indigenous fodder plants - Kenya Agricultural Research Institute

INDIGENOUS FODDER PLANTS: THE UNDERUTILIZED FEED RESOURCE
J. N. N. Kang’ara 1 , I. W. Kariuki, E.M. Kiruiro, S.C. Amboga and I.N. Mwangi
KARI-Embu, P.O. Box 27-60100, Embu, KENYA. Tel: 068-31116/31873; Fax: 068-30064
1
Corresponding author E-mail : johnkangara@yahoo.com, or kariembu@salpha.co.ke
Abstract:
Reports on forage research in Kenya include exploration and evaluation of indigenous forage
plants along side forages imported from other countries in the past. Both exotic and indigenous
fodders were evaluated under local conditions as livestock feed in different agro-ecological
zones. Following this procedure, several ley pastures species used today were domesticated. As
the land sizes declined with increase in population pressure, livestock management system shifted
from grazing animals in the paddocks to zero-grazing in early 1980s. Research on forages then
shifted its focus to exotic fodder crops with little attention on the indigenous fodder plants. There
was need therefore to generate information on indigenous fodder plants in order to promote their
use in dairy goats and cattle feeding. Dairy goat farmers were asked to select fodders of their
choice from 150 indigenous fodder species obtained from the previous survey using their own
criteria in addition to their nutritive values. The farmers came up with a list of 26 indigenous
fodder species they preferred to plant in their farms. It was then concluded that; the country has
a wide range of indigenous fodder plants that meets farmers’ selection criteria, only that they
lack the knowledge on many of them. Probably that is why they are underutilized
Introduction:
Traditionally, indigenous fodder plants have been used to feed ruminant animal even before
modern farming. However, there has not been notable effort to cultivate and manage them other
than conserving those that were in existence when the farm was acquired or when the plants
happen to come up on their own. In Kenya exploratory research on indigenous forages started in
1932 (Edwards, 1940) and stopped in mid 1970 (Ibrahim and Chabeda 1976). The focus by then
was on pasture production and breeding targeting large and medium scale dairy farms (Boonman
et al., 1976). From that research, ley pastures varieties of Chloris gayana like Pokot Rhodes and
Rongai Rhodes, varieties of Setaria sphacelata like Nandi setaria and many other pasture
species were selected and bred. The research also selected and bred Napier grass, Pennisetum
purpureum one of the oldest fodder crop still in use. As land size continued to decline, dairy
production changed from extensive to zero grazing system involving growing fodders such as
Napier grass and tree legumes. The research later shifted its focus to exotic fodder crops, since
some information on these fodder crops was available from other countries. All they needed was

to conduct adaptive trials in different AEZ of Kenya before recommending them for adoption in
our environment. The fodders included Leucaena leucocephala, Desmodium spp, Sesbania
sesban, Gliricidia sepium, Morus alba and Calliandra calothyrsus. Thus, research on indigenous
fodder crops received very little emphasis from researchers. Meanwhile, the popularity of milk
goat rose as from mid 1990s, through the effort of Integrated Small Livestock Project (ISLP).
This was followed by formation of Dairy goat association of Kenya (DGAK) and introduction of
Toggenburg breed by FARM-Africa in Meru Central and Tharaka Nithi in 1996 (Garforth et al.,
2006). This change brought in new challenges of feeding dairy goats under confinement as
opposed to free grazing of local goats in the rangeland. Goats browse selectively on a wide range
of species growing in the rangeland. Therefore, they should not be fed on one fodder species like
dairy cattle which most of the time, are fed on Napier grass alone under zero-grazing system.
Goats need a number of different plant species for better performance. There is need therefore, to
identify, evaluate and characterize indigenous fodder plants of Mt. Kenya region in order to
generate information that could be used by stakeholders to promote research and cultivation of
indigenous fodder plants. This would increase diversity of fodder species available for feeding
dairy goats and cattle.
The specific objective of this study was:
• To identify the farmers preference of indigenous fodder plants
Methodology:
A survey was conducted to take an inventory of indigenous fodder plants around Mt Kenya
region. In that survey, fodder characteristics and their nutritional potential was observed and
recorded. The survey covered tea and coffee land use zones (UH1-UM1) as well as dry cold
highlands of Kieni West in Nyeri district and, from Tea zone (UH1) to dry lands low marginal
potential (LM3) in Kirinyaga, Embu, Meru south, Meru central, Tharaka and Meru North
districts. It involved making farm visits whereby; farmers were interviewed using a semistructured
questionnaire on the fodder used in their farms. While still in the farm, an observation
was made on what was offered to animals on that particular day and from the previous day’s
remains. Samples of new forage species (edible shoots and leaves) were taken for chemical
analysis at the KARI-Embu where the Crude protein (CP) was analyzed using Kjeldahl method.
ADF and NDF were analyzed using ANKOM Technology 1998 Fiber Analyzer while the invitro
dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) was done at the University of Nairobi animal nutrition
laboratories using Tilley and Terry method 1963. The surveys lead to identification of 150

