Advances in Crop Science and Technology
Open Access

Desho grass; Dry matter; Fresh biomass; Varieties

Introduction

Ethiopia has a large livestock population. However, the sector is poor in terms of production and productivity because of a number of constraints. Inadequate feed supply, in terms of quantity, quality, and seasonality, has been shown to be responsible for the lower reproductive and growth and reproductive performance of animals, particularly during the dry season. According to, because various animals require varied feeds based on their growth and production stages, the efficiency and productivity of the livestock industry are challenged by the supply of high-quality fodder [1]. According to the report, natural pasture (57.77%), crop residue (29.75%), hay (6.66%), agricultural by-products (1.54%), and other feed resources (3.89%) were identified as major livestock feed resources in Ethiopia, whereas the share of improved forage crops was only 0.38%. However, natural pastures and crop residues have poor feed qualities that are required by animals. As a result, the nutrient requirements needed for growth and reproduction are not met by existing feed resources. Thus far, improved forage has contributed to less than one percent of the nation’s overall feed supply. Nevertheless, to boost livestock production and productivity in the country, integration of improved forage production into farming systems is compulsory. To alleviate nutritional constraints, the use of locally available forage varieties that are adaptable to local agro-ecological conditions and utilized as livestock feed resources is highly recommended, as they are familiar to smallholder farmers with low agricultural inputs. Among such types of forage species, Desho grass (Pennisetum glaucifolium Trin.) has multi-layered advantages. The grass is indigenous to tropical Asia and tropical and subtropical Africa [2].

Desho (Pennisetum glaucifolium Trin.) grass is an indigenous cultivated multipurpose perennial forage crop that originated in the southern region of Ethiopia, is grown for animal feed and soil conservation practices in Ethiopia, and is regarded as the king of grass [3]. The grass has the potential to meet the challenges of feed scarcity because it provides more forage per unit area, ensures regular forage supply owing to its multi-cut nature, and can yield green herbage ranging between 30-109 tons per hectare. Desho grass is suitable for intensive management and performs well at altitudes ranging from 1500 to 2800 m above sea level the ability of Desho grass to tolerate drought makes it adaptable to tropical environments. The merits of the grass to provide multi-cut forages suggest that it is a potential feed source in the dry season when feed availability in the tropics is critical. The combined benefits of the grass suggest the use of grass as a potential feed source, sold as fodder for income generation, and a means of soil conservation in the mixed crop-livestock production systems of Ethiopia [4].

In the past few years, different Desho grass collections have been tested at different agricultural research centers (Debrezeit, Kulumsa, Wondogenet, and Holeta) of the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research for adaptation and fodder production. Among the tested collections, Areka/DZF-590, Kindu Kosha/DZF-491, and Kulumsa/DZF-591 were found to be adaptable from medium to highland aro-ecologies and were registered as varieties [5]. Even if these varieties were released by research centers for forage use and were found to be adaptable under on-station research conditions, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, they have not been demonstrated under on-farm conditions to verify the possibility of their adoption by smallholder farmers in the mixed crop-livestock production systems of Ethiopia. Therefore, the current study was conducted to evaluate the recently released Desho grass varieties at farmer fields and to demonstrate the merit of the grass to smallholder farmers in the study area [6].

Materials and Methods

Study area

The study was conducted in one district of the Sidama regional state (Wondogenet) and three districts of the West Arsi zone of Oromia (Negele Arsi, Shashemene, and Wondo) in south-eastern Ethiopia.

Negele Arsi District is situated 250 km south of Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. Geographically speaking, it is situated between 7°17′N and 7°66′N latitudes and between 38°43′E and 38°81′E longitudes. The yearly rainfall varies from 500 to 1200 mm, while the temperature ranges from 10 to 25 °C. The district has four different seasons: the main rainy season (June to August), short rainy season (March to May), dry season (December to February), and autumn season (September to November). The main livelihood of the community is mixed agriculture, with maize, barley, teff, and wheat as the main crops, and cattle, sheep, and goats as the dominant livestock [7].

