Research Article
Austin J Plant Bio. 2024; 10(1): 1043.
Estimation and Herbage Yield Performance Evaluation of Elephant Grass (Pennisetum Purpureum (L.) Varieties for Animal Feed in Highland and Midland Area of Guji Zone Southern, Oromia
Teshale Jabessa*; Ketema Bekele
Oromia Agricultural Research Institute Bore Agricultural Research Center, Bore, Ethiopia
*Corresponding author: Teshale Jabessa Oromia Agricultural Research Institute Bore Agricultural Research Center, Bore, Ethiopia. Email: [email protected]
Received: December 06, 2023 Accepted: January 17, 2024 Published: January 23, 2024
Abstract
The study’s objective was to identify and choose a more versatile, higher-yielding forage type. The ILRI-16791, 16798, 16840, 16800, ILRI-16819, 15743, and local type of elephant grass were placed in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. Statistics were utilized to analyze the data after calculating the biomass yield and all other agronomic properties of the forage sample. The results showed that the dry matter yield among the several types of elephant grass varied in a statistically significant (p0.01) way. Elephant grass cultivars in the highland and midland agro ecologies did not vary significantly (p>0.05) in terms of the number of tillers per plant or the ratio of leaves to stems. The highest herbage dry matter production was achieved by the cultivars ILRI-16791, 15743, and 16819 of elephant grass. Under the study locations, these kinds are well suited and suitable as animal feeds. Therefore, it was suggested that livestock farmers use these three types of elephant grass as a source of feed to increase animal output in the study areas and other places with comparable agro ecology.
Keywords: Evaluation; Elephant grass; Highland; Midland; Variety
Introduction
The biggest impediment to livestock production in the developing world is still a lack of feeds, both in terms of quantity and quality [1], especially during the dry season. Even in years with a favorable rainy season, there is not enough fodder to support animals due to a shortage of grazing acreage and inefficient grazing management. Better feed options that take into account both the quantity and quality of the feed are required to increase cattle productivity in such a situation. This necessitates the development of high-quality forage crops that can withstand both biotic and abiotic environmental stresses and offer an alternative source of high-quality and quantity feeds [2-3].
One of the most productive and adaptable tropical grass species is Pennisetum purpureum and can be grown in a variety of locations and farming practices, such as smallholder, industrial, dry, or wet climates and the most prolific and promising fodder crops in Africa [4]. Large, robust, and deeply rooted perennial bunch grass Pennisetum purpureum is prized for its high yield and usage as cow feed [5] Additionally, it is a prime candidate for primary fodder due to its ease of establishment and regeneration, production of appetizing green shoots, efficiency in the use of water, and persistence of repeated cutting [6]. The grass is recommended for smallholder crop-livestock farming systems, especially in dairy and feedlot production systems, according to the aforementioned statement [7].
Due to the growing human and livestock populations and shifting land use patterns, which cause a reduction in grazing pastures, the majority of smallholder livestock producers possess small and fragmented pieces of land [8] and can be the best-fitting alternative to other feed options in such regions because of its capacity to produce high amounts of herbage yields with little inputs. The production of Pennisetum purpureum varies among cultivars, with some producing as much as sixty tons of dry matter per hectare per year [9]. The management decisions, the environment, and the cultivar being utilized, however, can have a greater impact on the yield. Elephant grass forage variants, which have superior biomass production and nutritional quality, should be grown in order to increase the availability of animal feed in terms of quantity and quality. Therefore, the objectives of the current study were to select, adaptable and high biomass yielding Elephant grass varieties for the study area and other areas having similar agro-ecologies.
Material and Methods
Description of the Study Area
The experiment was carried out at the Bore Agricultural Research Center's Songo Baricha on station and Adola sub-site in Guji Zone. Bore district is located in South-eastern Oromia, 385 kilometers from Finfinne and 220 kilometers from the capital city of the Guji Zone (Negele), with latitudes ranging from 557'23" to 626'52" N and longitudes ranging from 3825'51" to 3856'21". The yearly rainfall in the district is approximately 1400-1800 mm, while the average temperatures range from 10.1 to 20 OC. The site's predominant soil type is black soil. Bore Agricultural Research Station is 7 kilometers from the Bore district, which is located at 624'37" N latitude and 3834'76" E longitude.
