services and cost sharing, wherever possible. Always use a mixture of planting materials incorporate leguminous browse and establish a separate block for seed production. Identify opportunities for generating employment and income as well as forage production. Link the community based forage and livestock improvement with other family based other income generation such as vegetable and small-animal production to ensure sustainability in the long run. Coordinate and link the programme with the other government/non-government organization for additional technical/material support/facilitation. Develop the capability of the Forage Sub-Group to take part in village community development activities. LESSON LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS:  The formation of sub-groups and allocation of some community forest lands for forage to the poor and DAG created some confusion initially in the community ownership (of that particular block) may transfer to that group e.g. Bhedigoth FUG.  In some cases it was observed that the sub-group of poor and DAGs lack confidence and trust in FUGC (usually dominated by elites), and refused to form a solo group of DAG households only e.g. Sungure FUG.  Establishment of forage block isusually simple, easy and needs less labor (mostly one day input of the members for tillage and sowing of seeds). However, poorer members who depend on daily wages for subsistence find it difficult to spare time for forage establishment e.g. in Sungure FUG, three women members could not provide their manual labor during the seed sowing day, but substituted later.  The contribution of established forage block to overall fodder supply or income is relatively small to individual members, which is less attractive to the poor. So the forage programme should be linked to other income generation such as off season vegetable and bee keeping.  Forage takes time to become productive, most of the perennials only give a significant yield in the second years ater establishment. So, fast growing forages like Mott napier, forage peanut etc should be incorporated to show quick results.  The programme has created significant awareness among FUGs members towards the forage cultivation. Communal forestlands, which were encroached on for personal use have been reoccupied by the forage sub-group to establish forage blocks, and this has raised some doubt and criticism especially from the elites. CONCLUSION: The Community Forage Programme has created lots of awareness and enthusiasm among the FUG members in poor communities. Preliminary observations indicate that the Community Fodder Programme can solve many issues of unequal resource sharing among the Group members and could mitigate the over exploitation of forest resources. However, due to the lack of good governance and equity in Community Forest management, continued facilitation from NACRMLP is important for the institutionalization, as well as sustainable development, of Community Forage Programme which is a potential tool to meet the objectives of the Tenth Plan (2002-2007) to reduce poverty at national level as well as the Millennium Development Goals of poverty reduction at global level. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The support provided by Mr. Satrughan Lal Pradhan and Mr Alan Robertson and all field staff especially Mr Ram Saran BK, Tara Pariyar, Khadag/Kiran Kharel and all others to implement this programme are highly appreciated. The support of DFO, DSCO and DLSO staff for their contribution are also highly acknowledged. REFERENCES:  Allison, G; J Bampton; BR Kandel; ML Shrestha and NK Shrestha 2004: Community forestry and livelihoods: how can community forestry better contribute to the Millennium Development Goals?. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 171-179)  Bhatta, b and Dhakal, B. 2004: Forestry Sector's Role in Nepal's Scio-political Stability: a Critical Analysis of Problems, Prospects and Potentials. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 333-345)  CFD, 2004: Community forest Division, HMG, Nepal  Chhetry, B; P.Francis; M. Gurung; V. Iversen; G.Kafle; A. Pain and J. Seeley, 2004: Increasing opportunities for the poor to access benefits from common pool resources: the case of community forestry in the Terai of Nepal. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 199-207)  DLSO, 2003. District Livestock Services Office, Kabhre Palanchok. Annual Report 2003  Kandel RK and R Subedi, 2004: Pro-poor Community Forestry: some Initiatives from the Field. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 229-237)  Kanel K.R, J. Statz and AR Sharma, 2004: Income distribution and social well being in Community Forestry: Issues, experience and Strategy Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 238-244)  Kanel, KR 2004: Twenty-five years of community Forestry: contribution to Millennium Development Goals, Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 4-18)  Kanel, KR and DR Niraula, 2004. Can rural livelihood be improved in Nepal through community Forestry? Banko Jankari. 14 (1)June 2004  LFP, 2003. Hills Livelihoods Baseline survey, Livelihoods and Forestry Program. Kathmandu, Luintel, H; M,R, Banjade; HR. Neupane and RK Pandey, R.2004: Sustainable Non-Timber Forest Product Management: Issues and ways Forward. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 42-47)  Master Plan Forestry Sector, HMG/Nepal  Mall Y.B.; HR Neupane; PJ Brandy. 2003. Why aren't poor people benefiting more from community forestry? Journal of Forest and livelihoods 3(1) July 2003  NACRMLP, 2003. Ddraft. Strategies for Livestock and Fodder Development in NACRMLP, Districts, Discussion paper, Nepal Australia Community resource management and livelihoods project  NACRMLP 2004. Milestone 7 Draft. Baseline Survey Sindhu Palchok and Kabhre Palanchok.  Neupane, H.R 2003.Contested Impact of Community Forestry on Equity: some evidence from Nepal. Forest and Livelihood: Vol 2(2), 55-61 pp  Nurse, M; DB Khatri; D Paudel and B Pokhrel, 2004: Rural entrepreneur Development: A pro-poor approach to enterprise development through community forestry. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 250-258)  Pande, R. S. 1997: Fodder and Pasture Development in Nepal. Udaya Research and Development Services Pvt. Ltd, Sanepa, Distributor: Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Dillibazaar, Kathmandu, Nepal.1997.  Pariyar, D, 2004. Country Pasture/forage resources profiles Nepal. FAO Grassland and pasture Crops. Website; www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/counprof/Nepal.ht.  Richards, M; M. Maharjan; K .Kanel 2003. Economics, Poverty and Transparency: Measuring Equity in Forest user groups. Journal of Forest and Livelihoods 3 (1), July 2004  Shrestha, M and M Khadka, 2004. Fund mobilization in community forestry: opportunities and constraints for equity-based livelihoods improvement. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 278-285)  Singh BK, 2004. Complementary pro-poor program in community and leasehold forestry. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 195-198).  Timsina, N. 2002. Empowerment or Marginalisation: a debate in community forestry in Nepal. Forest and livelihood: Vol 2(1), 27-33pp 

19. Pro-poor Community Forage Production Programme in the Nepal Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project, Nepal.

Rameshwar Singh Pande

(Published in : Proceedings of the Workshop on Fodder Oats , Fodder Technology Packages and Small Farm Income generation, Chapter XXIX, Kathmandu, Nepal, 8-11 March 2005 . TCP/NEP/2901-Capacity building for fodder oat technologies in Nepaland, sixth Meeting of the Temperate Asia Pasture and Fodder Network. www.fao.org/ag/agp/agpc/doc/Proceedings/nepal2005/chapter29)

SUMMARY
The Community Forestry (CF) programme has been ongoing since 1978 and has proved useful and successful in giving communities access to forest resources and improving forest management.It has however, neglected non-timber forest resources, especially forage and has also had limited success in making resources available to the poorest and disadvantage groups. To increase equity in access to community forest the Nepal -Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project has initiated a Community Forage Programme focusing on landless poor, women and disadvantaged groups on a pilot basis, aiming to enhance fodder supply as well as stopping further degradation of forest resources. This paper describes the methodology of organising such work, socially and technically and reports on preliminary results of fodder production technques.

Key words: Pro-poor, Dalit, Community forest, Forest user group, forage programme, Forage plants.

BACKGROUND
Community Forestry (CF) was devised in 1978 to improve the condition of forest and meet household needs of forest products. Poor households especially rural ones, depend on community resources to meet their daily needs in fodder, bedding, firewood and other).However, small land- holders or households with few on-farm activities have not been benefited as envisaged by the Community Forage programme (Richards et al 2003; Malla et al, 2003; Bhatta & Dhakal 2004; Singh 2004; Chhetri, 2004). Forest products are inequitably distributed among the poor within the community Forest User Groups (FUG) (Timsina 2002; Neupane 2003; Kandel & Subedi 2004; Kanel, Statz and Sharma 2004; Nurse et al 2004; Shrestha and Khadka, 2004). Even so, the significance of Community Forestry has been well proved in empowering users to manage forest resources for their own benefit (Kanel, 2004). Over time, the priority of Community Forestry has shifted from forest protection and management to poverty alleviation & livelihoods improvement (NACRMLP, 2003; LFP, 2003; Allison et al, 2004; Kanel and Niraula, 2004).
Since the inception of Community Forestry, over 1010,740 ha of forest have been handed over to 13,300 FUGs, comprising over 1422,301 households (CFD, 2004). Most Community Forests are close to the human settlement and contribute significantly products: timber and firewood, their value (in FUG fund) is high, but the need for fodder by all strata of people is more important. In Community Forest management, priority has been given to timber and firewood rather then other lower priced but more important products such as fodder which contribute to livelihoods of poor households. Studies and suggestions for fodder improvement in Community Forestry have been scant. To avoid the further degradation and to increase equity and equality among FUG members incorporation of forage program in Community Forestry was urgently needed. To this end, the Nepal-Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihoods Project (NACRMLP) has initiated Community Forage Program (CFP) focusing on landless poor, women and disadvantage groups on a pilot basis, aiming to enhance fodder supply as well as to stopping further degradation of forests resources.
ISSUES
Over 90 percent of the total poor of the country live in rural areas. Due to lack of on-farm economical opportunities they have to rely on subsistence on community forest and marginal lands. Livestock is a vital source of livelihood for such communities who rear small livestock (goats, pigs, poultry) and cattle and buffaloes (in part-ownership); .they rely on community resources for fodder. The Project districts Kabhre & Sindhu are major milk producers, supplying about 60 percent of the raw milk in national milk market. Milk production is based on feeding concentrates so over 60 percent of income is spent to buy feed. Forage based livestock farming is cheapest as well as environmentally sound.
The Project districts contain 200,344 ha of natural forests (Kabhre 73,801 ha and Sindhu 126,543 ha) of which 45,278 ha have already been handed over to 811 FUGs, comprising 79,200 households (CFD, 2004); 85- 87 percent of households keep livestock (NACRMLP, 2004). Fodder is becoming scarce day by day. Most women members spent about 3 hours to collect a load of grasses and tree leaves. A preliminary study of the feed balance of NACRMLP districts showed that the deficit is up to 60 percent compared to production requirements (NACRMLP, 2003). At national level, MPFS, 1988 estimates that the over all deficit of fodder would be 14.5 percent during 2000-2001 and rise to 21.9 percent by 2010/2011 (demand 4896.7 and supply 3796.7 MT TDN; MPFS, 1988). Ppro-poor households are gradually abandoning livestock farming and shifting in other occupation or seasonal migration.
The feed deficit hinders environment conservation; the mid-hills are ecologically sensitive ; soil are poor, infertile and of poor water holding capacity. Over the decades, these degraded community lands have lost their ability to regenerate grass and useful vegetation. Palatable plants have vanished and noxious, weedy ones dominate open patches e.g. Eupatorium spp. They are devoid of ground vegetation and pose a threat to the livelihoods by way of shortage of fodder, fuel, potable water, depletion of ground water, loss of production due to soil erosion and landslide. Encroachment of the community land by some elite is common, so. the area is shrinking.
Community Forestry is a major source for generating FUG funds, for development of social, physical and human resources in the community. Most revinue is from the sale of timber and firewood. Pines are widely used for afforestation, this transformed denuded land into greenery but. the growth of herbaceous species has been drastically reduced, and has affected the availability of forest fodder. Most FUGs use of funds on small rural enterprises, mainly in livestock rearing without giving due considerations on fodder development.
The project has facilitated 27 FUGs in preparing “Livelihoods Improvement Plan (LIP)” for the social and, economical development of users. To empower the women especially from disadvantage community; the project is facilitating Women Empowerment Program (WEP). The LIP and WEP groups are keen to begin community forage programmes; the line agencies such as District Livestock Services Office, District Forest Office, District Soil Conservation Office are implementing forage programmes with limited resources and small coverage. The Livestok and Forest Department jointly implement a Leasehold Forestry and Forage Development Programme in 34 districts The concept is very useful but the result has not been as envisaged (Singh 2004). The line agencies have technical expertise but no specific programme for pro-poor groups, their experience and manpower could be used for pro-poor community forage programmes.
The aim of the HMG/Nepal, Tenth Plan (2002-2007) is poverty reduction and intensive management of forest resources. Alternative ways should be explored to use community resources for livelihoods improvement of the FUGs. Oopen and degraded community forests, which are still barren and under utilized provide opportunities for forage cultivation. There is ample scope for the development of understory forage in plantations using shade tolerant perennials In addition to the community forage, assistance to the well- off households with on-farm forage production through incorporation of forage in farming systems would enhance their forage supply. Over-sowing of forage mixture on landslide and roadside could improve the forage supply to pro-poor households as well as contribute in their stabilization.

OBJECTIVES
• Generate awareness to develop and manage community resources, diversify the productivity, mitigate further environmental degradation and facilitate the pro-poor FUG members in benefit sharing of community resources.
• Facilitate formation of Forage Sub-group comprising poor, Dalit (persons outside the class system of Hinduism who was formerly termed as Untouchable) and women members for establishment of a Community Forage Block with mixed perennial forage species for better fodder and seeds & planting materials production and opportunities for income generation.
• To mitigate the pressure on forest resources by developing alternative means of forage production from community forests.

