| Livestock Research for Rural Development 22 (4) 2010 | Notes to Authors | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
A survey was conducted to generate holistic information on the production and utilization of local white lupin in two lupin growing districts, namely, Mecha and Sekela, representing mid and high altitude areas, respectively in North-western Ethiopia. During the survey, two types of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) techniques, namely, individual farmer interview (61 farmers from Mecha and 51 from Sekela) and group discussion (with 20 farmers from each district) were employed.
There are significant differences (P<0.05) between the two study districts for the variables like total land holding, frequency of ploughing during lupin planting, days to maturity, lupin productivity, and number of days of soaking lupin in running water. However, there are no significant differences (P>0.05) between the two study districts for the variables like land allocated for lupin cultivation, lupin seed rate, lupin soaking at home, lupin consumption per family per week and proportion of lupin used for household consumption. The use of the crop as livestock feed is negligible due to its high alkaloid content.
It is concluded that the local white lupin in Ethiopia is a valuable multipurpose crop which is being cultivated in the midst of very serious shortage of cropland. Its ability to maintain soil fertility and serve as a source of food in seasons of food scarcity makes it an important crop. However, its bitter taste due to its high alkaloid content remains to be a big challenge and any lupin improvement strategy has to focus on minimizing the alkaloid content of the crop.
Key words: Alkaloid, high altitude, Mecha, mid altitude, Sekela, soil fertility
White lupin is one of the four widely known, commercially important, large seeded, annual lupin species in the world. According to Gladstones (1998) the centre of origin for white lupin is the Mediterranean basin, the old world. It is adapted to well drained, light to medium textured, moderately acidic or neutral soils with a pH range of 4.5-7.5 (Jansen 2006). Currently, it is a minor crop in central Europe, while it is being widely grown in America. Lupin is also a traditional pulse crop, grown around the Mediterranean and in the Nile valley, extending to Sudan and Ethiopia. It is also grown in some parts of South-eastern and Southern Africa (Jansen 2006). As a legume family, white lupin seed is known for its relatively high protein value. Its seed protein content ranges between 30 - 40% (Moss et al 1996; Gdala et al 1999; Feldheim 1999; Jansen 2006). However, the alkaloid content in lupin, especially in bitter varieties, limits its use as human food and livestock feed.
The white lupin in Ethiopia is locally known as Gibto. It is produced by small holder subsistent farmers in two regional states of Ethiopia; Amhara and Benishangulgumuz, the former being the largest producer. It is grown in elevations ranging between 1500-3000 m.a.s.l. In the main production season (Meher season, June-December) of the year 2008, a total of 17, 241 tons of lupin, with a mean productivity of 0.84 t/ha, was produced in these two major lupin producing regional states (ECSA 2009). According to Francis (1999), the white lupin variety grown in North-western Ethiopia is bitter variety due to its high alkaloid content. However, the same author reported that though the variety is bitter, it is relatively non-shattering, high yielding and most importantly is resistant to lupin anthracnose disease which currently is a problem for the cultivation of white lupin in some parts of Western Australia and Europe.
Lupin production by small holder farmers in the area is targeted for its grain and soil fertility maintenance values. Its grain is used as snack and for the preparation of local alcoholic drink, Areke. However, lupin grain and forage is hardly used as livestock feed, though it is a very important livestock feed in Australia, Europe and America. According to Erbas et al (2005) in the year 2001 a total of 1, 387,660 t lupin was produced in the world. The report of van Barneveld (1999) indicated that the vast majority of lupin produced in the world is used for livestock feeding. In Australia a total of 550,000 t of lupin grain is used annually for sheep feeding as protein supplement (van Barneveld 1999). Although shortage of protein sources limit livestock production in Ethiopia, nevertheless, the contribution of lupin as livestock feed has remained negligible.
Lupin, as legume, can fix atmospheric nitrogen into nitrate (NO3), usable form of nitrogen by the companion or succeeding crop. Potentially lupin can fix and accumulate a total of 150 to 400 kg/ha per year nitrogen (Takunov and Yagovenko 1999; Reeves et al 1990; Jansen 2006). In the North-western part of Ethiopia where mixed crop-livestock production is the typical farming system, crop rotation and/or fallowing is a common practice.
Although lupin has immense potential from feed, food and soil fertility maintenance perspective, the Ethiopian local lupin cultivation, genetic improvement and utilization remains far behind as compared to the other pulse crops. In addition to these, there is no available detailed information about the production system, current uses, potentials and limitations of the Ethiopian local white lupin. Thus, this assessment study was done with the objectives of generating holistic information about the production and utilization of the local lupin from feed, food and soil fertility maintenance perspective in two major agro-ecological zones (mid and high altitude areas) of North-western Ethiopia.
