Self-sufficiency of Fodder Crops:

Seikphyu Township, Magway Region in the

Central Dry Zone of Myanmar

By

Nilar Htike Htike Tin

(AGY-110)

Department of Agronomy
 Introduction
Livestock and Fishery
contribute 8.4% of country gross domestic product
(MOAI 2012)
Provide food security, source of saving, cash income,
nutrition and natural fertilizer

Draft cattle
an important role in traditional farming and rural
transportation

Driver for enhancing agriculture and poverty reduction

2
 Introduction (Contd.)

Central Dry Zone of Myanmar

40% of total cattle population
cannot supply sufficient amount of crop residues (Poor
crop production)

Constraints of livestock production

scarcity of fodder and water,

shortage of quality grazing land,

high price of cattle and incidence of diseases (FAO 2009)

3
 Introduction (Contd.)

Seikphyu Township
Highly depend on draft cattle for farm work
Rainfall and temperature variation
- crop failure, water shortage, livestock mortality and
limitation in self-supplied crop residues
Problem of fodder crop is acute during the dry season
Resource poor area - water scare, thin natural vegetation
and soil erosion is severity (FAO 2006)

4
 Objectives
To evaluate the sufficiency of fodder crops in Seikpyu
Township
To study the fodder requirements, sources of fodder
availability and their grazing systems
To observe the fodder shortages in dry season
To study the farmer’s perception on the self-sufficiency of
fodder crops
To classify the kinds of crops mostly used as fodder in
Seikpyu Township

5
 Hypothesis

Whether the selected indicators would be

indicated the self-sufficiency of fodder crops in
study area or not.

6
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

7
 Study Area and Data Collection

 Study Area - Seikphyu Township, Magway Region

(Central Dry Zone of Myanmar)

 Pre-test - November 2011

 Main Survey - July 2012

 Sample Size - 122 respondents from 13 villages in

Seikphyu Township

 Structured interview questionnaires for farmers and village

elders
8
 Seikphyu Township, Magway
Region
Lies - between 20o 51' and 21o 15' N
latitude and 94o 09' and 94o
48' E longitude.
Cover - 588.183 km2
aqmjrdkUe,f

Population - 99,810 inhabitants and

18,041 Housings
. -91% of the total
population are in rural
pvif;jrdkUe, area
f
- 43 village tracts and
138 villages

9
Table 1. Number of domestic animals in Seikphyu Township, 2012

Average per Household

No. Item Number
(18,041 HH)

1. Cattle 80,454 4.45

2. Goat / Sheep 23,140 1.20

3. Pig 19,995 1.10

4. Chicken 176,467 9.70

5. Duck 14,050 0.77

Source: Department of Livestock Breeding and veterinary, Seikphyu Township

(2012) 10
Data Collection
Primary data
 Demographic data

 Crop production practices

 Cattle holding and livestock management

 Storage of fodder crops

 Feeding methods and grazing system

 Farmer’s perception on fodder crops

Secondary data
 Land use patterns & livestock population

11
 Method of Data Analysis

 Descriptive statistics

 Correlation coefficient

 Paired-sampled T Test

 One-Way ANOVA

(Microsoft Excel and SPSS 16.0 software)

 

12
        
Fodder Self-Sufficiency Ratio

 To know the degree to which farm household was self-supplied

in fodder crops (Theodore 2001)

 The self-sufficiency ratio expresses the magnitude of

production in relation to utilization (FAO 1995)    

  
13
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

14
 90

80

70

60
Respondent (%)

50

40

30

20

10

Figure 1. Demographic characteristics of sample respondents

15
 Lowland ownership upland ownership

14% 3% 15% 4% 2% 35%

<1 ha
<1 ha 1 to 2 ha
1 to 2 ha 3 to 4 ha
3 to 4 ha 5 to 6 ha
44% >6 ha
83%

Garden land ownership

7%

<1 ha 1 to2 ha

93%

Figure 2. Landownership of the sample respondents in the study area 16

 R espondent (%)
30
Lowland cropping patterns
25
20
15
10
5
0

Figure 3. Lowland cropping patterns of the sample respondents in the

study area 17
 Respondent (%) 30
Upland cropping patterns
25
20
15
10
5
0

Figure 4. Upland cropping patterns of the sample respondents in the study area
18
Table 2. Cattle ownership of the sample respondents in the
study area, 2012