STRATEGIES:
• Easy access on enhanced forage supply from community resources to pro-poor and landless farmers to reduce over exploitation of forest resources,
• Diversification of forest products and income especially from degraded community forests;
• Create awareness and enhance skills of FUG members on improved forage cultivation;
• Promotion of on-farm forage production (without affecting the crop farming), establishment of forage resource centres for planting materials and use of degraded lands (landslide/roadside),
• Opportunities for income generation from the sale of green forage/ seeds/ planting materials.
PROCEDURES
Schematic steps for the facilitation of pro-poor CFP is presented in Figure –1

Figure –1: Process of Pro-poor Community Forage Program Community Forage Program



-Lar


Mobilization of FUG:
Interaction/orientation of the concept, approaches and modalities on community forage programme with LIP/ FUG, WEP groups and other groups/individuals.

• Identification of the potential sites; selection/identification of potential users/households focusing on poor, DAG and women within the FUGs.
• Discussion on interests, role and responsibilities of selected households as community forage users,
• Formation of forage sub-group(s) within the respective FUGs comprising poor and DAG and WEP members (See boxes 1 & 2),
• Facilitation to formulate policies, guidelines, action plan for community forage development field /implementation.
• Orientation/hands on training on improved forage cultivation and demonstration on forage program to the LIP/WEP facilitator’s.
• Support of forage seeds and planting materials through distribution of mini kits to the FUG/LIP facilitators.
• Establishment of forage block (using minimal tillage operation); manual works and local planting materials from the respective FUG- sub groups and improved seeds and planting materials from project support.
• Facilitation on protection, management, harvesting, and use of forage materials, whenever needed.
• Monitoring and follow- up.

Salient feature of Community Forage programme:
Selection of CF for forage development:
• Open/degraded grazing areas within the CF comprising at least 2,500 sq m of land,
• Willing to form Forage Sub-group comprising Dalit, women and poorest households,
• Willing to provide required labor and other facilities for its management,
• Willing to raise the nominal cost of the seeds and planting materials, which could be used for the welfare activities of the poorest households in the communities,
• And others as decided by respective FUGs.

Types of mini kits packets: A standard forage mini kit comprising 500 gm seed mixture which contain 13 different forages including grasses and legumes. The forage mixtures are designed to provide a range of legumes, grasses, shrubs, herbs and climbers as well as to maximize the land use while increasing the biomass per unit of area. The proportion of the forages was on the basis of availability of seeds; the number of mini kit packets supplied to the FUG/FSGs is based on the size of the forage block.

Tillage: Minimum tillage was used for sowing seeds at of 4 kg/ha. Seed were sown in summer (June/July). No fencing were erected.

Experiences and outcomes
Number of FUGs involved and performance of the forage species in CFP
Up to December 2004, 42 FUGs (22 in Kabhre and 20 in Sindhu) have formed "Forage Sub-groups" and established forage block s. A total of 324 kg (144 kg in Kabhre and 210 kg in Sindhu) has been used on about 80- 100 ha.Members involved in CFP are over 535 (including 417 women). The forage establishment, flowering performance and biomass yield was observed. Seven FUGs were selected for data collection, five FUGs (Sungure (Box 2), Siddhiganesh, Ansetar and Jalpa) and two FUGs in Kabhre (Hokse and Saparupa) (Table 1). The performance of the forage in Sindhu FUGs is good conditions to Kabhre FUGs mainly due to late sowing and poor soil conditions.

Box –1 Case study: Community Forage Block of Pro-poor disadvantage groups

A Pioneer FUG in Community Forage Programme: Bhedigoth, Thulosirubari VDC, Sindhu
The Bhedigoth FUG is in Thulosirubari VDC Ward No. 1 & 6, Sindhu Palchok. The FUG comprises 124 households with 56 ha. CF most`of which is planted with Pines and about 20 percent is still open degraded land, used for grazing. The Operational Plan (OP) was approved in July 1998 . The altitude ranges from 1200 to 1350 m. All most all members rear few livestock. The major sources of fodder are grasses and tree leaves collected from CF, agricultural by-products and grazing. Most women members collect fodder and bedding materials.

The community Forage programme was conceptualized and tested in June/July 2003 in a Dalit tole Bhedigoth FUG, Thulosirubari, Sindhu Palchok. After a rigorous interaction and steps to implement “Community Forage Programme”, the FUG formed a “ Forage Sub-groups” comprising 25 households of Dalit families. The role and responsibilities of the sub-group was discussed in general assembly and FUGC agreed to allocate an open block for forage development. A field level training required forage seeds (Stylo, joint vetch, Ipil-ipil, Gamba grass, Rhodes, Glycine, Joint vetch, Maku lotus and Wynn cassia and some slips of Mott napier, forage peanut and other local species of fodder trees) were provided and forage block established in August 2003. The chairperson Mr Chandra Dulal was also provided with an additional training on forage seed production at Palpa in January 2004 to enhance the skills on forage and forage seed production and management. Last year, the FSG members have expanded the area under forage as well as in terrace risers on individual’s backyards. Mr Dulal proudly says “the FSG have sold the grasses and generated a fund equals to Rs 3300 (1US$=71 NRs) last year, and that amount has been invested in other economical activities such as off- season vegetable production, goat and pig farming to the poorest members of the group in soft loan. This year, they can earn about Rs 10,000 from the sale of seeds and grasses and the amount will increase in time”. He also added that “Since the establishment of Community Forage block, open grazing of stray animals has been completely stopped, much time have been saved in collection of fodder, the group members are empowered and encouraged to initiate other productive programs”. The Community forage block is serving as a demonstration and learning sites for neighboring FUGs.

Preliminary results reveals that the average number of forage plants per square meter was 1058 (range 518 to 1513). The forage which established best were Melinis minutiflora (molasses grass) and Stylosanthes guianensis (stylo) which were 73 and 25 percent respectively other forage comprises only 2 percent of the population.

Table –1 Description of community forage blocks
SN Name of FUG Total Area (ha) Total members (Female ♀) Yield GM ton/ha
1 Ansetar FUG, Pandhera, Sangachok, SP 0.25 18 ♀ 13

2 Ansetar FUG, Khadkako ahal, Sangachok –3, SP 0.35 40 ♀ 29

3 Ansetar FUG, Devisthan, Jangachok, SP 0.75 40 ♀ 73

4 Sungure FUG, Bistako ahal chaur, Pipaldanda 1 36 ♀ 68

5 Jalpa FUG, school comp, Sanosirubari, Sp 0.25 103 (80 ♀) 73

6 Saparupa, Methinkot, Kp 0.25 24 ♀ 13
7 Panduladevi, Hokse, Kp 0.5 63 (50 ♀ ) 19
Mean yield of forage biomass 324 (264 ♀) 41

Almost all established forages (except Ipil-ipil) were flowering and bearing seeds. Profuse flowering and seeding forage were Joint vetch (Glen & Vilomix), Molasses, Stylo (Plapa, Temperano and Nina), Wynn cassia and Signal.

Box –2 Case Study: Community Forage of WEP members
Community Forage Programme, Sungure FUG, WEP Groups
The Sungure FUG is in Pipaldanda VDC Ward number 3 Sindhu Palchok; a neighboring VDC of Chautara- the district head quarter. There are 130 households and the total community forest area is 125 ha. The major species are Sal, Chilaune, Mahuwa and others. The OP was approved in 13 May 1994. The altitude is about 1200 m. The chairperson is Mr Khadag Bahadur Rayamajhi. Mr. Rayamajhi is also a LIP facilitator. The WEP is also running, Ms Gyani Basnet is a facilitator of WEP. There are 36 WEP members.
The FUG has allocated a block of land comprising 20 ropani to the WEP members for community forage development. Project provided hands-on training to the WEP members on improved forage cultivation in situ and required quantity of seeds during the first week of June 2004. Now, the forage is performing very well. The block is on the way to Chautara- Nawalpur road, “every on who passes from the road get impressed and inspired” says Mr Khadag Rayamajhi, Chairperson of Sungure FUG. He further added that “I am very much impressed from the forage program, the barren filed yielding nothings, now turned into bumper forage block, other FUG members are also keen to plant forage in all open forest areas in coming season; we will initiate improved dairy and goat farming program to facilitate the pro-poor FUG members in second stage”.

The yield of the improved forage was quite satisfactory; the average yield of fodder in Sindhu is 2.3 Mt DM/ha (Pande, 1997; Pariyar 2004), compared to the normal yield, the yield of green biomass from the CFP was found 41 ton/ha in the preliminary study carried out in December 2004 (which is about 8-10 t DM/ha) Similarly, due to the proportionate legume content the quality of fodder from CFP could also be high compared to native grasses, which are mainly of low nutritive value (Pande 1997). The average production in Kabhre (16 tons green matter/ha) was very low compared to SindhuPalchok (51 tons green matter/ha).

On-farm, landslide/roadside and school forage production.
In addition to the community forages were established on landslides and roadsides for fodder and to control landslides. To support the land-rich FUG members on-farm forage was facilitated. About 5,400 members on-farm grew improved forage. The main purpose of the FRC was to multiply the vegetative materials for distribution to other members at a nominal charge,distribution of planting materials has begun and is earning income. A separate programme to create awareness on improved forage was started under which over 42000 packets of forage seeds were distributed to students of 161 schools, which created awareness among the students and parents.

THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES BEHIND THE SUCCESS OF Community forage
At the initial stage, start in a demonstration- test site. Take account of all issues raised by the community and refine for further trial. Avoid sites, which are under dispute and encroachment. Preferably choose the site, which is close to the sub-group members hamlet. Take the consensus of the entire community in addition to the respective FUGC; if possible focus on poor and disadvantage groups and/or WEP group. Form the Forage Sub-Group within the FUG from the very beginning and encourage the sub-group to plan, implement and take decisions with the support of main FUGC. Organize training at field level, ensure the participation of the actual beneficiaries (women in most cases)Provide material support such as forage seeds and planting materials which are not available locally. Avoid direct financial support to purchases. Ensure compulsory manual involvement by each households of the sub-group in establishing the forage block (land preparation, live fencing, sowing, management and others), encourage voluntary services and cost sharing, wherever possible. Always use a mixture of planting materials incorporate leguminous browse and establish a separate block for seed production.
Identify opportunities for generating employment and income as well as forage production. Link the community based forage and livestock improvement with other family based other income generation such as vegetable and small-animal production to ensure sustainability in the long run. Coordinate and link the programme with the other government/non-government organization for additional technical/material support/facilitation. Develop the capability of the Forage Sub-Group to take part in village community development activities.

LESSON LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
 The formation of sub-groups and allocation of some community forest lands for forage to the poor and DAG created some confusion initially in the community ownership (of that particular block) may transfer to that group e.g. Bhedigoth FUG.
 In some cases it was observed that the sub-group of poor and DAGs lack confidence and trust in FUGC (usually dominated by elites), and refused to form a solo group of DAG households only e.g. Sungure FUG.
 Establishment of forage block isusually simple, easy and needs less labor (mostly one day input of the members for tillage and sowing of seeds). However, poorer members who depend on daily wages for subsistence find it difficult to spare time for forage establishment e.g. in Sungure FUG, three women members could not provide their manual labor during the seed sowing day, but substituted later.
 The contribution of established forage block to overall fodder supply or income is relatively small to individual members, which is less attractive to the poor. So the forage programme should be linked to other income generation such as off season vegetable and bee keeping.
 Forage takes time to become productive, most of the perennials only give a significant yield in the second years ater establishment. So, fast growing forages like Mott napier, forage peanut etc should be incorporated to show quick results.
 The programme has created significant awareness among FUGs members towards the forage cultivation. Communal forestlands, which were encroached on for personal use have been reoccupied by the forage sub-group to establish forage blocks, and this has raised some doubt and criticism especially from the elites.
CONCLUSION:
The Community Forage Programme has created lots of awareness and enthusiasm among the FUG members in poor communities. Preliminary observations indicate that the Community Fodder Programme can solve many issues of unequal resource sharing among the Group members and could mitigate the over exploitation of forest resources. However, due to the lack of good governance and equity in Community Forest management, continued facilitation from NACRMLP is important for the institutionalization, as well as sustainable development, of Community Forage Programme which is a potential tool to meet the objectives of the Tenth Plan (2002-2007) to reduce poverty at national level as well as the Millennium Development Goals of poverty reduction at global level.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
The support provided by Mr. Satrughan Lal Pradhan and Mr Alan Robertson and all field staff especially Mr Ram Saran BK, Tara Pariyar, Khadag/Kiran Kharel and all others to implement this programme are highly appreciated. The support of DFO, DSCO and DLSO staff for their contribution are also highly acknowledged.
REFERENCES:
 Allison, G; J Bampton; BR Kandel; ML Shrestha and NK Shrestha 2004: Community forestry and livelihoods: how can community forestry better contribute to the Millennium Development Goals?. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 171-179)
 Bhatta, b and Dhakal, B. 2004: Forestry Sector's Role in Nepal's Scio-political Stability: a Critical Analysis of Problems, Prospects and Potentials. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 333-345)
 CFD, 2004: Community forest Division, HMG, Nepal
 Chhetry, B; P.Francis; M. Gurung; V. Iversen; G.Kafle; A. Pain and J. Seeley, 2004: Increasing opportunities for the poor to access benefits from common pool resources: the case of community forestry in the Terai of Nepal. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 199-207)
 DLSO, 2003. District Livestock Services Office, Kabhre Palanchok. Annual Report 2003
 Kandel RK and R Subedi, 2004: Pro-poor Community Forestry: some Initiatives from the Field. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 229-237)
 Kanel K.R, J. Statz and AR Sharma, 2004: Income distribution and social well being in Community Forestry: Issues, experience and Strategy Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 238-244)
 Kanel, KR 2004: Twenty-five years of community Forestry: contribution to Millennium Development Goals, Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 4-18)
 Kanel, KR and DR Niraula, 2004. Can rural livelihood be improved in Nepal through community Forestry? Banko Jankari. 14 (1)June 2004
 LFP, 2003. Hills Livelihoods Baseline survey, Livelihoods and Forestry Program. Kathmandu, Luintel, H; M,R, Banjade; HR. Neupane and RK Pandey, R.2004: Sustainable Non-Timber Forest Product Management: Issues and ways Forward. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 42-47)
 Master Plan Forestry Sector, HMG/Nepal
 Mall Y.B.; HR Neupane; PJ Brandy. 2003. Why aren't poor people benefiting more from community forestry? Journal of Forest and livelihoods 3(1) July 2003
 NACRMLP, 2003. Ddraft. Strategies for Livestock and Fodder Development in NACRMLP, Districts, Discussion paper, Nepal Australia Community resource management and livelihoods project
 NACRMLP 2004. Milestone 7 Draft. Baseline Survey Sindhu Palchok and Kabhre Palanchok.
 Neupane, H.R 2003.Contested Impact of Community Forestry on Equity: some evidence from Nepal. Forest and Livelihood: Vol 2(2), 55-61 pp
 Nurse, M; DB Khatri; D Paudel and B Pokhrel, 2004: Rural entrepreneur Development: A pro-poor approach to enterprise development through community forestry. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 250-258)
 Pande, R. S. 1997: Fodder and Pasture Development in Nepal. Udaya Research and Development Services Pvt. Ltd, Sanepa, Distributor: Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Dillibazaar, Kathmandu, Nepal.1997.
 Pariyar, D, 2004. Country Pasture/forage resources profiles Nepal. FAO Grassland and pasture Crops. Website; www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/counprof/Nepal.ht.
 Richards, M; M. Maharjan; K .Kanel 2003. Economics, Poverty and Transparency: Measuring Equity in Forest user groups. Journal of Forest and Livelihoods 3 (1), July 2004
 Shrestha, M and M Khadka, 2004. Fund mobilization in community forestry: opportunities and constraints for equity-based livelihoods improvement. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 278-285)
 Singh BK, 2004. Complementary pro-poor program in community and leasehold forestry. Proceedings of the Fourth National Workshop on community Forestry 4-6 August 2004. (Editors: Kanel et al.) Community Forest Division, Nepal 2004 (pp 195-198).
 Timsina, N. 2002. Empowerment or Marginalisation: a debate in community forestry in Nepal. Forest and livelihood: Vol 2(1), 27-33pp





