Is there a ‘logic of fodder legumes’ in Africa?

Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585 www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol

Is there a Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ in Africa? J.M. Lenne´ *, D. Wood North OldMoss Croft, Fyvie, Turriff, Aberdeenshire AB53 8NA, UK

Abstract This paper analyses the claim of Sumberg [Sumberg, J., 2002. The logic of fodder legumes in Africa. Food Policy 27, 285–300] that there is a Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ in Africa based on an idea from Europe applied inappropriately and unsuccessfully to livestock development in Africa by those who Sumberg calls Ôcolonial mastersÕ. We suggest that Sumberg was incorrect on many technical points and policy conclusions. We find that: fodder legume use in Africa was based on local experience and traditional practices; the development of fodder grasses has been a more important research theme in Africa in the past 100 years than the development of fodder legumes; there is no strong evidence that the agricultural revolution in Europe was a major contributing factor to a Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ in Africa; using appropriate methodology, national and international fodder researchers have developed some successful fodder grasses and legumes in Africa, especially for ÔcropÕ and ÔnicheÕ roles; and there are at least three welldocumented examples of successful promotion of fodder legumes in African crop-livestock systems. Our historical path to recognizing Ôdevelopment narrativesÕ has therefore not found any evidence that there is a Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ in Africa. We also query SumbergÕs recommendations for a more realistic systems-based approach to fodder legume research. This need was highlighted 15 years ago and, for the past 10 years, such improved approaches are having increasing impact on productivity in and policy for African crop-livestock systems. Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Fodder legumes; Fodder grasses; Crop residues; Africa; Crop-livestock systems; Development narratives; Participatory approaches; Livestock policy

*

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.M. Lenne´).

0306-9192/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.07.012

566

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

Introduction On the broad canvas of African agriculture there is an increasing and welcome trend to identify and then question simplistic colonial thinking and its continued negative influence on post-colonial development. There is now a substantial literature on such Ôdevelopment narrativesÕ applied to Africa and their problems and failures. For example, Tiffen et al. (1994) showed that an increase in population in the Machakos district of Kenya was associated with less (rather than the expected more) land degradation. Fairhead and Leach (1996) argued that local populations in West Africa maintained and expanded forest, rather than destroyed it, as previously thought. Carswell (2003) provides a detailed historical criticism of previously unquestioned narratives on agricultural land-use in the Kabale district of Uganda. Even the widely-believed development narrative of desertification in Africa is often criticized. Hellden (1994) claimed that there is no evidence to support increasing desertification in Africa, but that notwithstanding a lack of evidence, there is an obvious risk that desertification will become a political and development fiction. A link across these critiques of development narratives is the idea that if diagnosis of the problem is wrong then technical and policy attempts to correct the problem will fail. The uncovering of false narratives, demonstrated in the examples above, is therefore an essential prerequisite to correcting misguided policy (Wood and Lenne´, in press). However, the past success of this questioning of some colonial approaches to the African environment raises the danger of a Ôbandwagon effectÕ: all colonial approaches could attract opportunistic criticism from researchers and, inevitably, at least some of this criticism will be superficial and unfounded. This danger is compounded when, as is now common, institutional funding depends on either supporting or correcting development narratives. We believe that a recent paper (Sumberg, 2002) is an example of setting-up and then attacking a new development narrative: that of fodder legumes in Africa. At the heart of SumbergÕs paper was his attempt to identify a Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ for Africa; his claim that this specific ÔlogicÕ was an idea originating in Europe; and his argument that this ÔlogicÕ was then applied inappropriately and unsuccessfully to livestock development in sub-Saharan Africa by those who Sumberg calls Ôcolonial mastersÕ (Sumberg, 2002, p. 289). We agree with Sumberg (2002) that livestock, and the ability of farmers to feed livestock, are of obvious importance in African farming and therefore merit the attention of food policy analysts. Ruminant livestock are raised in a range of production systems from nomadic pastoralism, through integrated small-holder croplivestock systems, to intensive commercial systems under considerable diversity of agro-ecologies including humid, sub-humid, semi-arid, arid and highland (Thomas and Sumberg, 1995). Small-scale, mixed crop-livestock systems are more important than any other system in terms of their contribution to the total output of animal products, especially meat and milk, and involve 140 million resource-poor farmers (Sere and Steinfeld, 1996; Smith et al., 1997; Thornton et al., 2002). Fodder legumes are one of many sources of livestock fodder in Africa.

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

567

But we believe that Sumberg, in attempting to cloak himself in the Ômantle of absolute goodnessÕ of post-colonialism in Africa, has made significant errors. For example, he has:  misinterpreted the roles of legumes in farming systems;  neglected past and present fodder and fodder legume research;  failed to show that any Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ had an ÔinordinateÕ influence on colonial and post-colonial attempts to feed livestock. In his critique of fodder legume research in Africa, Sumberg attempted a topdown, step-wise and selective approach in identifying a central logic to the development and use of fodder legumes in Africa. Firstly he proposes that livestock will be essential for the modernisation of agriculture. Next, he introduces the idea of sustainable mixed farming and claims that mixed farming depends on the increased nutrient status of livestock, that Ôherbaceous legumesÕ have a special place, and that Ôlegumes can be seen as the glue cementing together the mixed farming modelÕ. (At this stage of his argument Sumberg, 2002, p. 286 drifts away from fodder legumes to the wider debate on the general desirability of legumes within agricultural systems to maintain soil fertility in a Ôvirtuous cycleÕ: we have no argument with this). Sumberg then attempts to derive the Ôlogic of legumesÕ in Africa from the development of modern and productive agricultural systems in Western Europe, where he claims that legumes are associated with positive notions of development, modernisation and husbandry. Finally, Sumberg argues that the ÔlogicÕ he has uncovered had, and still has, an inordinate negative influence on the conduct of research for development; that the fodder legume train continues to rumble on unabated; and that agronomists have indulged in the legume confidence game too long (Sumberg, 2002, p. 298). On the basis of his analysis – which we believe is a mistaken one – Sumberg then suggests corrective measures. We feel that SumbergÕs personal chart through the intricacies of the history of agricultural policy in Africa to arrive at his Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ is tortuous and overly subjective (and ultimately incorrect). Furthermore, SumbergÕs subjectivity in identifying the Ôdevelopment narrativeÕ of fodder legumes is in marked contrast to the detailed historical reviews that underpin the corpus of papers on development narratives cited in our first paragraph. The main objective of this paper is to provide a contrasting approach to SumbergÕs subjective and potentially error-prone approach by following the tried-andtested historical path to recognizing Ôdevelopment narrativesÕ. Firstly, we establish a framework for the roles that fodder legumes play and their uses in African crop-livestock systems. This leads to a broader review of the key themes in the history of fodder research and development in crop-livestock systems in Africa with emphasis on the past 100 years in Anglophone Africa, which was SumbergÕs time frame and principle coverage. In context throughout, we discuss the relevance of some of the SumbergÕs claims. Finally, we draw contrasting conclusions about the history, success, and future of fodder legumes in African livestock production.

