Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles

PHILIPPINES

by Francisco A. Moog

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAO.

All rights reserved. FAO encourages the reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all queries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail to [email protected] or to the Chief, Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.

FAO 2006

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
Location Land area Land classification and utilization Land utilization Administrative boundaries Farming sector Ruminant sector/livestock sector

5
5 5 5 6 6 6 7

2. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY

2.1 Major topographic features 2.2 Major soil types

8
8 9

3. CLIMATE AND AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES

3.1 Climate 3.2 Climate and agro-ecological zones

9
9 10

4. RUMINANT LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

Scale of enterprise Feeding systems and integration of livestock into farming systems Production constraints Socio-economic constraints

12
12 12 13 13

5. THE PASTURE RESOURCE

Existing resources Grasslands Coconut plantations Cultivated croplands and crop residues

14
14 14 15 15

6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF PASTURE RESOURCES

Improvement of native grasslands Cultivation of sown grass and grass-legume pastures Improved pasture under coconuts Integration of forages in croplands and smallholder farms

16
16 16 17 18

7. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONNEL

Bureau of Animal Industry Other Bureau of Animal Husbandry

20
21 21

8. REFERENCES 9. CONTACTS

21 23

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

1. INTRODUCTION
Location The Philippines is an archipelago stretching 1839km northto-south off the southeast coast of Asia (Figure 1). It lies in the western rim of the Pacific Ocean and fronts the southernmost extension of the Eurasian Continent and is located between latitudes 4 and 21 north and longitudes 116 and 127 east. It is part of the East Indies, a vast island group lying southeast of mainland Asia, with Taiwan at its northwest coast and Borneo in the south. It is bounded by three large bodies of water: on the west and north by the South China Sea; on the east by the Pacific Ocean; and on the south by the Celebes Sea and the coastal waters of Borneo. Land area The total land area of the Philippines is 299 404 km2 or approximately 30million ha. It is composed of 7107 islands with 11 of them taking up about 95% of the total land area and small islands and islets comprising the remaining 5%. The country is divided into three major island groups: Luzon with an area of 141000km2; Visayas, 57000km2; and Mindanao, 102000km2. Land classification and utilization The 1987 Philippine Constitution classifies lands of the public domain into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. The two major classifications of land are the Alienable and Disposable (A & D) and the Forest lands, both of which are considered lands of public domain. A & D lands refer to those which have been declared but not needed for Figure 1. Map of Philippines forest purposes. Forest lands are areas in the public domain that have been classified for forest use such as public forest, permanent forest or forest reserves, timberlands, grazing lands, game refuge and bird sanctuaries, and areas which are not yet declared A & D. A & D land is limited to lands classified as agricultural lands and may be further classified according to the uses to which they are devoted. The Forest Management Bureau (FMB) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) provides further classification to the lands of the public domain and adopts the land classification of the country. Figure 2 presents the land classification in 1997 by percentages.

Figure 2. Land classification of the Philippines

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

Land utilization Land utilization in the Philippines is shown in Table 1. Of the countrys total land area, forest land has the highest share with 65% as of 1996 (NLUC 2002). Agricultural land has about 33%, while those used for inland fisheries, settlements and open land account for 2, 0.44 and 0.04%, respectively. Mining and quarrying has the least with only 0.03%. At present, grazing on forest lands for livestock production is found on steep 18 to 50% slopes.

Table 1. Land utilization in the Philippines

Land use
Agriculture Forestry Settlement Mining and quarrying Inland Fisheries Open Land Total

Area (ha)
9 728 800 19062600 131400 8700 595700 1100 29528300

Percentage
32.95 64.56 0.44 0.029 2.02 0.004 100.00

Administrative boundaries For administrative purposes, the Philippines is grouped into regions. At present there are 16 regions (Figure 3) that are further subdivided into provinces and municipalities. The smallest administrative unit is the barangay with several barangays constituting a municipality. To date there are 79 provinces, 114 cities, 1496 municipalities and 41939 barangays. According to the World Factbook the total population in July 2006 was estimated at 89468677 with a growth rate of 1.8%. Farming sector Based on the 1991 Census of Agriculture and Fisheries, there were about 10millionha of agricultural land (BAS 2004). About 54% of the farmlands were used for growing temporary crops and 42% were covered by permanent crops (Table 2). The 1991 CAF also showed that the country has about 2.4 million rice farms, 1.8 million maize farms, 2.7million coconut farms and 208600 sugarcane farms. Swine and chickens were reported on 2.6 million and 3.6 million farms, respectively. Average farm size was 2.16 ha. BAS also reported that the recent (2002) Census of Agriculture recorded a total of 4.5million farms in 2002 which was 2.36% less than 4.61million farms in 1991. The 4.5 million farms were contained in 9.19million ha of agricultural land. Average farm size was 2.04 ha devoted to crops, fruit trees, livestock, poultry and other agricultural activities. From 1971 to 1991 (Table 2) the area devoted to farming increased but towards 2002 farm lands have decreased. The increase up to 1991 can be attributed to encroachment of crop cultivation in forest, grassland and plantation areas, while the decrease can be attributed to conversion of agricultural lands to settlements, housing and industrial uses in latter years. Farming activities are normally done by the farmer himself with some help from his family. In larger scale enterprises farmers may hire other persons for field preparation, planting and harvesting. Management of farms is in the hands of the family members.

Figure 3. Regional delineation in the Philippines Table 2. Farm size and classification, area by land class (million ha)
Item
Total area Temporary crops Idle Permanent crops Meadows & pastures Covered forest brown All other lands

