Adoption and feeding of grass and legume hay in Honduras

C Reiber, M Peters*, V Hoffmann** and R Schultze-Kraft*

University of Hohenheim, Institute of Animal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics, Stuttgart, Germany
C_Reiber@uni-hohenheim.de
** University of Hohenheim, Institute of Social Sciences in Agriculture, Stuttgart, Germany
* CIAT (International Center for Tropical Agriculture), Cali, Colombia

Abstract

Feed shortage is the most important constraint faced by Honduran livestock farmers during the dry season. Forage conservation could contribute to an alleviation of this limitation. This research highlights the adoption and constraints of hay making and feeding as result of promotion activities in Honduras.

Of 194 farmers who had participated in training workshops and field days, 25% used hay at the end of the 3-year project period; 14%, 32%, 27% and 27% were small, medium, large and very large-scale livestock farmers, respectively. Farm size and location significantly influenced adoption. More adoption (33-55%; average 42.5%) occurred in valley areas where farmers had large and plain pasture fields and partly access to machinery for hay production. In contrast, less adoption (0-36%; average 16.5%) occurred in hillside areas where farmers produced hay exclusively manually with simple tools. Reasons for lower adoption included lack of sown grass areas and availability of alternative dry season forage options such as sorghum hay or silage. Hay was mainly made of Brachiaria grasses during the dry season. Legume hay was tested only by few farmers. The production of high quality grass hay is constrained by frequent rainfall during the appropriate harvesting period, cutting of grass at a too advanced vegetative stage, and lack of machinery and tools to ease and speed up hay making. Participatory research and extension of hay should continue with special emphasis on increasing the quality of hay and on reduction of post-mowing losses.

Key words: Brachiaria, cowpea, dry season, extension, forage conservation, promotion, training

Introduction

Mixed crop-livestock production systems with dual-purpose cattle contribute to daily income and food security of thousands of farming families in Honduras. Average daily milk production per cow is low with 3.8 and 4.4 litres in the dry and rainy season, respectively (INE 2008). Reasons for low milk yields and productivity of Honduran livestock systems are attributed to the low genetic potential of commonly used crossbred cows, inadequacy of feed supply, particularly during the dry season, and poor herd management (Lentes et al 2010).  

Feed shortage is perceived by livestock farmers as the most important dry season constraint, particularly affecting smallholders who cannot afford purchasing feed supplements. Common ruminant feeds during the dry season are mostly standing hay and crop residues (Reiber et al 2006). However, their nutritional quality is generally poor. Supplementation of high quality forage in the form of hay and/or silage could alleviate the constraint and maintain animal productivity during dry periods. However, hay production from pasture grasses and/or legumes is rarely practiced in Honduras, particularly under smallholder conditions (Fujisaka et al 2005). 

Production and use of hay and silage had been promoted during farmer trainings and field days in different areas of Honduras. This paper aims to assess the adoption and constraints of hay making and feeding as result of promotion activities in different locations of the country.

Methods

Promotion of hay  

In the frame of a project conducted from 2004 to 2006, hay production of pasture grasses and legumes had been promoted during farmer training workshops and field days in 12 different locations within 5 departments of Honduras. Dry season length in the research areas generally ranges from 5 to 7 months (Figure 1), from November/December to April/May, and average annual rainfall from about 900 mm in El Paraíso to 1200 mm in Yoro (SMN 2007). Promotion activities were carried out by CIAT staff in collaboration with partners from DICTA (Honduran Institute for Agricultural Research and Extension) and local NGOs.

Training workshops included a theoretical part in which different aspects of forage conservation such as its purpose, advantages and disadvantages, pasture grass establishment, optimum cutting period for grasses and legumes, and the different steps of hay production were addressed. Wherever possible, this was followed by a practical part on pilot farms, in which pre-cut grass was turned and, when dry, baled. Field days were conducted with farmers from different locations including visits to several farms with improved management practices such as hay production. Illustrated information leaflets with instructions and recommendations were distributed. In total, 194 farmers had participated in these training sessions (Table 1).  