Shashemene district is topographically located in the West Arsi zone of the central Ethiopian Rift Valley at a distance of 253 km from Addis Ababa, the capital city of the country, to the south, at latitudes of 70 04’50” to 70 22’45” N and longitudes of 380 23'00" to 380 48'00" E. The district is situated between 1683 and 2742 m above sea level. The annual rainfall varies from 500 to 1200 mm, and the temperature ranges from 10 to 25°C. Four different seasons occur in the area: the major rainy season (June–August), short rainy season (March–May), dry season (December–February), and autumn season (September–November). The district has considerable agricultural potential, as evidenced by the variety of crops and cattle it produces for food and money [8].

Wondo district is situated 260 km from Addis Ababa on the southeast escarpment of the Ethiopian Great Rift Valley at latitudes of 7°06-07′N and longitudes of 38°37′-42′E. The altitude ranges from 1,700 to 2,300 meters above sea level. Agro-ecologically, 90% of the district is in the midland zone, whereas 10% is in the highland zone, according to the Wondo District Agricultural Office [9]. The district has a bimodal annual rainfall pattern of 1210 mm annually. The rainy season ranges from March to September, and the comparatively dry period from December to February. The average annual temperature is 20°C. Fertile soil, water, forests, and wildlife are some of the natural resources bestowed on the district. The valley plain of Wondo has fertile and loamy sand-textured soils that contain the most important nutrients and cover the area to the south.

Wondogenet district is located approximately 270 km South of Addis Ababa (the capital city of the country); 34 km East of Hawassa city, the capital of Sidama Regional State; and 14 km southeast of Shashemene, the capital of the West Arsi zone of the Oromia regional state. The geographical coordinates of the district are 7019’ N latitude and 380 38’E longitude, with a wide altitudinal range of 1600–1950 m above the sea level. The mean annual minimum and maximum rainfall were 709 and 2062 mm, respectively [10]. The district has mean maximum and minimum temperature of 26oc and 12°C, respectively. Wondogenet has a bimodal rainfall distribution, with short rains occurring from March to May and long rains occurring from July to October. Livestock rearing, both rainfed and irrigation-based crop production, and small-scale trade accounted for 13%, 85%, and 2%, respectively.

Experimental site and experimental farmer selection

A total of twelve peasant associations (PA), the smallest administrative structure in the country, (three PAs) from each district, were selected based on livestock potential with the help of development agents and livestock experts. Fifteen farmers willing to accept and disseminate technology were purposefully selected from each PA and grouped into farmer research groups (FRGs) [11]. In each FRG, three hosting (trial) farmers were selected, with the rest being participant farmers in each PAs. Hosting farmers were selected based on their ownership of suitable and sufficient land to accommodate trials, proximity to roads to facilitate the chance of being visited by many stakeholders, ability to manage planted crops, and willingness to share their knowledge and experience with others. One potential farmer training center in each district was used as a demonstration site and as a source of planting material for the future.

Experimental treatments and treatment management

A vegetative root split of the chosen study materials (Areka, Kindu kosha and Kulumsa) Desho grass varieties were planted at a distance of 0.5m and 0.25m between rows and plants, respectively. At PA, three trial farmers established one of the varieties in a 10 × 10 m plot area. Each trial farmer was considered as a replication. Nitrogen-phosphorus-sulfur blended fertilizer in the form of NPS was uniformly applied to all plots at a rate of 121 kgha-1 at planting. After each harvest, all plots were top-dressed uniformly with 50 kg N ha-1, of which one-third was applied at the first shower of rain and the remaining two-thirds were applied during the active growth stage of the plant. During the experimental period, the plots were maintained under uniform management to ensure that the root system remained intact during the long dry spells. All other crop management practices were used uniformly for all plots, as recommended [12].