1971
8.4 3.8 0.7 2.5 0.6 0.4 0.1

1980
9.7 4.3 0.8 3.5 0.5 0.3 0.1

1991
10.0 5.3 0.1 4.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

Payments to hired labourers are either in cash or Table 3. Area, production and value of production in kind and the price depends on the prevailing of five important crops, in 2003 Area Production Value of production rate in the locality. The total man-days required Crop (000 ha) (000 (M pesos) tonnes) to finish the agricultural activity for a certain 4006.4 13499.9 117989.0 crop varies with location and type of cropping Rice Maize 2409.8 4615.6 32540.1 systems employed. The use of animals and/or Coconut 3214.2 14121.9 38694.0 tractors/machines facilitates work. The most Sugar cane 389.4 23981.3 21823.0 important crops in the Philippines are rice, Banana 409.8 5369.0 30066.2 maize, and coconut in terms of land area occupied and value of production. Sugar cane and banana are also important because they generate foreign exchange as export crops. Table 3 shows the estimated area, production and value of production of the five important crops in 2003 (BAS 2004). Rice and corn occupy 41 and 24%, respectively, of the total agricultural area. Of the 4 million ha grown to rice, 2.72million ha were irrigated. Rice is extensively grown in the moist and dry zones with irrigation in Central Luzon, Western Visayas, Cagayan Valley and Southern Tagalog. Maize (corn), on the other hand, covered 2.41million ha with nearly 64.7% or 1.56million ha, devoted to white maize. Major areas planted to maize are the moist areas of Southern, Central and Northern Mindanao. Coconut occupies 3.2 million ha and is grown nationwide, but its production is concentrated in Southern Tagalog, Bicol, Central Visayas, and in Northern, Eastern, Southern and Western Mindanao. Sugarcane is the major crop grown in Western Visayas, leading other regions in production. Banana plantations are found in Mindanao, mainly in Davao provinces where the crop is grown principally for export. Coconut continued to be the major dollar earner. For the past several years, the country has not been self-sufficient in rice and maize. Agriculture surpassed its 2003 performance as it grew by 5.06%; it grossed P783.9 billion at current market prices in 2004 (BAS 2005). This represented an increase of 18.40% in the years gross value of agricultural output. The crops subsector amounted to P383.2 billion at current prices, up by 15.83% from 2003. Ruminant sector/livestock sector The livestock subsector grossed P145.6 billion at current prices (US $1 = 54.80 Philippine pesos in May 2005) and posted an impressive 27.01% gain in 2004. With both production and prices going up, buffalo (carabao) grossed 15.20% more in 2004. In the case of cattle, its gross value of output was higher by 8.80%. Cattle production was down but price was higher this year. Gross value of pig production expanded by 31.36% due to the big price appreciation in 2004. Goat output was valued 11.78% higher this year as gains were recorded in both production and price. This was true for dairy farms which grossed 7.96% more in 2004. The livestock sector contributed 13.53% to total agricultural production in 2003. In 2004, it contracted by 0.41%. Pig output was lower by 0.61% as indicated by the drop in the number of stock and number of slaughtered animals in abattoirs in the fourth quarter of 2004. Production of cattle decreased by 0.96%. On the other hand, a 4.28% gain in buffalo production was registered during the year. There was an increase in the volume of slaughtered animals in abattoirs. Goat output went up by 1.16% as inventory and number of slaughtered animals were reportedly higher during the reference period. There was a 2.67% gain in dairy production and this was noted in the increased volume of milk generated by cooperatives and commercial dairy farms. In the livestock sector, prices accelerated by 27.53%. The biggest gainer was pig that registered a 32.17% price increase as market demand increased. Goat price went on increasing and another 10.49% was indicated in 2004. The price of cattle went up by 9.85%. Dairy prices grew by 5.15%. Buffalo price which suffered a drop in 2003 experienced a 10.47% increase in 2004. Philippine statistics for ruminant numbers, beef, veal, buffalo meat and milk production, cattle imports, beef and veal imports and milk equivalent imports for the period 19952005 are shown in Table 4, based on FAO statistics, but it should be noted that there is a gross difference between the FAO data for goat numbers and those from the Philippine Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (in 2004 according to FAO data the Philippine goat population was 6300000 while according to the Philippines Bureau of Agricultural Statistics the number was 3355574). Both FAO and Philippine Bureau of Agricultural Statistics goat data are included but it is likely that the FAO data need to be revised downwards because as far back as 1990

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

Table 4. Philippines statistics for ruminant numbers, beef, veal, buffalo meat and milk production, cattle imports, beef and veal imports and milk equivalent imports for the period 19952005
Item
Cattle nos. (,000,000) Buffalo nos. (,000,000) *Goat nos. (,000,000) FAO1 BAS2 Beef & veal prod. (,000 mt) Buffalo meat prod. (,000 mt) Cow milk prod. (,000 mt) Cattle imports (,000) Beef & veal imports (,000 mt) Milk equivalent imports (,000,000 mt)

1995
2.0 2.7 6.2 2.8 97.4 50.1 12.1 195 42.3 1.4

1996
2.1 2.8 6.2 3.0 112.9 47.9 11.5 185 57.4 1.3

1997
2.3 3.0 6.3 3.0 136.6 52.3 10.2 240 68.5 1.4

1998
2.4 3.0 6.1 3.1 155.8 55.7 9.2 205 52.5 1.2

1999
2.4 3.0 6.1 3.1 189.9 68.7 9.9 245 64.2 1.3

2000
2.5 3.0 6.3 3.2 190.2 71.6 10.2 202 85.0 1.7

2001
2.5 3.1 6.2 3.2 182.9 72.3 10.8 87 78.4 1.6

2002
2.6 3.1 6.3 3.3 182.8 76.5 11.0 117 84.2 1.6

2003
2.6 3.2 6.3 3.3 181.0 76.5 11.3 97 87.7 1.8

2004
2.6 3.3 6.3 3.4 179.2 79.7 11.6 55 110.1 2.0

2005
2.6 3.3 6.5 3.5 175.0 79.0 13.0 n.r. n.r. n.r.

Source: FAO STAT 206 n.r. = no records; * Data from FAOSTAT1 and (Philippines) Bureau of Agricultural Statistics2 < http://www.bas.gov.ph/stat4_lpstat.php > require reconciliation.

the goat population was only 2.2 M according to Table 5. Backyard and commercial ruminant the Philippines Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. populations in 2003 and 2004 2004 % change % share Therefore the figures need to be reconciled. The Animal type 2003 Buffalo Philippines statistics indicate that the number Total 3 179536 3281590 1.03 100.00 of dairy cows increased from 7800 in 2001 to Backyard 3172512 3274751 1.03 99.79 8500 in 2004 while FAOSTAT show an increase Commercial 7,024 6839 0.97 0.21 Cattle from 4738 to 5200 over the same period. Total 2557040 2558430 1.0 100.00 Table 5 shows the detailed breakdown of the Backyard 2379836 2393014 1.0 93.5 backyard and commercial buffalo, cattle and Commercial 177204 165416 0.93 6.5 goat populations in 2003 and 2004. Backyard Goat Total 3270441 3355210 1.03 100.00 cattle farms still make up the largest share of Backyard 3255189 3338620 1.03 99.5 total cattle population averaging 91% during Commercial 15252 16590 1.09 0.5 the last decade while commercial farms only Source: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics < http://www.bas.gov.ph/ represent a 9% share. The share of backyard stat4_lpstat.php > farms to total inventory has increased while the share of commercial farms has declined due to a combination of factors such as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), land conversion, a deteriorating peace and order situation, marketing problems, low returns on investments for breeding operations, high cost of funds and lack of credit. Growth in cattle production was forecast to remain flat in 2004/05. The decline in imports of feeder cattle during 2003 and 2004 were also likely to keep the growth in total supply of cattle to a minimum. So due to a standstill in imports of cattle and a stagnation in calf production, growth in cattle production has been minimal in 2004/05. The emergence of cattle feedlot operations that are more profitable than cow-calf operations due to a shorter production cycle is also a threat to the national cattle inventory and may result in a reduction in the breeding base over the long term, as commercial raisers shift to feedlot operations. Buffalo and goats remain largely in the backyard sector. Growth in beef consumption is likely to be insignificant in 2004/05 due to the relatively high price of beef compared to other protein sources. Annual per capita consumption of beef remains very low at less than 4kg. With the growth of the Philippine population estimated at 2.36%, annual increases in beef production are barely enough to keep up with the demand.

2. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY

2.1 Major topographic features Owing to its archipelagic nature, topographic variations characterize the Philippines. A study of the geological history of the archipelago shows that the islands are actually the peaks of mountains uplifted from the sea floor by horizontal pressure exerted by the Indo-Australian plate on the eastern borders of

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

the Philippine Plate during the Miocene Period. The islands are, in effect, half-drowned mountains which form part of a long and wide Cordillera extending from Indonesia to Japan. Other peaks are volcanic in origin. Luzon, the biggest island group, is the most mountainous with extensive valleys and plains running through its interiors. The southern portion of the island has a dominantly volcanic topography with ridges and valleys of gentle slopes and good drainage. The group of islands located in the Central Philippines, commonly known as the Visayan Islands, is fully exposed to the typhoons from the Pacific and torrential rains which have produced severe dissection of its topography. Mindanao has diverse structural elements and different forms of physiographic development including fault block mountains, volcanic peaks, uplifted plateaus, low flat basins, a notable fault zone which cuts through Luzon and Visayas, fissures, flow masses, and incised valleys and canyons. 2.2 Major soil types Based on interpretation of the Soil Map of the Philippines (Mariano and Valmidiano (1972), as cited by Badayos (1994)), the countrys soils may be grouped into six soil orders, namely: Ultisols, Alfisols, Inceptisols, Vertisols, Entisols and Oxisols (Figure 4). Except for the Aridisols and Spodosols, the other soil orders, Histosols and Mollisols, are also observed but to a limited extent. In terms of distribution, the Ultisols cover about 8.6million ha or approximately 41.5% of the total land area. The unsurveyed mountain soils cover about 28.6% and the Inceptisols, Alfisols, Vertisols, Entisols and Oxisols, cover 13.7%, 9.9%, 3.6%, 2.5% and 0.3%, respectively.

3. CLIMATE AND AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES

3.1 Climate The Philippines has a tropical climate dominated by rainy and dry seasons. The mean annual average temperature is about 27 C. The hottest months are April, May and June with average temperatures ranging from 27.8 to 28.4C. The coldest months are December, January and February with average temperature ranging from 26.1C to as low as 25.5C. The Philippines is divided into four climatic types, depending on how rainfall is distributed throughout the year (Figure 5). Type 1 - Two pronounced seasons, wet and dry, with maximum rain period from June to September and a dry season which lasts from 3 to 6 months. Type II - No dry season, with a very pronounced maximum rain period that occurs in December and January. Type III - Not very pronounced maximum rain period, with a short dry season lasting 1 to 3 months. Type IV - Rainfall more or less distributed throughout the year. The western part of Luzon, Palawan, and the Visayas islands have Type I climate, with marked dry and wet seasons. Rainfall in these areas occurs mostly during the southwest monsoon season. Most of the eastern parts of the archipelago have Type II climate, having no pronounced dry season with rainfall maximum from November to January. Rainfall in these areas is due to both large-scale precipitation during the southwest monsoon season and orographic precipitation during the Pacific trade winds and northeast monsoon season. Types III and IV cover most of Mindanao and the central part of the Philippines along a north-south axis and are somewhere between Types I and II. This climate type is defined by precipitation due to the intertropical convergence zone. Being within the northwest Pacific basin the Philippines is frequently visited by typhoons or cyclones. The country experiences 19 or more typhoons a year on average. Tropical cyclones, and the resulting floods and storm surges are the most destructive of all weather-related disasters. They can occur any time of the year, although the most come during the southwest monsoon season, from June to October. The strongest typhoon in the Philippines occurred in 1970 when wind speeds of around 275km per hour were recorded near the centre of tropical cyclone Sening when it passed over Virac, Catanduanes. Typhoons Unding, Violeta and Winnie which came in December 2004 were three of the most destructive typhoons that brought floods, devastated properties and claimed hundreds of lives.

10

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

Figure 4. Soil map of the Philippines

3.2 Climate and agro-ecological zones Based on rainfall, temperature, and other parameters such as elevation and land form, three agroecological zones are identified (BSWM 1993abc). These are broad zones, which are relatively uniform with respect to crop production potential, and also provide the generalized physical conditions and ecological information needed for the determination of crop suitability. The zones are: Wet zone - Regions with rainfall usually greater than 2500mm annually with slight moisture deficit during the dry season and a crop growing period of 270 to 320 days. Average temperature is cool ranging from 19.0 to 22.90C. These conditions dominate in the hilly/mountainous to highland regions. The

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

11

Figure 5. Climate types in the Philippines

wet zone area covers 47.6% (6.7million ha) of Luzons total area, 44% (2.5million ha) in Visayas and 31.5% (3.2million ha) in Mindanao. In areas where slope and other soil properties are favourable, this zone is favourable for the production of some traditional and exotic crops such as tea, grapes, pears, strawberries and other plants which require semi-temperate conditions. Moist zone - Regions with rainfall ranging from 1500 to 2500mm annually with moderate moisture deficit during the dry season and a crop growing period of 210 to 270 days. It covers most of the present agricultural and expansion area in the lowland, upland and hilly regions. Moist zone areas cover 5.7million ha in Luzon, mostly in the Cordillera Autonomous Region and Ilocos Region. In the Visayas, it occupies 2.8million ha, 72% of which is found in the eastern region. In Mindanao, it covers 6.5million ha. Dry zone - Low rainfall regions with precipitation of less than 1500mm annually and with considerable moisture deficit during the dry season. The crop growing period is less than 6 months in some lowland and upland areas. Most of the dry zone area is found in Luzon with 1.8million ha, mostly in its central region. A dry zone is also found in Central Visayas with 0.4 million ha and in Mindanao with about 0.5million ha covering portions of Davao del Sur, General Santos City, Cotabato City and Koronadal.

12

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

4. RUMINANT LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

Scale of enterprise Cattle production is classified into three categories: backyard or smallholder farms, the ranches or commercial farms, and the commercial feedlots. About 90% of the cattle are raised on smallholder farms. Most small farms usually keep 1 or 2 head of cattle mainly for draught, and these are sold when there is need for cash. In Batangas province specialized cattle fattening occurs as a source of additional income. The provinces with most smallholder cattle are Pangasinan, Ilocos Norte and Batangas in Luzon; Cebu and Negros Oriental in Visayas; and Zamboanga del Sur in Mindanao. About 10% of the national cattle herd is in the commercial ranches. Except for the farms covered by the Forest Land Grazing Lease Agreement (FLGLA) which occupies 112000 (FMB 2005) the total land area devoted to ranching is not accurately determined. There are ranches that operate their own titled land, and those that lease properties from private individuals. The provinces with the highest commercial cattle population are Masbate and Nueva Ecija in Luzon, and Bukidnon and South Cotabato in Mindanao. Commercial feedlot operations are concentrated in the Davao-General Santos area in Mindanao and while a few operates in Southern Tagalog and Central Luzon. The commercial feedlots rely on the importation of feeder cattle from Australia. Imports increased from 2000 head in 1987 to 176000 head in 1996. Lately, due to economic depression in the Southeast Asian region, there had been a drastic reduction in cattle imports and a number of them has stopped operations. Raising of buffalo is predominantly a backyard activity with 99.8% of the total population in the hands of smallholders, mainly the rice farmers. Each farm raises 1-3 buffalo according to the area they cultivate. Semi-commercial ranch production of buffalo with 25 to 100 head is found in the marginal lands of Central and Northern Luzon where food crop production is not possible. Dairying in the Philippines has yet to make its presence felt. Local milk production constitutes only one% of the total industry, and the bulk of the countrys milk requirement is imported. Local milk production comes from a herd of less than 20 000 dairy cows distributed among a few commercial operations and a large number of small farms. Feeding systems and integration of livestock into farming systems With the majority of livestock raised on small farms, the feeding of animals in mixed crop/livestock farming systems revolves around the use of crop residues, weeds, tree leaves and planted fodder crops. Gathering forage is a year-round activity of the farm family. The kind of crops grown, the intensity of cropping and the extent of land utilization, coupled with environmental and management factors, determine the availability of the feed for livestock production. Productivity and performance of livestock varies in different locations, and among farms, depending upon the availability of forages and the farmers ingenuity to manipulate feeding on a year round basis. Farmers feed their animals with minimum or no cost except labour, because their main source of feed is weeds and crop residues associated with their crops. Some farmers plant small areas to forages, either as monoculture or intercrops, to provide higher quality feed and to assure availability of feed during periods of scarcity. Rice or maize bran are fed when home-grown grains are milled, but only rarely. In rice growing areas, weeds constitute about 50% of the feed that is offered along with rice straw and other crop residues. In rainfed areas, paddy fields become communal grazing areas after rice harvest during the dry season. Grazing is limited to only a few days in irrigated fields which are double cropped. Stall feeding and tethering of animals in uncropped and idle lands is practiced during the growing period of the rice crop. Rice straw is the principal feed after rice harvest; other crop residues such as maize stover and legume hays are also fed whenever available. In sugarcane producing areas, weeds are the principal feed during the growing stage of sugarcane. Sugarcane tops constitute 75 to 100% of the feeds after the harvest and cane milling season which coincides with the dry season. In small coconut plantations, cattle and buffaloes are tethered to graze on native vegetation. Some farmers have established small patches of Napier for cut-and-carry feeding. A number of commercial cattle and coconut enterprises grow guinea, Para, star, signal and humidicola grasses for grazing.