18. SCOPE OF VETIVER GRASS FOR INCOME GENERATION IN RURAL AREAS OF NEPAL TERAI.

18. SCOPE OF VETIVER GRASS FOR INCOME GENERATION IN RURAL AREAS OF NEPAL TERAI.

Rameshwar Singh PANDE

(Published in : Pande, R.S. 1996: Scope of Vetiver grass for income generation in rural areas of Nepal, Terai. Thailand International Conference Vetiver: A miracle Grass. February 4-8, 1996.Bangkok, Thailand. Also appeared in: http://www.vetiver.com/THA_con.htm)

Abstract: Matured flower heads of Vetiver grass have been used traditionally for making baskets, beans etc since time immemorial in the Terai regions of Nepal. The dried root hairs are used for making hanging mats which are used for aromatic and have cooling effects during hot days. Recently, the products of the Vetiver grass have been promoted by various NGO's working in the rural areas as an alternative to income generation especially for the rural women. Vetiver grass has been growing as a native species up to 1400 m altitude. It occures on the barren crop lands, bunds and banks of canal, river and road sides. The species has been threatened to its existence as farmers used to uproot the plants and clean it, because the thick mats of the plants offer an ideal place to harbor harmful insects, rodents and anakes. The plant is less palatable to the livestock, its importance in soil conservation has been lately realized. In the present study a RRA method has been used to investigate the various products of the Vetiver grass and the status of marketing of the products.



17. Role of Browse Shrubs/trees as Animal Feed in Nepal

17. Role of Browse Shrubs/trees as Animal Feed in Nepal
Rameshwar Singh Pande

(Published in : RS Pande, 1991. Role of Browse Shrubs/trees as Animal Feed in Nepal, Animal Science Research Production and extension in Nepal. Proceedings of the First National Animal Science Convention January 14-15, 1991, Nepal Animal Science Association (NASA), Nepal)

ABSTRACT:
Browse shrubs/ trees serve as supplementary diet as well as sole diet for ruminant especially in hill areas of Nepal. Over 136 different species of browse have been used as a source of anial feed. Most of the leaves of browse are of low palatability and low digestibility. Many contain secondary compounds. Leguminous species are relatively high in nutritive value compared to non- legumes. browse provide approximately 41 per cent of the total DM in annual feed supply and 12 per cent in the diet of dairy stocks. Use of fodder in hilly areas was estimated 655 kg/caput and for bedding materials 459 kg/caput. There is no attempt to assess animal preference or diferent browse species. Goats have been found to prefer for browse than cattle and sheep whenever available. Browse species may not be an efficient diet for livestock but as a supplement with poor quality roughage such as straw, browse can serve as an excellent feed especially, in dry season when herbacious species fail to meet the optimum level of production. more research work is needed for the better use of browse.

INTRODUCTION
Foliage of shrubs/trees as animal feed during winter and summer dry period have been the important traditional source of green feed for livestock in the hills of Nepal and mountainous region. Shrubs and trees are useful for soil conservation, to maintain agricultural sustainability and to counter act the green house effect. Plantation of shrub/trees is an ecological sound practice (pande, 1990) especiallay in Nepal where denudation is a big problem.
It was estimated that browse either planted or forest trees/shrubs provide approximately 41 % of DM in annual feed supply (Panday, 1982).
Study on the proportion of tree fodder in the diet of different livestock feed is lacking. Panday (1990a) estimats that about 12 % of foliage of trees/shrubs has been supplemented with other roughages to dairy cattle in Nepal. A household survey carried out in Chautara, Nepal showed that the use of the fodder was 655 kg per caput, and use of litter for bedding materials was 459 kg per caput ( New Era, 1980).
Despite to provide fodder and bedding material to livestock shrubs are trees also provide fuel wood, fencing materials and timber for house construction. Fuel wood is the major source of the energy needs. It was estimated that fuel wood provides more than 87% of the country’s energy need (Manandhar, 1980; Danovan, 1981). Campbell (1985) found that average annual consumption of fuel wood in hill areas of Nepal was 640 kg per caput.
Trees/shrubs not only provide fodder and fuel wood at the same time also serve as an excellent source for soil improvement and conservation (Brewbaker, 1983). For example, leguminous browse species are able to fix 500 kg N/ha/Yr (Weighinglin, 1987). Plantation of shrubs/trees along the counters is widely recommended to reduce the run off of water and protect terrace (Lundgren and nair, 1983; Gilmour, 1984; Weirsum, 1984; Benge, 1987). By plantation shrubs/trees soil erosion can be reduced to about one one ton of soil per acre as compared with annual loss of about 30 tonnes under a typical crop producton system (Maharajan, 1987).

FEED VALUE OF BROWSE
Browse serves as a supplementary diet as well as sole diet for ruminant. Browse constitutes a valuable source of feed for livestock especially during lean period. Panday (1990b) reviewed the nutritive value of browse species. In his review he pointed out that different browse species which are commonly used in Nepal had an average 18.7 % CP content which is generally considered to be high. Similarly, Panday (1982) listed the chemical composition of 49 different species of browse species which contain 13.6 % CP (Range 5.2 to 29.7 % of DM) . mahato et al (1989) reported that protein content in 6 Ficus species were ranged 8.5 to 13.5 % which was higher than the protein requirement of lactating ruminant. However, the dry matter digestibility (DMD) was low ranging from 24.4 to 54.1 %.
Ranawana (1987) reported that out of 200 different plants fed to animals in Sri Lanka analysis of 30 different species of browsetree/shrubs (17 trees and 13 shrubs) contain on an average 180 g CP/kg DM in tree species and 165 g CP/kg DM in shrub species. Digestibility was 56 and 57 respectively. But Ranawana (1987) did not mentioned the individual species in his analysis (Table-1).
Rose-Innes and Mabey (1964) found that shrubs were highest in CP content compared to herbs, grasses and tree species in West African rangelands conditions from the CP content point of viewthe rank of different plant groups were shrubs> herbs> trees> grasses.
Most of the browse species contain adequate amount of trace elements such as Mn, Zn, Fe, Ca and K. hovwever, many browse species are low in Na, P and cu (Jones, 1979; NAS, 1979) Bohra and Ghose, 1980; Panday, 1982; Ranawana, 1987; Gupta and Balaraman, 1989).
Leguminous fodder tree species are relatively higher in nutritive value compared to non-leguminous species. For example, Nitrogen (N) content in tagasaste (Chamaecytisus palmensis) was found 3.2 percent DM and in vitro dry matter digestibility (DMD) was 69.3 (Pande, 1990). Similarly, widely used browse species Leucaena contain 2.9percent and in -vitro DMD was 62.2 (Cheva-isarakull & Polikanond, 1985. However, browse species are generally higher in fibber content compared to grasses in flush season inNorth- eastern hill condition in India (Verma et al, 1981)..

Table -1: Chemical composition,digestibility (% DM) of tree and shrub species (adapted from Ranawana, 1987)
Composition Unit Trees S.E Shrubs S.E
CP g/ KG DM 180 60 164 63
Ash g/ KG DM 80 30 100 38
NDF g/ KG DM 429 86 430 102
Lignin g/ KG DM 118 39 97 44
Ca g/ KG DM 2 1 3 0.7
P g/ KG DM 0.6 0.06 0.6 0.06
Digestibility % DM 0.56 0.06 0.60 0.6

ANIMAL PERFORMANCE
The information on animal performance of browse for different species are limited. Study on feed value of browse shrubs/tree foliage of different species in aboard show that Leucaena leucocephala is the most widely grown browse shrub in the tropics (NAS, 1977; Jones, 1979). When leucaena was fed as a sole diet animals were able to maintain their live weight during the experimental period but leucaena with other roughage gave excellent result (Jones, 1979; Panjaitan and Blair, 1984
Pande (1990) observed that feeding valeu of tagasate (Chamaecytisus palmensis) was similar to lucerne hay chaff for goats in housed condition. despite the high CP content in many browse species, most of the tree fodder are considered as maintenance ration. For example, Marugar and Kathaperumal (1987) reported that sheep lost their body weight during 84 days feeding trial when Azadirachta indica (CP-11.7 %) and Enterolobium saman (CP-9-14 %) leaves were fed as a sole diet under stallfed conditions. however, they found that on the sole diet of Ficus religiosa (CP-11.6%) sheep able to maintain the body weight.
Browse shrub/trees may not be an efficient diet for livestock but as a supplement with poor quality roughages such as straw and poor quality grasses, browse may serve as an excellent feed especially in dray season. Van Eys et al (1986) reported that there were increased growth rate in growing goats when napier grass supplemented with tree legumes like gliricidia, leucaena and sesbania compared to napier grass alone in Indonesia.
Reynolds and Adediran (1988) reported that lamb growth rate increased when Panicum maximum and cassava peel were supplemented with Leucaena leucocephala and Gliricidia sepium leaves were fed as a basal diet (in 1:w/w) compared to control diet of Panicum maximum and cassava peel alone.
Information on feed value of browse species as a sole diet and with other roughages in Nepalese conditions for different stocks is lacking. Panday (1989) ; Pradahan (1989); Pariyar (1989); Robinson and Thompson (1989) and many others suggested a eries of research works needed in the field of ruminant nutrition, pasture and fodder tree production and management in Nepalese condition.

PREFERENCE FOR BROWSE AND BROWSING
Preference for the food plants vary according to animal species. Different animals express different selective pattern (Hodgson, 1986; Pande, 1990). There is no attempt to access the animal preference for different browse species in Nepal. Panday (1982); Amatya (1990) and panday (1990b) discussed the farmers preference for different browse species and suggested that farmer’s preference may not be only the criteria for selecting suitable browse species. To evaluate the most promising browse species there is an urgent need to assist preference ranking ranking for diffreent stocks in different conditions.
In New Zealand, Pande (1990) observed that there was a clear order of preference for the diet when 9 different browse species and 2 erect grass species were offered to goats and sheep in a cafeterai trial, and there was a distnict efect of season on preference rankimg. Order of preference between goats and sheep were braodly similar.
To determine the animals the animaal preference for browse species one must consider that preference for plant material by animal is greatly influenced by animal behaviour and plant characteristics ( Hodgson, 1986; Pande 1990). The relative abundance, accessibility and palatabolity are the major determinants of plant characteristics. In most of the Nepalese situation, browse is offered in stallfed condition, again most of the animals are underfed and they are hungry, in such situation there will be likely to be little chance for preference and selectivity.
Published data on the grazing behaviour and preference for browsing behaviour show that goats utilise browse more than any other ruminant. Devendra (1987) categorised goat as browsers and sheep and cattle as grazers. Van Dyne et al (1980) reviewed the wide range of literature and concluded that the overall contribution of browse in greater in goat diet than in sheep and cattle (Table -2). However, Sharma (1985) reported that cattle and buffaloes are the most utilise of fodder trees compared to goat in mid-hills of Nepal but he did not mentioned whether the browse were offered in stall- fed or in free ranging conditions.