568

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

Roles and uses of fodder legumes in African crop-livestock systems Definition Willis (1951) defined fodder as Ôthe food of grazing animalsÕ with grasses (fresh or dry) and legumes being most generally useful. Willis lists commonly used annual and perennial grasses, herbaceous and tree legumes as well as cereal and legume crops whose residues are commonly used for fodder. Despite it being the main focus of his paper, Sumberg gives no definition of Ôfodder legumeÕ. ÔFodder legumeÕ, Ôforage legumeÕ, Ônon-food legumeÕ and ÔlegumeÕ are used inter-changeably throughout (examples include: Ôthe introduction and use of herbaceous legumesÕ – p. 286; Ôthe influence of the logic of legumesÕ – p. 287; Ôa rotation that includes one or more leguminous cropsÕ – p. 287; Ôforage legumes continue to be tremendously importantÕ – pg. 288; Ôgreen manure speciesÕ – p. 290; Ômodels for incorporating non-food legumesÕ – p. 295; and many others). Yet most of SumbergÕs criticism seems to be directed at herbaceous forage legumes, especially those tested for grass-legume pastures and/or used in fodder banks. And, although legume green manures and cover crops are principally grown for soil fertility restoration rather than fodder, they too are considered part of the Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ (pp. 290; 297). In keeping with WillisÕs definition and SumbergÕs usage, we will also adopt a broad definition of fodder legumes to include all types of legumes used as animal feed.

Roles Within this broad definition, fodder legumes in African crop-livestock systems play substantially different roles. SumbergÕs failure to distinguish these contributes to his inaccurate assessment of the contributions of fodder legumes to African crop-livestock systems and in turn, to his perception of a single ÔlogicÕ and even a Ômeta-logicÕ. In contrast, we distinguish three core roles of fodder legumes (the definition of these roles was developed in personal communications with Dr. John Hopkinson). Role 1: Crop role to meet short-term or seasonal fodder needs; sown in pure stands which dominate briefly or discontinuously, on arable land. These include herbaceous forage legumes (e.g., lucerne, lablab, Stylosanthes (stylo), clovers) and dual-purpose legumes (cowpea, groundnut, beans, etc.). Role 2: Niche role to meet planned and opportunistic fodder needs; sown into longor short-term niches (including farm boundaries, fallows, crop under-storey, bunds, wasteland, forest and plantation nurseries, roadsides, etc.), often on non-arable land. These include herbaceous forage legumes (e.g., Stylosanthes, Centrosema) and multi-purpose tree and shrub legumes (e.g., Leucaena, Gliricidia, Calliandra, Cajanus).

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

569

Role 3: Companion role to persist long-term as a component of sown grass-legume swards for grazing. These are mostly herbaceous forage legumes (e.g., clovers, Stylosanthes, Centrosema) and can include tree and shrub legumes (e.g., Leucaena, Cajanus). We admit that there is some inter-grading amongst these roles, especially as versatile legumes can be used in all three roles, depending on the system. We feel, however, that it is essential first to recognise and then distinguish these core roles before trying to analyse the success of research and development efforts on fodder legumes in Africa. Traditional uses Long before colonial influences and formal research, livestock farmers in East Africa appreciated the fodder value of native legumes in mixed farming systems in Africa. Tothill (1940, p. 680) notes that appreciable areas of ÔlubiaÕ (Lablab purpureus) were grown in basic rotations in the Gezira, White Nile, and Northern Province areas of the Sudan. Lubia was utilized by grazing and for hay. It continues to be grown in the semi-arid savannas of West Africa (Elbasha et al., 1999). In the east Rift valley, Kenya white clover (Trifolium semipilosum) was a common component of short grass swards such as Kikuyu grass (Boonman, 1993). There is strong evidence that prior to domestication, wild cowpea was used as fodder for cattle by African foragers as early as 4000 BP (Ng, 1995). Cowpea grain, green pods, and leaves continue to be widely eaten throughout Africa and the haulms fed to livestock, especially in the dry season. The residues of field pea, bean, and groundnut have long been appreciated as good quality fodder by crop-livestock farmers (Tothill, 1940, p. 681). In addition, fodder was commonly obtained from natural browse and lopped tree legumes (Tothill, 1940, 1948; Boonman, 1993). Tothill (1940) lists 130 native and introduced trees, shrubs, grasses, and legumes (about 10%) appreciated as fodder in the Sudan. Thus SumbergÕs claims that there was no tradition of planting legumes to produce fodder in Africa and no local experience to build on ignores the widespread use of native fodder legumes by farmers prior to formal research efforts. Livestock farmers in Africa understood the value of legume fodder from an early period and used it as one of their suite of feeding strategies. Current uses The versatility of fodder legumes allows them to be used in different ways in complex African crop-livestock systems. Fodder legumes integrated with crops, trees and livestock can produce synergistic effects and minimize external inputs (McIntire et al., 1992; Peters et al., 2001). The following list of uses is not exhaustive and cited references give examples only:

570

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

 dual-purpose legumes for grain and residues (Role 1) (Tarawali et al., 2001; Sanginga et al., 2003);  enclosed fodder banks associated with natural grazing areas (Role 1) (AkenÕOva, 1993; Elbasha et al., 1999);  fodder legume rotations with grasses and crops (Role 1) (Ruthenberg, 1976; Sanginga et al., 2003);  herbaceous forage legumes in fallows, crop under-storey, and wasteland (Role 2) (Tarawali et al., 1999a; Tarawali et al., 1999b);  leguminous shrubs and trees in field boundaries and bunds (Role 2) (Roothaert and Franzel, 2001; Franzel et al., 2002, 2003);  browse legumes in natural rangeland and cultivated pastures (Roles 2 and 3) (Crowder and Chheda, 1977; Oba et al., 2000);  legume-grass mixtures in grazed permanent pastures (Role 3) (Crowder and Chheda, 1977; Clatworthy, 1984; Lazier, 1984; AkenÕOva, 1993);  cover crops and green manures primarily used for soil fertility management and erosion control (Role 1) (Boonman, 1993).

History of fodder research and development in crop-livestock systems in Africa Regional approaches Over the past 100 years, research on livestock in Africa has covered many topics, with feed and nutrition being a recurring theme. However, the dominant research themes were (a) the agronomy, breeding and selection of sown grass species in East and Southern Africa and (b) the management of natural grassland or rangeland in West and Southern Africa (Crowder and Chheda, 1977; AkenÕOva, 1993; Boonman, 1993; De Haan, 1995) rather than fodder legumes. Indeed, an emphasis on fodder legumes in Africa would have been perverse. African savannas are the greatest of the grass-herbivore associations and Africa is the principle source of tropical fodder grasses globally, with a great diversity of species (Clayton, 1983). The most important African grasses include: Andropogon gayanus, Buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris), Elephant or Napier (Pennisetum purpureum), Signal (Brachiaria spp.), Kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum), Guinea (Panicum maximum), Rhodes (Chloris gayana), Setaria spp., and Star (Cynodon dactylon) (Rattray, 1960). The worldÕs most productive tropical fodder grasses from Africa have also made a major contribution to livestock production in Australia (Cook, 2001), Latin America (Parsons, 1972; Pizarro et al., 1996) and elsewhere. In an historical overview of grassland research in East Africa, Boonman (1993, p. 6–13) made a special effort to review early East African literature. He identified four major periods (Table 1). From 1910 to 1970, the main research priorities were: veterinary; mineral deficiencies especially phosphorus and cobalt; ecology of natural grasslands; soil fertility management and conservation; varietal development; pasture agronomy; pasture chemistry; range management. It was not until 1945 that