Technology promotion approach

Farmers can participate in many ways in on-farm research activities to direct extension for the further promotion of varieties and agricultural technologies. Demonstrating this at trial sites as a learning point and extending the results to many farmers is the most popular approach to the agricultural extension system in Ethiopia. This activity also facilitated the farmer extension research approach by organizing farmers on plots as host (trial) farmers, and others will learn from them. For proper technology transfer, an effective extension approach and method is mandatory to enhance farmers’ knowledge and skills, which can sustain and promote the production of improved varieties in agricultural farming [13].

Data collection and Analysis method

The trial plots were regularly observed during the experimental periods (2018/19-2020/21), and data on agronomic growth, such as survival rate, plant height at harvest, tiller number, leaf-to-stem ratio, and herbage yield, were recorded using observation, counting, and measuring methods during the second year while the first year was considered as establishment year. The plant survival rate of each variety was recorded and calculated as the ratio of the number of surviving plants per plot to the total number of plants planted per plot and then multiplied by 100. The number of tillers per plant was counted from five randomly selected culms in each plot. Plant height at forage harvest was measured from five culms randomly selected in each plot using a steel tape from the ground level to the highest leaf. Fresh biomass was taken from a 1m*1m quadrant and then converted to a hectar basis and 300-gram fresh sub-sample was taken and dried at 1050c for 24 h to determine the dry matter yield. Pear¬son’s correlation, t-tests, and descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Tables and graphs were used to present the data [14].

Result and Discussion

Agronomic performances of the tested Desho grass varieties

Number of plants survived

Grass establishment performance is an important consideration during forage crop cultivation because of its substantial effect on forage productivity. The average survival rates of the tested Desho grass varieties across the experimental sites are shown in Figure 1 [15]. The results of the current study indicate that there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) among the tested Desho grass varieties at the study sites. The absence of variance showed that the varieties could adapt to a wide range of agro-ecologies, and that the environment and all experimental sites were favorable for it during the study period. Although there was no statistical difference between the tested Desho grass varieties, a large survival rate ranges from 81-91% was recorded across the study sites. The highest average survival rate of (91% and 90%) was recorded for Areka variety at Wondo and Wondogenet districts, respectively while the lowest (81%) was from Kindu kosha variety at Shashemene district followed by (82%) from Kindu kosha and Kulumsa at Negele Arsi and Shashemene districts, respectively [16]. The current result was slightly different from the findings of which was (90.06% for Kindu kosha), (88.06% for Kulumsa) and (86.06 for Areka) varieties in the highland area of the North Shewa zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. This difference might be due to agro-ecological differences, soil fertility, and agronomic management practices [17] (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Average survival rate of the tested Desho grass varieties across the trial sites.

Number of tillers per plant

Tillering performance is an important morphological characteristic that should be considered when selecting an appropriate forage crop species to improve production and productivity. The present study showed no significant difference (p>0.05) between the tested Desho grass varieties and districts in terms of the number of tillers per plant. This finding is similar to that who reported no significant difference (p>0.05) in the number of tillers per plant between Desho grass varieties tested in midland agroecology in the West Arsi zone, Ethiopia [18]. The absence of statistical differences between the tested grass varieties and districts might be because of the adaptability of the grasses to a wide range of agro-ecologies and environments, and the experimental sites were favorable for the tested varieties. The combined mean result indicated that the maximum number of tillers per plant (95.42) was recorded for the Areka variety, followed by Kulumsa (85.95), while Kindu kosha exhibited the lowest (76.43). The current study disagrees with the findings of, who reported that, 74.80 and 83.56 number of tillers per plant were recorded for Areka and Kindu Kosha varieties, respectively, in the highland areas of the North Shewa zone of Oromia, Ethiopia [19]. However, the value for the Kulumsa Variety was consistent with the findings of the same author (82.37). The similarities in the findings indicate the ability of Desho grass to adapt to different environments and soil types. This might be due to the indigenous ecotype of Desho grass in Ethiopia. Other scholars, and reported a higher value (115.9,125.6, 131.8) and (117.17,102.17, 102.67) number of tillers per plant for Areka, Kindu kosha and Kulumsa Desho grass varieties at the midland and highland of east Hararghe and midland agro-ecology of West Arsi, Ethiopia, respectively. In contrast, lower values were reported by, which were 69.83, 51.83 and 49.17 for Areka, Kulumsa, and Kindu kosha varieties, respectively, under irrigation in the South Omo Zone, Southwestern Ethiopia. This difference might be due to altitude, soil type, agro-ecology, maturity (harvesting stage), weather conditions, study period, and other management practices [20] (Table 1).