This study was conducted in Mecha and Sekela administrative districts in west Gojjam administrative zone, North-western Ethiopia, from May to July 2009. The human population is about 292,250 and 138,652 for Mecha and Sekela districts, respectively. The land area is 1,603 and 579 km2 for Mecha and Sekela districts, respectively (EPCC 2008). The altitude ranges between 1807 and 2300 m.a.s.l. for Mecha district, and 2013 and 3257 m.a.s.l. for Sekela district. The average annual rainfall for Mecha district is 1537 mm with a mono-modal distribution from May to September and for Sekela is 1738 with a bi-modal distribution from February to April and from June to September. The average annual minimum and maximum temperature is 10 and 27 oC for Mecha district, and 8 and 21 °C for Sekela district (Worldclim 2009). Mecha has relatively fertile soil. The topography in Mecha is characterised by plain landscape with scattered trees on farmlands, whereas the topography in Sekela is undulating landscape with degraded farmlands. Mixed crop- livestock production is the typical farming system in the two districts with tree growing (Eucalyptus) as a common practice around farmlands and homesteads. According to Mecha Agricultural and Rural Development Office (MARDO) (2009) and Sekela Agricultural and Rural Development Office (SARDO) (2009), the average land holding (ha) per household is 1.5 and 0.75 in Mecha and Sekela districts, respectively.
Multi-stage and purposive sampling methods were used to select study districts and farmers. First, west Gojjam zone was randomly selected from the North West Ethiopia. Second, the zone was classified into two clusters to represent the mid and high altitude lupin growing areas. Then, Mecha and Sekela districts were selected purposively based on status of lupin growing experience to represent the mid and high altitude areas, respectively. For the survey data collection, two participatory rural appraisal techniques (PRA) were employed; group discussion with key informants and individual farmer interview using semi- structured questionnaire. Farmers for individual interviewing were selected purposively from each district based on their lupin growing experience. A sample size of 112 farmers, 61 from Mecha and 51 from Sekela were selected and interviewed. Data about lupin production, utilization, its potentials and limitations was collected from individual farmer interview using semi-structured questionnaire. Group discussion with 20 key informants from each study district was used to generate information about the current agricultural production system, the major constraints in crop and livestock production, and available resources for crop and livestock production in the study districts. In addition, farmers’ indigenous knowledge about the production and utilization of lupin was assessed during the group discussions.
The collected data from the survey was analysed using SPSS (2008). The independent samples t-test was used to compare means of the different variables calculated from the two agro-ecologies. Cross tabulation was done also to calculate the proportion of respondents for variables which require comparison of the proportion. Moreover, correlation analysis using Pearson correlation test was done to see the relationships between a few selected variables.
Family size, land holding and land allocated for lupin production per household in the two study districts is presented in Table 1. The literacy level of respondents in Mecha district is 62, 30 and 8% for illiterate, primary school and secondary school education, respectively, whereas in Sekela district, it is 80, 10 and 10% for illiterate, primary school and secondary school education, respectively. The average family size in Mecha (7.10) and Sekela (6.80) is similar (P>0.05). Similarly, the average number of male family members in Mecha (3.51) and Sekela (3.47), and female family members in Mecha (3.59) and Sekela (3.31) are similar (P>0.05). Total cropland which is the sum of own cropland and rented in cropland, in Mecha (1.93 ha) is higher (P<0.05) than in Sekela (1.32 ha). Similarly, the difference in own cropland (ha); cropland owned permanently by households in Mecha (1.25 ha) is higher (P<0.05) than in Sekela (0.73 ha). However, the size of rented in cropland in Mecha (0.68 ha) and Sekela (0.59 ha) is similar (P>0.05). In both study districts, the majority of lupin producers (82% in Mecha and 86% in Sekela) rent in other farmer’s cropland either in cash or in kind and none of them rent out their cropland for other farmers. The average land allocated for lupin production per household for the two study districts is 0.27 ha, which is similar (P>0.05). However, the proportion of land allocated for lupin production out of the total cropland is higher (P<0.05) in Sekela (21.68 %) than in Mecha (15.03 %). Land allocated for lupin cultivation is positively correlated (P<0.01) with total cropland (r=0.34). In addition to communal grazing land, 82% of respondent farmers in Mecha and 94% in Sekela have private grazing land used for their livestock in the form of direct grazing, zero grazing or for hay making. Private grazing land holding per household is higher (P<0.05) in Sekela than in Mecha.