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

571

Table 1 Priorities in grassland research in East Africa from 1910 to 1970a Period

Research priority

Country

1910–1925 1920–1935 1930–1950

Veterinary Mineral deficiencies Ecology of natural grasslands Soil fertility management and conservation Varietal development; pasture agronomy Pasture chemistry Range management

Kenya, Kenya, Kenya, Kenya, Kenya, Kenya, Kenya

1945–1970

a

Tanzania, Uganda Tanzania Tanzania, Uganda, Zaire, Zambia Uganda Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Zaire Tanzania, Uganda

Adapted from Table 2.1, p. 13 in Boonman (1993).

agronomy became a priority, although formal evaluation of fodders was initiated in the 1930s. Boonman (1993) notes that some fodder legumes were evaluated together with many fodder grasses and non-leguminous fodders such as oats, rape, kale, beets, sorghum, etc., as part of the agronomy effort. From the 1930s onwards, mixed farming based on cereals (and other crops) in rotation with sown grasses, became the major crop-livestock farming system in ten countries in East and Southern Africa (Boonman, 1993). And, from 1950s onwards, research focused on selecting better clones of Rhodes and Napier grasses. In the East African highlands, these grasses in combination with coffee as a cash crop became the common system (Allan, 1965). Boonman (1993) frequently refers to the influence of traditional farmer practices on the direction of formal fodder research in East Africa during the first half of the 20th century. The soil fertility restoration properties and nutritive value of many grasses were well-known before formal research began. Early research on fodder in East Africa built on and extended existing grass-based farming practices rather than relying on imported legume-based practices from Europe. Traditional fodder systems are extensively reviewed by Allan (1965) who notes that the Chaga of Kilimanjaro; the Gishu of Mount Elgon; the Kara of Lake Victoria; and the Nyakyusa of Lake Nyasa, among other cultures, relied on grass fodder, e.g., Napier to feed tethered animals and used the manure for crops. Allan (1965) also gives examples of traditional crop-livestock cultures in West Africa such as the hill people of the Mandara Mountains in northern Cameroon who highly prized their livestock as Ômanure machinesÕ, the main fodder being grass and hay. Although from 1900 onwards, settlers, missionaries, researchers, and administrators brought many concepts and materials from outside East Africa, mixed farming based on crop-grass rotations appears to have been strongly influenced by the traditional systems of Uganda and Kenya (Allan, 1965; Boonman, 1993). Thus the historical accounts of fodder research and development in East Africa during this period indicate that fodder legumes were not the dominant research component for improving animal feed resources. The demonstrable productivity of East African grasses probably reduced the need to give higher priority to fodder legumes in this region.

572

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

Although research on forage and fodder crops in West Africa was initiated in the 1930s (AkenÕOva, 1993), systematic research did not expand until the 1950s (Crowder and Chheda, 1977). Research was initially directed towards the evaluation of a large number of introduced grass species from East and Southern Africa and a small number of introduced legumes from South America and Asia for use in sown pastures (Crowder and Chheda, 1977; AkenÕOva, 1993; Thomas and Sumberg, 1995). However, in comparison to food and cash crop research, fodder research was not well-supported, especially in the humid zone, and considerably less attention was given to fodder legumes than to grasses (AkenÕOva, 1993). National programme research on forage and fodder crops in West Africa slowed considerably in the 1970s as funding declined but was intensified in the 1980s in collaboration with the International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA) (see below). During 1960–1980s, a major focus of international donors and agencies, including FAO and the World Bank, was on rangeland management and animal health projects, especially in arid West Africa (Oba et al., 2000). Activities included: development of watering facilities, increasing veterinarian services, and evaluating grazing management systems. In fact, Pamo (1993) highlighted the neglect of animal nutrition research, including fodder research, in preference to animal health and rangeland management in West Africa during this 30 year period. This brief analysis of regional approaches to fodder research and development in African crop-livestock systems has shown that there is no evidence of a Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ or that fodder legume research had an ÔinordinateÕ influence on colonial and post-colonial attempts to feed livestock as claimed by Sumberg. Grasses and cereal residues were, and remain, the main sources of livestock feed in Africa. International institutional approaches In Africa, there was and currently is no international institute with a sole focus on fodder legumes. The closest to a fodder research institution was the International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), established in 1974. Its main function was to develop research programmes to solve the basic production and socio-economic constraints to livestock development in Africa (ILCA, 1994). Yet even within this single institute, a comprehensive research agenda was implemented in collaboration with national programmes, including a range of strategies for feeding livestock rather than a myopic focus on fodder legumes. Three main periods have been identified (ILCA, 1994) (Table 2). From 1974 to 1981, the main focus was on the description of livestock production systems or agro-ecological zones in Africa. From 1981 to 1986, emphasis was given to component research in major agro-ecological zones, reducing feed shortages being an important priority. In the highlands, research focused on clovers; in the humid zone, the main emphasis was on tree legumes for green manure and fodder; in the sub-humid zone, sorghum and legume fodder banks were tested; while in the semi-arid zone, emphasis was given to cereal-cowpea intercrops, conserved cereal fodder and cotton seed cake. Fodder legumes were one of a number of component technologies to reduce feed shortages. In hindsight, research during this relatively short period

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

573

Table 2 ILCAÕs priorities in livestock research from 1974 to 1994a Period

Research priority

Areas/projects

1974–1981

Description of livestock production systems/ agroecological zones

Highlands, humid, sub-humid, semi-arid zones of Africa

1981–1986

Component research in agro-ecological zones

Highlands: Land management; feed shortages Humid zone: animal health; feed shortages; soil fertility Sub-humid zone: feed shortages Semi-arid zone: feed shortages

1986–1994

Six thrusts and five themes

Cattle meat and milk (8 projects) Small ruminant meat and milk (6 projects) Animal traction (7 projects) Animal feed resources (8 projects) Trypanotolerance (6 projects) Livestock policy and resource use (9 projects)

a

Main source: ILCA (1994).

laid a critical foundation for improved understanding of the roles of fodder legumes and enabled the current strategic targeting of fodder legumes in African crop-livestock systems, discussed under recent approaches. From 1986 to 1994, livestock research at ILCA gave greater emphasis to strengthening national programmes, networking and training (Table 2; AkenÕOva, 1993). Of 44 projects implemented by ILCA and NARS during this period, only five focussed on fodder legumes, one of many areas of research interest for ILCA and its NARS partners during this eight-year period. In 1995, ILCA was incorporated into the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), a world centre for strategic research on livestock production and health, to support national and regional efforts. Among ILRIÕs current strategic research themes the ÔPeople, Livestock and the EnvironmentÕ theme specifically aims Ôat maintaining the diversity of feed resources for livestock productionÕ in African small-holder systems rather than concentrating on single fodder sources such as legumes. Again from this analysis, it is difficult to recognise any Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ having an ÔinordinateÕ influence on international efforts to feed livestock in Africa during the past 30 years, as claimed by Sumberg.