Table -2: Proportions of the major plant groups in the diet of different ruminant species (adapted from Van Dyne et al, 1980)
Animal species Plant species
Shrubs/trees Forbs Grasses
Cattle 15 15 70
Sheep 20 30 50
Goats 60 10 30

LIMITATIONS OF BROWSE
Presence of secondary compounds:
Most of the browse species contain a wide range of inhibitors such as alkaloids, amino acids, cyanogenic, glycosides, organic acids hydrocyanic acids etc (Bulter and Bakaym 1973; Panday, 1982; Barry and Blarey, 1987) Table -3.. These secondary compound affects on forage quality and animal performance by various mean. Panday (1982) listed some species of browse trees and shrubs which have ill- effect on ruminant such as Bauhia variegata, Ficus roxburghii, Prunus ceresoides. Shrestha and Pakhrin (1989) concluded that the presenceof high concentartion of tannin in Ficus auriculata might be the reason for the decreased milk yield in buffaloes during the experiemental period conducted at PAC, Dhankutta.
Table-3: Common secondary compounds found in some browse species
Plant species Secondary compounds
Leucaena leucocephala memosine
Gliricidia sepium Caumarin
Salix spp Tannins
Grewia tiliaefolia Organic acid
Seneria jacobaca Pyrrilizidine

Production potential:
Most of the browse tree/shrubs take 5 to 20 years to yield significant amount of fodder in Nepal (Panday, 1982; Hopkins, 1985). Individual DM yields is also low. Panday (1982) estimated that on an average a mature browse tree/shrub produces 15-60 kg DM per year. Many indigenous browse species are difficult to establish and propagate, they requires certain altitude and ecological conditions. Altitude and lower radiation is the main reason for low DM yield.
Most of the browse trees/shrubs produce relatively high amount of DM at lower altitude than do in high altitude. Panday and Nosberger (1985) observed that at high radiation the growth pattern of Artocarpud lakoocha was higher compared to low radiation (<15 MJ/sqm/d). Similalry, the rate of leaf appearance was lower at higher altitude (1200 m and 1500 m
) compared to low altitude (800m). At altitude 800 m the maximum rate of leaf apperance in Articarpus lakkoocha was 118 leaves/month whereas at 1200 m and 1500 m the maximum rate of leaf appearance was 45 and 10 leaves/ month respectively in hill area near Kathmandu ( panday and Nosberger, 1985).
Choice of browse species:
There are over 550 species of tree/shrubs used as feed source in worldwide origin (Robinson, 1984).Panday (1982) and Bajracharya et al (1985) mentioned that over 136 species of tree/shrubs have been used as a source of feed in Nepal. Feed value of indigenous browse species is assumed as low compared to introduced leguminous shrub species such as leucaena. Fast growing multipurpose shrubby species are much beneficial than do the tree species. Lower growing shrubby species offer much greater potential compared to tree species from the management point of view as well. Shrubby species can be grazed directly without additional labour cost of lopping or harvesting whereas fodder from tree species must be obtained by lopping of branches.

CONCLUSIONS
In Nepal browse shrubs/trees play an important role, besides to supply quality fodderr, shrubs/trees are also provide fuelwood/timber, good soil protection against shallow landslide, leguminous shrubs/trees fix atmospheric nitrogen The present production level of browse shrub/trees is insuficient to meet the deman. most of the indigenous browse species are of low feed quality.
Detailed investigation on optimum lopping cycle and intensities, determination of fodder valeu and palatability, preference for different plant species by different stocks is necessary to formulate the long term strategy for the better use of browse species.
A list of better browse bspecies for different management conditions is urgently required. Popularly grown leguminous shrub species leucaena is threatened to its existence due to the spread of leucaena psyllid. Evaluation of alternative browse species should be priorities. Multipurpose leguminous shrub species such as tagasate (Chamaecytisus palmensis) and gorse (Ulex europeaus) could be an alternative shrub species in hilly areas of Nepal.

REFERENCES:
• Amatya, S.M. 1990. Fodder trees and their lopping cycle in NEpal, 2nd edition.
• Bajracharya, D. 1985. Some feed values for fodder plants in Nepal. Angrew Botanik, 59:357-365.
• Barry, T.N. and Blaney,B.J. 1987. Secondary compounds of forages.In:Hacker,J.B.and Ternouth, J.H.(Eds.), The Nutrition of herbivores. Academic press.
• Benge, M.D. 1987. Multipurpose uses of counter hedgerows in highland regions. World Animal Review, 64:31-39.
• Brewbaker, J.L. 1983. Fodder and fuelwood N- fixing trees in Nepal. Consultants report for Integrated cereal Project.Ministry of Food and Agriculture,Katmandu.
• Bohra, H.C. and Ghose, P.K. 1980. The Nutritive value of loong (P. Cineraria) leaves. In:Mann, H.S.(Ed.), Khejri (Prosopis cineraria) in the Indian desert -its role in Agro-Forestry. CAZRI,Jodhpur,India.
• Bulter, G.W. and Bailay, R.W. 1973. Chemistry and bio-chemistry of herbage. Vol. -1, Academic Press, N.Y.
• Cheva- isarebul, B. and Polikanond, N. 1980. Performance of growing cattle feed diets containing untreated rice-straw and Leucaena leaves compared to Urea- treated rice straw. The utilization of fibrous agricultural residues as animal feeds.In: Doyle,P.T. (Ed.), International Development Programme of Australian University of College Canbera,.
• Campbell, G.W 1983. People and Forests in Hill Nepal. Preliminary findings of communityhouseholds and ward leader survey. HMG/N, UNDP/FAO Draft working paper from community Forestry Development Programmes, Kathmandu,
• Danovan,D.G. 1981. Fuelwood, how much do we need ? Nepal Forest Technical Information Bulletin- 1:26.
• Devendra, C. 1987. Herbivores in the Arid and wet Tropics. In: Hacker, J.B. and Ternouth, J.H. (Eds.), The nutrition of herbivores. ACademic Press ,Sydney, pp 23-48.
• Fonzen,P.F. and Oberholzer,E. 1984. Use of multipurpose trees in hill farming systems in Western Nepal. Agroforestry Systems 2:187-197.
• Gilmour, D.A. and Applegate, G.B. 1984. Community Forestry as an option for containing environmental Degradation – a case study from Nepal. Symposium on effects of Forests land use erision and slop stability, environment and policy Institute East- West Centre, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
• Gupta, H.K. and Balaraman, N. 1989.Nutritive value of nevaro (Ficus hookerii) leaves for goats. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 59(1):186-187.
• Hodgson, J. 1986. Grazing behaviour and herbage intake. In: Framie, J.(Ed.) Grazing,Occasional symposium No. 19 pp 51-65. British Grassland Society, U.K.
• Maharajan,M.R. 1987. Agroforestry in community forestry development. Banko Jankari, 1(4):63-66.
• Mahato, S.N.; Subba,D.B. and Tamang,P.M. 1989. Chemical composition of the leaves of some common Ficus species.Veterinary Review,Veterinary Investigation and Analytical Services Section, Pakhribas Agricultural Centre,Dhankuta, 2:1-4.
• Manandhar,P.K. 1980. Introduction to policy,legislation and programms of community forestry Development in Nepal. HMG/UNDP/FAO Field Document No.1. Nep/80/030.
• Mohns, B.C. 1981. Importance of fodder trees as livestock forage in the hill regions of Nepal. Paper R.S. 652, Colorado State University, U.S.A.
• Murugan, M. and Kathaperumal, V. 1987. Utilization of tree fodder in sheep, Indian Journal of Animal Science 57(10):1145- 1147.
• NAS, 1977.Leucaena- promising forage and tree crop for the tropics.National Academic of Science, WashingtonD.C., USA.
• New Era, 1980. A study of villegers attitude towards forest and forestry development in Sindhupalchouk District on Nepal. Consultants report, Commissioned by NAFP, Aug.1980.
• Pandy, KK, 1982. Fodder trees and tree fodder in Nepal. Swiss Federal Institute of Forestry Research Switzerland.
• Panday KK and Nosberger, J, 1985, Growth and development of saplings of the fodder tree artipacpus lakkoccha Roxb. and the altitude in Nepal. The International Tree Crops Journal 3, 1958.
• Panday, S.B. 1988. Effects of urea supplements on Intake of low quality forages by sheep and cattle. Nep. J. An. Sc. 4:19-24.
• Panday, S.B. 1990b. Fodder trees an ruminants feed in the hills of Nepal. Paper presented at 3rd workshop on crop- animal Farming systems Research,Aug. 12-16. 1990. Dhaka.
• Pande, R.S. 1990. Feed value of tagasaste (Chamaecytisus palmensis) for goats and preferential browsing activities by goats and sheep in multi species shrub/pasture conditions. M.Agr. Sc. Thesis, Massey University, New Zealand.
• Panjailan, M. and Blair, G.J. 1984. Research on the use of leucaena and other tree and shrub legumes in Indonesia.ACIAR,proceedings 3:10-18.
• Pariyar, D. 1989. Research needs in annual fodder crops. Proceedings of the workshop on Research needs in Livestock Production and Animal Health In Nepal, Jan 1-7, 1989. NARSC Central Livestock Development Centre, Khumaltar.
• Pradhan, D.R. 1989. Research needs in grasses and legumes. Proceedings of the workshop on Research needs in Livestock Production and Animal Health in Nepal, Jan. 1-7, 1989. NARSC Central Livestock Development Centre, Khumaltar.
• Ranawana,S.G.E. 1987. An Assessment of the nutritive value of some traditional trees and shrub fodder of Sri-Lanka. The 4th AAAP Animal Science Congress.
• Robinson, P.J. 1984. Data base on fodder tree chemical composition and feed value.Nitrogen fixing tree Res. Rep, 2:26 28.
• Robinson, P.J. 1985. Trees as fodder crops. In: Cannell ,M.G.R. and Jachson, J.E. (eds),Attributes of tree as crop plants.Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Natural Environment Research Council,.
• Robinson, P.J. and Thompson, I.S. 1989. Research needs in fodder trees. In: Yazman, J.A. and Oli, K.P. (eds). Proceedings of the Workshop on Research needs in Livestock Production and Animal Health in Nepal. National Agricultural Research and Services Centre, Central Livestock development Centre, Khumaltar.
• Rose -Innes, R. and Mabey, G.L. 1964. Studies on browse plants in Ghana.1. Chemical composition: (a) monthly chemical analysis of seven species of trees, shrubs and vines browsed by free- ranging cattle on the Accra plains. Emperial Journal of Experimental Agricultural 126:114-124.
• Reynolds, L. and adediran, S.O. 1988. The effects of browse supplementation on the productivity of the West African Dwarf sheep over two reproductive cycles. Goat Production in the humid Tropics, Proceedings of a workshop of the University of Lfe,Lfe-lfe, Nigeria, 20-24 July, 1987.
• Sharma, L.P. 1985. Study on productivity of fodder tree. Nepalese Journal of Animal Science 1 (1): 19-24.
• Shrestha, N.P. and Pakhrin, B. 1989. Effects of different tree fodder on milk production in buffaloes, PAC, Technical Paper no.17. Pakhribas Agricultural Centre, Nepal.
• Van Dyne, G.M.; Brochington, N.R.; Szocs,Z.; Duek, J. and Ribic, C.A. 1980. Large herbivore subsystem In: Breymer, A.T. and Van Dyne, G.M. (eds) Grasslands systems analysis and Man. Cambridge University Press,.
• Varma, A.; Yadav, B.P.S.; Sampath, K.T. and Roy, D.J. 1981. Livestock feeds and feeding habits in North- eastern Hils of India. I Indigenous Feeds and Resultant Productivity. Bull. 17. ICAR, India.
• Weirsum, K.F. 1984. Surface erosion under various tropical Agroforestry system. Symposium on effects of forestry land use on erosion and slop stability. Environmental and policy Institute East- West Centre, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.
• Wilson, A.D. 1977. The digestibility and voluntary intake of the leaves of trees and shrubs by sheep and goats. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 28:501-508.
• Withinglan, D. 1987. Nitrogen in Agriculture and Forestry. In: Nitrogen fixing trees- a training guide , RAPA Publication: 1987/15, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAPA), FAO Bangkok.


16. Promotion of low cost fodder based milk production systems using Canadian Forage Sorghum Hybrid-30 for the livelihood of the smallholders dairy farmers of Nepal

16. Promotion of low cost fodder based milk production systems using Canadian Forage Sorghum Hybrid-30 for the livelihood of the smallholders dairy farmers of Nepal

RP Sapkota, RS Pande,and JC Gautam
ABTRACO, Kathmandu, Nepal

(Published in: Participatory technology generation for sustainable rural livelihood. Proceedings of the 8th National Outreach Research Workshop 19-20 June 2007. Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Outreach Research Division (ORD), Lalitpur, Nepal)

ABSTRACT
Dairy enterprises are growing business, contributing in livelihoods of over 500,000 smallholders. The dairy cattle and buffaloes, raised on concentrated based feeding systems are contributing to higher cost of production. Farmers are finding difficulties to sustain the dairy farming due to increasing feed cost, but are compelled to continue in absence of other suitable means for livelihoods. For sustainable and more competitive marketing, the production cost needs to be drastically reduced. Various attempts have been made to reduce the cost of production; growing fodder and pastures is a recent intervention and cultivation of fodder crops like oat, vetch, stylo, napier are quite common. Countrary to the traditional fodder crops, the Canadian Forage Sorghum Hybrid-30 is most suitable as a substitute to expensive concentrated feed; developed in Canada and tested by Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC). Since 2005, ABTRACO has been supporting small dairy farmers to practice cost effective milk production systems using CFSH-30 cultivation jointly with Department of Livestock Services (DLS) and NARC; supported by CCO/Nepal. During 2005/06, a total of 240 demonstration plots (each 500 m2) established in eight districts (Ilam, Jhapa, Sunsari, Chitwan, Lalitpur, Kabhre, Rupandehi anf Banke) and 500 packets of mini-kits distributed in four districts (Dhanusha, Mahottari, Siraha and Sarlahi). Forage production sub-groups, comprising 30 smallholder dairy farmers with 50% women members formed; training on forage production and management provided and required quantity of seeds for three successive seasons supplied to grow year round fodder. The performance and contribution of CFSH-30 ns ensured fodder supply, with the estimated yield 50 mt green matter/ha, demonstrated that it can effectively substitute expensive concentrated feed and greatly contribute to reduce cost of ration combined with awareness towards year round fodder cultivation, animal health services and marketing development to lead the nation towards the competitive market oriented economy and improved livelihoods of small dairy farmers.