|
Table 1. Mean family size, land holding and allocation per household in Mecha and Sekela districts of North-western Ethiopia |
||
|
Characteristics |
Mecha, Mean ±SE |
Sekela, Mean ±SE |
|
Total family size, N |
7.10 ±0.25a |
6.78 ±0.27a |
|
Male family size, N |
3.51 ±0.19a |
3.47 ±0.19a |
|
Female family size, N |
3.59 ±0.18a |
3.31 ±0.21a |
|
Total cropland, ha |
1.93 ±0.08a |
1.32 ±0.06b |
|
Own cropland, ha |
1.25 ±0.06a |
0.73 ±0.05b |
|
Rented in cropland, ha |
0.68 ±0.06a |
0.59 ±0.07a |
|
Land allocated for lupin, ha |
0.27 ±0.01a |
0.27 ±0.01a |
|
Proportion of land allocated for lupin, % |
15.03 ±0.78a |
21.68 ±1.05b |
|
Own grazing land, ha |
0.18 ±0.02a |
0.34 ±0.03b |
|
Means within a row followed by different superscripts differ (P<0.05), N= Number |
||
In both study districts, mixed crop-livestock production is the common on-farm agricultural activity. The average land allocated for the major crops grown in the study districts is presented in Table 2. The major crops grown in Mecha are maize, finger millet, teff (Eragrostis teff), barley, lupin and noug (Gizotia abyssinica), and in Sekela the major crops grown are wheat, triticale, oat, barley, potato, lupin and faba bean. In both study districts, low input output crop production system is common. However, farmers are aware of the advantages of using chemical fertilizers and improved seeds. According to the results of the group discussion with key informants, the major crop production constraints in Mecha in order of decreasing importance are shortages and higher price of improved seed and chemical fertilizer, and shortage of cropland. In Sekela, the major constraints in order of decreasing importance are cropland degradation, shortage of cropland, shortage and high price of chemical fertilizer and improved seeds.
|
Table 2. Mean land allocated (ha) for the major crops grown in Mecha and Sekela districts of North-western Ethiopia |
||
|
Crops grown |
Mecha, Mean ±SE |
Sekela, Mean ±SE |
|
Maize |
0.79 ±0.04 |
0.06 ±0.02 |
|
Teff |
0.18 ±0.02 |
0.10 ±0.02 |
|
Finger millet |
0.59 ±0.03 |
* |
|
Noug |
0.08 ±0.02 |
* |
|
Wheat |
* |
0.11 ±0.02 |
|
Barley |
0.15 ±0.02 |
0.16 ±0.03 |
|
Lupin |
0.27 ±0.01 |
0.27 ±0.01 |
|
Faba bean |
0.01 ±0.01 |
0.02 ±0.01 |
|
Pea |
* |
0.04 ±0.01 |
|
Potato |
* |
0.15 ±0.02 |
|
Oat |
* |
0.16 ±0.02 |
|
Triticale |
* |
0.25 ±0.04 |
|
*The crop is not grown by respondents in the respective study district |
||
Livestock is an important component of the farming system in the study districts. The average holding for the different groups of livestock per household in Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) (Gryseels 1988; FAO 1987) in the study districts is given in Table 3. The major livestock species are cattle, sheep, mule, donkey and poultry in Mecha, whereas in Sekela, cattle, sheep, horse, donkey and poultry are the major livestock species owned by farmers. Total livestock holding is higher (P<0.05) in Mecha (5.62 TLU) than in Sekela (4.23 TLU). Total livestock holding is positively correlated (P<0.01) with total cropland holding. However, there was no correlation between total livestock holding and grazing land holding (P>0.05). Ox in Mecha and horse in Sekela are the major livestock species used for draught purpose. In addition to draught power, horses are very important sources of manure in Sekela. Mules and donkeys are used for transportation purpose. Cattle, sheep and poultry are important food and cash sources in both study districts. In both study districts, the livestock production system is traditional and not market oriented. In Mecha, 11% of the respondents have improved crossbred dairy cows. However, in Sekela none of them have improved breeds. Crop residues, private and communal grazing lands, local brewery and distillery byproducts, and improved forages are the available feed sources for their livestock. In both study districts, availability of feed is seasonal. Farmers experience feed shortage from March to June (the dry season), whereas the available feed is sufficient from July to October and relatively surplus feed is available from November to February. During the long dry season, crop residues are the most important feed sources for livestock in both districts. The most important crop residues used for livestock feed in Mecha are finger millet, maize, teff and barley, whereas in Sekela, crop residues from oat, maize, teff and wheat are important for livestock feed. According to the respondents, 28% and 77% in Mecha and Sekela, respectively produce hay from their private grazing land. Moreover, 48% of respondents in Mecha and 12% in Sekela grow improved forages for their livestock. The common forage species grown in Mecha are Sesbania spp., Rhodes grass and Napier grass, whereas in Sekela, the common forage species is tree lucerne. The major reasons for non-forage growers are lack of knowhow, shortage of land and forage seeds. Especially, in Mecha forage seed shortage is the most important problem. The use of local brewery and distillery byproducts as supplements is common among respondents but the problem is limited availability. However, only 12% of the respondents in Mecha and none of the respondents in Sekela use industrial byproducts as supplement for their livestock. Out of the total non-users of industrial byproducts in Mecha 31%, 15% and 53% gave reasons of shortage of supply, high cost and lack of experience, respectively. In Sekela, 61% and 39% of the non users of industrial byproducts pointed out shortage of supply and lack of experience as the main reasons, respectively. According to the results of the group discussion with key informants, the major livestock production constraints in Mecha in order of decreasing importance are shortages of feed, grazing land and drinking water. In Sekela the major constraints in order of decreasing importance are feed shortage, grazing land shortage and livestock disease.