No. Items 1-2 3-6 7-10 11-14 15-18 19-22 Total

Draft 87 29 0 0 0 0 116
1. (0.0) (0.0)
cattle (75.00) (25.00) (0.00) (0.0) (100)

30 13 3 3 3 3 55
2. Cow
(54.53) (23.63) (5.46) (5.46) (5.46) (5.46) (100)
Note: Figures in the parentheses represent percentage of respondents

Note: Figure in the parentheses are percentage

19
 Table 3. Sources of feed for cattle in the study area, 2012
No. of
No. Items (%)
respondents

1. Crop residues and by products 122 100.0

2.
Harvesting forages and grasses 122 100.0

 In Bangladesh
3. Sown fodderand other countries there is a long115
tradition of having
94.26to rely on
crop residues for ruminant feeding.
4. Buying crop residues Verma and Jackson
76 1984 62.29
 Browse plants make major contribution to livestock feed resources
particularly in the drier zones of Nigeria.
5. Grazing on natural pasture Emmanuel and Daniel35 2011 28.68

20
Table 4. Use of crop residues and natural browse plants as feed
ingredients in the study area, 2012

No. Kind of crop Crop residues Respondents (N = 122)

Frequency Percentage
1. Maize/sorghum Stalk 117 95.9

Husk 95 77.87
2. Pulses stalk 11 9.02
Cake 5 4.10
3. Rice Straw 89 72.95
4. Sesame Cake 42 34.43
5. Toddy palm Toddy palm fresh fruit 41 33.61
6. Grasses   104 85.25
7. Tree leaves and browse plants 81 66.39

21
 Dried corn stalk Bean husk Toddy palm fruit

Bauhinia vahlii Wight &Arn. Abutilon Indian (L.) G. Don Haplophragma adenophyllum
(ဖလံ နွယ်) (ဗောက်ခွေး) (Wall.) Dop (ဖက်သန်း)
22
 90
80
70
60
Respondents (%)

50
40
straw
30
husk
20 corn
10
0

Months
 The study indicated that the uses of crop residues were decreased in the
dryFigure
season5. Seasonal
and cropuses of crop season.
growing residues in the study area, 2012

23
 Seasonal uses of grasses Seasonal uses of tree leaves and browse plants

Respondent (%)
Respondent (%)
70 60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0

Months Months

 The use of grasses was dependent on seasonal availability and

treeFigure
leaves anduses
6. Seasonal browse
of grasses,plants were
tree leaves supplementary
and browse plants in the study feed during
area, 2012
the dry season.

24
 Table 5. Cultivation of fodder crops by sample respondents in the study
area, 2012
Respondents (N = 115)
No. Items
Frequency Percentage

Whether growing fodder crops Yes 115 94.26

1.
or not No 7 5.74

Maize/sorghum 114 99.13

2. Crops Legumes 7 6.09
Sesame 2 1.74
Upland 103 89.56
3. Farming system
Lowland 12 10.43
<1 105 91.30
 Major contribution of feed and fodder
4. Area (ha)
1-2 scarcity was growing
10 fodder
8.69
deficit
and decline land availability.
Roy and Singh 2008
25
Table 6. Farmers’ perception on fodder crops
Kind of fodder crop
No. Criterion Maize/
Legumes Sesame Grass
Sorghum
1. Long shelf life 25 - - -

2. Dual use 21.13 27.27 - -

3. Fodder crop 17.32 27.27 - 100

4. Palatable by cattle 13.46 45.46 100 -

5. Adaptable to climate 7.69 - - -

6. Dual use / Long storage life 5.77 - - -
Palatability / Adaptable to
7. 3.85 - - -
climate/ Long storage life
Adaptable to climate / Long
8. 3.85 - - -
storage life
Palatability / Adaptable to
9. 1.93 - - -
climate
Total 52 (100) 11 (100) 1 (100) 1 (100)
26
 70