indigenous fodder species reported earlier (Kang’ara et al., 2007), that were subsequently used in
this study.
In the study, nutritive value results of the 150 indigenous species from the previous survey were
sorted and listed in descending order based on their CP percentage content and their IVDMD
percentage. The sorted lists were presented to the dairy goats’ farmers in focused group interview
held in Othaya, Mukurweini and Kiganjo in Nyeri district, Marima in Meru south, Kaguru in
Meru central, Mutuati in Meru North and Irangi in Embu Districts. The dairy goat farmers were
convened for us at different dates and venues by the DGAK. In each meeting, the concept of dry
matter, crude protein and digestibility of fodder were explained to farmers before the selection
session. Photographs of some indigenous fodder plants were also shown using computer LCD
projector. Farmers were asked to list the things they look for when selecting a fodder they would
prefer to grow in their farms. These criteria were listed in order of their importance in each
location (Table1). Using these criteria and the nutritive value lists presented to them, farmers in
each location were also asked to choose 10 best fodders in order of impotence. The farmers used
elimination Method to select the ten fodder species they preferred to plant in their farms whereby
those that did not meet the topmost criteria were dropped first. They were also asked why they
opted not to select some high potential fodder species from the nutritional value list we presented
to them.
Results and discussion:
Out of the 150 different indigenous fodder species fed to animals, about 50 had a crude protein
content ranging from13-34% and IVDMD of 55-90% (Table 2), which put then in a class of high
potential fodder like Lucerne and sweet potatoes. This shows that, within the country there is a
wide range of high potential genetic resources that could be tapped to increase fodder diversity.
Unfortunately, due to deforestation and over exploitation of these species, many useful species
have gradually disappeared in many areas. Continuous harvesting as has been happening with
Mutoro tree (Celtis gomphophylla), has made some species never to produce seed. This has made
it difficult to propagate Mutoro with seeds. When farmers were asked to choose the fodders they
would like to grow in their farm, they selected through elimination method, in the light of their
nutritive value and out of their experience, 26 out of 150 species presented in Table 2. Of the 26
species selected, 20 were among the top 50 high potential species. Three out of the 26 species
selected by farmers viz; Muga njuki, Triumfetta tomentosa and Cordia africana were from
medium potential while the potential of three others ( Mururi, Murembu and Mukomere) was
unknown. In all the species selected, fattening effect on animal, took prominent consideration in

selection of fodders and was used in selecting about 43% of the species (Figure 1). It is worth
noting that, to farmers fattening meant gaining weight, which could be attributed to good growth
as result of balanced diet. Milk production, palatability and availability of planting materials
were also very important for selection and were each separately used in selection of about 10% of
species. Roothaert and Franzel (2000) reported similar selection criteria of fodders by farmers in
Mbeere and Embu. The biomass production, compatibility with food crops and live fence quality
were important in some areas. The reason for not selecting some of the elite species from the list
was lack of previous knowledge on the species as many farmers saw some of the fodders for the
first time when they were projected on the wall with computer LCD. In addition, even those who
had seen them, doubted whether some plant like Brugmansia aborea (32.6 %CP), and Rumex
usambarensis (34.8 %CP) could be eaten by their animals because of their appearance. A few
farmers thought these two species could be poisonous to animals. These two high potential
species together with Aframomum sp. (Marawa 14.4 % CP and 62.1 % IVDMD) does well in
water logged areas or areas with high rainfall such as upper highland (UH1) tea growing zone.
The three also produce high biomass and are most of time, available as dry season feed. In
addition, Rumex usamabrensis does well in acidic soils and can be grown where Lucerne has
failed to thrive due to low pH. Farmers do not view Muki, Achyrospermum carvalhi with 19.6%
CP and digestibility of 71.1%, which grow as weed in wet highlands, as a fodder worth planting
although those who use it praise it for increasing milk production. A few farmers also depicted a
stereo type bias against indigenous forages in preference to exotic species.