|
Table 3. Mean livestock holding (TLU) and SE for the different groups of livestock per household in Mecha and Sekela districts of North-western Ethiopia |
||
|
Livestock group |
Mecha, Mean ±SE |
Sekela, Mean ±SE |
|
Cow |
1.40 ±0.11a |
1.22 ±0.10a |
|
Heifer |
0.50 ±0.07a |
0.33 ±0.06a |
|
Calf |
0.29 ±0.03a |
0.23±0.02a |
|
Oxen and Bull |
2.65 ±0.11a |
0.73 ±0.13b |
|
Sheep |
0.22 ±0.03a |
0.50 ±0.04b |
|
Horse* |
- |
1.13 ±0.12 |
|
Mule* |
0.31 ±0.05 |
- |
|
Donkey |
0.14 ±0.03a |
0.05 ±0.02b |
|
Poultry |
0.11 ±0.01a |
0.03 ±0.01b |
|
Total |
5.62 ±0.27a |
4.23 ±0.23b |
|
*Mean comparison was not done for these groups of livestock because of their absence in one of the study districts Means within a row followed by different superscripts differ (P<0.05) |
||
Summary of all variables used to describe lupin agronomy in the two study districts is presented in Table 4. About 84% of respondents in Mecha and 82% in Sekela grow lupin every year, but the rest grow lupin every other year due to shortage of land. Ploughing frequency for lupin production in the two districts is completely different. The average ploughing frequency in Mecha (4.36 times) is higher (P<0.05) than in Sekela (0.35 times). In Sekela, 65% of the respondents use zero tillage for lupin planting and 35% of them plough only once. None of the farmers in either study district practice lupin weeding. The results of this study also indicated that there is variation in planting time of lupin both within and between the study districts. Within study district, variation exists only in Mecha in which 97% of the respondents said that they plant lupin at the end of August after barley harvest and 3% of them plant lupin at the beginning of July. In Sekela, lupin is planted at the beginning of July. During planting farmers in both districts broadcast seeds, and the seed rate (kg/ha) used in Sekela (86) is higher than in Mecha (76). However, this difference in seed rate is not significant (P>0.05). There is also variation between the two districts in number of days to maturity and lupin productivity. The number of days to reach maturity in Mecha (167) is lower (P<0.05) than in Sekela (233), similarly, lupin yield (t/ha) in Mecha (0.89) is lower (P<0.05) than in Sekela (1.45). Lupin yield (t/ha) is positively correlated (P<0.01) with lupin seed rate (r=0.33) and number of days to maturity (r=0.43). In both study districts there is only one variety of the local white lupin species. None of the respondents in either study district use any kind of fertilizer for lupin production.
Pest are not a problem for lupin production in the study districts. However, there are lupin diseases that affect lupin production in both study districts. According to the respondent farmers, Michi in Sekela, and Michi and Mucha in Mecha are the common lupin diseases. The major symptom of Michi is drying of the whole plant. However, Mucha affects the flowers and young pods which cause abortion at seed setting. Farmers do not use any improved or cultural practice to control these diseases except few farmers which practice late planting to prevent the diseases and minimize the damage.
According to the respondents in both study districts, the soil fertility maintenance value of lupin production is very important in their crop production system. The fertilizer contribution of lupin planting for the succeeding cereal crop was calculated for the two study districts. Farmers in Mecha apply 20% less than the normal fertilizer rate for the succeeding cereal crop, whereas in Sekela they apply 51% less than the normal fertilizer rate and this difference is statistically significant (P<0.05). Though farmers know about green manure, none of the respondents use lupin as green manure. In both study districts lupin is planted following cereal crops to improve the soil fertility status for the succeeding cereal crop. However, the crop rotation sequence involving lupin in Mecha (barley → lupin → maize/teff/finger millet) is different from Sekela (wheat/triticale/maize/barley → lupin → wheat/triticale/maize). About 28% of respondent farmers in Mecha and 36% in Sekela choose less fertile or eroded cropland for lupin planting, whereas the rest do not choose cropland for lupin planting. Majority of lupin growers (92%) in both study districts grow lupin as sole crop. However, 8% of them grow lupin in mixtures. When it is cultivated in mixtures it is planted with Noug or finger millet in Mecha and with potato or maize in Sekela.