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

13

In the province of Batangas where fattening of one or a few head of cattle is a common practice, roughage in the form of fresh grasses, cane tops, maize stover, and rice straw is supplemented with fresh Leucaena leucocephala ( known locally as Ipil-ipil) leaves. Some farmers feed a concentrate mixture at 0.5% of the animals body weight through forced-feeding. Chopped Leucaena leaves or cassava leaves when available are mixed with the concentrate. Home-mixed concentrate commonly consists of copra meal, rice bran, salt, ground oyster shell and molasses. Goats are commonly tethered and given supplements of Leucaena, Gliricidia and other fodder trees which are bundled and hung under the house or in trees. Some goats graze shrubs and other vegetation. Depending on their location, commercial feedlots utilize sugarcane tops, bananas rejected for export, pineapple pulp or brewers spent grain. Green maize fodder is produced and supplied by a large number of farmers to feedlot operators in Davao and in the General Santos area. Maize fodder production has taken over a significant portion of the maize grain production area. Some farmers prefer growing maize for fodder because they can have 3 to 4 crops a year and they do not experience crop failure, particularly if droughts occur. Production constraints Problems associated with the growth and expansion of the ruminant livestock industry are primarily due to the insufficient number of breeding animals brought about by high slaughter rate and low reproductive efficiency. A number of other factors contribute, namely:(a) Lack of female breeder base to increase animal population. Infusion of adapted and prolific females by importation. (b) Indiscriminate slaughtering of breeders. The increasing demand for beef and beef products in the market has led to an indiscriminate slaughter of breeding animals, young female cattle and buffaloes, and even pregnant ones. The practice has led to the depletion of the breeder base and has considerably reduced the reproductive capability of the industry. (c) Calf production is not attractive. Calf production is generally an unattractive option for farmers because buffalo and cattle have long gestation periods, thus it takes time to earn from their investment. The high mortality of young animals and low farm gate prices discourage farmers from calf production. (d) Animals are raised mainly for draught. With the majority of buffaloes and backyard cattle raised for draught, mating is often deliberately delayed or totally avoided because of the belief that once the cow is bred, it is no longer fit for work. The normal practice is to wait for 6-9 months after calving before re-breeding. (e) Limited detection of heat. Farmers have difficulties detecting female breeders that are on-heat and this makes breeding animals in the backyard a problem. Although some farmers can detect signs of oestrus, a number of potential female breeders are not mated because they are not constantly observed. (f) Breeding females have limited access to bulls. Most of cattle and buffaloes are tethered and generally kept in feeding areas. This limits free access of on-heat female buffaloes to bulls. (g) Bulls with good potential are being castrated. Bulls with superior size are generally selected for draught. At 34 years of age, they are castrated to be docile. This practice has left the natural breeding opportunities to smaller and inferior bulls. (h) Lack of good quality feed. Most farmers dont grow forage nor utilize the available fodder trees to supplement the poor quality roughage that is often available but in insufficient quantity. Moreover, shortages in feed are experienced due to fluctuations in feed supply, inefficient utilization of farm by-products, and improper handling and processing of forage crops during peak supply periods or during harvesting of field crops. Socio-economic constraints (a) Conflicting land use policies that overlap within a certain geographic area which generally favour the granting of land rights for humane consideration. (b) Indiscriminate conversion of agricultural lands to settlement, housing and industrial purposes. (c) High price of locally produced beef. The average local price of beef has been increasing by 9.8%

14

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

per year due to the widening gap between the domestic production and demand. Due to the lower price of imported beef compared to locally produced product, beef imports have been increasing. (d) Absence of security of tenure. Control over land for a sufficient period of time is necessary to recover large investments in ranching. While the pasture lease system under FLGLA is effective for 25 years there is little assurance of its renewal or extension. (e) Poor law and order situation. In some areas, insurgencies have caused a drastic decline in the number of commercial stock. With threats of insurgency, many ranchers have closed, sold or transferred their stock to other areas. (f) Presence of squatters. The presence of squatters on ranches affects the grazing operation and inhibits owners from improving their areas. (g) Granting of pasture leases to non-bona fide ranchers. Ranching is generally regarded as a secondary enterprise by some people who run other businesses. In earlier years, some ranchers became involved with FLGLA for land speculation rather than for genuine livestock enterprise, thus, there was little improvement in the ranch. Government efforts have now improved the selection criteria for granting leases to ensure they are only granted to bona fide applicants. (h) Inadequate support services. Government supported and maintained animal breeding centres are inadequate to supply breeding animals either for natural mating or artificial insemination. There is a lack of breeding bulls and frozen semen and there are insufficient funds to provide efficient services to the farmers. (i) Lack of appreciation of the value of improved pasture. Very few ranch operators are using improved pastures. Most ranchers depend on native pastures and rely only on their farm hands for the day-to-day management of their farm. Several ranchers have started introducing improved pasture species onto their properties. However, the species were planted in only small patches that are generally left unattended or unprotected from grazing animals. Expansion of improved pasture is very limited.