The Adola sub-site is located in the Midland section of the Bore Agricultural Research Center in the Adola district, 470 kilometers from Addis Abeba and 120 kilometers from the Zonal capital city. It is an area where mixed farming and semi-nomadic economic activities take place, which are the primary source of income for the locals. The District has a total size of 1254.56 km2 and is located at 5o44'10" - 6o12'38" N Latitudes and 38o45'10" - 39o12'37" E Longitudes. The District has three agro-climatic zones: highland (11%), midland (29%), and lowland (60%). The district's main soil types are nit sols (red basaltic soils) and orthic Acrosols [10].
Experimental Treatments and Design
The experiment was executed using six (6) elephant grass varieties like; 16840, 16819, 16800, 16791, 15743, 16798 and Local check were planted at midland and highland with the same procedures for both agro-ecologies at the beginning of the main rainy season in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications. The plant was established in rows spaced 20 cm between rows and 1 m, 1.5 m between plots and blocks respectively on plot size of 5m×2.5m (12.5 m2). The root splits were planted in rows with five rows per plot and a total of 25 root splits were planted per plot. Fertilize rate was uniformly applied to all plots in the form of Nitrogen Phosphate Sulfate (NPS) at the rate of 100 kg/ha. After every harvest, the plots were top dressed with 50 kg Urea/ha of which one-third applied at the first shower of rain and the remaining two third applied during the active growth stage of the plant. All other forage crop management practices were applied uniformly to all varieties as recommended.
Methods of Data Collection
All agronomic data like plant survival rate, number of tillers per plant, number of leaf per plant, leaf length per plant, plant height, forage DM yield and leaf to stem fractions were collected. Plant survival rate was calculated as the ratio of the number of live plants per plot to the total number of plants planted per plot and then multiplied by 100. Plant height was based on five plants was randomly selected in each plot, measured using a steel tape from the ground level to the highest leaf. For determination of biomass yield, genotypes were cutting at 5-10 cm from the ground level from two central rows. In order to measure dry matter yield, the harvested fresh sample was measured right in field by sensitive weight balance and 300g subsample per plot was brought to Bore Agricultural Research Center and sampled sample was placed to oven dried for 72 hours at a temperature of 65cofor dry matter determination. Then dry matter yield (t/ha) was calculated by James [11] formula.
The dry matter yield (t/ha) = TFW × (DWss /HA × FWss) ×10
Where TFW = total fresh weight kg/plot
DWss = dry weight of subsample in grams
FWss = fresh weight of subsample in grams
HA = Harvest plot area in square meters and 10 is a constant for conversion of yields in kg/m to t/ha
Leaf to stem ration, the morphological parts were separately weighed to know their sample fresh weight, oven dried for 72 hours at a temperature of 65oC and separately weighed to estimate the proportions of these morphological parts.
Methods of Statistical Analysis
All collected data were analyzed using the general linear model procedure of SAS [12], version 9.1. Mean were separated using Least Significant Difference (LSD) at 5% significant level. The statistical model for the analysis data was: Yijk= μ + Aj + Bi + eijk
Where; Yijk= response of variable under examination, μ = overall mean, Aj = the jth factor effect of treatment/ cultivar, Bi = the ith factor effect of block/ replication, eijk = the random error.
Result and Discussion
Agronomic Traits of Elephant Grass Varieties
Number of plant survival rates: The average survival rate of elephant grass varieties tested over years in highland and midland agro ecology is indicated in (Tables 1 and 2). The highest plant survival rate (62.2%) was recorded from variety 16819 followed by varieties 116791 (48.8%) in the highland area. On the other hand, 16840 varieties showed the lowest survival rate (17.8%) in highland areas. There were obtained more numbers of plant survival rates in the midland area when compared with the highland area. The findings of the present investigation were consistent with those of [13-14]. In contrast, the varieties of 16791 in the midland region had the highest plant survival rate (80%), followed by the varieties 15743 (75.5%). This outcome is inferior to the one provided by Mamaru [15] (100%). Napier grass typically has a wide array of adaptations, strong growth, a high biomass yield, and a deep root system to withstand dry conditions ([16]. The research regions' different soil types, varying temperatures, and variety of species could all be contributing factors to the decreased survival rate.
Varieties
Pc%
Vg%
SR%
NTPP
NLPP(cm)
LLPP(cm)
PH(cm)
LSR
FBM(t/ha)
DMY(t/ha)
ILRI-16791
89.5a
83.3a
48.8ab
104.6
14
86.6bc
180
0.61
24.1a
10.6a
ILRI-16819
83.3ab
77.7ab
62.2a
61.6
13.6
79.1c
161.7
0.61
22.3ab
8.7ab
16800
82.7ab
78.4ab
24.4c
50.67
15.5
99.5ab
175
0.6
20.9ab
8.4ab
16798
85.7ab
81.4ab
33.3bc
68.1
16.67
106.6a
180
0.68
20.5ab
6.9bc
15743
87.8ab
83.3a
33.3bc
49.6
16.67
92.8abc
178.3
0.615
18.1b
6.8bc
16840
68.5b
62.9b
17.8c
46.6
15.3
96.6ab
160.7
0.4
17.7b
5.7c
Mean
83
72.9
36.7
63.6
15.33
93.6
172.6
0.6
20.6
7.8
CV
12.1
12.6
29.5
53.1
21.3
8.1
10.7
26.9
14.4
16.3
LSD
*
*
**
Ns
ns
**
ns
ns
*
**
a,b,cMean in a column within the same category having different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05) PH (cm)=plant height in centimeter, Pc%=plot cover percentage, LSR=leaf to steam ratio, Vg%=vigor percentage, SR%=survive rate percentage, NTPP=number of tiller per plants, NLPP= number of leaf per plants, LLPP=leaf length per plants in centimeter, FBM t/ha= Fresh biomass tone per hectare, DMY t/ha =dry matter yield tone per hectare, CV=Coefficient of variation, LSD= Least significant difference, **= highly significant, ns= None significant different.
Table 1: Elephant grass yield component and over location mean value of agronomic features at highland areas of Guji zone.
Varieties
SR%
NTPP
NLPP
LLPP (cm)
PH (cm)
LSR
FBM(t/ha)
DMY (t/ha)
ILRI-16791
80
28.3a
21.2
103.5
282.9a
0.52
39.33
19.07a
15743
75.5
23.3ab
19.7
91.1
210.6b
0.41
39.1
15.ab
ILRI-16819
74.6
20.9b
16.8
106.5
243.9ab
0.46
29.7
12.8b
Local check
51.1
28.8a
16
109.5
200.8b
0.39
32.05
12.8b
Mean
70.3
25.3
18.46
102.6
234.6
0.44
35.1
15.54
CV
29.6
6.6
15.5
11.3
14.4
20.7
17.5
12.4
LSD
Ns
*
ns
ns
*
ns
ns
**
a,b,c Mean in a column within the same category having different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05) PH (cm)=plant height in centimeter, LSR=leaf to steam ratio, SR%=survive rate percentage, NTPP=number of tiller per plants, NLPP= number of leaf per plants, LLPP=leaf length per plants in centimeter, FBM t/ha= Fresh biomass tone per hectare, DMY t/ha =drymatter yield tone per hectare, CV=Coefficient of variation, LSD= Least significant difference, **= highly significant, ns= None significant different.
Table 2: At Midland sections of the Guji zone, the overall location mean value of the agronomic and yield component characteristics of Elephant grass.
Plant Height at Forage Harvest
The mean performance of plant height of elephant grass varieties is presented in (Table 1). The mean values of the current results over the two years showed that plant height was not statistically significantly (p>0.05) different among the tested elephant grass varieties in highland areas. Numerically the highest plant height was recorded from the varieties ILRI-16819 and 16798 (180 cm) followed by 15743 at the highland area. The lowest plant height was recorded from the varieties of 16840 (160 cm). On the other hand, plant height was significantly (p<0.05) different in midland areas among the evaluated elephant grass varieties.