Table 1: Average number of tillers per plant of the tested Desho grass varieties.

Plant height at forage harvest

The least mean square of the current analysis indicated that there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) in plant height at harvest among the tested desho grass varieties. This result agrees with a previous report by and that there were no significant differences (p>0.05) in plant height between Desho grass varieties tested at midland and highland of east Hararghe, and at midland agro-ecology of the West Arsi zone of Ethiopia, respectively. However, numerically different combined mean values (105.39, 100.70, and 95.68) were recorded for Areka, Kulumsa, and Kindu Kosha Desho grass varieties in decreasing order, respectively [21]. The current combined mean value was in agreement with the previous report of that was 109.67, 103.67 and 105.50 for Areka, Kindu kosha and Kulumsa varieties at the midland agro-ecology of West Arsi zone of Ethiopia, respectively. reported 82.70, 85.73 and 80. 35 plant heights at harvest mean values which were lower than the current mean for Areka, Kulumsa and Kindu kosha Desho grass varieties at highland areas of North Shewa zone of Oromia, Ethiopia, that was lower than the current finding. However, and reported the higher value (123.83, 124.33,115.00) and (133.2, 131,126.2) for Kulumsa, Kindo kosha and Areka varieties at under irrigation in South Omo Zone, Southwestern and midland and highland of east Hararghe, Ethiopia, respectively. The differences in plant height at forage harvest could be attributed to the agro-ecology, soil conditions, climatic patterns, and management practices applied during the experiment (Table 2).

Table 2: Average plant height at forage harvest (cm) of the tested Desho grass varieties.

Yield performance of the tested desho grass varieties

Fresh biomass yield

The result of fresh biomass yield of the tested Desho grass varieties are presented in Table 3. As indicated in the table, combined mean of the parameter was significantly different (p<0.05) among the tested grass varieties. Areka and Kulumsa varieties produced higher fresh biomass yields in both the Shashemene and Wondogenet districts than did the Kindu kosha variety. The combined mean value (57.33) was recorded for Areka, followed by 52.33 for Kulumsa while the lowest (49.46) was from Kindu kosha varieties. Our current result was higher than the previous reports of that was 45.0, 39.6 and 37.9 for Areka, Kindu kosha and Kulumsa varieties, respectively at highland and midland areas of Guji Zone, Southern Oromia, Ethiopia. Another authors reported similar mean value (49.78 tons ha-1) for Kindu kosha and lower values (47.59 tons ha-1) for Areka compared to the current finding at highland districts of Guji Zone, Southern Oromia, Ethiopia. The higher fresh biomass yield for the Areka and Kulumsa varieties in this study might be due to the higher genetic potential of these varieties to adapt to the tested environment than Kindu kosha. The differences with the previous scholars’ findings might be due to differences in agro-ecology, soil conditions, applied management practices, and other related factors [22] (Table 3).

Table 3: Fresh biomass yield (ton ha-1) of the tested Desho grass varieties.