Seed of Brachiaria grasses and some legumes such as Vigna unguiculata (cowpea) and the shrub Cratylia argentea was offered to farmers. Farmer-led on-farm feeding trials were conducted to test the effect of hay from these forages on milk production and to stimulate adoption processes.  

Data collection and analysis 

Basic farm data (e.g. farm size and number of animals) were sourced from participants during the training sessions. After the promotion activities, participants were visited at least once during 2006-2007 and information on adoption aspects recorded (e.g. grass species, quantity of hay produced, time, method and cost of hay production, reasons for adoption and non-adoption), using a structured questionnaire with quantitative and qualitative open-ended questions. Key farmers and technicians of institutions were interviewed on general hay adoption in the respective areas.  

Farms were classified according to herd size into small (<20 head of cattle; 27%), medium (21–50 head; 33%), large (51–100 head; 28%) and very large (>100 head; 12%) farms. A further grouping was made into hay adopters (farmers who produced hay at least once after trainings) and non-adopters (farmers who did not produce hay). The research locations were further grouped in hillside and valley areas. 

Methods applied for the analysis of adoption included descriptive statistics with qualitative and quantitative data analysis and ANOVA for the assessment of differences between locations and farm size classes.

Results

Hay adoption in different locations and farm size classes 

Before the project intervention, hay of pasture grass was produced only by a few individual farmers (non-participants) operating mainly with tractors and balers around Yoro (Dept. Yoro), San Francisco de Becerra (SFB, Dept. Olancho), San Pedro de Catacamas (SPC, Dept. Olancho) and Jamastrán (El Paraíso). In the remaining research locations hay was not used and often not even known. A hay market did not exist anywhere.  

At the end of the project period (2007), adoption of pasture grass hay ranged from 0% of participants in Candelaria and Jesús de Otoro (JO) to about 50% around Yoro and SFB with an average of 25% over all research locations (Table 2).  

Not only location but also farm size significantly influenced adoption (P<0.05). There were 14%, 25%, 24% and 57% pasture grass hay adopters from small, medium, large and very large farm size categories, respectively (data not presented). Considering only those having adopted, 14%, 32%, 27% and 27% represented small, medium, large and very large farms, respectively (data not presented).  

Hay adoption in hillside areas 

In hillside areas (Victoria, Sulaco, Yorito, Las Vegas, Alauca, SFP, Candelaria and JO), adoption ranged from 0% to 36% with an average of 16.5%. The farmer group in JO and small- and medium-scale farmers of Candelaria did not produce hay mainly due to lack of cultivated pasture grass and use of alternative dry season feeding options. For example, the farmer group in JO used irrigation and adopted sorghum and maize silage. In Candelaria, ‘guate’ was used by the majority of participants already before the project intervention. Though the use of ‘guate’ was also common in Alauca, two farmers adopted Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato grass and produced hay. One of them produced about 3000 bundles of 4.5 kg each from an area of 2400 m² (several harvests) and reported that other farmers preferred renting land to buying hay since they simply did not appreciate the latter. In Yorito, Sulaco and Victoria many farmers adopted silage as the main dry season forage option and at the end of the project period hay was made only by 9-16% of participants.  

The higher percentage of hay adopters in the Las Vegas smallholder group is probably due to continued promotion and support by an NGO, ‘Ayuda en Acción’. The commonly agreed goal for the subsequent year was that each farmer of the group would produce 25 bales. 

In the hillside areas, a hay market has not (yet) developed and mechanized hay production was not practiced. On many hillside farms tractors would not be suitable due to small pasture areas and slopy terrain. 