Number of Tillers per Plant
The combined analysis indicated that non-significant (p>0.05) variation was observed among the varieties in the highland area. The mean tiller performance of the tested elephant grass varieties is indicated in (Table 1). In highland environments, variety ILRI-16819 produced the most tillers over the years (104.6), followed by variety 16798 (68.1), while variety 16840 produced the least (46.6). The variation in the number of tillers produced per plant among the genotypes of Pennisetum purpureum grass may be due to genetic differences among genotypes and their interactions with the environment [17]. Due to the perennial nature of elephant grass, it produces numerous tillers and dense vegetative growth as the pasture consolidates [18]. Elephant grass had more tillers per plant as the plant grew taller at the time of cutting [19]. Elephant grass variety genetic differences and interactions with the environment may be the reason for the variation in tillers produced per plant among each of the varieties. The combined study revealed that the varieties in the midland region showed considerable significant (p<0.05) variation among the varieties in the midland area. Number of tillers is more adaptive at midland area due to favorable growth environmental factors. Tiller performance also varies with production years due to environmental factors.
Dry Matter Yield
Forage Dry Matter (DM) yield of Napier grass varieties showed significant (p<0.05) variation in the combined analysis (Table 1). The DM yield of analysis ranged from 10.6 - 5.7 t/ha with a mean of 7.8 t/ha in the highland area. On the other hand, the Dry Matter (DM) yield of Napier grass varieties showed significant (p<0.05) variation in the midland area. Generally, the varieties of ILRI-16791 gave (19.07 t/ha) the highest mean DM yield followed by ILRI-16819 (8.7 t/ha). This result was lower than the result reported by Deribe et al. [20] (12.6). On the other hand, the lowest DM yield was obtained from the varieties of 16840 (5.7 t/ha). According to Tessema [21] and Ishii [22] the longest varieties showed higher DM yields than the shorter varieties. This might be due to, variances in the tested varieties, testing years, and varieties by years interaction effects resulting in discrepancies in dry matter yield [6]. The variances in planting techniques, soil properties, and varietal variants may be to blame for the disparities in plant survival rate, tiller performance, and plant height.
Fresh Biomass Yield
The mean average biomass yield were shown significant (p<0.05) different between the varieties at the highland area. The highest mean value of biomass yield was obtained from 16791 (24.1 t/ha) followed by 16819 varieties (22.3 t/ha).
Leaf to Steam Ratio
Between the two agro ecologies, there was no statistically significant variation in the variance of the leaf to stem ratio (p>0.05). The highland regions were where the higher leaf-to-stem ratio was found. This is because changes in the ambient temperature in the midland region cause the leaf to shutter. The leaf to stem ratio range that was noted was 0.4-0.68. The present conclusion from the leaf-to-stem ratio range was also supported by studies by Deribe et al. [20], who reported a range of 0.31 to 1.01, and Elkana et al. [6], who found a range of 1.7 to 3.1.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The current study's findings suggest that the ILRI-16791 and ILRI-16819 varieties for highland areas and the 15743 and 16791 varieties for midland areas are well adapted and productive regarding major forage parameters like dry matter yield, survival rate, and plant heights that are intended to fill the gap of the community's low quantity ruminant feed supply. Future studies should concentrate on the impact of forage dry matter yield, chemical compositions, and the feeding effect of superior candidates on livestock production in relation to planting space, cutting interval, and forage composition.
Author Statements
Acknowledgements
The Oromia Agricultural Research Institute (IQQO), which provided funding to carry out the study, and the finance staff at the Bore Agricultural Center, who helped with logistics during study experiment trials, are both acknowledged by the authors.
References
- Shapiro BI, Gebru G, Desta S, Negassa A, Negussie K, Aboset G, et al. Ethiopia livestock master plan: roadmaps for growth and transformation. 2015.