INTRODUCTION
Smallholder milk producers
Dairy enterprise as a growing business around urban periphery, and along the national highway, are a major source to drain cash from urban to rural areas, contributing in livelihoods of over 500,000 smallholders milk producers in Nepal. The dairy cattle and buffaloes used for milk production are raised on concentrated based feeding systems. The higher proportion of concentrated feed is contributes to higher cost of milk production. A large proportion of income earned from milk sale, reinvested to purchase concentrated feeds and the smallholder dairy farmers have not been able to reap the benefit as envisaged. The farmer are finding difficulties to sustain the dairy farming, but are compelled to continue due to lack of other suitable means for livelihoods. So, to sustain the dairy farming and make it more competitive, the production cost needs to be drastically reduced.
Severa attempts have been made to reduce the cost of production of milk by GO as well as NGOs. Growing annual and perennial fodders and pastures on private land is a recent intervention to promote low cost fodder based dairy farming systems. Cultivation of fodder crops like oat, vetch, stylo, napier are quite common to supplyquality fodder especially to the daiy animals.

Major Issues

• High cost of production,
• Lack of adequate market and marketing,
• Small scale of production and types of dairy animals,
• Disease and product diversification.

Scope to promote low cost feeding management
• The cost of production of raw milk can be reduced by reducing the feed cost. Forage based livestock farming is one of the cheapest and environmentally sound system and could improve the animal health as well as reduce the cost of production significantly.
• Practice of forage cultivation is not common. Due to the concentrated based feeding practices, the unit cost of milk production is very high. For example, the cost of production of milk in Ilam district is Rs 13/liter whereas in Chitwan is about Rs 22/lt (Maskey, 2004, DLSO Chitwan)), low cot of milk production in Ilam is mainly due to the practices of fodder based livestock production system adopted by the farmers.
• The major fodder crops grown in dairy areas are oat (Avena sativa), berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum) and Teosinte (Eucleana mexicana) in Nepal. Due to the season bound fodder production and relatively low fodder yield, theses varieties are lacking to meet the demand of quality fodder. Compared to the common fodder crops, the CFSH-30 have added advantage that produces quality fodder in high quantity on year round basis especially in milk-shed areas of Nepal and because of its high nutritive value, CFSH-30 substitutes the high cost of concentrated feed.
• To promote forage based livestock development programme the potential demand of forage seed is 1,062 ton annually (TLDP, 2002). The present status of forage seed production is quite low. Pande (1997) estimated that annual production of forage seed is about 55 ton in which 50 mt is shered by annual fodder like oat, berseem and teosinte. Similalry, National Seed Board, MOA estimated that in 2001 the total seed production was 73 ton in which 69 ton was annual fodder (NSB, 2001)

Testing and expansion of Canadian Forage Sorghum Hybrid in Nepal
Introduction of CFSH-30
The Canadian Forage Sorghum Hybrid -30 also known as Canadian Forage Sudan Hybrid (CFSH-30) has been developed in AERC, Canada, and widely grown in Canada, USA, New Zealand, India and other parts of world (AERC, 2005, OP Dangi and R Rana 2005; personal communication). The CFSH-30 is high yielding, nutritious, could grow in a wide range of climate on year-round basic are most suitable fodder for dairy animals. It contains 14-15 percent crude protein and could be harvested within 40-50 days of sowing, and gives 2-3 cuttings with the average yield of 6-7 ton DM/ha on an average. The average seed rate varies from 10-15 kg per ha depending on season and conditions of soil moisture. The cultural practices are similar to maize. This fodder is a heavy feeder with higher dose of fertilizer the yield could be maximized. The usual dose of fertilizer is 200 kg of N/ha i.e. 435 kg of Urea/ha should be used (AERC, Inc undated: Canadian Forage Sudan Hybrid (CFSH-30).

NARC studies on CFSH-30
CFSH-30 was first tested by Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Pasture and Fodder Research Division during 2003/04 in different sites e.g. Nepalganj, Bandipur and Tarahara. The green fodder yield was highest in CFSH-30 up to 48.9 ton/ha (NARC, 2004). NARC has highly recommended for dissemination of the technology and practices of CFSH-30 production to the dairy farmers to improve the income and livelihoods by reducing the cost of milk production.

Table- 1: Comparative study of Green Fodder yield (t/ha) at NARC stations
Parameters CFSH-30 CPMH Teosinte
N Dose 0 150 200 250 0 150 200 250 0 150 200 250
1 June 2003 planting
Site
Nepalganj 26.6 66.8 78.9 74.3 25.7 48.7 57.2 57.6 18.4 30.9 54.4 65.0
Bandipur 26.7 27.2 30.8 44.6 17.9 17.3 14.9 26.4 12.6 12.8 19.5 14.7
Tarahara 22.0 24.3 26.0 27.8 22.0 24.0 21.0 21.3 24.0 24.8 26.3 23.5
Mean 25.0 32.64 45.24 48.90 21.87 21.34 35.10 35.10 18.34 22.90 33.4 33.4
1 Sep 2003 planting
Site
Nepalganj 13.20 28.10 37.50 42.90 10.10 21.60 31.60 37.20 7.30 10.40 19.00 22.60
Bandipur 5.40 12.80 17.80 18.50 2.30 4.00 5.40 10.00 4.00 6.80 9.60 12.50
Tarahara 12.30 24.20 36.80 46.50 12.00 13.10 19.00 25.00 13.50 17.00 19.80 28.50
Mean 10.30 21.70 30.70 35.97 8.13 12.90 18.67 24.07 8.27 11.40 16.13 21.20
Note: CPMP-101: Canadian Forage Pearl Millet; CFSH-30: Canadian Forage Sorghum Hybrid

Role of ABTRACO to Promote CFSH-30 at Farmers level
Agri-Business and Trade Promotion Multi-Purpose Cooperative (ABTRACO) is founded in 2000 by a group of professionals and businessmen. ABTRACO stands to forward the mission of cooperative and envisions promoting agribusiness and trade by channelling available resources, skill, capital and technology into productive venture. To promote CFSH-30 for the improvement of livelihoods of the small dairy farmers ABTRACO with the support with CCO/Nepal in collaboration with NARC and DLS has been promoting CFH-30 in 12 districts since 2004/5.

The goal and Objectives
The goal of the project is to contribute in the improvement of the livelihoods of the small dairy farmers in the project districts with the purpose to strengthen and enhance the capabilities to adopt cost effective feeding systems through scaling up of CFSH-30 program on a sustainablee manner. The specific objectives are:

• Strengthening the capabilities of the dairy farmer’s group through technology transfer and scaling-up CFSH-30 programme for the promotion of low cost feeding systems on year round basis to reduce the cost of milk production.
• Promotion of small scale dairy enterprises to create localized markets for dairy products through skill enhancement especially for the women members.
• Empowerment of small dairy farmers group focusing on women members through improved skills on feeds and feeding management, breeding management, improved animal health facilities, insurance of the animals, easy access to credit through revolving fund management, hygienic and quality milk production and product diversification.
• Ensured supply of CFSH-30 to the dairy farmers through the production of seed at local level.

Material and methods
Selection of Districts and Sites
The potential milkshed districts were selected with the consultation of DLS and respective district Livestock Services Office. Altogether 12 districts were selected, eight districts for demonstration plots establishment (Ilam, Jhapa, Sunsari, Chitwan, Lalitpur, Kabhre, Rupandehi and Banke) and mini-kit plots in four districts (Dhanusha, Mahottari, Siraha and Sarlahi).

Table-2: Project districts, VDCs and name of the farmers group
Districts VDCs Group’s name
A. CFSH-30 Demonstration
1. Ilam Ilam Swang Aya Arjan Gai Palan Samuha
2. Jhapa Satasidham Brihat Namuna Gai Palan Samuha, Satisidham
3. Sunsari Inaruwa Bhagawati Mahila Gai Bikash Samuha
4. Chitwan Ratnagar Jiwandhara Milk Producers Cooperatives
5. Lalitpur Lele Deurali Milk Producers Cooperatives
6. Kabhre Madebsthan Umadevi Milk Producers Cooperatives, Kuntabeshi
7. Rupandehi Shankarnagar Siddhartha Milk Producers Copoeratives
8. Banke Prashpur Paraspur Sorghum Producers Groups
B. Additional Program: CFSH-30: Mini kit plot establishment
1. Dhanusha Lalgadh,
Lalgadh CFSH-30 Farmers group, Bengadabar, Lalgadh
Mahendranagar Mahendranagar CFSH-30 Farmers Group, Sakhuwa, Mahendra nagar
Bhuchakrapur Bhuchakrapur CFSH-30 Farmers Group, Bhuchakrapur
Bateshwar Bateshwar CFSH-30 Farmers Group, Bateshwar
Naktajhij Radhpur CFSH-30 Farmers Group, Naktajhij
2. Mahottari Laxminia Laxminia CFSH-30 Farmers Group, Laxminia
Maisthan Maisthan CFSH-30 Farmers Group, Gadhanta, Maisthan
3. Sarlahi Lalbandi Lalbandi CFSH-30 Farmers Group, Lalbandi
4. Siraha Bastipur Ghaletole CFSH-30 Farmers Group, Ghaletole, Bastipur


Arrangement of CFSH-30 seeds:
A total of 1100 kg of CFSH-30 seed delivered on June 2005 from AERC/Summit Seeds, India.

Number and size of demonstartion plots
• Number of plots: Altogether 720 plots were established and each plot comprise of 500 m2 (one kattha),
• Season of sowing: The crops were established in three seasons viz. summer (June/July), winter (October/November) and spring (March/April).
• Seed rate: 10 kg/ha.

Project beneficiaries
The direct project beneficiaries are small farmers involved in milk production business as follows:
• Milk producing farmers (240 members) of eight districts (Kabhrepalanchok, Lalitpur, Chitwan, Sunsari, Jhapa, Ilam, Rupandehi and Banke) of milk-shed areas through CFSH-30 establishment program.
• Milk producers’ farmers (500 members) of four districts (Dhanusha, Mahottari, Sarlahi and Siraha) CFSH-30 mini- kit demonstration program.
Implementation method (s) used
• Identifications and selections of the farmers groups using quick appraisals and field observations
• Baseline study of the selected farmer's groups.
• Strengthening of farmers groups through skill development and capacity building of the small dairy farmers on improved livestock management and fodder production.
• Practical /learning by doing Plantation and management of CFSH-30 for fodder based dairy production.
• Participatory monitoring/supervision and reporting of the program.


Table-3: Project Activities and implementation schedule
Activities Methods Period
1. Establishing and strengthening dairy milk producers farmers groups • Secondary data/information collection of the project districts.
• Quick appraisal/survey of the project sites/districts
• Formation of District level Project Coordination Committee
• Finalization of VDCs/sites within the project districts
• Formation of Canadian Fodder Sorghum groups/subgroups
• Baseline/socio-economic survey of the group members April- May, 2005
2. Fodder and livestock group management training. • Preparation of training manual on livestock and fodder production.
• Identification of resource person,
• Organization of training in each district. May-June/July 2005
3. Establishment of Canadian Sorghum Hybrid Plots. • Seed procurement/transportation and storage.
• Preparation of leaflet on CFSH-30 for distribution.
• Finalization of cultivation packages and practices
• Arrangement and distribution of CFSH-30 seeds and fertilizers.
• Identification/selection/layout of the individual plots
• Demonstration and orientation of CFSH-30 plot establishment
• Establishment of CFSH-30 plots in each individual farmer's field.
• Additional program.
• Mini kit distribution of CFSH-30 (500 milk producing farmers) Sowing seasons:
• First: June/July 2005,
• Second: September/October 2005, and
• Last: February/March 2006
4. Sorghum hybrid plantation and management. • Develop management and monitoring tools of sorghum.
• Orientation on plantation, harvesting and techniques on fodder use.
• Analysis and estimation of green matter production and evaluation of fodder quality.
• Compilation of plant performance data/information, analysis and documentation/ reporting. June 2005- March 2006
5. Linkage with district level local partners (CBOs, NGOs, District Level Farmer’s Cooperatives). • Meeting/discussion for linkages/ coordination with GOs (district level District Livestock Service Offices, NARC).
• Linkages with CBOs/NGOs and other similar organizations. April 2005- March 2006
6. Institutional support to EA Equipments supply (e.g. computer).
April 2005- March 2006
7. Project management. Meeting/discussion at central level for program implementation. April 2005- March 2006

Findings
Identification, selection and straightening of the dairy milk producer farmers’ group:
The most potential dairy farmers groups within the districts were selected with the consultation of respective District Livestock Services Office (DLSO) and respective Milk Producers Cooperatives to implement the CFSH-30 plantation programs. The name of the districts and the Milk Producers Cooperatives are as follows:

• Ilam: Swang, Aya Arjan Gai Palan Samuha,
• Jhapa: Satasidham, Brihat Namuna Gai Palan Samuha,
• Sunsari: Inaruwa, Bhagawati Mahila Gai Bikash Samuha,
• Chitwan: Ratnagar, Jiwandhara Milk Producers Cooperative,
• Lalitpur: Lele, Deurali Milk Producers Cooperative,
• Kabhre: Kuntabeshi, Umadevi Milk Producers Cooperative
• Rupandehi: Shankarnagar, Siddhartha Milk Producers Cooperative,
• Banke: Parashpur Sorghum Producers Group.