60

50
Respondent (%)

40
straw
30 corn stalk
bean husk
20 grass

10

0
<2 months 2-5 months 5.5-8 months 8.5-11 <11 months
months

Months
 Increasing the fodder storage caused possibilities to maintain fodder self-
Figure 7. Storage of crop residues by sample respondents in the study area,
sufficiency.
2012 Biosdon and Capitaine 2008
27
Table 7. Purchase of crop residues by month in the study area, 2012

Kinds of crop residues (%)

No. Item
Rice straw Corn stalk Bean husk

1. ≥4 months 32.98 21.05 21.05

2. 5 to 8 months 35.53 19.74 7.89

3. 9 to 12 months 22.37 5.26 0.00

28
 Use of grazing system Grazing by labor in the study area

29% 26%
Grazing Grazing by
Non family labor
71% 74% Grazing by
grazing
hired labor

Perception of livestock owners on grazing

40%
Feed enough
Feed not enough
60%

Figure 8.Grazing system used by sample respondents in the study area, 2012
29
Table 8. Amount of fodder at fodder available season and fodder shortage season in
the study area
No. Items Mean Std. Dev. Std. Error t value

Full feeding 12.15 8.22 0.74 8.31**

1. Corn stalk
Reduced feeding 5.13 5.91 0.53

Full feeding 4.40 4.42 0.40 7.46**

2. Bean husk
Reduced feeding 1.31 2.12 0.19

Full feeding 4.21 4.02 0.36 3.97**

3. Rice straw
Reduced feeding 2.95 3.40 0.31

Full feeding 0.22 0.38 0.03 2.32*

4. Sesame cake
Reduced feeding 0.14 0.32 0.02

Full feeding 23.25 18.91 1.71 5.47**

5. Grasses
Reduced feeding 13.90 17.13 1.55

Full feeding 0.75 3.75 0.34 -8.51**

6. Tree leaves
Reduced feeding 14.09 18.11 1.64
Note: **significantly different at 1% level and * significantly different at 5% level
30
Table 9. Amount of feeding by projected and non-projected villages
Non-projected Projected t value
No. Item
villages (N=90) villages (N=32)

1. Straw Mean 4.01 4.76 0.96ns

Std. Dev. 4.17 3.57

2. Corn stalk Mean 12.94 9.93 2.01*

Std. Dev. 8.58 6.75
3. Bean husk Mean 4.58 3.91 0.77ns

Std. Dev. 8.58 6.75

Note: * significant at the 0.05 level and ns non-significant 31

Table 10. Sufficiency indices of different kinds of crop residues in the
study area, 2012
Self-Sufficiency Ratio

No. Item Rice Straw Corn Stalk Bean Husk

1. Mean 21.65 40.92 46.25

2. Std. Dev. 3.17 4.5 4.53

3. Min. 7.66 8.33 8.33

4. Max. 112.99 150.00 200.00

32
Table 11. Self-sufficiency ratio of crop residues by month in the study area, 2012
Self-sufficiency of Self-sufficiency of Self-sufficiency of Total
No. Month
rice straw corn stalk bean husk Sufficiency
1. January 33.91 29.51 74.59 138.01
2. February 28.42 23.77 40.16 92.35
3. March 12.91 22.96 39.34 75.21
4. April 12.30 13.93 37.49 64.02
5. May 6.50 8.88 37.49 52.87
6. June 7.89 8.47 17.96 34.32
7. July 3.28 4.92 6.56 14.76
8. August 4.10 4.10 7.38 15.58
9. September 5.74 14.75 7.38 27.87
10. October 8.74 15.57 12.30 36.61
11. November 22.02 17.21 14.75 53.98
12. December 34.43 27.87 32.79 95.09

33
Table12. The effect of paddy based cropping patterns on the self-sufficiency of rice
straw

Rice straw self-sufficiency

ratio
No. Item
Mean Std. Dev. F value

1. Monsoon paddy-fallow 48.65 3.37 1.15 ns

2. Paddy - maize / sorghum 41.74 5.57

3. Paddy - chickpea 35.80 3.31

4. Paddy - maize / sorghum - chickpea 22.22 2.22

Note: ns non-significant
34
Table13. The effect of legume based cropping patterns on the self-sufficiency of bean
husk