5. THE PASTURE RESOURCE

Existing resources The feed resource base for ruminant production in the Philippines is essentially made up of grasslands, weeds, residues from croplands, land under plantation (primarily coconuts), and industrial by-products. Grasslands The Philippines has 1.5million ha of grassland which constitute part of the public domain. Grazing is open to qualified groups and is administered by the Government through the Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR) via Pasture Lease Agreements (PLA) and Forest Land Grazing Lease Agreements (FLGLA). Extensive areas of grasslands are found in the provinces of South Cotabato, North Cotabato and Bukidnon in Mindanao; in the island provinces of Masbate and Occidental Mindoro; and in Cagayan and Isabela in Luzon. Table 6 shows the area and number of pasture lease agreements under the FLGLA from 1970 to 2005. Between 1975 and 1980 there were Table 6. Forest land grazing lease agreements and permits, 19702005 about 1.0 million ha under grazing Year Total Lease Permit lease agreements. The area even Number Area (ha) Number Area (ha) Number Area (ha) reached to 1.29million ha in 1971/72. 1970 3622 813 1639 687 1983 126 Since the early eighties, the number 1975 3638 959 1812 605 1826 154 2314 923 2009 882 305 41 and area currently under lease has 1980 1985 1084 466 1051 461 33 5 been drastically reduced. Reasons for 1990 1007 414 1014 405 63 9 the reduction are: unstable law and 1995 722 257 714 252 8 5 order, cattle rustling and squatting 2000 412 120 412 120 resulting in abandonment of the lease 2005 399 112 399 112 areas; cancellation of lease due to non- Source: Forest Management Bureau, DENR

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

15

compliance of leaseholders with the rules and regulation of the lease agreement; and conversion of some lease areas to intensified reforestation and other land uses. Philippine grasslands are dominated by cogon grass, the local name for Imperata cylindrica (Figure 6) which constitutes about 50% of total grazing area (Orlido-Aguilar 1995). Other major grass community types observed are Themeda, Capillipedium and Chryosopogon. Coconut plantations Figure 6. Imperata cylindrica In addition to the grassland areas, there are 3.2 million ha planted to coconut which Table 7. Cooperatives and coconut farmers assisted by can be utilized for livestock production. the National Dairy Authority. The natural vegetation under coconuts has Area No. of No.of No. of No. of cooperatives farmers farmers cattle a range of species that varies according raising raised cattle to location and level of management of Southern Luzon 8 346 86 476 plantation. The major components of the Visayas 13 350 150 700 vegetation are grasses principally composed Mindanao 9 120 105 800 of Imperata cylindrica, Axonopus Total 30 816 341 1 976 compressus, Paspalum conjugatum and Cyrtococcum spp. (Moog et al. 1993, Moog and Faylon 1991). The commonest legumes are Centrosema pubescens, Calopogonium mucunoides and Pueraria javanica. Most smallholder farms traditionally graze their animal by tethering; animals are roped and transferred to places where sufficient native vegetation is available. In areas where animals have limited access to grazing, farmers integrate forage crops and utilize crop residues from nearby farm lots. In 1983, it was estimated that about 400000ha of coconut land were stocked with cattle, buffalo or goats. Recently, the government is promoting dairying under coconuts. In 2002 the National Dairy Authority (NDA) was assisting 30 cooperatives whose members are predominantly coconut farmers (Table 7). With the NDAs assistance to farmers in coconut areas, there will be more rapid integration of cattle and pasture under coconuts. Although growing of crops under coconuts is practiced in some areas, most of the coconut plantations remain as a monoculture. There is considerable potential in coconut plantations for the expansion of the livestock industry. With improvement of pastures even more animals could be raised under coconuts. Cultivated croplands and crop residues Several plant species serve as forages on small farms, the majority of which are considered weeds, and this includes grasses that grow in cultivated rice and maize fields, e.g. Echinochloa colona, Rottboellia, Ischaemum rugosum and Dactyloctenium aegyptium (Moog and Acasio 1991). Other grass species used as feeds are Imperata cylindrica, Paspalum conjugatum and Cyrtococcum spp. which grow naturally in orchards and in wastelands or idle lots where most of the broadleaf species, such as Synedrella nodiflora, Pseudo-elephantopus spicatus and Asystasia gangetica, are also found. Other broadleaf species grow in cultivated fields. In addition to the weeds associated with cultivated crops, the bulk of the feed resources for ruminant production is contributed by residues or farm by-products from crop production. These include rice straw, maize stover, mungbean hay, sweet potato vines, cassava leaves, peanut hay, sugarcane tops and pineapple pulp. Except for the latter, most of these resources are left and burned in the field after harvest. This is particularly true in the case of rice straw and sugarcane tops, thus, a lot of crop residues are under-utilised if not totally wasted.

16

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

Based on 1987 crop production and harvest data, it was estimated that about 16million tons of crop residues from the major food crops, such as rice, maize, peanuts, sweet potato, cassava, sugarcane and pineapple, could support 4 million animal units (Moog 1990). Recent estimates based on 1996 crop production data indicate that 24.9million tonnes of crop residues are available that could support 6.7million animal units. In 2004, it was estimated that 14.5million tonnes and 5million tonnes of rice straw and maize stover were available, respectively. Their total amount is enough to support the dry matter requirement of 2million cattle. Crop production is encroaching forest lands, grasslands and plantation areas, suggesting that more areas are being diverted to production of food crops. Thus, more crop residues are being produced and with population pressure, smallholder livestock production will continue to dominate commercial livestock production. The development and expansion of the ruminant production will be more dependent on improved and efficient utilization of crop residues and farm by-products.

6. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF PASTURE RESOURCES

Improvement of native grasslands Several studies have shown that introduction of pasture legumes through over-seeding is the most practical and fastest way to improve the productivity of native grasslands. This is done either by burning or heavy grazing of native vegetation, or strip-ploughing the inaccessible areas with native implements, or by disk-ploughing the more accessible areas, before over-sowing the legume seeds. In the case of tree legumes (Leucaena leucocephala), more successful establishment is obtained by transplanting seedlings in strip rows. Among the legume species that have been successfully tried and utilized are centro (Centrosema pubescens), Cook stylo (Stylosanthes guianensis cv. Cook) and Leucaena. Over-sowing of legumes into native pasture increases both the quantity and quality of herbage available, resulting in better animal performance and higher productivity per unit area of land. Table 8 shows the summary of results obtained from various grazing trials that were conducted in 3 sites in the Philippines. Imperata plus Centro or Stylo pastures carrying 1 au/ha produced more liveweight gains compared to Imperata pasture stocked at 0.5au/ha. Higher liveweight gain is obtained from Imperata + Leucaena pasture. In all sites it was observed that animals on pure Imperata pasture lose weight during the dry season while those on Imperata + centro or stylo or Leucaena pastures continuously gained weight (Siota et al., 1977). Prolonged grazing of Imperata pastures at stocking rate of 1 au/ha resulted in encroachment of weeds into the pasture. Castillo et al. (1981) reported that liveweight gains of carabao grazed on Imperata/Leucaena pasture were 3-times greater than from pure Imperata pasture in Bohol. Leucaena comprised over 50% of the herbage on offer throughtout the grazing period. In the same location, loss of weight during the dry season was observed in carabao grazing on Imperata-Themeda pastures, but not on Imperata-Themeda + Stylo pasture (Castillo et al. 1987). In Imperata + Centro pasture, liveweight gain/ha of 290kg was obtained at 2a.u./ha (Castillo et al. 1990) Cultivation of sown grass and grass-legume pastures In commercial ranches, there are areas that are arable and may be irrigated. These areas can be cultivated and planted to high yielding grasses or grass/legume mixtures. Fertilized and irrigated grass pastures produce high herbage yields, particularly under a cut-and-carry Table 8. Liveweight gains on native and native/legume pastures in the Philippines system. However, with the high Pasture Stocking rate (au/ha) Liveweight gain/ha/yr (kg) cost of nitrogen fertilizers, mixed Imperata 0.5 2040 grass/legume pastures are more Imperata 1.0 2560 desirable. Imperata + Centro 1.0 90120 1.0 90110 Sown pastures if well Imperata + Stylo Imperata + Leucaena 2.0 150250 managed remain productive for