|
Table 4. Land allocation and different agronomic variables used for lupin production in Mecha and Sekela districts of North-western Ethiopia |
||
|
|
Mecha, Mean ±SE |
Sekela, Mean ±SE |
|
Ploughing frequency |
4.36 ±0.14a |
0.35 ±0.07b |
|
Seed rate (kg/ha) |
76.0 ±4.10a |
86.0 ±5.40a |
|
Number of days to maturity |
167 ±2.92a |
233 ±2.50b |
|
Lupin productivity (t/ha) |
0.89 ±0.44a |
1.45 ±0.99b |
|
Savings in fertilizer application for succeeding crop after lupin production (%) |
20.0 ±2.23a |
51.0 ±3.64b |
|
Means within a row followed by different superscripts differ (P<0.05) |
||
Farmers in both districts agree that lupin seed storage and handling is easy as compared to other legume seeds. It is hardly attacked by pests. The only requirement for storage is dry condition that enables its storage for about four to ten years without deterioration in quality. The use of lupin as food is very important in both districts. About 93% of lupin growers in Mecha and 96% in Sekela use lupin for food purpose. When they use it as human food, it is mostly used as a snack. According to farmers in the surrounding towns, it is also used for the preparation of local alcoholic drink (areke) and local sauce called shiro (made up of lupin flour). During the preparation of lupin snacks, there are three major processing steps (roasting, soaking in water and washing) to get rid of the bitter taste. The roasting step is similar in both study districts. Farmers roast lupin seed on a hot plate using firewood till most of the lupin seeds have black spots on the centre of the seeds. Soaking in water can be done in two ways; in running water (rivers) or in a house using water in a pot. In the latter case, the soaked lupin has to be washed everyday and the water has to be changed. When soaking is in a running water washing is only twice; a day before and at the time of taking out. According to the respondents, the most efficient way to get rid of the bitter taste is soaking in running water. The average number of days of soaking lupin seeds in running water is 4.02 in Mecha and 4.92 in Sekela, and this difference is statistically significant (P<0.05). Soaking in a house in pot takes about 7.84 and 8.70 days in Mecha and Sekela, respectively. The average shelf life of the snack is seven to fourteen days in both study districts, but it has to be kept soaked in water. In both study districts lupin snack consumption is seasonal. Lupin snack is consumed in the rainy season (June-September). The average amount of lupin consumption per week per family in this season for the two districts is similar (Table 5). The reasons for seasonality of lupin consumption in Mecha are availability of running water and shortage of other food grains during the rainy season, whereas in Sekela, shortage of other food crops during the rainy season is the main reason. The average lupin consumption per family per week (kg) is positively correlated (P<0.05) with total family size (r=0.24).
Farmers were also interviewed about the processing steps. The most difficult processing step is roasting followed by washing and soaking. Though it is difficult, according to the respondent farmers, roasting uniformly is the key processing step to get rid of the bitter test. The main purposes of roasting are to avoid germination, get rid of the bitter test and improve its chewing characteristics. The main purposes of soaking in water and washing are to improve its chewing characteristics and get rid of the bitter taste. Most of the respondent farmers, 92% in Sekela and 77% in Mecha, are aware of the negative effect of the alkaloid content of lupin. About 65% of the respondents in Mecha and 38% in Sekela had experiences of health problem in the family at least once due to raw or roasted bitter lupin consumption. The victims are usually children and the symptoms are bloating, vomiting, diarrhoea, blurred vision and in some cases death. On the contrary the medicinal value of lupin in the form of snack and areke is recognized by 36% and 15% of the respondents in Mecha and Sekela, respectively. These lupin products are believed to be helpful to get rid of and prevent pneumonia, bowl and hypertension related problems. In addition to its food, farmers in both districts use lupin as source of cash income, and for the last three years the market price of lupin is increasing because it is being exported to Sudan via the North-west border of the two countries. In both study districts, the proportion of lupin sold out of produced is higher than the proportion consumed (Table 5). The use of lupin seed and forage or crop residue as livestock feed is negligible. In both study districts, nowadays animals are grazing lupin at early growth stage due to the narrowing of the choice of feed sources. Moreover, 73% of respondent farmers in Sekela and 9% in Mecha use the finely threshed pod cover and leaf left after threshing as feed for equines and sheep. According to farmers, the feeding habit of these groups of animals (being good chewers) helped to use the fibrous and spiny lupin residue for feed. Farmers believe that the bitter taste and high fibre content are the major factors for lower palatability of lupin for livestock feed. In both study districts there was no attempt to introduce improved or sweet varieties of lupin and all the respondents mentioned that any genetic improvement has to target primarily on lowering the bitter taste.
|
Table 5. Household lupin utilization and methods of treatment in Mecha and Sekela districts of North-western Ethiopia |
||
|
|
Mecha, Mean ±SE |
Sekela, Mean ±SE |
|
Lupin soaking in running water, days |
4.02 ±0.14a |
4.92 ±0.22b |
|
Lupin soaking at home, days |
7.84 ±0.29a |
8.70 ±0.37a |
|
Lupin consumption per family per week, kg |
7.53 ±0.43a |
7.70 ±0.77a |
|
Proportion of lupin consumed out of produced, % |
39.58 ±2.57a |
40.42 ±2.88a |
|
Proportion of lupin sold out of produced, % |
60.42 ±2.57a |
59.58 ±2.88a |
|
Means within a row followed by different superscripts differ (P<0.05) |
||
Trend of lupin production, overall purpose and main reasons of lupin production were discussed with the key informants during group discussions. According to the respondents, the area allocated for lupin production per household has declined. The major reason for this is associated with the decrease in cropland holding per household due to population growth. However, there is no change in terms of the popularity of lupin cultivation in both study districts. In both study districts the main reasons of lupin growing in relation to other crops according to their rank order are soil fertility maintenance value, performance in harsh environment, less tillage requirement, its food value and relatively higher productivity. However, the rank order for overall purpose of lupin growing in the two study districts is different. In Mecha the overall purpose of lupin growing according to their order is fallow crop, food crop, income source and its use for firewood, whereas, in Sekela the order is fallow crop, food crop, income source, feed source (for equines and sheep) and its use for firewood.