Dry matter yield

The combined analysis results for dry matter yields of the Desho grass varieties are presented in Table 4. The tested Desho grass varieties showed a significant difference (p<0.05) in dry matter yield only in the Shashemene district and combined analysis [23]. The combined mean least square of the dry matter yield showed a mean value ranging from 11.66 -13.49-ton ha-1. The highest dry matter yield (13.49 tons ha-1) was obtained from Areka followed by 12.56 tons ha-1 from Kulumsa while the lowest 11.66 tons ha-1 was recorded for Kindu kosha varieties [24]. The combined mean (12.57 tons ha-1) dry matter yield in the current study was within the range of and lower than those of that was 11.89 tons ha-1, 25.96 tons ha-1 and 17.4 tons ha-1 at highland area of North Shewa, highland and midland areas of Guji Zone, and midland agro-ecology of West Arsi zone, Ethiopia, respectively. Our current study means 13.49 tons ha-1 for Areka, 12.56 tons ha-1 for Kulumsa and 11.66 tons ha-1for for Kindu kosha varieties were in dis agreement with the finding of that was 25.06, 24.93-, and 24.51-tons ha-1 for Kindu kosha, Areka and Kulumsa varieties, respectively in descending order at midland and highland of east Hararghe, Ethiopia. Other reports from also indicates the highest value than the current that was 35.09, 25.42, and 22.86 tons ha-1 for Areka, Kulumsa and Kindu kosha varieties, respectively at under Irrigation in two Districts of South Omo Zone, Southwestern Ethiopia. The lower value from our study compared to previously reported studies by different scholars for the same Desho varieties might be due to differences in soil parameters, harvesting stage, irrigation effect, management, and agro-ecological differences [25,26] (Table 4).

Table 4: Dry matter yield (ton ha-1) of the tested Desho grass varieties.

Conclusion

The results of on farm evaluation and pre-demonstration showed that the Areka and Kulumsa varieties gave good fresh biomass and dry matter yields throughout the year. Therefore, they are important for cut and carry livestock production where grazing land is a priority problem and for feeding livestock at home (for fattening and/or milk production). Areka and Kulumsa varieties were good for all recorded parameters, and they could solve current feed shortages in the study areas and areas with similar agro-ecologies. Trial (hosting) and visiting farmers were selected and recommended the Areka and Kulumsa varieties for forage production. Therefore, it is better to pre-scale these Desho grasses at the study sites and in areas with similar agro-ecologies. Further study also needed to understand the nutritional advantage of the grass varieties and its effect on livestock productivity (milk and meat production).

Acknowledgement

The authors thank the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) for financing this research. The authors also thank Woreda experts and Development agents for their assistance during the experimental period. The authors are also very grateful to the farmers participate on this work.

1. Manaye T, Tolera A, Zewdu T (2009) Feed intake, digestibility and body weight gain of sheep fed Napier grass mixed with different levels of Sesbania sesban. Livestock Science 122: 24-29.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Rehman A, Jingdong L, Chandio AA, Hussain I (2017) Livestock production and population census in Pakistan: Determining their relationship with agricultural GDP using econometric analysis. Information Processing in Agriculture 4: 168-177.

Google Scholar

3. Anele UY, Arigbede OM, Olanite JA, Adekunle IO, Jolaosho AO, et al. (2008) Early growth and seasonal chemical composition of three indigenous multipurpose tree species (MPTS) in Abeokuta, Nigeria. Agroforestry systems 73: 89-98.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Welle S, Chantawarangul K, Nontananandh S, Jantawat S (2006) Effectiveness of grass strips as barrier against runoff and soil loss in Jijiga area, northern part of Somali region, Ethiopia. Agriculture and Natural Resources 40: 549-558.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Leta G, Duncan AJ, Abdena A (2013) Desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum) for livestock feed, grazing land and soil and water management on small-scale farms. NBDC Brief. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya.

Google Scholar

6. Belay A, Recha JW, Woldeamanuel T, Morton JF (2017) Smallholder farmers’ adaptation to climate change and determinants of their adaptation decisions in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security 6:1-13.