Hay adoption in valley areas  

Hay adoption in valley areas (Yoro, Jamastrán, SFB and SPC) ranged from 33% to 55% with an average of 42.5%. A hay ‘boom’ occurred around SFB in Olancho where not only about 50% of participating farmers made hay in the dry season 2006/07 but hay was estimated to be used by about 60% of farmers in the area. As reasons for this ‘boom’ farmers mentioned mainly the recent availability of machinery (there were three farmers with tractors promoting hay and producing it as service provider since 2004) but also the shortage of labour (because many young men emigrate to the USA for work) and the perceived climate change with longer and more unreliable dry seasons. About half of participants from SFB cut grass manually using machete (one used a motor-scythe) whereas the other half made hay using tractors and balers (mainly by contract). Farmers with sufficient pasture area contracted for the service of mechanized hay production from their fields. They usually pay the service either with 50% of the bales produced or 5-15 Lempiras per bale (about 0.03-0.08 $US/kg). Some farmers with limited availability of pasture land had produced ‘guate’ in earlier times but now purchased hay in the market, produced by a farmer association, to feed animals in poor body condition, mainly in March and April. The market price ranged from 15 to 35 Lempiras (0.8-1.8 $US) per bale of 8-13 kg (0.07-0.23 $US/kg). Thus, mechanized hay production became a business for some large-scale farmers with balers and smallholders could benefit from the availability of hay bales.  

In SPC (close to SFB), six participants started to produce hay after the training sessions, three by contracting machinery (available since 2005), two manually with machete and one with a motor-scythe. About 30 tons of hay was made from about 8.5 ha of grasses such as Brachiaria brizantha, B. decumbens and Panicum maximum cv. Mombasa. Three farmers who had produced hay in the previous year did not continue doing so in the subsequent year due to sporadic rainfalls in the dry season and high risk of losses. Two farmers who produced hay in September and March complained about spoilage losses of complete harvests (up to 1.4 ha) due to unexpected intensive rains. Farmers commented that mechanical hay making did not involve turning and tedding. They observed that drought tolerant grasses, e.g. B. brizantha cv. Toledo, recuperated sufficiently well after the unexpected rains during the dry season, and there was no need for hay making. In SPC, the use of hay beyond participants was not a common practice in spite of its availability on the market.  

In contrast to the research location SFB, adoption around Yoro and Jamastrán as well as in hillside areas, was restricted almost only to participants and only one farmer in each area used machinery for hay making whereas the rest produced it manually. A hay market had not yet developed.   

Manual hay production from pasture grasses and legumes 

Brachiaria grasses were used by 82% of hay adopters with 33% using B. brizantha (mainly cv. Toledo), 27% Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato, and 22% B. decumbens. Estrella grass (Cynodon nlemfuensis) was made to hay by 20% of adopters, Digitaria swazilandensis by 11%, and Panicum maximum by 7%. Reported hay yields ranged from 1500 to 5000 kg/ha, depending on vegetative stage, regrowth age and grass species. 

Grass was usually cut manually with machete during the dry season, mostly after the optimum harvesting time, when plants were already in an advanced vegetative stage, mature or already dry (B. brizantha cv. Toledo and Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato start flowering by September, end of the rainy season). Besides manual cutting, there was an increasing use of motor-scythes by which the process of cutting grass is accelerated by 2-3 times. Cut grass was usually not turned and needed 2-3 days to get dry, even under dry and hot conditions. There was a general lack of simple hay making tools such as rake and fork. Hay production during the rainy season was also practiced but farmers complained about high spoilage losses, and some commented that it is simply not possible to produce hay during the rainy season. Grass that could not be dried properly often resulted in hay of mouldy odour with low palatability. Farmers usually made bundles of about 5 kg or baled the hay using a wooden frame in which it was compacted, formed and tied up by two crossed cords.  

Few farmers produced hay from the legumes Vigna unguiculata (cowpea) and Cratylia argentea. Leaves of cratylia were usually dried on a plastic sheet. Cowpea plants needed several days to dry but were field dried for only 1-2 days in order to avoid losses by leaf shattering. For final drying, cowpea was then spread out on a concrete floor or a plastic sheet, or plants were bundled and suspended in an open shed. When dry, legume hay was stored in concentrate bags.  

Manual hay production was generally disliked by farm workers and regarded as cumbersome and labour-intensive. This applied particularly for manual hay making of Mulato grass due to its fine, itching hairs. All four farmers who tested Mulato hay complained about the difficulty to find workers for its manual elaboration. About 10-30 workers per hectare of pasture grass were required for cutting. One worker prepared about 20 bales of 14 kg per day. Manual hay production costs (mainly labour) ranged from 0.01 to 0.05 $US/kg of hay (production cost of sorghum ‘guate’ was 0.03-0.04 $US/kg).  

Feeding hay 

Pasture hay was mainly fed to calves, heifers and dry cows, and to a limited extent to lactating cows. Many farmers stated that lactating cows rejected hay, particularly when they had green and juicy forage available, e.g. pasture grass in ‘vegas’ (floodplains), fresh cut-and-carry grasses or sugarcane. The quality of hay was often considered as being adequate just for livestock maintenance rather than to support high milk production. For lactating cows, farmers usually preferred maize or sorghum silage to hay due to the higher palatability and milk yield increasing effect of the latter. Farmers usually sprinkled hay with molasses and sometimes salt to increase its acceptance by livestock. Further strategies to reduce hay wastage were, chopping hay to reduce stemmy leftovers, and using suspended hay nets (mainly for calves) to reduce hay contamination with soil or excreta.   

Low hay acceptance by cows was confirmed in four on-farm hay feeding experiments, two with B. brizantha cv. Toledo, one with Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato and one with C. argentea leaf hay. A prolonged adaptation period was required to get cows used to hay. For this, animals were confined for 1-2 hours after milking during which they had no access to any other feed. Though hay acceptance seemed to differ among cows, the experiments had to be canceled due to generally very low intake of hay and consequently decreasing milk yields. The unconsumed hay was then fed to calves who readily accepted it. The reason for such acceptability differences could not be clarified and requires further investigation. A farmer commented that calves prefer hay to silage whereas cows prefer silage to hay.  

In a further on-farm experiment, C. argentea haylage (with a crude protein (CP) content of 17.7%) was supplemented at 2.7 kg to 11.8 kg of maize silage per cow and day. Though at the beginning cratylia intake differed among the four experimental cows, after one week all animals consumed on average 2.5 kg/day of cratylia haylage. Average liveweight of cows increased slightly by about 0.2 kg/day but there was no effect on milk yield. 

However, there were promising experiences with hay of pasture grasses fed to cows. For example, an innovative farmer from Olancho had replaced maize silage by Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato hay, because of being cheaper and easier to produce since he had access to machinery. He found that with Mulato hay his cows maintained milk yield at the same level when feeding maize silage. Another two farmers reported similar results and mentioned that guinea grass (P. maximum cv. Mombasa) hay was more palatable than Mulato hay. Some pilot farmers used hay mixed with silage, sugarcane and concentrate in a ‘total mixed ration’ and obtained higher milk yields than with other feeding strategies. 

Promising experiences were made with cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) hay. In an on-farm experiment, partial substitution of commercial concentrate with cowpea hay resulted in similar milk yields of crossbred cows but at lower feed costs (Reiber et al 2011). In another case, a smallholder reported that he supplemented cowpea hay to his 6 Brahman cows for one week and total milk yield increased by 50%. In addition to producing hay of cowpea, some farmers produced, on their own initiative, i) concentrate of cowpea grains mixed with maize grains (cowpea residues were left in the field for direct grazing) and ii) silage of an intercrop mixture of cowpea with maize or sorghum.

Discussion

Tackling hay quality constraints  

In Honduras, as in the tropics in general, the production of quality hay is constrained by frequent rainfall during the rainy season when pasture grass presents high production and quality. In our study, hay quality was further constrained because pasture grass was often cut at an advanced stage of maturity, e.g. at the beginning of the dry season, and cut grass was usually not turned leading to slower drying and, thereby, risk of losses in quality and palatability. In tropical and subtropical countries, hay making can often only be made after the rainy season when pasture grass is over-mature and its feeding value is low (Humphreys 1991; Suttie 2000). Low or medium quality hay might not present much better quality than over-mature standing hay used at a later stage in the dry season. Smith (1961) reported no benefit in terms of weight change of cattle in a comparison between Hyparrhenia hay cut at the end of the rainy season and supplemented to cattle in the dry season, and in situ grazing of standing hay.  

Despite technical developments over the years, spoilage because of adverse weather remains the major limitation to hay making around the world (McCartney 2005). Though hardly available in Honduras, there exists a range of technological solutions and simple tools which could facilitate and speed up hay making by small-scale farmers and contribute to increase the quality of hay. These include harvesting equipment such as scythes, two-wheeled sickle-bar mowers, and horse-drawn mowers that can be combined with a tedder and hay rake. Moreover, shortening the drying time to reduce the risk of losses could be achieved by selection of species with higher drying rates, use of a mower-conditioner and tools such as a fork or rake for turning, and use of tripods or similar structures to aid aeration under humid conditions (Suttie 2000). Hay losses during feed out could be reduced by chopping, hayrakes or nets. 

With respect to appropriate grasses for manual hay making, farmers reported mature Brachiaria brizantha cv. Toledo (i) to be hard to cut due to its hard, lignified stems, (ii) to cause itching and (iii) to need more time to dry than, e.g. jaraguá (Hyparrhenia rufa) and estrella grass (Cynodon nlemfuensis). An experiment, in which five tropical grasses (Andropogon gayanus, B. decumbens, P. maximum, Melinis minutiflora and H. rufa) were examined, showed that drying rate was closely related to leafiness: H. rufa and P. maximum, which had the highest leaf weight ratio and the shortest stems, had also the highest drying rate (Costa and Gomide 1991). 

As it was communicated to farmers during training sessions, tropical grasses such as Brachiaria spp. should be harvested before flowering, preferably after 25-35 days of regrowth, to ensure high production and quality (Andrade et al 1997; Hidalgo et al 2004; Rincón Castillo 2010). However, this depends on soil fertility, fertilisation and climate. In Honduras, a suitable period for hay making is during the dry spell in July/August (‘veranillo’ or ‘canícula’). Thus, achieving acceptable hay quality is possible if farmers manage to cut or graze the respective field about 30 days before the rain break. Hay making should then be performed as fast as possible to avoid losses. A reliable and accurate local weather forecast system would be necessary to support farmers’ decision for haying. If cut grass can not be dried sufficiently well due to (forecasted) rainfalls, the wilted material could still be made to haylage, which was found superior to hay and silage in terms of total digestible nutrients and dry matter (DM) intake (Andrade et al 1997; Wilkinson 1983). 

Feeding hay 

Similar to our findings in Honduras, Esperance and Ojeda (1997) reported from Cuba that hay plays an important role for raising young animals but considered it of low quality because of generally low nutritive value, suboptimal production technologies and adverse climatic conditions. In our study, reasons for the low acceptance of hay by lactating cows were associated with quality constraints, availability of alternative green forage in specific cases, and with cows not being accustomed to dry forage. A challenge for on-farm feeding experiments with animals is that the failure of a treatment, or even the need of adapting animal to a new feed source, may lead to losses in milk production and body weight (Amir and Knipscheer 1989). The risk to a farmer of using his cows in an on-farm feeding trial in terms of foregone production and income can be high (Morton et al 2002). 

However, even with medium quality hay, milk yield increases are feasible in the tropics. For example, Schultze-Kraft et al (2006) found a significant milk yield increase of 8-15%, equivalent to 0.4-0.7 litres/cow/day, as result of supplementing small quantities (1% DM of body weight) of medium quality grass hay (60-65% in vitro dry matter digestibility and 9-10% CP) from three different Brachiaria species to crossbred cows that were in their late lactation phase and grazed Paspalum notatum pasture with limited forage availability.  

Tackling hay adoption constraints  

High risk of losses, as experienced by some farmers, coupled with low quality of C4 grass hays and consequent low animal productivity that may not compensate for the efforts and costs involved in hay production, may explain the reluctance of many farmers to adopt hay making in the tropics in general (Humphreys 1991, Suttie 2000).  