Figure 1 The important Selection Creteria use frequency (%)
45
40
35
30
Percentage
25
20
15
10
5
0
Palatability
Milk
Fattening
Compatibility
Biomass
Tolerant
Planting
Medicinal
Conservesion
Fence
Criteria
Conclusion and way forward:
1. There is a wide range of indigenous fodder species in the country that would meet what
farmers look for in the fodder of their choice.
2. The information on indigenous fodder species especially the effect on animals’
performance is lacking in many of the farmers. This is probably why they are
underutilized.
3. Research should be done to generate agronomic and animal performance information on
indigenous fodder plants
Acknowledgement:
The authors wish to thank Director KARI for allowing this study to be conducted at KARI-Embu
and the Centre Director KARI-Embu for facilitating the studies. The authors also wish to
appreciate the cooperation received from KARI Embu laboratory staff ( Kinga, Arimi, Nyokabi
and Nyaguthie) as well as the university of Nairobi animal production laboratory for nutrient
analysis and the National Museum of Kenya Herbarium for species identification. Lastly we wish
to than the DGAK Chairman Nyeri, Meru and Embu for convening the dairy goat formers on for
us.

References:
Edwards D.C. 1940 Pasture and fodder grass of Kenya. East African Agricultural Journal Vol 5
Pg 248-254.
Ibrahim K.and Chabeda A.E.O. 1976. Grass Exploration and Evaluation Project. NARS Kitale
Annual Report Pg 44-45
Boonman J. Van Wajik A.J.P, Van Gastel,. Ndirangu C.N and S. Onchoke. 1976. Grass
Exploration and Evaluation Project. NARS Kitale Annual Report Pg 45-55
Garforth C. Morgan K.L., and B. Kaberia.,2006. Growing impact for improved livelihoods in
Kenya and beyond using FARM-Africa’s farmer-to-farmer extension model. Pg17-18 Printed by
Development communications Ltd.
Kang’ara J.N. N., Kariuki I.W., Kiruiro E.M. and I.N. Mwangi 2007. Nutritional potential of
indigenous fodder plants in the Mt. Kenya Region. Proc. Animal production society of Kenya,
annual symposium, KARI-Mtwapa February 2007.
Roothaert R.L and Fransel S. 2000. Farmers’ preference and use of indigenous fodder tree and
shrubs in Kenya. PhD Thesis University of Wageningen. On Potential of indigenous and
naturalized fodder trees and shrubs for intensive use in Central Kenya. pg 28-46.

Table 1 Things farmers would look for when selecting a fodder
Things to
look for
(criteria) and
respondents
Irangi
n=23
Kaguru
n=40
Mutuati
n=15
Marima
n=9
Mukurweini
n=30
Othaya
(Kairuthi)
n=30
Kiganjo
n=44
Fattening 2 1 1 1 1 3 1
Milk yield 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
Palatability 3 3 4 3 5
Biomass 3 6 3 7 5 4
Compatibility 4 4 5 4
Medicinal
value
Hedge
quality
Soil
conservation
Planting
materials
availability
4 7 6
5 1 6
7 7
Drought 5 5
tolerant
Aesthetic
value
Note n=number of farmers who participated in each location
6 4 7
6