According to the results of the group discussions with key informants conducted in the two study districts, there are gender related aspects of lupin production and utilization. Although both male and female family members participate in farm activities during peak seasons, there is division of labour in lupin production and utilization. In both Sekela and Mecha, land preparation for lupin planting is done only by male family members. Threshing requires two steps; separating of the pod from the stem by hand using long stick and threshing by animals to separate the seed from the pod cover. In this activity, both male and female family members participate. In addition to this, both male and female family members participate in lupin crop residue handling, lupin marketing and consumption of lupin products. Processing of lupin for food is totally the responsibility of female family members in both study districts with few exceptions in which male family members assist females during soaking and washing. There is also share of responsibility in decision making. The decision about the plot of land to be allocated for lupin production in a given production season is the responsibility of the husband. Whereas, decision about the amount of lupin product to be sold and the amount for home consumption is the responsibility of the wife.
In both study districts the total family size is relatively larger compared to the regional state average (4.3) and the national average (4.7) (EPCC 2008). This indicates farmers in the study districts need to produce more food crops to feed their family. Despite relatively good cropping environment in Mecha, the respondent farmers mentioned that they experience food shortage problem in the rainy season. This could be associated with the large family size they have. The higher total and own cropland holding in Mecha is due to the suitability of the topography of the area for crop production. Renting in other farmers’ cropland is common among lupin producers. This could give the farmers the opportunity to maintain the fertility of their own crop land by using lupin as a fallow crop.
The difference in the type of crops grown in the study districts is due to the difference in altitude. The higher crop diversity in Sekela indicates the copping strategy of farmers to minimize the risk of crop failure due to a relatively unfavourable cropping environment in the study district. In both study districts, shortage of land is one of the constraints for crop and livestock production. However, lupin is being grown in the midst of this land shortage which demonstrates the importance of the crop in the farming system. Though it is a minor crop, land allocated for lupin per household (0.27 ha) is comparable with land allocated for the popular pulse crops in Ethiopia, grass pea (0.33 ha), chick pea (0.34 ha), faba bean (0.22 ha) and lentil (0.19 ha) (Dadi et al 2003).
The larger livestock holding in Mecha than in Sekela and the positive correlation between livestock holding and total crop land holding shows the importance of land holding in livestock production. This could be associated with crop residue availability, which enables farmers to keep relatively larger livestock number. However, crop residues, especially cereals, have a very poor feeding value with low metabolisable energy, negligible available protein, and serious deficiencies in minerals and vitamins (Lulseged and Jamal 1999), which implies the need to have relatively cheaper source of supplement feeds in the study districts.
From the results of this study in both study districts, the problem of livestock feed shortage is critical. In addition, availability and cost of commercial feed supplements limits their use in the study areas. Thus, these situations show the need for on-farm forage production, especially growing of easily adaptive and productive multipurpose legumes like lupin to use as supplements for crop residue based feeding system of the area. According to Mekoya (2008), the major reasons for low adoption rate of exotic forages in Ethiopia are the lower multi-functionality and more agronomic problems associated with growing exotic forages. According to the results of this study several uses of the lupin crop listed by respondents indicates its multi-functionality, and minimum tillage and lupin production with out weeding indicates low agronomic requirement of the crop. Although the use of the local lupin as livestock feed is negligible due to its limitations, the attempt and interest to use lupin as livestock feed in both study districts indicates the need to improve the feed value of lupin in the areas so that it can better fit to the existing farming system. The major limitation of the crop is its bitter taste due to its high alkaloid content which can be improved by breeding or mechanical means. Currently, there are different species and varieties of sweet lupin in different parts of the world with low alkaloid content that could be introduced to the area.
The yield (t/ha) reported by Dadi et al (2003) for faba bean (0.62), chick pea (1.09), lentil (0.53) and grass pea (0.95) under Ethiopian condition is lower than the overall mean yield of lupin reported in this study. However, the agronomic practice and input required to grow lupin is much lower than these pulse crops. The agronomic practices for growing lupin in both study districts are different. The reason behind the higher number of ploughing frequency for lupin planting in Mecha is not purposely for the advantage of the lupin to be planted. It is for the advantage of the succeeding cereal crop. Despite the less number of ploughing frequency, the higher productivity of lupin in Sekela could be associated with the higher amount of seed rate used and long growing season. This is explained by the positive correlation of number of days to maturity and seed rate with productivity of lupin. The long growing season in Sekela could be associated with the relatively colder temperature of the area. The mean maximum seed rate (86 kg/ha) reported in this study is higher than the maximum seed rate (60 kg/ha) used by farmers in Egypt to grow the local white lupin (Jorgen et al 1999). The performance of lupin being planted after barley in Mecha enjoys only a one month rainy season for the entire growing season which shows the high water use efficiency of lupin and the suitability of the crop for double cropping. One of the limitations of this study is the inability to identify the scientific names of the two lupin diseases (Michi and Mucha) because the time in which this study was conducted is not the lupin production season to conduct identification of the diseases. According to Sweetingham et al (1998), the known and common lupin diseases are brown leaf spot, fusarium wilt, anthracnose and bean yellow mosaic virus. However, the same authors reported that the most serious and damaging lupin disease is lupin anthracnose disease.