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

17

several years and can be considered Table 9. Cattle liveweight gains on improved grass and permanent. Sown grass and grass/ grass/legume pastures Fertilizer Stocking rate LWG/ha/yr legume pastures have higher carrying Pasture (kg N-P-K/ha) (au/ha) (kg) capacity and produce more meat than Para grass 100-0-0 2 300 native pastures (Table 9). In Bukidnon, Para grass + Centro 0-50-0 2 300 65-45-45 2 300 para grass pastures fertilized with Napier + Centro 65-45-45 3 450 l00 kg N/ha/yr and stocked at 2 a.u./ha Napier + Centro 25-50-25 2 180 produced 314kg LWG, while para grass + Guinea grass + Stylo Guinea grass + Stylo 25-50-25 3 250 centro, at the same stocking rate, produced Signal grass + Stylo 25-50-25 2 240 305 kg/ha. In South Cotabato, fertilized Signal grass + Stylo 25-50-25 3 300 Napier/centro pastures produced 128 to 148 tonnes of fresh herbage per hectare Table 10. Performance of cattle on Para grass pasture per year and safely carried 3 a.u./ha with under strip grazing and feedlot management Strip grazing Feedlot a liveweight production/ha of 474kg. In Item Area (ha) 18 18 Bohol, the highest LWG of 252kg/ha was No. of animals 90 161 obtained from guinea grass/Cook stylo at Average initial weight (kg) 160 160 2.5a.u./ha (Valenzuela et al. 1982). Average final weight (kg) 400 400 600 230 Napier remains as the most popular No. of days 0.4 1.04 grass species gown particularly for Average daily gain 19159 21183 cut and carry feeding because it is Total Cost/head (peso) Sale, 400kg @ 52 pesos/kg 20800 20800 easily propagated by stem cuttings. Return/head (peso) 1641 -383 Guinea grass could have been popular Return/ha/yr (peso) 4991 -5 409 if not for the difficulty of gathering and establishing it by rootstock. Para grass is easily propagated by stem cuttings and is grown extensively in poorly drained areas. Montemayor et al. (2003) compared the performance of cattle on Para grass pasture under strip grazing and feedlot management. They found that strip grazing is more economical because of the higher cost involved in feedlots in spite of the better animal performance and shorter period of raising cattle in the latter (Table 10). In recent years, Signal grass along with B. humidicola has became popular, with seeds being imported from Australia. Signal grass is not only grown for pastures but is also being used as soil stabilizer to prevent erosion on steep slopes of roadsides and dams. For this purpose, 6 tonnes of Signal grass seeds were brought in for soil stabilization of the San Roque Multipurpose Dam Project ; 5tonnes for Sual Power Generating Plant Project, both in Pangasinan in 2001 and 2002, respectively; 5 tonnes by Bulacan Garden for hydroseeding projects; and, 2 tonnes to control soil erosion on slopes of a golf course in Antipolo, Rizal. In 2003, the National Dairy Authority imported 800 kg which was distributed to its farmer clients. In May 2005, 1.8tonnes were imported by the Lanao Foundation, Inc. for planting in Lanao del Norte to support the dairy development project in the province. Figure 7 shows a good stand of Signal grass in Bukidnon province that carries 3head of cattle per hectare. Improved pasture under coconuts There has been some apprehension in integrating pasture under coconut because of the anticipated adverse effects on the productivity of coconut trees. However, in Davao del Sur, it was observed that growing pastures does not reduce coconut yield. Coconut yields in grazed improved pasture areas were found to be higher than in grazed and ungrazed native pasture areas. Native pastures under coconuts grazed by buffalo at 1 head/ha produced

Figure 7. Signal grass in Bukidnon province

18

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

53kg/ha/yr while pastures containing centro produced 93 and 151kg/ha at stocking rates of 1 and 2 head/ha, respectively. A number of farmers plant improved pastures like Napier, Guinea, Signal and Humidicola to maintain sufficient supply of feeds through the year. Established pastures are utilized either under cutand-carry system or grazing. Some dairy farmers use electric fences. Guinea grass (Panicum maximum) and Para grass (Brachiaria mutica) are the commonest grasses grown under coconuts. Para grass can be found extensively in Figure 8. Signal grass under coconuts in Albay most areas in Mindanao but is widely grown in Davao Province. Signal grass Table 11. Net income of farmers from cattle and coconuts in village Baligang, Camalig, Albay (Brachiaria decumbens) and humidicola Farm Area Net Income (Peso) Contribution (B. humidicola) also grow well under number (ha) of cattle (%) Coconut Cattle Total coconuts. Recent studies by BAI, through 1 3.2 51 596 12 675 64 271 20 the FAO Regional Working Group on 2 7.0 104 625 9 385 114 010 7 2.0 17 880 5 565 23 445 24 Grazing and Feed Resources of Southeast 3 4.0 77 469 3 015 80 484 4 Asia, showed that cattle grazed on signal 4 5 1.5 34 377 12 785 47 162 28 grass and humidicola pastures in Albay 6 3.0 65 421 11 965 77 386 16 produced liveweight gains of 300 to 400 kg/ha/yr at stocking rates of 2 to 3 animals/ha (Figure 8). This indicated the increased benefits that can be obtained from high yielding pasture species. Signal grass is becoming popular for integration under coconuts because it doesnt make harvesting and picking of coconuts difficult compared to Napier and other erect tall growing species. Signal grass is aggressive and competes well against weeds. Some farmers prefer a certain grass species. In Sto. Tomas, Batangas Don Bautista is grazing 11 cows on a 9ha Cynodon pasture under coconuts. He prefers Cynodon because it keeps the cows and their udders clean and thus, he doesnt have to wash them before milking (Moog, 2003). The area that Mr. Bautista is using belongs to a friend and he is using it for free. His friend benefits from his and the cows presence because pilferage and stealing of nuts is prevented. His friend used to get only 4000 nuts per 2-month harvest, now he gets 12000 nuts for the same harvest interval. This is be one reason (particularly for absentee coconut farmers) why integration of cattle should be encouraged. Improved pasture and livestock integrated with coconut results in increased total farm income (Moog et al. 1998). Table 11 shows that depending on farm size, raising 2 head of cattle will contribute 4 to 28% additional income per farm, which is more significant on smaller farms. However, with larger land holdings, there is potential to expand, carry more animals and obtain more income. Integration of forages in croplands and smallholder farms Seasonal scarcity of feeds, especially during the dry season, limits livestock production. Therefore there is a need for alternative sources of feeds for ruminants to assure their daily subsistence. Fodder trees that include leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala), gliricidia (Gliricidia sepium), rain tree (Samanea saman) and others grow naturally on most farms, though not intentionally and exclusively as sources of fodder (Moog, 1992). They are also grown to establish ownership boundaries, as live fence and posts, for poles and for vegetables. They can be further tapped and systematically integrated with existing crops as an additional source of feed for ruminants. Likewise, a number of forage species are being used as alley crops or intercrops for cash crops. The foliage is usually fed to animals while some are turned into the soil to serve as mulch or fertilizer. They also serve for soil conservation purposes. These include Leucaena, Gliricidia, Desmodium rensonii and Flemingia.