Bean husk self-sufficiency ratio

No. Item
Mean Std. Dev. F value

1. Chickpea - sunflower 75.00 5.0 0.21 ns

2. Green gram + pigeon pea 71.13 4.37

3. Green gram only 56.54 6.46

4. Chickpea - maize / sorghum - sunflower 50.00 5.0

5. Chickpea only 45.84 5.38

Note: ns non-significant
35
Table14. The effect of corn based cropping patterns on the self-sufficiency of corn
stalk

Self-Sufficiency Ratio
No. Item
Mean Std. Dev. F value
1. Sorghum- green gram + pigeon pea -betel 69.15 9.38 1.33ns

Sorghum-green gram + pigeon –cotton-

2. 51.30 4.5
sesame
3. Sorghum - green gram 50.95 4.97

4. Sorghum- green gram + pigeon pea-onion 41.27 3.37

5. Maize or sorghum 41.13 4.20

6. Sorghum-green gram+ pigeon pea 34.53 3.94

7. Sorghum-green gram+ pigeon pea-cotton 34.25 3.58

Note: ns non-significant 36
Table 15. Correlation coefficient of different variables and sufficiency of crop residues in the
study area

Straw Corn Husk Upland Lowland Rice Rice Corn Corn Pulses Pulses
sufficiency sufficiency sufficiency area area area yield area yield area yield

Straw 1
sufficiency

Corn 0.33** 1
sufficiency

Husk 0.11ns 0.04ns 1

sufficiency

Upland area 0.21ns 0.3** 0.02ns 1

Lowland area 0.24** 0.03ns 0.02 ns 0.19 ns 1

Rice area 0.32** 0.03 ns -0.09 ns 0.02 ns 0.74** 1

Rice yield 0.47** 0.09 ns 0.01 ns 0.01 ns 0.18 ns 0.46** 1

Corn area 0.18 ns 0.15 ns 0.06 ns 0.61 ** 0.13 ns 0.18 ns 0.07 ns 1

Corn yield 0.08 ns 0.06 ns 0.01 ns 0.05 ns 0.05 ns 0.12 ns 0.16 ns 0.02 ns 1

Pulses area 0.21ns 0.21ns 0.05ns 0.67** 0.32** 0.09ns 0.11ns 0.17 ns 0.04ns 1

Pulses yield 0.05ns -0.01ns 0.01ns -0.01ns 0.12ns 0.12ns 0.27** -0.02ns -0.03ns 0.13ns 1

Note: ** significant at the 0.01 level, * significant at the 0.05 level and ns non-significant 37
Table 16. Problems encountered by the sample respondents due to insufficiency
of fodder crops

Respondents (N = 122)
No. Problems
Frequency Percentage

1. Buying crop residues from distance places 87 71.30

2. Collection of fodder from distance places 48 39.34

3. Mix feeding with tree leaves 30 24.59

4. Growing fodder crops 14 11.48

5. Grazing in distance places 7 5.73

6. Sending cattle to other places for grazing 3 2.46

7. Sold out the cattle 1 0.80

38
 CONCLUSION
 Majority of the respondents relied on upland farming and small
farm size of 1 to 2 ha.
 Among the crop residues, the highest use was found in corn stalk
fallowed by bean husk and rice straw.
 Maize and sorghum were grown as fodder crops under the
negligible area of land.
 Livestock owners appreciated the long shelf life and dual
usefulness of maize or sorghum as fodder crop.
 Most of the respondents stored crop residues within the 2 to 5
months.
39
 CONCLUSION