Manual hay making is highly labour-demanding and only small quantities and areas can be handled at one time with the available labour. Scarcity of labour was frequently mentioned as constraint to forage conservation in Honduras. It is considered a major limitation for manual hay production around the world (McCartney 2005). Making hay from larger than tiny areas requires mechanization so that mowing and swath manipulation can be handled rapidly (Suttie 2000). Mechanization with tractors and balers was shown to contribute to increased hay adoption in Olancho. 

Another adoption aspect is related to the physical appearance of hay. Plant colour was perceived by Honduran farmers as the most important criterion for adoption of new forage technologies (Hernández Romero 2007). Farmers associated green coloured grass in the dry season not only with high drought tolerance but also with high quality and palatability. The greyish or pale colour of dry grass was often perceived to be related to low quality, probably associated with that of standing hay in the dry season and the reluctance of cows to eat it. Therefore, it is necessary to demonstrate to hay novices, for example through feeding experiments, that there are quality difference between hay from grass cut at an (over-) mature stage or standing hay, and high quality grass hay.  

Though there are many examples of smallholder hay production in the tropics (Suttie 2000; McCartney 2005), production of larger quantities of acceptable quality hay could be limited under smallholder conditions due to lack of resources, pasture areas, tools, equipment, access to machinery and labour. Improved pasture grasses as investment option to improve livestock production had the highest priority for farmers in the research areas (Reiber et al 2006). Though availability of pasture grasses is considered as prerequisite for hay making, the adoption of drought-tolerant grasses such as B. brizantha cv. Toledo could imply a decreased necessity for hay making in areas with shorter dry season periods or with sporadic rainfalls during dry seasons.     

Promotion of hay technologies and extension should be done through training, demonstrations, and collaborative on-farm experimentation and farmer-to-farmer information exchange if impact is to be achieved. Hay must be put in the context of the farming system, as a component of pasture management and livestock feeding, and aspects such as land preparation, forage cultivation and conservation, storage and use should be integrated (Suttie 2000). 

Conclusions and recommendations

• Promotion of hay can lead to substantial adoption in drought-constrained areas of the tropics, particularly by livestock farmers with availability of sown pasture grasses and access to machinery. Tools and technical equipment are required to facilitate and support hay making under smallholder conditions. High quality hay could support high milk yields whereas hay of low quality will probably better be used as a contribution to ensure, during times of forage scarcity, maintenance requirements. Participatory research and extension of hay technologies should continue with special emphasis on increasing quality of hay and reduction of post-mowing losses.  

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support by BMZ/GTZ (now GIZ, Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit). We are grateful to Dr. Peter Lentes for his continuous support and assistance during field work. We extend special thanks to: the many farmers for their collaboration and confidence; Ing. Conrado Burgos, Juan Carlos Ordóñez and staff from the Honduran Institute for Agricultural Research and Extension (Dirección de Ciencia y Tecnología Agropecuaria, DICTA) for their collaboration during field work; and last but not least, the late Ing. Heraldo Cruz (CIAT/DICTA) for having been an invaluable partner in the field (as farmer, technician and extensionist, he enriched hundreds of farmers with his broad knowledge and experience in all farm- and especially forage-related subjects).  

References

Amir P and Knipscheer H C 1989: Conducting on-farm animal research: procedures and economic analysis. Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development and International Development Research Centre, Morrilton, USA. 

Andrade J B, Ferrari Junior E, Lavezzo W, Paulino V T, Nogueira J R, Braun G and Castro F B 1997: Dry matter yield and nutritive value of coast-cross N° 1 preserved as hay, silage and haylage. Proceedings of the XVIII International Grassland Congress, Winnipeg-Saskatoon, Canada. Session 14. p 3–4. 

Costa J L and Gomide J A 1991: Drying rates of tropical grasses. Tropical Grasslands 25, 325–332. 

Esperance M and Ojeda J 1997: Conservación de forrajes. Pastos y Forrajes 20(1), 45–71. 

Fujisaka S, Holmann F, Peters M, Schmidt A, White D, Burgos C, Ordóñez J C, Mena M, Posas M, Cruz H, Davis C and Hincapié B 2005: Estrategias para minimizar la escasez de forrajes en zonas con sequías prolongadas en Honduras y Nicaragua. Documento de trabajo No. 201, CIAT, Cali, Colombia. 

Hernández Romero L A 2007: Selection of Tropical Forages: Development and implementation of a participatory procedure and main results from Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Reihe Kommunikation und Beratung 74, Margraf Publishers, Weikersheim, Germany.  

Hidalgo J, Vélez M, Rosas J C, Hincapié J J 2004: Producción de materia seca y contenido de proteína cruda y fibra neutro detergente del pasto Brachiaria híbrido Mulato. Thesis. Escuela Agrícola Panamericana, Zamorano, Honduras. 

Humphreys L R 1991: Tropical pasture utilisation. Cambridge University Press, UK.  

INE 2008: Encuesta Agrícola Nacional 2007-2008, Ganadería y Otras Especies Animales. Instituto Nacional de Estadística Honduras. Secretaría del Estado del Despacho Presidencial, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. 

Lentes P, Holmann F, Peters M and White D 2010: Constraints, feeding strategies and opportunities to improve productivity and income in milk production systems in Olancho, Honduras. Tropical Grasslands 44, 33–46. 

McCartney D 2005: Prospects for haying systems around the world. In: Reynolds S G and Frame J (eds) Grasslands: development, opportunities, perspectives. FAO and Science Publishers Inc., Rome, Italy and Enfield, USA. p 133–157. 

Morton J, Adolph B, Ashley S and Romney D 2002: Conceptual, methodological and institutional issues in participatory livestock production research. Livestock Research for Rural Development, Volume 14 (4), Retrieved August 8, 2012, from: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd14/4/mort144.htm 

Reiber C, Schultze-Kraft R, Peters M, Lascano C, Cruz H, Burgos C, Schmidt A, Franco L H and Lentes P 2006: Survey with farmer groups to estimate current and potential use of forage conservation technologies. In: CIAT Annual Report 2005. Tropical Grasses and Legumes: Optimizing genetic diversity for multipurpose use. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. p 178–185.  

Reiber C, Peters M and Schultze-Kraft R 2011: Forage conservation and profitable smallholder milk production in Honduras. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 23 (11), Article #177, Retrieved August 15, 2012, from: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/8/reib23177.htm 

Rincón Castillo Á 2010: Manejo de praderas bajo pastoreo. In: Rincón Castillo Á and Jaramillo Salazar C E (eds) Establecimiento, manejo y utilización de recursos forrajeros en sistemas ganaderos de suelos ácidos. Ministerio de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural, FEDEGAN, Corpoica, Bogotá, Colombia. p 113–140.   

Schultze-Kraft R, Schulz T, Avila P, Ramirez G, Lascano C and Peters M 2006: Milk yield of cows supplemented with grass hay. In: Tropical Grasses and Legumes: Optimizing genetic diversity for multipurpose use (Project IP5). Annual Report 2005. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia. p 8–9. 

Smith C A 1961: The utilization of Hyparrhenia veld for the nutrition of cattle in the dry season. II. Veld hay compared with in situ grazing of the mature forage, and the effects of feeding supplementary nitrogen. The Journal of Agricultural Science 57, 311–317. 

SMN (Servicio Meteorológico Nacional) 2007: Monthly mean temperatures in °C and monthly rainfall sums in mm. Years 1995–2006. Stations: Catacamas, Yoro, La Esperanza, Jacaleapa. SMN, Departamento de Climatología, Tegucigalpa, Honduras. 

Suttie J M 2000: Hay and straw conservation for small-scale farming and pastoral conditions. Plant Production and Protection Series No. 29. FAO, Rome, Italy.  

Wilkinson J M 1983: Silage made from tropical and temperate crops. Part I. The ensiling process and its influence on feed value. World Animal Review 45, 36–42.

Received 26 September 2012; Accepted 27 September 2012; Published 6 November 2012

Go to top