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

19

Leucaena has been the most popular of the fodder trees. However, in spite of its abundance, it is currently not used extensively as fodder except in Batangas province where backyard cattle fattening is a popular practice. Leucaena is commonly utilized in cut-and-carry feeding. Leucaena is planted in contour rows with areas between the rows remaining on fallow during the dry season and planted to maize at the onset of the rainy season. Estimates indicate that cattle fed with higher levels (15 to 20kg) of leucaena leaves plus fresh grasses had an average daily gain of 800 to 900 g. A recent interview of farmers in Figure 9. Feeding goats with Leucaena in upland cropping area an upland village of Malimatoc I, Mabini, Batangas, indicated that fattening cattle on Leucaena based ration assures them an incremental income 1000 pesos per month. In the same village, a farmer raising 5 does and a buck said he has sold 10 weanling goats at 2 000 pesos each in April 2005 and another set of 11 will be sold before the end of the year. That means he will earn 42000 pesos for this year. Figure 9 shows a farmer feeding goats with Leucaena. Cattle fed with 50% rice straw, 40% leucaena and 10% concentrate attained an average daily weight gain of 720 g while Figure 10. Dry season maize for cut and carry feeding those that were given equal amounts of leucaena and rice straw had daily gains of only 520g (Marbella et al., 1979). Under grazing, cattle on guinea grass/leucaena pastures had an average daily gain of 600 g with the pasture carrying 5head/ha in the rainy season (June to October) and 2 head/ha in the dry season (November to May). In the Ilocos region, farmers plant maize following harvest of rice, vegetables and other crops grown in the rainy season. Maize is planted in a staggered period of 2 week intervals in different plots (Figure 10). Maize is harvested at 65 to 80 days after planting coinciding with the dry season when feed is scarce in the region, and used as cut and carry feed. Since 1985, leucaena has been infested by psyllids (Heteropsylla cubana) and most leucaena plantations have been devastated. The psyllid infestation has affected small farms with intensive beef production where leucaena was the most valuable component of the animal feeding system. The infestation affected the feed milling industry that produced leucaena leaf meal for export and for use as a source of xantophyll and carotene in mixed feeds. It also affected small farmers and their families, particularly in Cebu, who harvest and sell the leaves to the feed merchants and the feed mills. Recent evaluation of several Leucaena species and hybrids for psyllid resistance found that the cross between L. leucocephala and L. pallida (known as KX2 F1 hybrid) was psyllid-resistant. It was also observed to be palatable to livestock and produced more yield of edible dry matter (about 4-times more) than the naturalized Leucaena. The Leucaena KX2 F1 hybrid is now recommended for use in both smallholder and commercial livestock farms. However, seeds of the hybrid are not commercially available. Vegetative propagation is being investigated so that multiplication can occur through rooted cuttings and grafts. Some degree of success has been obtained and there has been a limited initial distribution of rooted cuttings. Gliricidia is more versatile than leucaena. It can be used as shade for black pepper, coffee, and cacao. However, it is not highly acceptable to cattle but is relished by sheep and goats. Feed intake and

20

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

liveweight gain of sheep is increased with increasing levels of Gliricidia. Sheep fed with 80% Gliricidia, 10% rice straw, and 10% setaria (Setaria sphacelata), attained the highest adjusted daily liveweight gain equivalent to 49.7g as compared to 20.5g by sheep which received low levels of Gliricidia, combined with concentrate (Medrano, 1991). The lowest liveweight gain was observed in sheep fed with 20% concentrate, 70% rice straw, and 10% setaria. It was also found that the ration containing 80% Gliricidia had the highest efficiency in terms of LWG per unit of feed. Sesbania grandiflora is commonly found in rice growing areas of Central Luzon and along roadsides and gardens. It is more popular for its edible inflorescence than as fodder. Rain tree (Samanea saman) is commonly grown for its shade and is used as a source of firewood. Its use as feed is confined in certain areas, particularly in Batangas. Both its leaves and pods are given to cattle during the dry season. Moringa oleifera is more popularly grown for its nutritious edible leaves. It is cooked into soup and is recommended for nursing mothers. One advantage of this tree is that it is easily propagated from cuttings (as well as from seeds) with a very high survival rate. A mature tree can be lopped every 30-45 days and the leaves can be fed to sheep and goats. A form of alley farming based on the use of tree and shrub legumes called Sloping Agricultural Land Technology (SALT) was developed by the Mindanao Baptist Rural Life Center (MBRLC), an NGO based in Davao del Sur in southern Mindanao (Laquihon and Pagbilao 1994). SALT is a soil conservation farming scheme where food and perennial crops are grown in alleys 4-5 m wide between contoured rows of leguminous trees and shrubs. The latter are thickly planted in double rows to form hedgerows. When the hedge reaches 1.52.0 m in height, it is cut back to 40 cm and the cuttings are placed in the alleys between the hedgerows to serve as mulch and organic fertilizer or green manure. Rows of perennial crops such as coffee, cacao, citrus and banana are planted in every third alley created by contoured hedgerows. The alleys not occupied by permanent crops are planted alternately to cereals (e.g. maize, upland rice or sorghum) or other crops (e.g. sweet potato, melon or pineapple) and legumes (e.g. mungbean, string bean, soybean or peanut). This cyclical cropping provides the farmer with several harvests throughout the year. The tree species used in the hedgerows include Leucaena leucocephala, L. diversifolia, Calliandra calothyrsus, Gliricidia sepium, Flemingia macrophylla and Desmodium rensonii. Farmers are encouraged to use a combination of these plants or other fast-growing, fast-coppicing and high-biomass leguminous trees or shrubs found to be suitable on their farms. The MBRLC has continuing programs testing the performance of other species of shrubs and tree legumes for hedgerow and forage use.

7. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONNEL

The following are the current active researchers on forage and pastures with their respective areas of interest and institution. Asis, Perla - Farmers Participatory Research City Veterinary Office, Cagayan De Oro City Calub, Blesilda - Forages in Farming Systems Farming System and Soil Resources Institute, University of the Philippines, Los Banos, Laguna Cuyugan, Orlando Planning and Development Livestock Development Council, Department of Agriculture, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City Darang , Sergio - Pasture Seed Production Department of Agriculture, Region II Gamu, Isabela De Castro, Dante Forages for Goats Local Government Unit of Ragay, Camarines Sur Gabunada, Jr, Francisco Primary Species Evaluation and Farmers Participatory Research CIAT-AIDAB Forages for Smallholder Project, International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Laguna Lanting, Elaine Animal Nutrition