Was the agricultural revolution in Europe a model for the transfer of fodder legume technologies to Africa? Sumberg (2002, pp. 287–288) proposes that the historical developments in Europe during the agricultural revolution during 1500–1800s were a major contributing factor to the logic of fodder legumes in Africa. Specifically, Sumberg notes that:

574

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

ÔThis perceived link between legumes and progressive change within European agriculture gave rise to the notion that legumes possess something akin to Ôabsolute goodnessÕ: it was this notion, rooted in temperate, European experience, that informed the early cohorts of agricultural officers during the colonial periodÕ. There are some problems with SumbergÕs analysis. Firstly, Sumberg builds on the historical relationship between the development of modern, productive systems in Europe and the increasing use of fodder legumes. However, the adoption of legumes in farming systems in Europe was sporadic and fragmentary, occurring over 300–400 years, with different extents of adoption and subsequent disadoption in different countries and regions at different times: an example of Ôpunctuated equilibria evolutionÕ (Slicher van Bath, 1963; Russell, 1966). There was no legume revolution as such, and certainly not as the dominant part of a fodder revolution. Legumes were just one component of the farming systems adopted in Europe during this period. Turnips, fodder beets, rape and oats were important sources of fodder, turnips and beets being especially highly valued as field fodder. Legumes, mainly clovers (also sainfoin and lucerne), were adopted principally for soil fertility restoration and secondarily for fodder (Slicher van Bath, 1963; Russell, 1966). By 1830, more than half a century before colonial agricultural development in Africa, any Ôagricultural revolutionÕ in Europe was over. By then, English agriculture was Ôhigh farmingÕ, capital intensive, and using guano, nitrates, and phosphate fertilizers (Beckett, 1990), thus providing no Ôlogic of legumesÕ for Africa. It is clear that Sumberg grants fodder legumes far greater credit in the European Agricultural Revolution and its aftermath than they deserved. Therefore, we strongly contest SumbergÕs claim that any European Agricultural Revolution, however defined, was Ôinextricably linked with the widespread use of planted legume fodderÕ in Africa (Sumberg, 2002, p. 287). Secondly, structured fodder research did not begin in East Africa until the 1930s (Boonman, 1993) and West Africa until the 1950s (Crowder and Chheda, 1977). If, as claimed by Sumberg, there was a transfer of research ÔlogicÕ from Europe to Africa, we might expect more contemporary influences on colonial fodder research, rather than the general, and much earlier, agricultural revolution in Europe. Indeed, rather than any obsession with legumes, this expectation seems to be more valid for fodder grasses in Britain and also Africa. In the UK, the lead institute was the Welsh Plant Breeding Station (WPBS) at Aberystwyth, which is recognized as initiating the Ôgrass revolutionÕ in the 1930s based on the ‘‘ley farming model’’ of grass-crop rotation (Russell, 1966; Lazenby, 1981). It is probable that colonial officers took this message to East Africa during 1930–1950s and thereby reinforced the research focus on grass-crop rotations. Although the main legume in leys was clover, it played a minor role in permanent grass pastures in Britain as managing clover in temperate grass swards was difficult and problematic (Lazenby, 1981, p. 251, 262–263). Many farmers in Western Europe, and especially in Britain, stopped planting clovers and adopted N-fertilized grass when N fertilizers became more widely available and less expensive. Arguably, the grass revolution in the UK had a much greater influence on the thinking of colonial pasture researchers in Africa than the Ôclover modelÕ identified by Whyte (1962) and reviewed by Boonman (1993, Chapter 10).

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

575

Thirdly, there was a conscious effort to train future colonial agricultural officers not to take their European presumptions to the tropics. Britain required a hands-on course in tropical agriculture (the Diploma of the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture) in Trinidad before agricultural officers were posted to tropical countries. Belgium specifically rejected European models for agricultural development in their colony of the Congo. In AllanÕs (1965, p. 437) words, the Belgium approach was based on Ôa frank admission of the inadequacies of European knowledge and experience to cope with the agricultural problems of tropical Africa, and an equally frank acceptance of the essential soundness of traditional practicesÕ. More generally, there are numerous early examples of European agricultural scientists recognizing the wisdom of indigenous tropical agricultural technology – for example VoelckerÕs (1893) positive comments on legume-cereal intercropping in India. Agricultural departments were founded in India in 1871. Thus there was at least half a century of tropical agricultural research available to the British colonial service before fodder research was initiated in Africa. It is evident from VoelckerÕs detailed report that grasses, rather than legumes, were the predominant traditional source of fodder in India (as they were, and continue to be, in Africa). Crop residues were important in India, but, again, these were predominantly of cereals such as sorghum, pearl millet and finger millet. Legume fodders are mentioned in passing: chickpea grazed when young; lucerne grown under irrigation for government stud farms; and pulses grown on rice embankments (Voelcker, 1893, p. 193). From the 1960s onwards, it also likely that successful research on tropical pasture legumes in Australia (Clements, 1996; Miller et al., 1997) influenced the direction of fodder legume research in post-colonial Africa. The choice of forage legume species introduced and tested in Africa during the 1960–1980s by NARS and ILCA supports this conclusion (Clatworthy, 1984; Lazier, 1984; AkenÕOva, 1993; ILCA, 1994). Therefore, we can find no evidence that naı¨ve colonial agricultural officers en masse chose a small part only of evolving European agricultural technology of two previous centuries and then attempted and failed to transfer fodder legume technology to Africa as claimed by Sumberg. In general, SumbergÕs references to support his claim of the transfer of the Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ to Africa are weak or not directly relevant to feeding livestock. The first (Hall, 1936) promotes legume crops in rotations to prevent exhausting the land. It is scarcely relevant to fodder for livestock. Another (Smil, 1997) is linked to the need for organic farming to use legumes as a source of nitrogen: this is not specific to Africa, but is based on the organic dogma of not using synthetic nitrogen fertilizers. A third – cited twice – is the argument that as Anabaptist and Mennonite farmers rely on forage legumes, then this could be a model of self-sufficiency in developing countries (Stinner et al., 1992, p. 244). SumbergÕs fourth reference to support his thesis of the Ôaura of absolute goodnessÕ of fodder legumes is written by a basket of authors with considerable hands-on research experience in feeding tropical livestock (Peters et al., 2001). However, most of Peters et al. examples are not African and do not support SumbergÕs thesis.

576

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

We could provide hundreds of examples from organic farming, agroforestry, and agroecological literature promoting the Ôlogic of legumesÕ. But, as with Sumberg, we cannot prove that these recommendations overly and negatively influenced fodder legume research in Africa in the past.

Green manures and cover crops In East Africa, many non-food legumes were introduced early in the 1900s as green manure or cover crops for soil fertility management (Boonman, 1993), rather than for fodder. These legumes were widely used as cover crops in plantation agriculture in South East Asia (Purseglove, 1968) and included: Crotalaria juncea (naturalized in Africa), Centrosema pubescens, and Mucuna pruriens. Although some, e.g., Centrosema were subsequently tested as fodder legumes from the 1950s onwards, historical accounts indicate that early interest was for soil fertility management. Green manures are included in this review as Sumberg considered this development to be critical to the Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ in Africa. It should be noted that this is a tropical Asian model, and not a European model, as implied by Sumberg. Research on green manures was conducted intensively during 1900–1930s especially in Uganda (Boonman, 1993). In general, green manuring had limited beneficial effect on soil fertility and was demonstrably less effective than native grasses. Research on legumes as green manures in East Africa was largely discontinued by the early 1940s. However, far from being an exclusively top-down colonial imposition, Allan (1965) reports use of green manures in traditional African systems. For example, the Kara of Lake Victoria devised a green manuring system with Crotalaria striata, an indigenous legume, as part of a three year rotation. Also, the Tongan of northern Rhodesia adopted an improved maize rotation system with animal manure, green manures and grain legume crops. Other examples of traditional use of green manures in Africa are given in Tothill (1940) and Allan (1965). Tiley (1970) noted that the poor performance of green manures in Uganda in the early 1900s had caused so much damage to the image of fodder and pasture legumes that research on the latter was discontinued until the mid-1950s. When research resumed, such legumes were used in grass-legume mixtures. Legume crops such as groundnut, soyabean, pigeonpea and green gram became more common in the ley farming system for erosion control, improved soil fertility, and animal and crop production (Boonman, 1993). This questions the assertion of Sumberg that research on legume green manures was a dominant and continuous influence on the Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ in Africa.