Google Scholar

7. Mekonnen Z (2022) Intra-household gender disparity: effects on climate change adaptation in Arsi Negele district, Ethiopia. Heliyon 8: 1-8.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Alemu Y, Tolossa D (2022) Consultation and Displacement in Large-Scale Agriculture Investment: Evidence from Oromia Region’s Shashamane Rural District. Land 11: 1384.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Hunduma T, Assefa K, Firomsa T (2016) Soil Fertility Assessment and Mapping at Shashamane District, West Arsi Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia. International Journal of Research and Innovations in Earth Science, 3: 82-87.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Erbo K, Rabo A (2023) Smallholder Farmers’ Adaptation to Climate Change and Determinants of their Adaptation Decisions in Shashemene District, South Eastern Rift Valley of Ethiopia. J Earth Sci Clim Change 14: 1-7.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

11. Kebede M, Yirdaw E, Luukkanen O, Lemenih M (2013) Plant community analysis and effect of environmental factors on the diversity of woody species in the moist Afromontane Forest of Wondo Genet, South Central Ethiopia. Biodiversity Research and Conservation 29: 63-80.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

12. Fantahun S (2017) Determinants of Agricultural Information Need and Access of Smallholder Farmers. The Case of Wondo Intaye District West Arsi Zone, Ethiopia. Proceedings of the 9th Multi-Disciplinary Seminar Research and Knowledge Management Office, St. Mary’s University. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

13. Ango TG (2005) Prospects of sustainable natural resource management and livelihood development in Wondogenet area, southern Ethiopia (Master’s Thesis, Addis Ababa University).

Google Scholar

14. Duro ES, Tadesse Y (2022) Assessment of cattle breeding practice of the community in Wondo genet district, Sidama regional state Southern Ethiopia. Int J Adv Res Biol Sci 9: 39-50.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

15. Somano W, Tefera T (2015) Financial Analysis of Small-Scale Irrigation Based Vegetable Production in Wondo Genet District of Sidama Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Applied Science and Technology 6: 35-52.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

16. Dembi K, Basha K, Girma A (2020) Cluster Based Pre-Scaling Up of Improved Irish Potato Variety at Highland Districts of Guji Zone, Southern Oromia, Ethiopia. International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture 4: 323-329.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

17. Amare G, Kebede B, Korji D, Bobo T (2023) Pre-scaling up of Tef Variety in Midland Districts of Guji Zone, Southern Oromia, Ethiopia. American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 11: 18-22.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

18. Bantihun A, Asmare B, Mekuriaw Y (2022) Comparative evaluation of selected grass species for agronomic performance, forage yield, and chemical composition in the highlands of Ethiopia. Advances in Agriculture.

Google Scholar

19. Mereba FL (2023) Desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum) varieties adaptation trial in highland areas of the North Shewa Zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia. Agri Rxiv 20231620990.

Google Scholar

20. Asmare B, Mekuriaw Y, Tekliye L (2017) Desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin.) evaluation based on plant characteristics, yield and chemical composition under irrigation in Northwestern Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development 112: 241-251.

Google Scholar

21. Husein N, Wana D (2022) Evaluation of Desho (Pennisetum pedicellatum) grasses for A adaptability and Y ield Performance in Different Agro - Ecologies of East Showa and West Arsi Zone of Oromia, Ethiopia. RRJEAES 10: 1-9.

Google Scholar

22. Smith G (2010) Ethiopia: Local solutions to a global problem. Retrieved from View.

Google Scholar

23. Fikadu T, Tesfaye W, Bekuma W, Furgasa M (2022) On farm Evaluation of Desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum) for Forage and Nutritional quality at Midland and Highland Agro-Ecologies of Eastern Hararghe, Ethiopia. Forage Research Journal 47: 840-486.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

24. Hidosa D, Getaneh D (2021) Evaluation of desho (Pennisetum pedicellatum) grass varieties for dry matter yield and chemical composition under irrigation in two districts of South Omo zone, Southwestern Ethiopia. East African Journal of Sciences 15: 71-78.

Google Scholar

25. Jabessa T, Bekele K, Amare Z (2021) Evaluation of desho grass for their agronomic performances and nutritive values in highland and midland areas of Guji zone, Southern Oromia. Sci Res 9:35-40.

Google Scholar

26. Kebede B, Bobo T, Korji D, Amare G (2023) Pre-Extension Demonstration of Improved Desho Grasses at Highland Districts of Guji Zone, Southern Oromia, Ethiopia. American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 11: 23-28.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref