Farmers' perceptions on importance and constraints facing Napier grass production in Central Kenya

Mwendia S W, Wanyoike M*, Wahome R G* and Mwangi D M

Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Muguga South, Box 30148 Nairobi 00100
^*University of Nairobi, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Services, Department of Animal Production Box 29053, Kabete, Kenya
mwendia2007@yahoo.com

Abstract

Farmers Focus Group Discussions (FFGDs) were done with groups of farmers in the intensive and semi-intensive farming systems in central Kenya. This was in the administrative districts of Nyeri (semi-intensive) and Kiambu and Thika (both intensive). The exercise was to provide qualitative information on importance of napier grass in the systems and the status of the napier grass head smut disease. It was also to give some information on the delivery pathways for the head smut resistant cultivar "Kakamega I".

The discussions revealed that napier grass was an important component of the basal diet for cattle in the systems but was being threatened by the disease. Some farmers had acquired "Kakamega I" to counter the disease while others had not, although they were aware of its existence. Farmers who had planted "Kakamega I" had received it either through their local dairy cooperative or school Parents Teachers Association (PTA) in the areas that the FFGDs were held. To some extent some of these farmers had shared the smut resistant planting material with other farmers especially when they are friends or relatives.

Key words: Farmers focus group discussions, head smut, Kakamega I, Napier grass

Introduction

Napier grass is reported as a tall, perennial grass indigenous to tropical Africa that performs well from sea level to an altitude of 2000m. It is the dominant grass in zero-grazing systems, even in areas above 2250 m, which may be too cold for optimal performance of this grass (Boonman 1993). Napier grass can out-yield many other grasses such as guinea grass (Panicummaximum) and Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) (Relwani et al 1982). It has the advantage of withstanding repeated cutting, and four to six cuts in a year can produce 50-150 tonnes fresh herbage per ha (Purseglove 1972). During the dry season, napier grass is the main feed for dairy cows, supplemented by crop residues such as maize stover, bean haulms, banana leaves and pseudo-stems and indigenous fodder trees (ICRAF 1997). A survey by Lekasi (2000) showed that farmers commit 21-28% of their land to napier grass production. Nyaata, et al (2000) reported that, fodder production in central Kenya is largely from napier grass grown on small plots and contour strips where it acts both as a fodder source and a biological barrier to soil erosion. Napier grass has many uses in different parts of the world which include fire breaks, mulch, green manure, wind break, grazing, soil erosion control and constituent of fish ponds (Farrell et al 2002). McLeod et al (2001) ranked napier grass fodder highest (40%) among other fodder types available to cattle in Kiambu. One of the current constraints to napier grass production in central Kenya is napier grass head smut disease caused by Ustilago kameruniensis that reduces the napier grass yields (Farrell 1998). According to Farrell (1998), almost all farmers obtain napier grass planting material from within the farm or from neighbours and usually do not know the variety they cultivate. The lack of awareness is a reflection of ubiquity and non-commercialization of the grass. Although its value is recognized, some farmers do not undertake all necessary husbandry practices to improve yields. It is with the arrival of the smut disease that farmers began looking for advice on napier grass cultivation and management though some farmers were not aware that the disease was present in their napier grass plots (Farrell 1998).

The specific objectives of this study were to document the role and importance of napier grass in intensive and semi- intensive cattle production systems as well as napier grass production constraints and farmers coping strategies.

Materials and methods

Study sites and farmer description

Six farmers' focus group discussions (FFGDs) were done in areas of central Kenya where napier grass is important as a fodder crop and is under threat from napier grass head smut. The sites selected represented intensive farming system where dairy cattle are kept under zero-grazing (Kiambu and Thika districts) and semi-intensive (Nyeri district) where there is some grazing thus semi-intensive system. Two types/groups of farmers were involved; contact and non-contact. In this undertaking, "contact" farmers were those provided with some planting material of napier grass smut resistant variety from Agricultural Research Centre- Muguga South (ARC-Muguga south) either directly or indirectly through their local dairy cooperative or school PTA. "Non-contact" constituted a group of farmers selected from within about 5 km radius of the contact farmers to allow assessment of diffusion of the resistant cultivar from contact to non- contact farmers. The six FFGDs in the intensive and semi-intensive systems were held in the following sub-locations; Endarasha and Watuka (Nyeri), Kiambaa and Njoro (Kiambu) and Gakoe and Njahi (Thika). Endarasha and Watuka are in Lower Highland 5 (LH₅) zone, where dairy, wheat and some horticulture farming are done. Kiambaa and Njoro are in Upper Medium 2 (UM₂) where dairy and coffee are the major farming activities. Gakoe and Njahi are in Lower highland 1 (LH₁) where tea and dairy are the main agricultural activities (ILRI 1994)

Participant identification and registration

The groups meetings were organized through extension officers in the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development or the management of dairy co-operatives. The meetings were held either in a farmer's compound, tea buying centre, dairy co-operative compound or in classrooms. The group sizes depended on farmers' willingness to participate and were as follows: Gakoe (18), Njahi (30), Endarasha (29), Watuka (36), Kiambaa (33) and Njoro (18). This was captured as farmers registered their names on arrival for the discussions.

Focused group discussions and scoring

The discussions were interactive and participatory guided through a prepared checklist with non-leading open-ended questions to ensure completeness. The items on the checklist were related to napier grass management and rainfall seasonal calendars (Wilde 1998), napier grass head smut disease and coping strategies, sources of napier grass planting materials and other fodder used in the areas. Where applicable according to the check list, farmers were asked to score for importance of some parameters they had generated like uses of napier grass, feeds offered to cattle and problems of napier grass on a scale of 0 to 10 where the higher the score the more the weight/importance against that parameter. The feeds offered to dairy cattle were listed and scored on the basis of value of the feed to the animal, availability, acceptability to cattle, frequency of use, cost, perceived nutritional value and actual usage. Farmers were allowed to discuss scores as a group and gave a unanimous score for each item. All the responses from the farmers were recorded on a flip chart to stimulate the farmers' contribution. Finally, general comments, opinions or recommendations relating to napier grass were recorded.

Data analysis

All quantitative data was input in excel spread sheet and tabulation and distribution calculated.

Results and discussions

Feedstuffs offered to dairy cattle and their importance

Different feedstuffs were offered to the dairy cattle across the systems and farmer groups and their mean scores are as shown in table1. In both systems napier grass scored higher than any other fodder giving the impression that it is the most important feedstuff in both systems.

Napier grass is known to out yield other fodder grasses (Relwani et al 1982), hence its use increased with intensification. In a study (Boonman 1997), napier grass was given the highest score of 9 for both yield and dry-season performance on a rating of 1 -10 among 15 grasses.

Reported on-farm napier grass dry matter yields from different places in the country averaged about16 t ha^-1 per year with little or no fertilizer (Wouters 1987). This was within reported yields range between 10 and 40 t ha^-1 (Schreuder et al 1993) and depended on climate, soil fertility and management. This was higher than other common grasses such as Rhodes grass that yielded in the range of 6.6 - 18.9 t/ha and Guetamala grass 2.4 - 10.3 t/ha in different districts in Kenya (Boonman 1997). Various authors have indicated the importance of napier grass as a fodder (McLeod et al 2001; Bayer 1990; Stotz 1983, Staal, et al 1998; Mwangi 1994). In the intensive system the only other fodder grass was the giant setaria used by non-contact group farmers. Other fodder grasses were annuals and only important in the semi-intensive system. Being annuals they would require to be planted every year. Dannhauser (undated) indicated that kow kandy and sorghums have primary use for grazing and this would explain why they were mentioned in the semi-intensive system where relatively more land was available and grazing possible. Grazing was only practiced in the semi-intensive system while grass gathering from road sides and other common land areas and purchased hay were important only in the intensive system.

Energy concentrates and mineral supplements were used in the intensive system where producers would want to maximize on the yields and the two were not even mentioned in the semi-intensive system. Under the category of others, vegetables like cabbages and carrots were utilized in the semi-intensive system but were fed to cattle only to salvage what failed to get market.

Crop residues such as maize stover, wheat straw, banana pseudostems and leaves were important in both systems. Other feedstuffs including grevillea leaves, stinging nettle, lantana, avocado leaves, indigenous trees and weeds contribute to varying degrees across the two systems. These were especially important during periods of feed scarcity such as dry months (Waithaka et al 2002). From the discussions it was clear that there was a larger variety of feedstuffs offered to cattle under the semi-intensive system implying that the producers are more opportunistic and feed whatever becomes available while under intensive system feeding was more organized and systematic.

In the intensively managed farms, meeting the nutritional requirements of high yielding dairy cows is a constant challenge to farmers. Even during the rainy season, the amount of feed available is often inadequate (Romney et al 1998) thus some feeds are obtained off-farm (Lekasi 2000).

Other uses of napier grass

In addition to its use as feed for cattle, napier grass had other uses. Table 2 shows these uses in the intensive and semi-intensive systems by contact and non contact farmers.

The two major uses in order of importance were reducing soil erosion and sale under the two systems of dairy production. Growing napier grass for sale was more important in the semi-intensive system as the mean score of 4 indicates against 2.5 for the intensive. It is an emerging economic activity. A complex market in napier grass, maize stover and road side grass as animal feed has developed in much of central Kenya. Households without cattle or those with adequate grazing are known to grow napier grass as a cash crop (Omore 2003). In both systems the crop was of equal importance in its use for control of soil erosion as was also reported by Nyaata et al (2000) when planted along the soil erosion control terraces and contour lines. Napier grass was used for mulching but this was more important under the semi-intensive system with a mean score of 1.5 compared to 0.25 for intensive. Napier grass was introduced in Kenya as a mulch crop for coffee during the colonial times (Boonman 1993). As innovators, farmers soon realized its potential as animal feed and currently napier grass is intimately associated with the smallholder dairy production as the most important feedstuff. Napier grass was used for crop-rotation in the intensive system where by it was rotated with beans and tomatoes which did well on land previously under napier grass. As cited by Boonman (1997), Stephens (1967) found that yields of beans and maize relative to a hundred, for plots that previously 4 seasons were under napier grass yielded more maize and beans than those continuously under maize and beans. Some farmers indicated the canes were used in making chicken houses and others that napier grass refusals by the cow was useful as material for making manure.

Lekasi (2000) had found that the feed refusals were used in the cow stalls as bedding with the aim of getting manure later. The different alternative uses for napier grass show the versatility of the crop. Napier grass has multiple uses in different parts of the world which include fire breaks, mulch, green manure, wind break, grazing, soil erosion control and as constituent of fish ponds (Farrell et al 2002).

Napier grass production constraints and coping mechanisms

Farmers indicated various constraints to napiergrass production as shown in table 3 and their importance as indicated by the score awarded to each.

In both systems napier grass head smut emerged as the most serious concern. Farrell (1998) who in a survey of 109 napier grass plots in Kiambu district found that 25% were infected with the disease. Most napiergrass types in Kenya are susceptible to Ustilago Kameruniensis and the one clone identified as resistant was not in wide enough usage to reduce the impact of the napier grass smut disease(Farrell 1998). Mole attack was viewed as the second most serious problem in the intensive system while in semi-intensive low yielding napier grass varieties was seen as the second most serious problem. To the farmers in the intensive system, irritation from silica hairs and sharp leaf edges was important but this was not even mentioned under the semi-intensive system. This probably reflects the fact that farmers in the intensive system were of necessity involved in the feeding of their animals and large quantities of napier grass had to be harvested daily. In contrast, under the semi intensive system poor persistency and low yields of available varieties were important concerns that did not feature under the intensive system. Farmers with head smut disease uprooted the diseased stools and some removed the diseased tillers only and gave the diseased material to the cattle. Although they knew the disease would spread through manure there was the pressure of inadequate feed.

Others discarded the material by the roadside or left it in the farm while others used this as mulch in the tea plantations. The methods used did not appear effective because, even after uprooting diseased tillers, the disease reappeared in the subsequent harvesting. Farmers in the semi-intensive system did not give diseased napier grass to cattle perhaps because they did not experience the same magnitude of pressure for fodder as in the intensive system. In addition, they reported having noted that animals fed on it had persistent coughs. Applying manure in napier grass plots, as they did, had the potential to reduce the effect of the disease (Lusweti et al 1997) as the unaffected tillers flourished although they were not aware of this. A few of the farmers had the Kakamega I napier grass accession resistant to the disease. Some did not even know about it while others did but did not have access to the planting material.

Those with KakamegaI had observed that it had faster growth and was not affected by the smut disease. It was the farmers' opinion that being less hairy it was easier to handle and better utilized by milking cows as evidenced by higher milk yields. However, they said that it had less biomass production compared to their own material, required more manure and had thin stems, tough canes after a short harvesting delay and leaves that were narrow compared to their original material.

Other strategy was increasing the area under napier grass to cope with the reduction in napier grass yields due to the smut disease. When rotting occurred, which, together with mole attack contributed to poor persistency, fresh material was replanted in the following rain season. The moles were either trapped or poisoned using commercial preparations. Some farmers used indigenous knowledge, which involved use of stinging nettle and tagetes minuta to rid their fields of moles, but moles remained a constraint to napier grass production.

Farmers did not indicate what they did about irritation caused by silica hairs. Perhaps wearing protective clothing would assist in this case Booman (1997) indicated that some napier grass varieties are more hairy and irritating to touch than others, for example bana and babala-napier grass are hairy while French Cameroon and clone 13 are not. Planting such hairless varieties is another strategy that could be adopted. In both systems the coping strategies for the two key constraints of napier grass smut and mole attack were similar.

Napier grass delivery pathways

Delivery pathways as used in the study refer to channels through which seed napier (canes/splits) reaches farmers. This was of interest because as the smut disease spreads, it would become critical that resistant varieties are availed to farmers if irreparable damage to smallholder dairying is to be avoided. Pathways will have implications on the way the material would be propagated and effectively distributed.

During the FFGDs the extent to which farmers exchange plant material and the pathways used in doing so were explored. Ideas were also solicited from the participants on the most effective pathway. Farmer-to-farmer pathway was reported whereby farmers obtained seed-napier from fellow farmers who could be neighbors, relatives or friends. Dairy cooperatives did not maintain seed-napier on their premises but facilitated collection of the seed from research centres and distributed them to active members.

Farmers training centres (FTCs) were suggested as a possible avenue if revitalized and encouraged to maintain seed-napier on their farms. This would provide an effective distribution network given that FTCs are distributed nationally. Although agricultural research centres were noted and suggested as a pathway, their primary role would be to supply seed-napier for bulking at institutions closer to the farmers like FTCs. However, they could also maintain adequate seed for farmers who are able and willing to collect the seed directly. Schools also contributed to the distribution of napier grass planting material. Notable was one primary school where through its Parents, Teachers Association (PTA) had established a bulking site in the compound and distributed the planting material through the pupils to their parents. The agricultural extension service could be pivotal in organizing, assisting and sensitizing farmers on where and when to access the seed. In fact, the current extension approach by the Ministry of Agriculture called focal area approach (FAA) was severally referred to by the farmers in the discussions. With this approach, stakeholders from different sectors including the farmers are involved in problem identification and search for solution from the beginning. Bulking of seed-napier could be done at sites identified by the common interest groups (CIGs) of farmers that are formed during the sensitization stage of this extension approach.

Other suggested avenues included agricultural forums like Agricultural Society of Kenya (ASK) shows. However, ASK shows are limited in their frequency. Churches could also initiate bulking sites for their members and have potential of reaching many farmers as they are spread countrywide.

Having multiple approaches would be advantageous as they are likely to additively have a better reach to the farmers. However, group approaches like schools and FTCs are more appropriate and cost effective as these would reach a bigger number of farmers in a short time.

Napier grass management

Napier grass planting is usually done during the rainy seasons on seedbeds prepared before the rains. The farmers rainfall perceptions are illustrated by rainfall mean scores farmer groups gave in the table 4.

The total scores showed that Kiambu, Thika and Nyeri districts have two main rain seasons, March to May and October to December as previously observed (Jaetzold and Schmidt 1983). Amount of rainfall has a bearing on the forages such as napier grass and the others shown in Table 1 because the yield depends on the soil moisture availability in addition to other factors. Soil moisture was highly associated with nutrient uptake and accumulation of biomass when other factors such as temperature, soil fertility and light intensity are not limiting forage growth (Van Soest 1982; Humphreys 1991). Napier grass yields in the tropics were closely associated to amounts of rainfall (Anindo and Potter 1994; Ndikumana 1996; Muia et al1999). Napier grass planting material was usually sourced from farmers' own napier plots mostly in form of splits. Very few farmers used canes to propagate napier grass because the fodder supply was not adequate to allow leaving some for cane formation. Using splits was reported to be more laborious (Boonman (1997). Sometimes when there was no planting material from own-farm, they got splits from their neighbors, which worked out well when the parties know each other and are friends. Traditionally, farmers offered napier grass planting material to fellow farmers free of charge. The farmers decided the amount of napier grass to have on their farms based on the number of cattle and land availability. Land was usually the limiting resource.

As a rule of thumb, weeding was done when necessary and usually after establishment and every cut (Boonman 1997) because of the openness of the sward. Weeds such as Couch grass (Digitaria scalarum), star grass (Cynodon dactylon), imperata (Imperata cylindria) and sedges (Cyperus spp) invade and their effect could be disastrous (Boonman 1997). Recycling cattle manure on napier grass should largely replenish phosphorus and potassium removed by cut and carry systems. However, all the manure is often not returned to the napier grass but is applied to other crops (Boonman 1997). For example, Reynolds et al (1996) indicated that only half of the manure is returned to napiergrass plots from stall feeding units by 75 percent of the farmers. This shows that most of the nutrients mined from napier grass plots are not returned to the soil, which over time lead to depletion of such to levels where fodder yields are compromised.

Napier grass was harvested through out the year depending on demand for fodder, at times even if it had not attained the recommended harvesting height as may happen during the dry season when napier grass growth is minimal. However, more napier grass was usually available during and for a limited period after rain seasons.

Women were usually the implementers and decision makers on planting, harvesting and weeding activities. However, in most situations, the man decided on the land to put under napier grass. Chavangi (1987) found that women are particularly important in Kenyan dairy production, contributing as much as 70-80% of the routine work, including all activities connected with fodder production and use.
 

Conclusions

• Napier grass in an important fodder in both intensive and semi-intensive systems but is more so in the intensive systems.

• importance of napier grass remained the same for both contact or non-contact farmers.

• Napier grass is planted by the smallholder dairy farmers primarily for feeding their cattle and the most serious problems they encounter in both systems are napier grass head smut and mole attack.

• The management of napier grass is similar in both systems.
   

Acknowledgement

Authors thank the directors of the collaborating institutions for enabling the work to be done. The assistance by the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries officers in organizing farmer groups is highly is appreciated. We thank farmers who spared their valuable time to attend the groups discussions without which this work would not have been possible. Thanks to the DFID through the Smallholder Dairy Project (SDP) for supporting the work financially.

References

Anindo D O and Potter H L 1994 Variation in productivity and nutritive value of napier grass at Muguga, Kenya. East Africa Agriculture and Forestry Journal, 59 (3) 117-185

Bayer W 1990 Napier grass- a promising fodder for smallholder livestock production in the tropics. Plant research development 31 103- 111

Boonman J G 1993 East Africa's Grasses and Fodders, Their Ecology and Husbandry. Published by Kluwer Academic Publisher P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 341pp

Boonman J G 1997 Farmers' success with tropical grasses. Crop-pasture rotations in mixed farming in East Africa. Netherlands development assistance (NEDA). Information department Ministry of Foreign Affairs. P.O. Box 20061, 2500 EB The Hague, Netherlands

Chavangi N A 1987 General role of women in the dairy industry in Kenya. Bulletin of the international dairy federation 221: 130 - 134.

Dannhauser C undated Animal Production on Pastures in Kenya. Hygrotech. pp. 4

Farrell G 1998 Towards the management of Ustilago kameruniensis H Sydow and Sydow, a smut pathogen of Napier grass in Kenya. PhD thesis University of Greenwich. 202pp

Farrell G, Simons S A and Hillocks R J 2002 Pests, diseases and weeds of Napier grass, Pennisetum purpureum: a review. Journal of pest management 2002, 48 (1) 39-48

Humphreys L R 1991 Tropical Pasture Utilization. (Cambridge University Press: Great Britain).

ICRAF (International Centre for Research in Agro Forestry) 1997 Bimodal highlands of eastern and central Africa. Annual report, Nairobi, Kenya

ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute) 1994 Geographical information systems.International Livestock Research Institute P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya.

Jaetzold R and Schmidt H 1983 Farm management handbook of Kenya volume II, typo-druck and Rossdorf, Germany.

Lekasi J K 2000 Manure management in the Kenya Highlands: Collection, storage and utilization to enhance fertilizer quantity and quality. PhD Thesis. Coventry University, UK.

Lusweti F N Farrell G Mwangi D M and Scar M J 1997 Proceedings of Napier head smut workshop held at National Agricultural Laboratories on 16^th October 1997. KARI/DFID

McLeod A, Njuguna J, Musembi F, Maina J and Miano D 2001 Farmers' strategies for maize growing, maize streak virus control and feeding of smallholder dairy cattle in Kiambu district, Kenya. Results of a rapid rural appraisal held in April and May 2001. First technical report of DFID project R7955/ZC0180. University of Reading, Reading, UK

Muia  M K, Tamminga S, Mbugua P N and Kariuki J N 1999 Optimal stage of maturity for feeding napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) to dairy cattle in Kenya. Tropical Grasslands. Volume 33, 182- 190

Mwangi D M 1994 Survey of feeds, feeding and livestock management in central Kenya. In proceedings of the 2^nd Kenya Agricultural Research Institute scientific conference. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute P.O Box 57811, Nairobi, Kenya.

Ndikumana J 1996 Multilocational evaluation of Napier and Pennisetum hybrids: highlights of research results from Addis Ababa. The Africa feed resource network newsletter (AFRNET), 6 (1), 2-8

NyaataO  Z, Dorward P T, Keatinge J D H and O'Neill M K 2000 Availability and use of dry season feed resources on smallholder dairy farms in central Kenya. Agro-forestry systems 50: 315-331. Kluweracademic publishers.

Omore A O 2003 Livestock production and feed resources in Kenya. Agrippa-peer reviewed FAO Electronic journal.  http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/ARTICLE/AGRIPPA/557_TOC_EN.HTM

Purseglove J W 1972 Tropical crops Monocotyleadons (Harlow, UK:ELBS/Longman).

Relwani L L, Nakat R V and Kandale D Y 1982 Intercropping of four leuceana cultivars with three grasses. Leuceana Research reports 3: 41

Reynolds L, Metz T and Kiptarus J 1996 Smallholder dairy production in Kenya. National Dairy Development Project, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development and Marketing, Nairobi, Kenya

Romney D L, Tanner J, Chui J, Kenyanjui M, Morton J, Ndegwa P, Kimari A and Thorpe P 1998 Feed utilisation options for smallholder dairy farmers. In: BSAS/KARI proceedings of an International Conference on foods lands and livelihoods, setting research agendas for Animal Science 27-30 January 1998, Nairobi, Kenya, BSAS, Edinburgh pp 43.

Schreuder R, Nijders P J M, Steg A and Kariuki J N 1993 Variation in OM digestibility, CP, yield and ash content on napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and their prediction from chemical and environment factor. Research report, National Animal Husbandry Research Station, Naivasha, Kenya. pp.62.

Staal S, Chege L, Kenyanjui M, Kimari A, Lukuyu B, Njubi D Owango, Tanner J, Thorpe W and Wambugu M 1998 A cross-section survey of Kiambu District for the identification of target groups of smallholder dairy producers. KARI collaborative project research report, Nairobi, Kenya. 73 pp

Stephens D 1967 Effects of grass fallow treatments in restoring fertility of Buganda clay loam in South Uganda Journal Agricultural Science 68: 391- 403

Stotz D 1983 Production techniques and economics of smallholder livestock production systems in Kenya. Farm management handbook of Kenya. Ministry of Livestock Development, Nairobi, Kenya

Van Soest P 1982 Nutritional ecology of the ruminant.O and B books, Corvallis, Oregon, USA

Waithaka M M, Nyangaga J N, Staal S, Wokabi A W, Njubi D, Muriuki K G, Njoroge N and Wanjohi N 2002 Characterisation of dairy systems in the western Kenya region. A collaborative research report. ILRI, Nairobi. http://www.smallholderdairy.org/publications/Collaborative%20R&D%20reports/Wa2/Waithaka%20et%20al-2002-Dairy%20systems%20char%20Western%20Kenya%201%20cov-5.pdf#search=%22Characterisation%20of%20dairy%20systems%20in%20the%20western%20Kenya%20region%22

Wilde V L 1998 Socioeconomic and gender analysis field handbook. FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy.

Wouters A P 1987 Dry matter yield and quality of Napier grass on farm level 1983-1986. Research report, Ministry of livestock development, Nairobi, Kenya. pp.39

Received 29 August 2006; Accepted 16 September 2006; Published 1 November 2006

Go to top