- Zewdu T, Baars RMT, Yami A. Effect of plant height at cutting, source, and level of fertilizer on yield and nutritional quality of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum (L.) Schumach.). Afr J Range Forage Sci. 2002; 19: 123-8.
- Mayberry D, Ash A, Prestwidge D, Godde CM, Henderson B, Duncan A, et al. Yield gap analyses to estimate attainable bovine milk yields and evaluate options to increase production in Ethiopia and India. Agric Syst. 2017; 155: 43-51.
- FAO. Grassland index. A searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization. 2015.
- Woodard KR, Prine GM. Forage yield and nutritive value of elephant grass as affected by harvest frequency and genotype. Agron J. 1991; 83: 541-6.
- Elkana MN, Francis NM, Evans O, Charles ML. Production, characterization, and nutritional quality of Napier grass [Pennisetum purpureum (Schum.)] cultivars in Western Kenya. Afr J Plant Sci. 2010; 4: 496-502.
- Halim RA, Shampazuraini S, Idris AB. Yield and nutritive quality of nine Napier grass varieties in Malaysia. Malays J Anim Sci. 2013; 16: 37-44.
- Duguma G. Participatory definition of breeding objectives and implementation of community-based sheep breeding programs in Ethiopia; 2010 ([doctoral dissertation]. Austrian University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences).
- Rengsirikul K, Ishii Y, Kangvansaichol K, Sripichitt P, Punsuvon V, Vaithanomsat P, et al. Biomass yield, chemical composition, and potential ethanol yields of 8 cultivars of napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach.) harvested 3-monthly in central Thailand. J Sustain Bioenergy Syst. 2013; 3.
- Etefa Y, Dibaba K. Physical and socio-economic profile of Guji zone districts. Bureau of finance and economic development. The national regional government of Oromia, Finfinne. 2011.
- James K, Mugendi DN, Verchot LV, Kung’u JB, Daniel. Combining napier grass with leguminous shrubs in contour hedgerows controls soil erosion without competing with crops. Agrofor Syst, James B. 2008; 74: 37-49.
- SAS (Statistical Analysis System). SAS/STAT guide for personal computers. version 9.0 editions. SAS Institute Incience. Cary, NC. 2002.
- Dinkale T, Zewdu T, Girma M. Evaluation of improved Napier cultivars as livestock feed under farmers conditions in west Hararghe Zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia. Anim Vet Sci. 2021; 9: 5-15.
- Skerman PJ, Riveros F. Tropical grasses. FAO plant production and protection Series 23. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1990; 832.
- Tesfaye M. Evaluation of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum (L.) Schumach.) accessions for agronomic traits under acidic soil conditions of nejo area, Ethiopia. Int J Agric Biol Sci. 2018; 7: 30-5.
- Zewdu T. Effect of plant density on morphological characteristics, dry matter production, and chemical component of napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum (L.) Schumach.). East Afr J Sci. 2008; 2: 55-61.
- Gezany K, Fekede F, Assefa Getinet M, Tsadik T. Agronomic performance and nutritive values of Napier grass in the Central Highland of Ethiopia. Results Livest Res. 2016: 17-30.
- Zewdu T, Mangistu A. Management of napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum (L.) Schumach.) for high yield and nutritional quality in Ethiopia: a review. Ethiop J Anim Prod. 2010; 10: 73-94.
- Zewdu T, Baars R, AYami A, Dawit N. Effect of plant height at cutting and fertilizer on growth of Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum (L.) Schumach.). Trop Sci. 2003; 43: 57-61.
- Gemiyo D, Jimma A, Wolde S. Biomass yield and nutritive value of ten Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) accessions at Areka, Southern Ethiopia. World J Agric Sci. 2017; 13: 185-90.
- Zewdu T. Variation in growth, yield, chemical composition and in vitro dry matter digestibility of Napier grass accessions (Pennisetum purpureum). Trop Sci. 2005; 45: 67-73.
- Ishii Y, Yamaguchi N, Idota S. Dry matter production and in vitro dry matter digestibility of tillers among napiergrass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach) varieties. Grassl Sci. 2005; 51: 153-63.
Download PDF