The processing steps to use lupin as food are in general difficult. Especially the wet season, the major lupin consumption season, makes the lupin processing more difficult as the last two steps (soaking and washing) are conducted outdoors, in rivers. The better efficiency of soaking in running water is definitely due to the washing power of the running water to get rid of the alkaloid. The number of days of soaking lupin in water reported in this study is higher than the number of days (2-3 days) of soaking lupin in Egypt reported by Jorgen et al (1999). This difference could be associated with the difference in alkaloid content of the lupin varieties in the two countries and the degree of tenderness of lupin snack to be achieved. Though its food value is not a priority in both study districts, its importance as food source in the rainy season (the time in which food shortage is common) shows the high value of lupin as a shock absorber. Erbas et al (2005) in their study on evaluation of chemical properties of white lupin concluded that lupin can be considered as an economical and nutritious food for a very rapidly increasing world population. The medicinal value of lupin reported by respondent farmers is also supported by Martins et al (2005) and Sirtori et al (2004). According to the reports of these authors, lupin food products have a hypocholesterolemic effect potentially leading to reduced cardiovascular risk. Though the price of lupin is improving in recent years, it is still the cheapest grain legume in the area. This is due to the limitation of lupin for the use of human consumption and livestock feed.
According to this study, it seems that the total area of cropland covered by lupin over years is similar. However, this result contradicts with the national survey results report by ECSA (2002) and ECSA (2009). According to these reports, the total land (ha) allocated for lupin production in Ethiopia in 2001 and 2008 crop seasons is 7, 252 and 20,469, respectively. For the respondent farmers in both study districts the number one rank for the main reason of lupin growing in relation to other crops and the overall purpose of lupin growing is the soil fertility maintenance value of lupin. This is so because the subsistent small holder farmers of the region could not afford the increasing price of chemical fertilizers. Hence, the nitrogen fixing capability of a crop like lupin is very important in their farming system. As a result, in these areas lupin is being grown in rotation with cereals or on fallow lands.
In this study the role of women in both lupin production and utilization processes was found to be high. Despite similarities in number of male and female family members in both study districts, women have on-farm responsibilities other than the household activities. The participation of women in on-farm activities in addition to the household activities shows the high burden loaded on them. This also indicates the need to enrol women in on-farm development activities.
According to the results of this study there is no major difference in utilization of lupin crop in the two study districts representing the mid and highland areas of North-western Ethiopia where the crop is being cultivated. In both study districts, lupin cultivation is traditional. The perception of farmers about the limitation of lupin as food and feed crop is similar. However, there are differences between the two study districts in planting time, frequency of ploughing, days to maturity, lupin productivity and number of days of soaking lupin in running water.
The local white lupin in Ethiopia is a valuable crop for the smallholder farmers due to its multipurpose functions in the mixed crop livestock farming systems of the study areas. This is explained by the existence of the cultivation practice of the crop under a very serious shortage of cropland. Its soil fertility maintenance value and food value during food shortage season of the year are important. However, its bitter taste due to its high alkaloid content remains a big challenge for efficient utilization of the crop by the local farmers and emerging food and feed industries. Hence, any lupin improvement strategy has to focus on minimizing the alkaloid content of the crop either by introducing sweet varieties or some other simple technical and mechanical means that could be easily adopted by local subsistent farmers. In addition to this, any development activity towards the improvement of lupin production and utilization to be effective has to involve women as part of the activity.
The first author would like to acknowledge Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD) for the PhD scholarship award and the local extension workers in the study districts for their help during the survey work. I would like to thank also Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute (ARARI), and Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Program (ESAPP) for their financial support to conduct the field work.
Dadi L, Hailemariam T, Aden Aw-H, Ali M A M and Geletu B 2003 The socio-economic factors affecting grass pea consumption and the incidence of lathyrism in Ethiopia. Integrated Natural Resource Management Research Report Series, No. 4. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria, pp. 55.
ECSA 2002 Report on area and production of crops (Private peasant holdings, Meher season). Part I. ECSA (Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 57.
ECSA 2009 Report on area and production of crops (Private peasant holdings, Meher season). Volume I. ECSA (Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 128.
EPCC 2008 Summary and statistical report of the 2007 population and housing census: Population size by age and sex. EPCC (Ethiopian Population Census Commission), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 113.
Erbas M, Certel M and Uslu M K 2005 Some chemical properties of white lupin seeds (Lupinus albus L.). Journal of Food Chemistry 89:341-345.
FAO 1987 Trade year book 1985. No. 39. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). ICS-data, Statistical division, Rome, Italy.