 Grazing was done on paddy bunds, fallow land and stretch of

low ridges by family labor.
 Although the seasonal use of crop residues were decreased in
dry season and growing season, tree leaves and browse plants
became the supplementary feed.
 The feeding amounts were significantly decreased for all kinds
of feed except tree leaves in the fodder shortage season.
 Self-sufficiency ratio of bean husk was highest followed by
corn stalk and rice straw.
40
 CONCLUSION
 The total sufficiency ratio of crop residues was below the
sufficient level throughout the year except January.
 Self-sufficiency of rice straw was significantly associated with
corn sufficiency, lowland ownership, rice growing area and rice
yield.
 Self-sufficiency of corn stalk was significantly associated with
upland farming.
 The most common problems faced by livestock owner were
buying and collection of crop residues from distance places.
41
 RECOMMENDATION
As the climate related crop production is unsecure, the
improved crop varieties which are suitable for local drought
conditions should be introduced.
The local fodder species should be evaluated in order to
contribute quality and quantity forages in the study area.
Rotational grazing for optimizing fodder production and
conservation of natural resources should be introduced.
The ways to improve the nutritive value of feed resources are
needed.

42
 RECOMMENDATION
The educational programs for rural women which improve
fodder crop cultivation should be implemented.
The formation of farmer groups to solve the common problems
of fodder shortage should be initiated and implemented.
The extension services and subject matter specialist in forages
and fodder crop production are urgent in livestock sector.
The formation of policy and planning strategy for fodder
production and pasture management is needed for the future.

43
Miliusa velutina Hook. f & Haplophragma adenophyllum Abutilon Indian (L.) G. Don (ဗောက်
Thomson (သပွတ်ကြီး ) (Wall.) Dop (ဖက်သန်း) ခွေး)

Holarrhena antidysenterica Wall Bauhinia vahlii Wight &Arn. (ဖလံ Vallaris solanaceae Q. Ktze. (နဗူ း
(လက်ထု တ်ကြီး ) နွယ်) နွယ်) 45
Table. Number of respondents, villages and village tracts in the study area, 2012
No. Village tract Village No. of Respondents
1. Maygyantaw 1. Maygyantaw 16
2. Gyatchaunggyi 9
3. Gyatchaunglay 7
2. Kantwin East 1. Sinlanchaung 6
2. Kantwin East 13
3. Kapaing East 9
4. Kapaing West 8
3. Dawtha 1. Dawtha 9
1. Sinnitaung 5
4. Pintalae 1. Pintalae 14
5. Ywama 1. Ywama North 7
1. Ywama South 8
6. Sitekhan 1. Sitekhan 11
Total 6 13 122

46
 Table. Land use pattern in Seikphyu Township (2011-2012)

No. Description (ha) Area Percent in total

(‘000 hectare) area
1. Net Sown Area 33.99 22.31
Le Land 5.98 (17.59)
Ya Land 26.43 (77.75)
Kaing Land 1.53 (4.52)
Garden Land 0.048 (0.14)
2. Reserved Forest 21.36 14.01
3. Unreserved Forest 34.35 22.54
4. Cultivable Waste Land 1.45 0.95
5. Uncultivated Waste Land 61.25 40.19

Total 152.40 100

47
Table. Number of domestic animals in the study area, 2012
No. Villages Cattle Goat/Sheep Pig Chicken Duck

1. Maygyantaw 501 550 235 1210 150

2. Gyatchaunggyi 499 450 150 960 95

3. Gyatchaunglay 317 312 50 1040 105

4. Sinlanchaung 320 130 105 1000 25

5. Kantwin East 465 239 105 1010 150

6. Kapaing East 330 130 100 950 35

7. Kapaing West 350 140 95 1050 40

8. Dawtha 883 500 290 1700 101
9. Sinnitaung 500 501 207 1080 49
10. Pintalae 1552 795 447 2715 302
11. Ywama North 500 250 190 1500 95
12. Ywama South 857 265 210 2015 105
13. Sitekhan 1251 505 450 3130 200 48
 Table Animal Husbandry of the sample respondents in the study area, 2012

Item Draft cattle Cow Chicken Sheep Goat

<2 74.10 55.20 26.80 0.0 0.0
3-5 24.90 19.00 12.50 0.0 0.0
6-8 0.90 6.90 17.90 0.0 0.0
9-11 0.0 6.90 5.40 16.70 0.0
12-15 0.0 3.40 12.50 16.70 12.50
16-20 0.0 3.40 14.30 33.33 37.33
21-30 0.0 5.20 7.10 0.0 25.00
>30 0.0 0.0 3.60 33.33 25.00

No. of
122 (100%) 58 (47.54%) 56 (45.9%) 6 (4.9%) 8 (6.5%)
respondents

49
Table. Weight of different kind of feed ingredients

No. Item Weight (kg)

1. Rice straw 2.9
2. Corn stalk 7.5
3. Bean husk 4.5
4. Grasses 13.3
5. Tree leaves 10.2

50
Table. Tree leaves and natural browse plants mostly used as fodder by selected villages of the
study area, 2012

Common Name Local Name % share

1. Gandha gajari oyGwfMuD; 1.3
2. Bitter oleander vufxkwfMuD; 2.6
3. Bread flower
eAl;EG,f 2.6

4. Trumpet creeper [if;uGufyif 5.2

5. Karen wood
zufoef; 3.9

6. Mallow creeper zvHEG,f 1.3

7. Dalbergia opfykwf 1.3
8. Bluejack oat
opfcsndk 67.5

9. Haricot bean yifhulxdyfydwf 1.3

51
Table. Tree leaves and natural browse plants mostly used as fodder by selected villages of the
study area, 2012
Common name Local name % share
10 False mallow awmyDavm 11.9
11. Country mallow abmufacG; 13.9
12. Aramina fibre
uyfap;eJ 1.3
13. Trumpet tree
ZyÜLyeD 26.0

14. Margosa wrm 71.4

15. White barked acacia xaemif; 3.9
16. Siris tree uk£dKvf 11.9
17. Wild gooseberry aAmufyif 13.9
18. Dahat teak '[wf 14.3
19. Arni (Taluddai) wyaq; 2.6
20. Tribulus ql;av 1.3
52
 100

90

80

70
Respondent (%)

60
Feeding in fodder available season
50
Feeding in shortage season
40

30

20

10

0 Corn stalk Bean husk Rice straw Sesame cake Grasses Tree leaves

Figure. Use of fodder by sample respondents in fodder available season

and fodder shortage season

53
Table. Requirements and suggestions of the sample respondents in the study area,
2012
No. Items % of responses (N=75)

1.
Requirements
Growing water 73.33

2. Feed for cattle 12.00

3. Financial support for cultivation 9.33
4. Seeds 8.00
5. Grazing places 6.67
6. Permission for grazing 6.67
7. Cheap fodder 1.33
8. Health care 1.33
Suggestion
10. Intercrop with fodder crops 5.33
11. Find solution fodder problem 2.67
12. Grow maize/sorghum to obtain sufficient fodder 2.67
13. Graze around the villages 1.33 54
Table. Nutrient analysis on a dry matter basis of feeds.

CP from Effective
DM TDN CP Calcium Phosphorus
Feed NPN CP
Percent by weight

Rice straw 90 44.0 4.3 0 4.3 0.21 0.08

Grass hay,
average 90 54.0 8.0 0 8.0 0.39 0.24
quality
Corn stalk 90 40.0 2.5 0 2.5 0.1 0.04

Legume hay 90 60.0 20.0 0 20.0

Note: DM=dry matter; TDN=total digestible nutrients; CP=crude protein; NPN=nonprotein nitrogen;
Source : Drake, D. J. 2007. 55
Table. Nutritional requirements of cattle
Phospho
DMI, lb TDN CP Calcium
rus
Cattle
100% 90%
Percent, DM basis
DM basis basis

Cow, dry 20.8 23.1 48.8 6.9 0.19 0.19

Note: DMI=dry matter; TDN= total digestible nutrients; CP=crude protein

56
 Table 4.19 Fodder sufficiency of projected and non-projected areas

Projected areas Non-projected t-test

No. Item
(N=32) areas (N=90)

1. Straw Mean 27.00 17.76 1.52ns

Std. Dev 28.99 30.78

2. Corn stalk Mean 43.79 39.89 0.49ns

Std. Dev 33.81 48.55

3. Bean husk Mean 41.64 47.89 -0.67ns

Std. Dev 44.59 45.67

Note: ns non-significant 57