Fodder and livestock group management training:
Enhanced skill and knowledge on fodder based dairy production by organizing two days training on livestock and fodder production in all eight project districts, which was followed by CFSH-30 plot establishment. In the training some additional topics such as gender and equity in dairy enterprises, poverty alleviation were also included. The resources persons were used from the respective line agencies mainly from DLSO and local NGOs involved in poverty alleviation and gender and equity.
• Training manual developed and distributed among the training participants.
• Two days training on livestock and fodder production and managements were organized in all eight districts (annex-1).
• The resource persons were used from the respective District Livestock Offices and local NGOs (Annex-2).
• There were six theory classes and two practical classes in each training


Table- 4: Number of farmers participated in Livestock Management training
SN Districts Date Total Male Female
A CFSH-30 Plot Establishment
1 Banke 21-22 July 2005 30 23 7
2 Chitwan 30-31 July 2005 30 23 7
3 Ilam 15-16 Sep 2005 30 15 15
4 Jhapa 21-22 July 2005 30 18 12
5 Lalitpur 28-29 Nov 2005 30 15 15
6 Kavrepalanchok 20-21 Dec 2005 30 15 15
7 Rupandehi 23-24 July 2005 30 20 10
8 Sunsari 12-13 Sep 2005 30 30
Total 240 129 111


Establishment of Canadian Sorghum Hybrid Plots:
• Leaflets on Canadian Forage Sorghum Hybrid-30 prepared and distributed among the participants and involved agencies.
• CFSH-30 mini kit packets prepared comprising seeds and fertilizers to distribute among the farmers.
• 120 plots (each comprising 300 sq m (one Katha) of land) established in all eight districts
• The CFSH-30 plot was established in three seasons viz July 2005, October 2005 and June 2006

Table -5: Months and Number of plots established of CFSH-30
SN Districts Plantation
1st 2nd 3rd
1 Banke 15 15 15
2 Chitwan 15 15 15
3 Ilam 15 15 15
4 Jhapa 15 15 15
5 Lalitpur 15 15 15
6 Kavrepalanchok 30 30 30
7 Rupandehi 15 15 15
8 Sunsari 15 15 15
Total 135 135 135

Sorghum hybrid plantation and management
• Develop management and monitoring tools of sorghum.
• Orientation on plantation, harvesting and techniques on fodder use.
• Analysis and estimation of green matter production and evaluation of fodder quality.
• Compilation of plant performance data/information, analysis and documentation/ reporting
Improved management skills of Sorghum Hybrid plantation and management of 180 farmers in six districts completed.
• Management and monitoring tools developed and adopted in four districts for the performance evaluation of sorghum plants and farmers’ feedback.
• Germination and establishment /performance of plant recorded.
• Oriented the farmers on management and use of CFSH-30

Formation of dairy farmers groups for CFSH-30 mini kit plot establishment:
For the wider adoption of CFSH-30, mini kit plot establishment in 500 farmers filed has been proposed in four additional districts (Dhanusha, Mahottari, Sarlahi and Siraha). For this dairy farmers group comprising 25 farmers in each groups has been formed.

On-site training on CFSH-30 mini kit plot establishment:
Two representatives from each farmers group were provided training at Regional Agricultural Training Center, Nakatjhij, Janakpur on 19 September 2005. Altogether 45 farmers have participated in the training. It is anticipated that the trained farmers will teach the other group members in cascade model.

Table 6: Numbers of leader farmers participants in CFSH-30 mini kit establishment training
SN Districts Total Male Female
1 Dhanusha 300 160 140
2 Mahottari 100 55 45
3 Sarlahi 50 25 25
4 Siraha 50 23 27
Total 500 263 237

Linkage with district level local partners,
Improved the linkages and coordination with the local partners such as DLSO, CBOs, dairy cooperatives in eight districts has been conducted
Establishment of seed store house at, Mahendranagar, Dhanusha:
To facilitate the seed distribution at field district a field store has been established at Dhanusha.

Supervision and monitoring:
• The chairman and the Project coordinator of ABTRACO participated the Livestock and fodder training program in Chitawan and also visited some of the field sites of Chitawan Banke, Rupandehi districts.
• Field visit and interaction with farmers on performance of CFSH-30 by AERC team: A field visit in two districts viz. Rupandehi and Chitwan was made by AERC team from 17- 24 November 2005 and interaction with farmers on performance, use and scope for the expansion of CFSH-30 program in a wider scale were discussed.

Institutional support:
• Interaction meeting with the support/line agencies organized for coordination and linkages. Similarly, a desk top computer purchased to facilitate the data/information processing, Three (one professional and two field) level staff identified to facilitate the program implementation.

Higher fodder yield:
A preliminary study of CFSH-30 revealed that the CFSH-30 has a bumper yield compared to conventional fodder like oat and berseem. The preliminary study of the estimated green fodder yield was 5 kg/sq.m. Such a high quantity of yield could be due to the late harvest of fodder after maturation. Most of the farmers reported that the CFSH-30 has yielded equal milk production as with concentrated feed and the milk yield increased by 50 percent in most of the lactating animals.

Table- 7: Green fodder yield at different sites (mean green fodder yield of the three crops, kg/sq m)
SN Districts Cutting Mean
I II III
1 Ilam 5.3 4.8 6.2 5.4
2 Jhapa 3.1 4.2 4.8 4.0
3 Chitwan 5.4 5.2 6.7 5.8
4 Sunsari 6.7 6.5 6.9 6.7
5 Dhanusha 5.8 4.9 6.3 5.7
6 Mahottari 5.4 5.1 6.5 5.7
7 Siraha 4.5 4.8 5.7 5.0
8 Sarlahi 6.8 6.1 6.9 6.6
Note: The authentic data from Lalitpur, Kabhre, Rupandehi, Banke could not be available.

The first sowing of CFSH-30 in Lalitpur and Kabhre districts was delayed and the performance of the crop was not very good. Similarly, second and third sowing was also in smaller area so data could not be available. Similarly, the first sowing of CFSH-30 in Rupandehi was delayed and was in low land. The performance of second and third sown CFSH-30 was good in Rupandehi and Banke.

Increased milk yield:
Most of the participating milk producers reported that the milk yield increased at least by 50 percent compared to the conventional feeding.
Substitute of expensive supplementary ration:
Most of the farmers reported that when the CFSH-30 fodder has been fed to the milch cows and buffaloes, they stopped the feeding of supplementary ration which is costly but the usual yield of milk production did not affected. It means that the CFSH-30 can substitute supplementary concentrated ration and could reduce the cost of milk production significantly.
Good health and early heat:
One of the farmers from Siraha commented that the CFSH-30 is very nutritious “Yee Ghans bahut garam chhai”. He reported that after feeding this CFSH-30 to the heifer and milching buffaloes, the animals came heat earlier compared to the previous years.
Year round fodder supply:
The CFSH-30 can be grown on year round basis. During the project period the seed was supplied during July/August, February/March and June/July. Compared to the other annual fodder crop commonly grown in Nepal like oat (Avena sativa) in winter and Teosinte (Euchlaena mexicana) in summer. Most of the farmers are growing this CFSH-30 on rotational basis.
Improved income:
The farmers are very much enthusiastic. The preliminary result indicated the benefit from the cultivation of CFSH-30 and also ensured forage supply has encouraged the farmers to purchase high yield dairy animals, replacing the old and less productive cows.
Review meeting CFSH-30 programme
To review the status of project and discuss the progress and achievements of the project a meeting was held at meeting hall, Department of Livestock Services on 7th June 2007.
Up scaling of CFSH-30:
A preliminary concept proposal developed for scaling up of CFSH-30 project and submitted to CCO for necessary action.
Beneficiaries participation and women involvement
The total participants in the CFSH-30 program are 740 dairy farm families (240 in plot establishment and 500 in mini- kit production). Out of the total participants over 47 percent are women (Table 8).

Table – 8: Numbers of participants and percent of women involvement
SN Districts Total Male Female
A CFSH-30 Plot Establishment
1 Banke 30 23 7
2 Chitwan 30 23 7
3 Ilam 30 15 15
4 Jhapa 30 18 12
5 Lalitpur 30 15 15
6 Kavrepalanchok 30 15 15
7 Rupandehi 30 20 10
8 Sunsari 30 30
Sub-total of A 240 129 111
B Mini kit Plot Establishment
1 Dhanusha 300 160 140
2 Mahottari 100 55 45
3 Sarlahi 50 25 25
4 Siraha 50 23 27
Sub-total of B 500 263 237
Total of A & B 740 392 348

Lessons learned that could be applied to other projects
• Fodder Yield of CFSH-30: A preliminary study of CFSH-30 revealed that the CFSH-30 has a bumper yield compared to conventional fodder like oat and berseem. The preliminary study of the estimated green fodder yield was 5-8 kg/sq. m. Such a high quantity of yield could be due to the late harvest of fodder after maturation.
• Most of the farmers reported that the CFSH-30 has yielded equal milk production as with concentrated feed and the milk yield increased by 50 percent in most of the lactating animals
• Ensured fodder supply encouraged farmers to replaced the low yielding dairy animals with high yielder

Conclusion:
• Compared to the common fodder crops, the CFSH-30 have added advantage that produces quality fodder in high quantity on year round basis especially in milk-shed areas of Nepal and because of its high nutritive value, CFSH-30 substitutes the high cost of concentrated feed.
• Though in small scale, the current undergoing project on CFSH-30 has amply demonstrated that this species of Sorghum can effectively substitute expensive concentrated feed and greatly contribute to reduce cost of ration combined with awareness towards year round fodder cultivation, animal health services and marketing development are some means to develop dairy industries to lead the nation towards the competitive market oriented economy and improved livelihoods of small dairy farmers.

Recommendations:
• Expansion/replication of the program in larger scale.
• Continued supply of seeds on reasonable price to the dairy farmers
• Provision for the production of CFSH-30 locally.
• Promotion of CFSH-30 through national level policy formulation

Acknowledgement
We sincerely acknowledge the funding support of the CCO, Nepal and technical support of AERC, Canada. We thank DR OP Dangi and Dr R Rana.

Reference:
• AERC, 2005, http://www. aerc.foragesorghum.html
• DDC, 2005. http:// www. Dairydev.com.np
• Pande, RS 2004. Ensuring forage suppl from Nepal’s Community Forests. APANEWS, Asia-pacific Agro-forestry Newsletter, No. 25 December 2004.
• NPC,2002. National Planning Commission, HMG/Nepal
• Pande, RS 1994 Livestock feeds and Grassland Development in Nepal (Nepali), National Forage and grassland research Centre, PO Box 10245, Kathmandu
• Pande, RS 1997 Fodder and Pasture Development in Nepal, Udaya Research and Development Services, Sanepa, Nepal.
• Pande, RS 2005 “Pro-poor Community Forage Production Programme in the NACRMLProject, Nepal”, Proceedings of the Workshop on Fodder Oats, TCP/NEP/2901, FAO 8-11 March 2005.



15. Potential of Canadian Forage Sorghum in improving fodder supply for small dairy farmer in Nepal

15. Potential of Canadian Forage Sorghum in improving fodder supply for small dairy farmer in Nepal
Rameshwar S. Pande, R. P. Sapkota, and J. C. Gautam
(Published in: APANews Asia-pacific Agroforestry Newsletter No. 28 July 2006)

Dairy enterprises are a major source of livelihood for over 70 000 small- scale farmers in Nepal. Nepal produces 1.2 million Mt of milk a year from 1.8 million milking cows and buffaloes. In its Tenth Five-year Plan (2002-2007), Nepal has targeted to raise milk production to 1.4 million mt.

Major constraints in dairy production
The dairy industry in Nepal developed in the 1980s when high- yielding crossbred animals (Jersey and/or Holstein Friesian crosses and Murrah buffaloes) began to be imported. These dairy animals are raised on concentrate-based feeds, resulting in the high cost of milk production. Forage cultivation is not common, which limits the year-round green fodder supply. Due to the acute deficiency and high cost of quality feed and fodder, farmers are not earning adequate income as envisaged.
Discussions with farmers revealed that about 60–90 percent of the income from the sale of milk is used to purchase feed concentrates. Without other means of livelihood, farmers are compelled to continue their dairy business despite the dismal earnings. To sustain dairy farming in Nepal, a cost-effective feeding system needs to be promoted.