Fodder legume research methodology Sumberg is critical not only of the philosophy (the ÔlogicÕ) of fodder legume research, but also of research methods. For example, in his analysis of ÔResearch ques-

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

577

tions and methodsÕ, Sumberg (2002, pp. 290–295) questions the approaches and methods used to collect, identify and screen fodder legumes for crop-livestock systems generally, not only in the African context. As his main criticisms seem to be directed at tropical forage legumes destined for grass-legume pastures (role 3) (as opposed to fodder legumes in the broader sense), we will concentrate on forage legumes here. Firstly, Sumberg describes the approach used for collecting fodder legume species and genotypes as Ôsomething of a needle in a haystack exerciseÕ (p. 291) giving the impression that there was a critical lack of method and insight. Two stages can be identified in the short history (50 years) of intensive collecting of wild tropical legumes to assess their fodder potential. To understand the variability among wild legumes, early collectors sampled across genera, species, and environments, a standard practice for new economic plants. Without this initial exploratory stage, it would have been difficult to efficiently select promising types. But wild legume collecting became targeted quite rapidly (Clements, 1996). A chance introduction of Stylosanthes humilis to Australia in the early 1900s developed into a valuable naturalized fodder legume, known as Townsville stylo (Miller et al., 1997; tÕ Mannetje, 1997). Its success guided early collectors to concentrate on Stylosanthes, which became the most successful tropical forage legume genus globally. After the initial stage, there was a strong attempt to match climates and soil types (Clements, 1996). With the development of GIS techniques, it was possible to precisely predict the likely regions where introduced tropical forage legumes would be productive (Jones et al., 1997). Far from being Ôa needle in a haystack exerciseÕ, the short period of collecting tropical forage legumes in the global context is a good example of progressive learning and efficient use of resources. However, we do agree with Thomas and Sumberg (1995) and Sumberg (2002) that the introduction and evaluation of tropical forage legumes specifically for Africa could have been a more efficient process. Research programmes were characterized by cycles of introduction and re-introduction of the same legumes. Lazier (1984), however, indicates that the dependence on commercial cultivars from Australia was at least partly due to difficulties in obtaining germplasm from established collections. In addition, lack of access to literature as well as lack of communication between livestock scientists in Africa resulted in costly duplication of efforts (Thomas and Sumberg, 1995). In recent years, enhanced networking and periodic workshops and conferences through initiatives such as the CGIAR Systems-wide Livestock Programme has improved access to literature and communication among scientists, and as a result, research efficiency. Secondly, Sumberg is critical of the methodology used to screen forage legumes in Africa. The rapid screening of large numbers of legumes in small plots to identify a manageable number of productive materials for further evaluation is attributed to Australian efforts described by Williams (1964) and Whiteman (1980) (Sumberg, 2002, p. 293). However, the methodology was developed in the 1930s by the WPBS, Aberysthwyth, for screening temperate grasses and legumes (Lazenby, 1981, p. 48– 49). In spite of some deficiencies, this approach resulted in selection of many, now widely grown, productive temperate and tropical fodder legumes and grasses

578

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

(Lazenby, 1981; Boonman, 1993; Pizarro et al., 1996; tÕ Mannetje, 1997). Furthermore, in the context of integrating fodder legumes into todayÕs African croplivestock systems, screening for environmental adaptation is an essential first step in developing fodder legumes for ÔcropÕ and ÔnicheÕ roles, which offer the greatest future potential (Lenne´ et al., 2003), as systems continue to intensify. In the light of this analysis, one must question SumbergÕs concerns about fodder legume screening methodology.

Recent approaches to fodder legume research and development in crop-livestock systems in Africa In the past 10–15 years, systems-based approaches to more efficient and effective use of fodder, including legumes, have evolved based on farmersÕ needs (Tothill, 1986; Smith et al., 1997; Tarawali et al., 1999b; Franzel et al., 2003; Thornton et al., 2003). A major influence has been the move from pastoralism to sedentary farming (Okike et al., 2001) as the area of common-resource rangeland in much of semi-arid and arid Africa shrinks. There is now greater reliance on fodder produced on farm. Interest in fodder legumes in ÔcropÕ and ÔnicheÕ roles is growing while interest in the ÔcompanionÕ role is declining. It is likely that crop residues will become the dominant feed resource in much of Africa in future (Smith et al., 1997; Renard, 1997; Zerbini and Thomas, 2003). Residues from legume crops, e.g., cowpea, groundnut, and bean are highly desirable, quality livestock feed. The research focus is thus shifting to improving the productivity, quality and feeding systems of crop residues – both legumes and cereals (Renard, 1997; Lenne´ et al., 2003; Zerbini and Thomas, 2003). Improved dual-purpose cowpea is being rapidly taken up by farmers in northern Nigeria (Singh et al., 2003; Sanginga et al., 2003) and there is potential for this technology to reach millions of small-holder farmers in the dry savannas of West Africa with internal rates of return on research investment of 50–103% (Kristjanson et al., 2002). Crop residues are increasingly appreciated as an income-generating commodity and vigorous fodder markets for cowpea and groundnut residues are common in West Africa (McIntire et al., 1992; Niezen, J., ILRI, personal communication). Since the early 1990s in West Africa, priority has been given to targeting herbaceous legumes into appropriate systemÕs niches (fallow and crop under-storey) to promote sustainable provision of livestock fodder, soil amelioration, weed and pest control (Tarawali et al., 1999b). By using participatory approaches, a clearer understanding of how and when farmers will integrate herbaceous legumes into crop-livestock systems is emerging and requests for herbaceous legume seed have increased dramatically. (Tarawali, 2002). In East Africa, fodder shrubs are showing great potential for increasing smallholder dairy farmersÕ income. For example, since the early 1990s, a concerted effort by national and international institutes to test and scale-up adoption of the shrub legume Calliandra calothyrsus has been in progress throughout the central Kenyan highlands (Franzel et al., 2002, 2003). Farmers plant into niches in existing cropping

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

579

systems including: hedges, bunds and boundaries. On-farm feeding trials confirmed the effectiveness of calliandra as a dairy meal concentrate, increasing farmersÕ income by about 10% of total household income and thousands of farmers have already adopted calliandra. If 50% of KenyaÕs estimated 625,000 small-holder farmers with dairy cows each planted 500 fodder shrubs, the net benefits/year would reach US$ 81 million (Franzel et al., 2003). Recent approaches have shown that successful dissemination of fodder legume technologies involves building partnerships with a range of stakeholders; understanding small-holder systems and targeting appropriately; assisting local communities to mobilise resources; and ensuring the effective participation of farmer groups (Franzel et al., 2003; Peters and Lascano, 2003). Increased availability of spatial datasets and improved modelling approaches are also facilitating more efficient scaling-up of technologies (Thornton et al., 2003). These recent papers are based on a wealth of pre-2002 publications. However, Sumberg is silent on these well-documented accounts of post-1990 system-based approaches to successfully using fodder legumes in African crop-livestock systems.