Feldheim W 1999 The use of lupins in human nutrition. In: E van Santen, M Wink, S Weissmann and P Roemer (Editors). Lupin, an ancient crop for the new millennium. Proceedings of the 9th International Lupin Conference, Klink/Muritz, 20-24 June 1999. International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand, ISBN 0-86476-123-6, pp.434-437.
Francis C 1999 New crops and oilseeds from Ethiopia and elsewhere. The Australian new Crops newsletter. Issue No. 11. www.newcrops.uq.edu.au/newslett/ncnl1117.htm.
Gdala J, Smulikowska S, Zdunczyk Z and Pastuszewska B 1999 Nutrients and anti-nutrients in three lupin species grown in Poland. In: E van Santen, M Wink, S Weissmann and P Roemer (Editors). Lupin, an ancient crop for the new millennium. Proceedings of the 9th International Lupin Conference, Klink/Muritz, 20-24 June 1999. International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand, ISBN 0-86476-123-6, pp. 425-431.
Gladstones J S 1998 Distribution, Origin, Taxonomy, History and Importance. In: Gladstones J S, Atkins C and Hamblin J (Editors). Lupins as crop plants; Biology, Production and Utilization. CAB International, New York, USA, pp. 1-39.
Gryseels G 1988 Role of Livestock on a Mixed Smallholder Farms in Debre Berhan, Ph.D Thesis, Agricultural University of Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 249.
Jansen P C M 2006 Lupinus albus L. [Internet] Record from Protabase. Brink M & Belay G (Editors). PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa / Ressources végétales de l’Afrique tropicale), Wageningen, Netherlands. Accessed 24 March 2009. http://database.prota.org/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll?AC=QBE_QUERY&BU=http://database.prota.org/search.htm&TN=PROTAB~1&QB0=AND&QF0=Species+Code&QI0=Lupinus+albus&RF=Webdisplay
Jorgen L C, Sherow R and Rodomiro O 1999 White lupin (Lupinus albus L.) germ-plasm collection and preliminary in situ diversity assessment in Egypt. Genetic Resource and Crop Evolution. 46:169-174.
Lulseged G and Jamal M 1999 The potential of crop residues, particularly wheat straw, as livestock feed in Ethiopia. Farmers, their animals and the environment, ILRI on disc, a joint FAO/ILRI production. http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ILRI/x5490E/x5490e0b.htm
Martins J M, Riottot M, de Abreu M C, Viegas-Crespo A M, Lanca M J, Almeida J A, Freire J B and Bento O P 2005 Cholesterol-lowering effects of dietary blue lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.) in intact and ileorectal anastomosed pigs. Journal of Lipid Research. 46:1539-1547.
MARDO 2009 Annual report on general agricultural activities. MARDO (Mecha Agricultural and Rural Development Office). Merawi, Mecha.
Mekoya A K 2008 Multipurpose fodder trees in Ethiopia; Farmers’ perception, constraints to adoption and effects of long-term supplementation on sheep performance. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp. 207. http://edepot.wur.nl/121948
Moss B R, Lin J C, Reeves D W, Kochapakdee S, Mask P L and van Santen E 1996 Lupin in ruminant diets. Proceedings of the 8th International Lupin Conference. Asilomar, California, 11-16 May 1996.
Reeves D W, Touchton J T and Kingery R C 1990 The use of lupin in sustainable agriculture systems in the southern coastal plain. Abstracts of technical papers, No. 17, Southern Branch ASA, Little Rock, USA.
SARDO 2009 Annual report on general agricultural activities. SARDO (Sekela Agricultural and Rural Development Office). Sekela.
Sirtori C R, Lovati M R, Manzoni C, Castiglioni S, Duranti M, Magni C, Morandi S, D’Agostina A and Arnoldi A 2004 Proteins of white lupin seed, a naturally isoflavone-poor legume, reduce cholestrolemia in rats and increase LDL receptor activity in HepG2 cells1. Journal of Nutrition 134:18-23.
SPSS 2008 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Version 17, Chicago, USA.
Sweetingham M W, Jones R A C and Brown A G P 1998 Diseases and pests. In: Gladstones J S, Atkins C and Hamblin J (Editors). Lupins as crop plants; Biology, Production and Utilization. CAB International, New York, USA, pp. 291-338.
Takunov I P and Yagovenko L L 1999 Yellow lupin (Lupinus luteus L.) as a green manure crop preceding winter rye (Secale cereale L.). In: E van Santen, M Wink, S Weissmann and P Roemer (Editors). Lupin, an ancient crop for the new millennium. Proceedings of the 9th International Lupin Conference, Klink/Muritz, 20-24 June 1999. International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand, ISBN 0-86476-123-6, pp.434-437.
Worldclim 2009 Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. , Accessed on June 2009. http://www.worldclim.org/worldclim_IJC.pdf
Van Barneveld R J 1999 Understanding the nutritional chemistry of lupin (Lupinus spp.) seed to improve livestock production efficiency. Nutritional Research Reviews. 12:203-230.
Received 5 January 2010; Accepted 19 February 2010; Published 1 April 2010