Promoting feed and fodder development in Nepal Due to the efforts of government and various nongovernmental agencies, significant developments in fodder and pasture have been achieved in Nepal. However, the fodder supply still can not meet the demand. The estimated shortage of dry matter is over 40 percent.
The major fodder crops grown in Nepal are oats (Avena sativa), berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum), teosinte (Euchleana mexicana), stylo (Stylosanthes guinensis) and napier (Pennisetum purpureum). About 2 000 hectares of land are under fodder cultivation each year.

Promoting fodder-based, low-cost feeding systems Forage-based dairy farming is one of the cheapest and environmentally sound systems that can improve animal health as well as reduce the cost of production significantly. Concentrate-based feeding practices are expensive.
Testing and promoting a sorghum hybrid in Nepal The Canadian Forage Sorghum Hybrid–30 (CFSH-30) was developed by the Agriculture Environmental Renewal Canada (AERC). High-yielding and nutritious, it is the most suitable fodder for dairy animals. Itcontains 14–15 percent crude protein. The crop is adaptable to a wide range of climates and can be harvested within 35–45 days of sowing, with an average yield of 3–4 Mt DM/ha. CFSH-30 was first tested by the Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC) in Nepal in 2002–2004. It yielded a green matter of 49–74 Mt/ ha and was recommended as a substitute for the feed concentrates. The Agri-Business and Trade Promotion Multipurpose Cooperative Ltd. (ABTRACO) has been promoting the use of CFSH-30 cultivation in Nepal with financial support from the Canadian Cooperation Office-Nepal, and in collaboration with AERC Canada since March 2005. ABTRACO, in collaboration with NARC and the Livestock Department, has established over 620 demonstration and testing sites of CFSH-30 in 12 milk shed districts. Preliminary results showed that the sorghum’s performance and contribution to ensuring fodder supply is quite satisfactory. The average green fodder yield was 50 Mt/ha.

Testimonials
Ms. Sunita Chailagain of Labandi, Nepal, found that CFSH-30 was much better than oats, as it grew year-round and produced more fodder than oats. It was also found to be more nutritious and so better liked by the animals that even stems of finger thickness were chewed. Her buffalo has been producing 3 L , an increase from the usual 2 L, of milk per day since she began feeding it with CFSH-30.
Mr. Ram Prasad Gautam of Chitwan saw a difference in milk yield when the concentrate feed was replaced with CFSH-30 fodder.
Similarly, Mr. Charitar Mahato found CFSH-300 to be very good as it could be grown off season and his buffalo came in heat earlier after being fed with the fodder.
During the testing phase, only a small proportion of farmers were involved. The research team hopes to scale up the promotion of CFSH- 30 to a wider scale covering a large number of milk producers cooperatives. Seed production at the local level will also be strengthened.
References:
1) AERC, 2005, http:// www.aerc.forage sorghum.html;
2) DDC, 2005, http://www.dfairydev.com.np; 3) Pande, R.S. 2004. Ensuring forage supply from Nepal’s community forests. APANews,
Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Newsletter No. 25, December 2004;
4) NPC, 2002. National Planning Commission, HMG/Nepal;
5) Pande, R.S. 1994. Livestock feeds and grassland development in Nepal (Nepali). National Forage and Grassland Research Center G.P.O. Box 10245, Kathmandu;
6) Pande, R.S. 1997. Fodder and pasture development in Nepal. Udaya Research and Development Services Pvt. Ltd, Sanepa, Nepal; 7) Pande, R.S. 2005. Pro-poor community forage production program in the NACRMLP, Nepal. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Fodder Oats, TCP/NEP/2901; FAO; 8–11 March 2005. The author works at the Indian Grassland Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi 284003, India.




14. Ensuring forage supply from Nepal’s community forest

14. Ensuring forage supply from Nepal’s community forests

Rameshwar Singh Pande

(Published in : Pande, RS 2004. Ensuring forage supply from Nepal’s community forests. APANews Asia-PacificAgroforestry Newsletter, No. 25. December 2004APANews - The Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Newsletter, No. 25 ... www.fao.org/docrep/008/af337e/af337e03.htm )

Nepal is among the pioneers of community based forest management. About 20 percent of its natural forests have been handed over to community forest user groups (FUGs) comprising 1 422 301 households (CFD 2004). These community forests have significantly improved the supply of timber, fuelwood, leaf litter and other forest by-products. Afforestation has also transformed denuded land into a green landscape.
However, the wide use of Pinus species (at high stocking rates) has drastically reduced the growth of the herbaceous undergrowth, thereby affecting the availability of forest fodder. Forage production, using high-yielding perennial species inside the community forestlands, was considered an option for diversifying community forest products to meet fodder requirements and provide income-generating activities to the FUGs.
NACRMLP for sustainable forage production
The Nepal-Australia Community Resource Management and Livelihood Improvement Project (NACRMLP) has been active in Nepal’s Kabhre Palanchok and Sindhu Palchok districts for the last 30 years. The sixth phase (2003 - 2009) of the Australian Aid for International Development (AusAID) project is currently being implemented. The project aims to develop and institutionalize equitable and sustainable community-based natural resource management systems, to improve the rural livelihood and reduce poverty among the FUGs.
The project is collaborating with 800 FUGs, comprising 73 915 households that are managing 44 589 ha of community forestlands, in the Kabhre and Sindhu Palchok districts. About 19 percent of the community forestlands are degraded, barren and underutilized (Kanel and Kanel 2004). Sparsely planted community forest areas, dominated by unwanted bushes and weeds, offer ample opportunities for forage development.
Aside from the FUGs, the landless poor and disadvantaged groups also rely on communal resources for fodder. Compared to the land-rich FUG members, they have insufficient land for on-farm fodder production. To address this problem, NCRMLP has enabled the landless poor, women and disadvantaged groups to pilot and facilitate forage development activities in community forestlands. The project has also been helping FUG members to enhance fodder supply through on-farm forage development programs, school forage programs and landslide/roadside forage production.
Forage development in community forestlands
To address equity issues in resource sharing, the project has assisted in the formation of forage subgroups within the FUGs. These subgroups comprise the relatively poor and the disadvantaged community and/or women groups. After rigorous meetings and discussions, blocks of land for forage production were allocated to the forage subgroups. Policies and guidelines on forage development/management were also formulated.
The project has provided technical know-how, seeds and vegetative planting materials. Different forage species, including stylo, joint vetch, molasses, ipil-ipil, and Wynn cassia, have been planted together. Mixed planting diversifies the forage species (legumes vs. non-legumes, shrubs, herbaceous and climbers, etc.) and maximizes land use.
The subgroups have implemented minimal tillage operations. To date, some 58 FUGs have been formed and about 80 ha of community forests have been developed as forage blocks.

On-farm forage production
A separate on-farm forage production program was initiated for the land-rich FUG members to improve fodder supply on terrace risers. Each FUG member received a packet of seed mixture weighing 200 g, estimated to be sufficient for 500 m2. Over 5 000 households have established forage blocks in their backyards.
Forage development along roadsides and landslide areas
The roadsides and landslide areas were considered potential sites for fodder production. In these areas, NACRMLP was jointly initiated with the respective Department of Soil Conservation district offices.

School forage development program
Every household engaged in the raising of livestock should have easy access to fodder supply. But since it was not possible to include all FUG members due to time and resource constraints, the NCRMLP, in collaboration with the District Education Offices, established forage blocks in schools.
Through the school forage development program, the youth were made aware of the importance of improved forage crops, and were also provided opportunities to widen the scale of the forage cultivation program. Each child was provided with a small packet of forage mixture containing 10 g of seeds. Simple planting instructions were printed on the bags.

Production of forage planting stock and establishment of seed production centers
The seeds and vegetative materials were imported from other districts and/or from Australia. However, this practice could not be sustained to meet the growing demand. Hence, private and community-managed forage resource centers were established at various strategic sites.
Project outcomes
Although being implemented on a pilot scale, the overwhelming response from the FUGs, especially the women, indicated the success of the project. FUGs in Bhedigoth, Thulo sirubari and Sindhu, for example, were already using their fodder income to venture into vegetable production. Similarly, other FUG members were also earning income and planning to venture into other livelihood and production schemes. The forage subgroup of the FUG in Goisakund, Kabhre district decided to conserve its forage in situ, as its allocated forage block was too small to meet the needs of all its members.
The subgroup decided to harvest its forage during "Tiz" - - a special Hindu festival for women that occurs during September/October. The women harvested the forage as they sang and danced their sorrows, anxieties and happiness on the eve of the festival.
References:
1) Community Forest Division (CFD). 2004. Nepal: CFD, Department of Forestry, HMG.
2) Kanel, K.R. and B.R. Kanel. 2004. Community forestry in Nepal: achievements and challenges. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 4(1).


13. Promising Species for Fodder and Pasture Development in Nepal

13. Promising Species for Fodder and Pasture Development in Nepal

Rameshwar Singh Pande

(Published in : Pande, RS 1997. Promising Species for Fodder and Pasture Development in Nepal; Proceedings of IInd National Conference on Science and Technology June 8-11, 1994. Royal Nepal Academy of Science and Technology (RONAST), Kathmandu, Nepal)

ABSTRACT
Fodder cultivation and pasture improvement is a relatively new concept for Nepalese farmers. The trend of fodder cultivation and pasture land improvement is increasing. Many xotic pasture and fodder species have been introduced in Nepal.
Large quantity of improved pasture seeds have been imported by various agencies. Over 172 species and 371 cultivars are already tested at various farms. The most promising species in terms of dry matter production and seed production are found to be : legumes: berseem, vetch, stylo, white clove. Grasses: oat, teosinte, napier, molasses, perennial ryegrass, cocksfoot. The productivity of these grasses and legumes are recorded up to 18 times morethan the native grasses.

Introduction
Fodder cultivation and pasture improvement is a relatively new concept for Nepalese farmersin Nepal. Since the last decade, fodder crop cultivation has tremendously increased. It was reported that in 1990, approximately 1061 ha of cultivable land was brought under fodder cultivation. Similarly, a total of 4430 ha of community grazing lands especially at temperate region have been improved (DLS, 1992).
Nepal has a total of 1.7 million ha of natural grassland (LRMP, 1986). Most of these rangelands are situated in the mountains and Himal regions. These grazing lands are heavely grazed by livestock and wild animals as well. Due to century old traditional grazing practices, most of the accessible grazing areas and the forest lands are severely exploited. Increasing population of human as well as livestock have exerted excessive pressure onto the existing natural resources, resulting in overexploitation of natural resources such as land and forest. This has ultimately affected on the fragile ecosystem and environment. Denudation,desertification, loss of top soil, landslide, flooding have rechead a critical level.
These natural grasslands need renovation and improved management practices not only to solve the crucial feed deficit but also for environmental conservation.
Many exotic pasture and fodder species have been introduced in Nepal. Some of these species have been found promising for cultivation and renovation of the native pasturelands. These exotic species not only contribute to higher fodder production but also to control soil erosion and to improve soil fertility status.

Trend of Fodder Cultivation and Pasture Improvement
Fodder cultivation in true sense started from 1970’s in Nepal. The conventional belief that livestock thrives on natural vegetation and crop by-products are the major constraints for forage improvement.
The area under fodder crop cultivation and rangeland improvements are preseneted in the Table-1.

Table-1 Area under Fodder Crop Cultivation and Rangeland Improvement.
Fiscal Year Fodder crop cultivation(ha) Pasturelands improvement (ha)
1980/81 36 177
1981/82 139 175
1982/83 532 289
1983/84 407 371
1984/85 446 250
1985/86 329 898
1986/87 415 73
1987/88 330 898
1988/89 697 919
1989/90 880 853
1990/91 1061 1025
1991/92 1000 652
Total 6272 7242

The are under fodder cultivation is 0.01 perecent of the total cultivated land. Similarly, only 0.04 perecent of the total rangelands have been improved so far. When compared to other countries, the land devoted for fodder cultivation is negligible. The developed countries have allocated a significant amount of land for fodder and pasture production. Even in the neighbouring country like India over 5 percent of the cultivated land is under fodder crop (Table-2).

Table-2. Percent of the cultivated land under fodder crop productin in different countries
Countries Area under permanent pasture (%) Percentage of land under fodder crop
Nepal 12.0 <0.01 India 36.0 5.0 USA 42.0 60.0 New Zealand 51.0 >90.0

Foddere and Pasture Development Activities
Fodder and pasture development programme has always been given low priority. Since 1980’s the government has started to pay proper attention to improve the fodder situation. Department of Livestock Services (DLS) has been implementing pasture and fodder development programmes through its various district level offices.
The sole institution for pasture and fodder development activity at district level is the Livestock Services, Department of Agriculture Development. Other agencies involved in pasture and fodder development are Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Pakhribas Agricultura Centre (PAC), Lumle Agricultural Centre (LAC), Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science (IAAS), Department of Forest (DoF), Department of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) etc. Many International Organisations such as FAO, Himalayan Pasture and Fodder Research Network RAS /79/121; High Altitude Pasture Development (NEP/85/007), Asian Development Bank, Livestock Development Project, USAID, and currently IFAD, Hills Leasehold Forestry and forage Development Project have contributed significantly to the fodder and pasture development activity.
Singificant amount of pasture seeds and large numbers of species/cultivars have been imported and tested for adaptability and production performance. Some of the species are localized and naturalized at the sites of introduction, for exaample, white clover in Kathmandu valley, Kikuyu in Jiri etc.