Fodder legume promotion, use, and impact Under ÔPromotion and useÕ (Sumberg, 2002, pp. 295–297), Sumberg focuses on a relatively limited number of models for incorporating non-food (as opposed to fodder legumes) into livestock systems. Sumberg therefore concentrates on a few examples where non-food fodder legumes have been – according to his judgement – unsuccessful. The well-documented successes with improved dual-purpose cowpea (Kristjanson et al., 2002; Singh et al., 2003; Sanginga et al., 2003) and tree legumes (Franzel et al., 2002, 2003) referred to above are ignored. This allows Sumberg to conclude that Ôthe actual level of use [of fodder legumes] by farmers and livestock keepers in Africa is still insignificantÕ. As no Africa-wide assessment of the uptake of fodder legumes has been made, such a conclusion can only be subjective. As part of his analysis, Sumberg selectively reviews an ex-post impact assessment of fodder bank technology undertaken by ILRI specifically to demonstrate the value of investment in agricultural research programmes (Elbasha et al., 1999). The agroecological focus of the fodder bank technology was the sub-humid savanna system of West Africa and not all arable land in West Africa as Sumberg implies (p. 296). An extensive survey through this region showed that by 1999, 27,000 adopters were growing forage legumes over 19,000 ha in 15 countries. The analysis indicated that on an expenditure of around US$ 7 million, the total net benefits up to 1997 were US$ 16.5 million, with an internal rate of return of 38% (Elbasha et al., 1999). Although, as the researchers themselves admit, the impacts are modest to date, the research has paid for the costs three times over. The only other ex-post impact assessment of tropical fodder technologies found was carried out in northern Australia in the mid-1990s for buffel grass and Stylosanthes (Chudleigh and Bramwell, 1996; Esdale, 2001). The internal rates of return on

580

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

the Australian investment in research are substantially lower than the 38% found by Elbasha et al. (1999) being 13.2% for buffel grass and 8.0% for Stylosanthes. The results for buffel grass are considered by economists to be highly successful while for Stylosanthes, modestly successful. Comparing like with like, the impact achieved by the fodder bank technology in the West African sub-humid savannas is impressive and not ÔinsignificantÕ as judged by Sumberg. Importantly, these studies highlighted the significant time lag between the research, development and extension activities and the realization of benefits by adopters. Time lags of at least 15 and 20 years were found in West Africa and northern Australia, respectively. At the same time both studies noted that there is strong evidence that the area influenced by improved forage technologies will increase in the next few years: i.e., once the time lag has passed, the rate of adoption is likely to increase. The slow adoption of forage legume technologies in Africa has been attributed to lack of participatory approaches, lack of understanding of the systems, lack of recognition of farmers perceptions as well as unfavourable policies (Pamo, 1993; Thomas and Sumberg, 1995; Elbasha et al., 1999; Peters et al., 2001), among other reasons. As we have shown above, this has been recognised since the early-1990s and considerable effort is being given to understanding small-holder systems and ensuring effective farmer participation in testing, disseminating, monitoring and evaluating fodder technologies in Africa (Franzel et al., 2003; Peters and Lascano, 2003). This should reduce the time lag in the adoption of fodder legume technologies in future. The highest internal rates of return achieved in the two reported studies were for buffel grass in Australia (13.2%) and for fodder bank technology, mainly based on Stylosanthes hamata ÔVeranoÕ, in West Africa (38%). Both forages had been subjected to considerable research efforts in East and Southern Africa, and Australia, respectively, prior to their use in the countries where impact was realized. Similarly, many successful tropical fodder grasses in northern Australia were already finished cultivars at the time of introduction (Hopkinson, J., personal communication). This suggests that future introductions of fodder plants to new areas and systems might be economically more efficient if based on species and cultivars with long research pedigrees in the same agro-ecologies rather than on unknown species.

Conclusions Sumberg (2002, p. 298) claimed that a Ôsense of absolute goodnessÕ has been attached to fodder legumes in Africa. Further, the inordinate influence of the hegemony of the Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ (as identified by Sumberg) has constrained the success of formal agriculture and livestock research in Africa. This claim has implications for future research and livestock development policy: also, it has broader implications for the present and future external funding support for livestock in Africa. The policy implications are clear. If Sumberg is right, then past colonial and

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

581

international support for the critical task feeding livestock in Africa is suspect – indeed, a Ôconfidence gameÕ (Sumberg, 2002, p. 298) that wastes scarce research resources. Radically new approaches would be needed, and Sumberg attempts to spell these out. However, if Sumberg is wrong, either in his definition of any problem or in his recommendations, then ongoing policies for the feeding of livestock in Africa could be jeopardized by his false analysis and calls for change. Thus, the main objective of this paper was to analyse SumbergÕs (2002) claims for the existence of a central, colonially-imposed logic to the development and use of fodder legumes in Africa. This analysis shows that Sumberg was incorrect on many points:  Fodder legumes were not imposed on Africa by colonial agricultural officers imbued with dogma from Europe. There is well-documented local experience and tradition of planting legumes to produce fodder in African crop-livestock systems.  An early, irresponsible, and imposed focus on fodder legumes cannot be demonstrated. Grasses and cereal residues were and continue to be the major source of fodder in Africa. The screening of fodder grasses has been a more important theme in fodder research in Africa in the past 100 years than the screening of fodder legumes.  National and international fodder legume research used appropriate methodology and a largely efficient process to collect, introduce, screen and select fodder species. This process has identified many successful fodder grasses in Africa and fodder legumes globally and, furthermore, is proving suitable for identifying fodder legumes for ÔcropÕ and ÔnicheÕ roles in African crop-livestock systems.  Research on fodder legumes by ILCA and NARS during 1981–1986 laid the foundation for improved understanding of the roles of fodder legumes and enabled their current strategic targeting in African crop-livestock systems, especially for roles 1 and 2.  Fodder legume research in Africa has produced results on-farm. There are at least three well-documented examples of successful promotion of fodder legumes in African crop-livestock systems (e.g., fodder bank technology in West Africa; improved dual-purpose cowpea in West Africa; and the tree legume calliandra in East Africa) and others in progess (e.g., herbaceous legumes in fallow in West Africa). However, there is a need for a comprehensive and Africa-wide survey of the use of all fodder legume models by farmers in Africa to realistically assess the value of fodder legumes in crop-livestock systems. Sumberg tries to convince policy-makers that fodder legume research in Africa is colonial and failing: it is neither. It is based first on centuries-old traditional approaches to feeding livestock in Africa and then on increasingly successful national and international research efforts. Our historical path to recognizing Ôdevelopment narrativesÕ has therefore not found any evidence that there is a Ôlogic of fodder legumesÕ in Africa. We also query SumbergÕs recommendations for change: he calls for a more realistic, responsible, systems-based approach to fodder legume research and

582

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

promotion where Ôagro-climatic, social, economic and cultural (properties) should define the context of technology design and development and be fully integrated into the process of design specificationÕ. Although we agree with Sumberg on the need for such approaches, as we have shown, this has been acted upon in African crop-livestock systemÕs research for at least the past 10 years. In contrast to Sumberg, we feel that these achievements in understanding the roles of fodder legumes and in developing and applying improved approaches are having increasing impact in African crop-livestock systems, and will continue to do so in future. Rather than accept SumbergÕs (2002, p. 298) call for Ôa much more strategic and responsible approach to fodder legume research in AfricaÕ, we suggest a much more structured and responsible approach to fodder legume policy recommendations.