Table2. High potential indigenous fodder plants sorted on their percentage digestibility
Botanical name Local name %CP % DMD %NDF %ADF
Brugmansia aborea Magurukia (Kihua) 32.6 94.9 21.4 17.6
Morus alba Mutare 23.8 89.9 23.9 17.2
Libelia gibberoa Manoria 25.9 86.9 26.8 20.4
Rumex usambarensis Mugagatio
34.8 86.0 25.8 21.0
(mugugua)
Zanthoxyphylum temipediu Muguchwa 18.7 80.7 - -
Ricinus communis Mbariki (leaves) 27.1 80.4 15.8 13.07
Maema triphylla var johani Mununga mai 23.3 79.6 28.6 19.8
Croton macrostachyus Mutundu (mutuntu) 31.9 78.5 40.8 24.8
Rwenja Nkuti 17.7 77.1 - -
Sida rhombifolia Murura 20.3 76.3 - -
Celtis gomophophylla Mutoro 28.9 75.5 25.4 18.4
Leucaena latssiliqua Mavuri 33.7 74.1 - 20.0
Muvikisi 22.1 73.8 26.48 20.29
Broussonetia papyrifera 24.8 73.2 - 21.0
Microglossa pyrifolia Mutei 19.0 72.9 33.7 24.4
Lettis africana Murundu 28.6 72.8 24.9 21.5
Dombeya torrinda Mukeu 17.2 72.3 30.6 21.9
Murema Muthua 16.7 71.7 - -
Masene 17.0 71.6 29.24 22.74
Achyrospermum carvalhi Muki 19.6 71.1 - -
Heteromorpha tifoliata Munoria Nthenge 26.3 70.0 35.0 24.6
Thunbergia guerkeana Kithunju 14.8 69.6 - -
Clausenia anisata Mukithia 19.2 69.2 32.0 25.4
Indigofra spp. Mugiti 27.5 68.5 - 26.2
Mukimia 17.1 68.0 33.2 26.75
Indigofera sp Muthara 16.2 67.6 28.3 27.1
Berchemia discolor Muthuana 18.5 67.6 34.3 27.14
29.5Grewia similis Mutheregendi 17.5 66.8 33.5 29.5
Sepium ellipticum Muthatha (Muhathi) 16.9 66.8 38.0 25.5
Lippia kitulensis Muthiriti 18.1 65.6 30.6 29.3
Ithare (Muthare) 17.6 65.5 33.7 29.5
Mubuibui 20.2 65.1 33.95 29.95
Muucwa 13.5 64.9 37.03 30.14
Ficus sycamorus Mukuyu (Mukuu) 25.2 64.7 30.95 30.36
Dombeya rotundifolia Mutoo 17.9 64.1 - 31.0
Muvuva ndundi 13.7 63.5 - 31.6
Croton megalocarpus Mukinduri 27.8 63.6 37.3 26.8
Cussonia spicata Mwenjera (Murogo) 22.5 63.2 41.8 32.0
Aspilia sp Muuti 16.9 62.7 39.8 30.7
Tithonia diversifolia Kirurite (kiruru) 25.0 62.4 33.6 22.3
Aframomum sp Marawa 14.4 62.1 60.5 33.2
Marungo 21.8 62.0 - -
Muvangua
22.7 61.8 - -
(Muangua)
Musiele 17.1 60.4 - 35.1
Murindi (Mwako) 17.3 60.0 - -
Ficus thinningii Mugumo 15.1 58.8 - 36.8
Marama 13.6 58.7 - 36.9
Mwako 13.2 58.6 - -
Lantana camara Mucimoro 20.7 58.6 26.1 24.9
Muvuru 22.8 57.4 - 38.4

Table 3: The 26 indigenous fodders species selected by the farmers
Botanical name Local name % CP % Digestibility
1. Celtis gomphophylla Mutoro 28.9 75.5
2. Muga njuki 10.8 72.4
3. Croton macrostachyus Mutundu (mutuntu 31.9 78.5
4. Commiphora zimmermannii Mururi (Mutunguuu 12.6
5. Ithare (itharathare) 17.6 65.5
6. Grewia similis Mutheregendi 17.5 66.8
7. Aspilia sp Muuti 16.9 62.7
8. Murembu
9. Mukomere
10. Cussonia spicata Mwenjera ( Murogo) 22.5 63.2
11. Glycine sp Muikwa 16.4 55.2
12. Brugmansia aborea Mugurukia 32.6 94.9
13. Ricinus communis Mubariki 27.1 80.4
14. Lettis africana Murundu 28.6 72.8
15. Lippia kitulensis Muthiriti 18.1 65.6
16. Cordia africana Muringa 13.2 53.7
17. Morus alba Mutare 23.8 89.9
18. Triumfetta tomentosa Mugicho (Mugio 15.0 51.9
19. Tithonia diversifolia Kirurite (kiruru 25.0 62.4
20. Lantana camara Mucimoro (karendi) 20.7 58.6
21. Sepium ellipticum Muthatha (Muhathi 16.9 66.8
22. Muangua (Muvangua 22.7 61.8
23. Nathi 24.1 66.3
24. Rumex usambarensis Mugagatio (Muguagua) 34.8 86.0
25. Muvicks 22.1 73.8
26. Croton megalocarpus Mukinduri 27.8 63.6