Importation of fodder/pasture seed:
As a part of fodder and pasture development program, a large quantity of fodder and pasture seeds were imported from overseas and distributed to the farmers. The recorded quantity of pasture and fodder seed procured are over 7.7 mt fom 1987-1992 by three projects alone viz. NEP/85/007, RAS/79/121 and ADb funded LDP (Table-3). The two projects NEP/85/007 and ADB/LDP have imported a total of 4118 kg and 3100 kg of seeds respectively mainly for the use of range seedings, whereas the seed imported by RAS/79/121 was 42.85 kgs mainly for research and demonstration purposes (Pande, 1993). Many other agencies like PAC, LAC, NGOs like SATA/HELVETAS,CARE Nepal imported seed in small amount.

Table-3. Total amount of seed procured by three different projects
Sources, types of seeds NEP/85/007 kgs RAS/79/121 kgs ADB/LDP kgs Total, kgs
Legumes 2027.0 119.6 900.0 3046.6
Grasses 2091.0 312.0 2200.0 4603.0
Crucifers - 1.3 - 1.3
Total 4118.0 432.9 3100.0 7650.9
Source: Pande, 1993

Since 1940, over 162 species and 371 cultivars of grasses and legume species have been introduced in Nepal (Pande, 1993) (Table-4), the trend of introduction is being continued. Due to lack of proper doumentations and reporting, the performance of all introduced species/cultivars could not be recorded.

Table-4. Number of Introduced species/cultivars in Nepal
Description Gramineae Legumonosae Cruciferae Total
Total Introduced
a) Species 67 98 7 172
b) Cultivars 188 174 9 371
Break down by:
Annual species 12 50 7 69
Perennial species 55 48 - 103
Subtropical species 52 86 7 145
Temperate species 15 12 - 27



Opportunities and Performance of Exotic Species
Fodder production
Some of the exotic species have ability to produce large quanitity fodder of higher quality even under harsh conditions. These exotic species have long growing season and produce green fodder even in dy conditions when most of the local species dries out. The dry matter (DM) yield of the exotic species were found 3.1 mt DM/ha from Festuca arundinacea up to 13.4 mt DM/ha from Lolium multiflorum (Table-5). The native range species usually produces 3-4 mt DM/ha under ideal conditions. Compared to the native pasture species, there seems great potentiality to increase the fodder yield with these exotic species. These exotic species are also high in CP content (12-14%) compared to the native pasture species (9-9 percent).
Trifolium alexandrinum (Berseem) and Avena sative (Oat) are used as mono cultivated winter crop; Pennisetum purpureum (Napier), Stylosanthes spp (Stylo), Microptitium atropurpureum (Siratro), Melinis minutiflora (Molasses) and Setaria anceps (Setaria) are used to upgrade forage production of terrace risers and bunds.
Trofolum repens (White clover), Stylosanthes spp ( Stylo), Dactylis glomerata ( Cock’s foot) and Lolium perenne (Perennial rye-grass) are used for rangeland improvement. Stylosanthes spp, Desmodium spp (desmodium), Pueraria phaseoloides (Kudzu) and Melinis minutiflora have been used in agro-forestry and silvi-pastoral production systems.

Table-5. DM Yield of some introduced forage species
Species Cultivar Fodder yield Mt DM/ha Site
Legume
Trifolium pratense Florie 9.5 Marpha
Madicago sativa S special 6.5 Marpha
Trifolum repens Ladino 5.0 Marpha
T. subterraneum S spark 10.5 Jumla
T. resupinatum Kyambro 6.4 Jumla
T. repens Khumal 3.4 Jumla
Medicago falcata Kote -
M. falcata Ladakh 3.2 Jumla
Grasses
Lolium multiflorum Barmultra 13.4 Jumla
Lolium perenne Peramo 13.3 Jiri
Dactylis glomerata Porto 7.0 Marpha
Festuca pratensis Bartran 6.2 Jumla
Avena sativa Stout 5.1 Janakpur
Phalaris aquatica Seralan 4.3 Marpha
Festuca arundinacea Barcel 3.3 Jumla
Holocus lalatus M basin 6.4 Jumla

Source: Joshi and Pande, 1991; Singh et al 1990; Grela 1990.

Seed Production
The major limiting factor for the development of fodder and pasture production in Nepal is the availability of quality seed. Till now majority of required seed are imported from overseas. However, since the last decades i.e. 1980’s, seed production of fodder crop such as oat, berseem are quite popular and has shown potentiality to export to the neighbouring country. For example, during 1990, 500 kgs of oat seed and 300 kgs of berseem seed have already been exported to Bangladesh by Department of Livestock Services. Similarly, perennial pasture species like stylo and molasses grass have shown great potentilailty for seed production.
There seems a good potentility to promote pasture and fodder seed production in Nepal. The study conducted on fodder seed production revealed that different regions are suitable to produce different species of fodder and pasture seeds. The recorded seed yield from different species/cultivars at different sites are presented in Table-6.

Table-6. Seed production from different species/cultivars at different sites.
Species Cultivar Seed yield kg/ha Site
Grasses
Agropyron elongatum - 132.2 Marpha
Avena sativa Kent 1250.0 Janakpur
Sorghum bicolar - 99.7 Gaughat
Pennisetum americanum - 2840.0 Gaughat
Dactylis glomerata Apanui 75.0 Marpha
Dactylis glomerata Currie 90.0 Marpha
Dactylis glomerata Porto 308.0 Marpha
Dactylis glomerata Commet 403.0 Marpha
Euchlaena mexicana - 445.0 Pokhara
Festuca arundinacea Demeter 253.0 Marpha
Festuca arundinacea Tall fawn 228.0 Marpha
Festuca pratense Bartran 108.0 Marpha
Festuca pratense Cosmos II 78.0 Marpha
Festuca rubra Creeping red 238.0 Marpha
Lolium multiflorum Barmultra 228.0 Marpha
Lolium multiflorum Barspetra 125.0 Marpha
Lolium multiflorum Georgia selection 278.0 Marpha
Lolium perenne Berenna 153.0 Marpha
Lolium perenne Barenna 198.0 Marpha
Lolium perenne Ruanui 205.0 Marpha
Seteria anceps - 12.7 Pokhara
Sorghum bicolar - 650.0 Pokhara
Lolium perenne multiflorum Sabrina 400.0 Marpha
Legumes
Aeschynomone americana Gleen 1905.0 Pakhribas
Desmodium discolar - 1036.0 Pakhribas
Desmodium uncinatum - 1410.0 Pakhribas
Lablab purpureum - 2256.0 Pakhribas
Lupinus angustifolius - 800 Janakpur
Medicago falcata Ladakh 58.0 Marpha
Medicago falcata Hunter river 43.0 Marpha
Medicago sativa Southern special 95.0 Marpha
Trifolium pratense Broad leaf 133.0 Marpha
Trifolium pratense Florie 895.0 Marpha
Trifolium pratense Montegomery 355.0 Marpha
Trifolium pratense Redquin 525.0 Marpha
Trifolium repens Arkadia 27.0 Marpha
Trifolium repens Haifa 155.0 Marpha
Trifolium repens Ladino 375.0 Marpha
Vicia dasycarpa - 1667.0 Pakhribas
Source: Pande, 1993

Major Farms Involved in Seed Production
The major farms involved in fodder and pasture seed production and distribution are listed in table-7.

Table-7. major farms involved in pasture and Fodder Seed Production
Farms Type of seed Produced Pasture/fodder seed (FY 1990/91), Kgs
Target Achievement
DOAD
Livestock Farm, Solukhumbu Pasture seed production 35 35
Livestock Farm, Jiri 1.Fodder seed production 1000 1000
2. Fodder Seed Production 50 50
Livestock Farm, Pokhara 1. Fodder seed production (winter) 1500 2310
2. Summer seed production 2000 2040
Livestock Farm, Gaughat 1. Summer Fodder seed production 300 900
2. Winter seed production 1000 1000
Sheep Production Farm, Chitlang 1. Winter seed production 500 500
2. Pasture Seed Production 70 70
Sheep Development Farm, Nuwakot 1. Winter seed Production 300 267
2. Pasture Seed Production 12 5
Chauri Farm, Dolpa Pasture seed Production 31 31
Goat Farm, Dhangadhi Oat seed production 700 700
Pasture Trial and Seed Multiplication Farm, Janakpur Berseem, Shaftal, Vetch - -
Livestock Feed Trial and Production Farm, Ranjitpur Stylo, vetch, Kudzu - -
NARC
Pasture Dev Farm, Rasuwa 1. Fodder seed 300 430
2. Pasture seed 65 71
Sheep farm, Jumla
Pasture Production Farm, Khumaltar Pasture seed 100 115
Private Sector
Palpa Seed Growers Group Stylo & Molasses - 350


Recommended Species and Cultivars for Different Regions
Nepal has a diversified types of climate. The climate ranges from tropical in the Terai region to the alpine in the high Himalayas. Within the region itself, there is a variation of micro climates. The germplasm introduced in Nepal have a wider ranges of species. Among the introduced species, some are annual and some are perennial. Furthermore, depending on the growing season these species are divided as summer and winter forage.
Based on the available information suitable species for the different regions are listed in Table-8

Table-8. Suitable Grasses and legumes for Different Ecological zones







Terai & Hills -


Legume a) summer: Centurian, Lablab, Disc Medic, Glycine, Cowpea, Common vetch
b) Winter: Berseem, Shaftal, Senjii, Fenugreek, Sainfoin, Lupin
c) Perennial: Centro, Siratro, Desmodium, Stylo, Kudzu, Glycine, Centurian
Non-legume a) Summer: Teosinte, Bajra, Sudan, Maize, Marval grass
b) Winter: Oat, Maize
c) Perennial: Napier, Setaria, Molasses, Signal, Dinanath grass



Mountains & Himals -


Legume a) Summer: Rice bean, Zornia, Disc medic, Glycine, Cowpea
b) Winter: Lucerne
c) Perennial: White clover, Lotus, Red clover, Sheep burnet
Non-legume a) Summer: Italian Ryegrass
b) Winter: Brassica spp, Rye
c) Perennial: Perennial Ryegrass, Cocksfoot, Yorkshire fog

Major Species for Intensive Use
Out of the introduced species in Nepal, all potential species suitable for different agro-ecological zones may not be applicable to develop and recommend for the production of fodder at farmer level. The most potential and farmer’s preferred species should be developed as a pet species at the present level of available resources. The pet species are listed in Table-9.

Table -9. The pet species for pasture and fodder development
SN Species Remarks
A Legume
1 Berseem Winter fodder for the cultivated lands throughout Terai and Siwaliks
2 Vetch Winter fodder for the cultivated lands throughout Terai and Hills
3 Stylo For silvipasture system on barren/steep lands throughout Terai and Hills up to 1200 m als
4 White clover Range seeding in Midhills and mountains from 1200-4000 m asl.
B Grasses
1 Oat Winter fodder for the cultivated lands throughout Nepal
2 Teosinte Summer fodder for cultivated lands throughout Terai and Hills
3 Napier Summer fodder on bunds, terrace and roadside throughout Terai and Midhills upto 1500 m asl
4 Molasses For silvipasture system as summer fodder on barren/step lands throughout hills from 500- 1500 m asl
5 Perennial Ryegrass Range seeding in mid hills and mountains from 1200-3500 m asl.
6 Cocksfoot Range seeding in midhills and mountains from 1200-3500 m asl.

Conclusion
Fodder is the most important and cheap source of livestock feed. By selecting appropriate species and cultivars the seasonality of fodder production could be overcome. Many exotic species have already started to give the positive results e.g. cultivation of oat and berseem in Terai and Hills. Similarly, introducing exotic species into the natural grazinglands and the afforestation sites could improve the productivity of fodder. To solve the acute fodder deficit situation prevailed in Nepal these introduced species could be a boon for Nepalese grassland farming. However, the importance of native species should not be ignored.

References
• DLS, 1990. Annual Report 1989/90. Department of Livestock Services, Kathmandu.
• Grela, A. 1990. Lessons learned from RAS/79/121 about experimental methodology and regional issues concerning some trials in Nepal and Bhutan. Proceedings of the Regional Seminar on Himalayan Pasture and Fodder research 222-24 March, 1990, Kathm,andu, FAO/UNDP.
• Joshi, N. D. and Pande, R.S. 1991. Himalayan Pasture and Fodder Research Activities in Nepal.Proceedings of the Regional Workshop of the Himalayan Pasture and Fodder Research Network, Regional Seminar, 13-19 November, Palampur, India.
• LRMP (Land Resource Mapping Project ), 1986. Land Resource Mapping Project, 1986. HMG/ Nepal
• Miller, D.J. 1993. Grazinglands in the Nepal Himalaya: present and Potential Economic Returns to Range livestock Production in High Elevation Areas. Draft Final Report, USAID, Kathmandu.
• Pande, R.S. 1993. Introduced Pasture and Fodder Species in Nepal. Processings of the Regional Workshop Organized by Biodiversity Society of Nepal. April 11-13, 1993. Birgunj.
• Pariyar, D. 1990. Fodder and pasture seed requirement and supply arrangements. Proceedings of Second National Seed Seminar, March 20-22, 1990, Kathmandu. Ministry of Agriculture, National Seed Board, Kathmandu.
• Singh, S.B.; Joshi, N.P.; Tiwari, K.R.; Gurung, N.K and Dongol,D.R. 1990. Evaluation of native and exotic pasture species at Gothichaur sheep farm, Jumla. Paper presented at the Regional Seminar on High Altitude Pasture Research in the Himalayan Range, March 20-24, 1990 Kathmandu.