Acknowledgements The authors thank Professor Michael AkenÕOva, University of Ibadan, Nigeria; Dr. John Hopkinson, Atherton, Queensland, Australia; and Professor Derrick Thomas, NRI, Chatham Maritime, UK for sharing their perspectives on fodder legumes in crop-livestock systems in Africa. Their combined experience spans more than 100 years across five continents. We thank Bob Clements, Salvador Fernandez-Rivera, Steve Franzel, Nicoline de Haan, Jean Hanson, Carlos Lascano, Acho Okike, Ralph Roothaert, Shirley Tarawali and Philip Thornton who kindly provided us with references and thoughts on this topic.

References AkenÕOva, M.E., 1993. Summary of forage research at the University of Ibadan and Fashola in Oyo State, South West Nigeria: 1960–1992. Sponsored by ILCA, Ibadan, pp. 1–52. Allan, W., 1965. The African Husbandman. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh. Beckett, J.V., 1990. The Agricultural Revolution. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Boonman, J.G., 1993. East AfricaÕs Grasses and Fodders: Their Ecology and Husbandry. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Carswell, G., 2003. Continuities in environmental narratives: the case of Kabale, Uganda, 1930–2000. Environment and History 9, 3–29. Chudleigh, P., Bramwell, T., 1996. Assessing the impact of introduced Tropical Pasture Plants in Australia. Report prepared for the CSIRO Task Force on Introduced Pasture Plants. Agtrans Research, Toowong, Australia. Clatworthy, J.N., 1984. Global ventures in stylosanthes III. South-East Africa. In: Stace, H.M., Edye, L.A. (Eds.), The Biology and Agronomy of Stylosanthes. Academic Press, Sydney, pp. 487–502. Clayton, W.D., 1983. Tropical grasses. In: McIvor, J.G., Bray, R.A. (Eds.), Genetic Resources of Forage Plants. CSIRO, East Melbourne, pp. 39–46. Clements, R.J., 1996. Pastures for prosperity.3. The future for new tropical pasture plants. Tropical Grasslands 30, 31–46. Cook, B., 2001. In: Buffel Grass Symposium. Proceedings of a Workshop, Theodore, Queensland, February, 2000, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane, pp. 1–64. Crowder, L.V., Chheda, H.R., 1977. Forage and fodder crops. In: Leakey, C.L.A., Wills, J.B. (Eds.), Food Crops of the Tropical Lowlands. Oxford University Press, London, pp. 127–159.

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

583

De Haan, C., 1995. Rangelands in the developing world. In: West, N.E. (Ed.), Rangelands in a Sustainable Biosphere. Proceedings of the Fifth International Rangeland Congress, vol. 1, Society for Range Management, Lakewood, pp. 180–184. Elbasha, E., Thornton, P.K., Tarawali, G., 1999. An ex post Economic Impact Assessment of Planted Forages in West AfricaILRI Impact Assessment Series, vol. 2. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi. Esdale, C.R., 2001. Assessing the impact of introduced tropical pasture plants in Northern Australia (buffel grass). In: Cook, B. (Ed.), Buffel Grass Symposium. Proceedings of a Workshop, Theodore, Queensland, February, 2000, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane, pp. 31–33. Fairhead, J., Leach, M., 1996. Misreading the African Landscape: Society and Ecology in a ForestSavanna Mosaic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Franzel, S., Arimi, J.K., Murithi, F.M., 2002. Calliandra calothyrsus: assessing the early stages of adoption of a fodder shrub in the highlands of Central Kenya. In: Franzel, S., Scherr, S.J. (Eds.), Trees on Farm: Assessing the Adoption Potential of Agroforestry Practices in Africa. CABI, Wallingford, pp. 125–133. Franzel, S., Wambugu, C., Tuwei, P., 2003. The adoption and dissemination of fodder shrubs in central Kenya. AgRen Network Paper No. 131. ODI, London. Hall Sir, A.D., 1936. The Improvement of Native Agriculture in Relation to Population and Public Health. Oxford University Press, London. Hellden, V., 1994. Fact or fiction. Our Planet 6 (5), 33. ILCA, 1994. Improving Livestock Production in Africa: Evolution of ILCAÕs Programmes 1974–1994. International Livestock Centre for Africa, ILCA, Addis Ababa. Jones, P.G., Galwey, N., Beebe, S.E., Tohme, J., 1997. The use of geographical information systems in biodiversity exploration and conservation. Biodiversity Conservation 6, 947–958. Kristjanson, P., Tarawali, S., Okike, I., Singh, B.B., Thornton, P.K., Manyong, V., Kruska, R.L., Hoogenboom, G., 2002. Genetically improved dual-purpose cowpea: assessment of adoption and impact in the dry Savannah region of West AfricaILRI Impact Assessment Series, vol. 9. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi. Lazenby, A., 1981. British grasslands: past, present and future. Grass and Forage Science 36, 243–266. Lazier, J., 1984. Global ventures in stylosanthes IV. West Africa. In: Stace, H.M., Edye, L.A. (Eds.), The Biology and Agronomy of Stylosanthes. Academic Press, Sydney, pp. 503–527. Lenne´, J.M., Fernandez-Rivera, S., Blu¨mmel, M., 2003. Approaches to improve the utilization of foodfeed crops – synthesis. Field Crops Research 84, 213–222. McIntire, J., Bourzat, D., Pingali, P., 1992. Crop-livestock Interaction in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank, Washington, DC. tÕ Mannetje, L., 1997. Harry Stobbs Memorial Lecture, 1994. Potential and prospects of legume-based pastures in the tropics. Tropical Grasslands 31, 81–94. Miller, C.P., Rains, J.P., Shaw, K.A., Middleton, C.H., 1997. Commercial development of Stylosanthes pastures in northern Australia. II. Stylosanthes in the northern Australian beef industry. Tropical Grasslands 31, 509–514. Ng, N.Q., 1995. Cowpea. In: Smartt, J., Simmonds, N.W. (Eds.), Evolution of Crop Plants. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, pp. 326–332. Oba, G., Nils, C.S., Lusigi, W.J., 2000. New perspectives on sustainable grazing management in arid zones of Sub-Saharan Africa. BioScience 50, 35–51. Okike, I., Jabbar, M.A., Manyong, V., Smith, J.W., Akinwumi, J.A., Ehui, S.K., 2001. Agricultural Intensification and Efficiency in West African Savannas: Evidence from Northern Nigeria. Socioeconomics and Policy Research Working Paper 33, International Livestock Research Institute, ILRI, Nairobi. Pamo, E.T., 1993. Some problems hindering forage seed production in Cameroon. In: Proceedings of the 17th International Grasslands Congress, vol. 2, Palmerston North and Rockhampton, pp. 1757–1758. Parsons, J.J., 1972. Spread of African pasture grasses to the American Tropics. Journal of Range Management 25, 12–17. Peters, M., Horne, P., Schmidt, A., Holman, F., Kerridge, P.C., Tarawali, S.A., Schultze-Kraft, R., Lascano, C.E., Argel, P., Stur, P., Fujisaka, S., Mueller-Samann, K., Wortman, C., 2001. The Role of

584

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

Forages in Reducing Poverty and Degradation of Natural Resources in Tropical Production Systems. AgRen Network Paper No.117, ODI, London. Peters, M., Lascano, C.E., 2003. Forage technology adoption: linking on-station research with participatory methods. Tropical Grasslands 37, 179–188. Pizarro, E.A., do Valle, C.B., Keller-Grein, G., Schultze-Kraft, R., 1996. Regional experience with Brachiaria: Tropical America. In: Miles, J.W., Maass, B.L., do Valle, C.B. (Eds.), Brachiaria: Biology, Agronomy and Imrovement. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) and Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecua´ria, CIAT, Cali. Purseglove, J.W., 1968. Tropical Crops, Dicotyledons. Longman, London. Rattray, J.M., 1960. The Grass Cover of Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Renard, C. (Ed.), 1997. Crop Residues in Sustainable Mixed Crop/Livestock Farming Systems. CABI, Wallingford. Roothaert, R.L., Franzel, S., 2001. FarmersÕ preferences for use of local fodder trees and shrubs in Kenya. Agroforestry Systems 52, 239–252. Russell, E.J., 1966. A History of Agricultural Science in Great Britain. George Allen and Unwin, London. Ruthenberg, H., 1976. Beef production on artifical pastures in the southern Guinea savanna and the derived savanna of West Africa. Animal Research and Development 3, 43–63. Sanginga, N., Dashiell, K.E., Diels, J., Vanlauwe, B., Lyasse, O., Carsky, O.J., Tarawali, S., Asafo-Adjei, A., Menkir, A., Schulz, S., Singh, B.B., Chikoye, D., Keatinge, D., Ortiz, R., 2003. Sustainable resource management coupled to resilient germplasm to provide new intensive cereal-grain legumelivestock systems in the dry savanna. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 100, 305–314. Sere, C.O., Steinfeld, H., 1996. World Livestock Production Systems: Current Status, Issues and Trends. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 127, FAO, Rome. Singh, B.B., Ajeigbe, H.A., Tarawali, S.A., Fernandez-Rivera, S., Musa, Abubakar, 2003. Improving the production and utilization of cowpea as food and fodder. Field Crops Research 84, 169–177. Slicher van Bath, B.H., 1963. The Agrarian History of Western Europe A.D. 500–1850. Edward Arnold, London. Smil, V., 1997. Some unorthodox perspectives on agricultural biodiversity: the case of legume cultivation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 62, 135–144. Smith, J.W., Naazie, A., Larbi, K., Agyemang, K., Tarawali, S., 1997. Integrated crop-livestock systems in sub-Saharan Africa: an option or an imperative?. Outlook on Agriculture 26, 237–253. Stinner, D.H., Glick, I., Stinner, B.R., 1992. Forage legumes and cultural sustainability: lessons from history. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 40, 233–248. Sumberg, J., 2002. The logic of fodder legumes in Africa. Food Policy 27, 285–300. Tarawali, G., Manyong, V.M., Carsky, R.J., Vissoh, P.V., Osei-Bonsu, P., Galiba, M., 1999a. Adoption of improved fallows in West Africa: lessons from mucuna and stylo studies. Agroforestry Systems 47, 93– 122. Tarawali, S.A., Peters, M., Schultze-Kraft, R., 1999b. Forage legumes for sustainable agriculture and livestock production in sub-humid West Africa. ILRI, Nairobi. Tarawali, S.A., 2002. Development of strategies to promote farmer utilization of herbaceous legumes for natural resource management. GTZ Project Annual Report, 2001, IITA, Ibadan. Tarawali, S.A., Singh, B.B., Gupta, S.C., Tabo, R., Harris, F., Nokoe, S., Fernandez-Rivera, S., Batino, A., Manyong, V.M., Makinde, K.O., Odion, E.C., 2001. Cowpea as a key factor for a new approach to integrated crop-livestock systems research in the dry savannahs of West Africa. In: Fatokun, C.A., Tarawali, S.A., Singh, B.B., Kormawa, P.M., Tamo, M. (Eds.), Challenges and Opportunities for Enhancing Sustainable Cowpea Production. Proceedings of the World Cowpea Conference III, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria, 4–8 September, 2000, IITA, Ibadan, pp. 233–251. Thomas, D., Sumberg, J., 1995. A review of the evaluation and use of tropical forage legumes in subSaharan Africa. Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment 54, 151–163. Thornton, P.K., Krushka, R.L., Henninger, N., Kristjanson, P., Reid, R.S., Atieno, A.N., Ndegwa, T., 2002. Mapping Poverty and Livestock in the Developing World. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya.

J.M. Lenne´, D. Wood / Food Policy 29 (2004) 565–585

585

Thornton, P.K., Kristjanson, P.M., Thorne, P.J., 2003. Measuring the potential impacts of improved food-feed crops: methods for ex ante assessment. Field Crops Research 84, 199–212. Tiffen, M., Mortimore, M., Gichuki, F., 1994. More People, Less Erosion: Environmental Recovery in Kenya. Wiley, Chichester. Tiley, G.E.D., 1970. Pasture Research at Kawanda Research Station, Kampala. Kawanda Report. Tothill, J.C., 1986. The role of legumes in farmersÕ systems of Sub-Saharan Africa. In: Haque, I., Jutzi, S., Neate, P.J.H. (Eds.), Potentials of Forage Legumes in Farming Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of a Workshop, 16–19 September, 1985, ILCA, Addis Ababa, pp. 162–185. Tothill, J.D. (Ed.), 1940. Agriculture in the Sudan. Oxford University Press, London. Tothill, J.D. (Ed.), 1948. Agriculture in Uganda. Oxford University Press, London. Voelcker, J.A., 1893. Report on the Improvement of Indian Agriculture. Eyre and Spottiswoode, London. Whiteman, P.C., 1980. Tropical Pasture Science. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Whyte, R.O., 1962. The myth of tropical grasslands. Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad 39, 1–11. Williams, R.J., 1964. Plant introduction. In: CSIRO Staff, Some Concepts and Methods in Sub-tropical Pasture Research, Bulletin 47. Commonwealth Bureau of Pastures and Field Crops, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal. Willis, J.C., 1951. A Dictionary of Flowering Plants and Ferns, sixth ed. revised. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wood, D., Lenne´, J.M., in press. ÔReceived wisdomÕ in agricultural land use policy: ten years on from Rio. Land Use Policy. Zerbini, E., Thomas, D., 2003. Opportunities for improvement of nutritive value in sorghum and pearl millet residues in South Asia through genetic enhancement. Field Crops Research 84, 3–15.