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

21

Livestock Research Division, PCARRD, Los Banos, Laguna Magboo, Eduedo Participatory Research Livestock Research Division, PCARRD, Los Banos, Laguna Mantiquilla, Junaldo - Species Evaluation Under Coconut Philippine Coconut Authority, DavaoCity Nacalaban, Willie - Farmers Participatory Research Municipal Agriculture Office, Malitbog, Bukidnon Orit, Hulsey V. Extension and Farmers Training Local Government Unit of Capalonga, Camarines Norte Sair, Roseminda - Regional Performance Trial (cut-and-carry system for smallholder production) MarianoMarcosStateUniversity, Batac, Ilocos Norte San Buenaventura, Arlene On-farm Trials Department of Agriculture, Regional Field Unit 5, Pili, Camarines Sur Subsuban, Maizeelio - Forages in Plantation Crops Philippine CarabaoCenter, University of Southern Mindanao, Kabacan, North Cotabato Valenzuela, Felix G. Land Use Policy Livestock Development Council, Department of Agriculture, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City Bureau of Animal Industry Research Division, Visayas Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City Moog, Francisco A. - Farming Systems, Grassland Improvement and Technology Promotion Acasio, Remedios N. - Forages in Farming Systems and Leucaena Marbella, Annabelle F. - Seed Production and Animal Utilization Marbella, Joven L. - Seed Production and Extension San Buenaventura, Jaime A. - Seed Production and Leucaena Victorio, Emily E. - Farming Systems and Leucaena Other Bureau of Animal Husbandry Deocareza, Anita G. - Animal Utilization and Seed Production Milagros Stock Farm, Milagros, Masbate Diesta, Helen - Pasture-Livestock Integration Under Coconuts Sorsogon Dairy Farm, Sorsogon, Sorsogon Lariosa, Larry L. - Grassland Improvement, Seed Production and Animal Utilization Buswanga Breeding and Experiment Station, Bureau of Animal Industry, Busuanga, Palawan

8. REFERENCES
Badayos, R.B. 1994. Soil related constraints to agriculture in the Philippines. Seminar Proceedings on Soil Science and Agricultural Technology in the Philippines. pp 27-58. BAS 2005. Performance of Philippine agriculture, January December 2004. Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, Quezon City, Philippines. 14 pp BAS. 2004. Selected statistics on agriculture. Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, Quezon City, Philippines. 66 pp BSWM. 1993a. Crop development and soil conservation framework for Luzon Island. Bureau of Soil and Water Management, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. 298 pp. BSWM. 1993b. Crop development and soil conservation framework for Visayas Island. Bureau of Soil and Water Management, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. 283 pp. BSWM. 1993c. Crop development and soil conservation framework for Mindanao Island. Bureau of Soil and Water Management, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. 190 pp. Castillo, A.C., E.C. Macalandang, F.A. Moog and C.B. Salces. 1987. Pasture and carabao (B. bubalis) production from native and native/stylo pastures at two stocking rates in Bohol province. Paper presented at the 25th PSAS Annual Convention, PCARRD, Los Banos, Laguna.

22

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

Castillo, A.C., R.G. Tibayan and H.P. Tombocon. 1981. Carabeef production on native and native/ipil-ipil pastures at different stocking rates. Phil. J. Animal Industry. 36(1-4): 24-33. Castillo, A.C., R.N. Acasio, E.C. Malandang, C.B. Salces, S.A. Elumba and M. Doydora. 1990. Performance of five pasture legumes oversown into native Imperata cylindrica pasture for beef production: 2. Liveweight gain on Cogon/Centro pasture. Paper presented at 27th PSAS Annual Convention, 30-31 Oct. 1990. PICC, Manila. Forest Management Bureau 2005. Data on Forest Land Grazing Lease Agreement. FMB, DENR. Unpublished. Forest Management Bureau 2000. Philippine Forestry Statistics. FMB, DENR. Laquihon, W.A. and M.V. Pagbilao. 1994. Sloping agricultural land technology (SALT) in the Philippines. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and H. Max Shelton, eds., CAB International, UK. pp. 336-373. Marbella, J.L., C.I. Pineda, R.N. Bulay, A.C. Castillo, and F.A. Moog, 1979. Utilization of rice straw and Ipilipil in cattle fattening at Magalang, Pampanga. Philippines Journal of Animal Industry 34: 81-87. Medrano, W.C. 1991. Utilization of Madre de Cacao (Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) Steud.) as feed for sheep. M.S. thesis, UPLB. Montemayor J., F. Galarita and R. Enad. 2003. Strip grazing : An alternative management tool in SACI cattle operation. In: Halim, R. A., N. R. A. Hamid and S. M. Nasir,eds. Forages and feed resources in commercial livestock production systems. Proceedings of the 8th Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Grazing and Feed Resources for Southeast Asia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 22-28 September 2003. pp. 118-119. Moog, F.A. 2003. Status of coconut-livestock integration in the Philippines. In: Halim, R. A., N. R. A. Hamid and S. M. Nasir,eds. Forages and feed resources in commercial livestock production systems. Proceedings of the 8th Meeting of the Regional Working Group on Grazing and Feed Resources for Southeast Asia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 22-28 September 2003. pp. 44-48. Moog, F.A. 1990. Available crop residues and agro-industrial by-products. In: Fausto-Lanting E.L. and F.DL. Mojica, eds. State of the art and abstract bibliography: Processing and utilization of crop residues, fibrous agro-industrial by-products, and food waste materials for livestock and poultry feeding. PCARRD, Los Banos, Laguna. pp. 1-2. Moog, F.A. 1992. Role of fodder trees in Philippine smallholder farms. In: Speedy, A. and P.L. Pugliese, eds. Legume trees and other fodder trees as protein sources for livestock. Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consultation held at the Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 14-18 October 1991. FAO-APHP 102. pp. 211-218. Moog, F.A. and F.S. Faylon. 1991. Integrated forage-livestock systems under coconuts in the Philippines. In: Shelton, H.M. and W.W. Stur, eds. Forages for plantation crops. Proceedings of a workshop, Sanur Beach, Bali, Indonesia, 27-29 June 1990. ACIAR Proceedings No. 32. pp. 144-146. Moog, F.A. and R.N. Acasio. 1991. Role of native forages associated with upland crops. In: de la Vina, A.C. ed. Utilization of native forages for animal production. Proceedings of second meeting of Regional Working Group on Grazing and Feed Resources of South-east Asia. 26 Feb-March 5, 1991, UP Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines. pp. 190-197. Moog, F.A., H.E. Diesta and A.G. Deocareza. 1998. Cattle distribution with improved pastures under coconuts. Paper presented in the 6th Meeting of the RWG on Grazing and Feed Resource for Southeast Asia. October 5-9, 1998. Legaspi City, Philippines. Moog, F.A., L.T. Trung, N.B. Velasco, L.P. Palo and A. Colico. 1993. Forage and small ruminant production in coconut cultivation. In: S. Sivaraj, P. Agamuthu and T.K. Mukherjee, Eds., Proceedings of the Workshop on Development of Sustainable Integrated Small Ruminant Tree Cropping Production Systems held on 30th November 4th December 1992 at the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. pp. 76-83. National Land Use Committee. 2002. National Framework for Physical Planning 2001-2030. NEDA sa Pasig. Pasig City. 347 pp. Orlido-Aguilar, N.M. 1995. Grasslands in perspective: Global and local trends. In: Umali, C.G., M.V.A. Bravo and A.B. Exconde, eds. Strengthening Research and Development for Sustainable Management of Grasslands. Proceedings of the First National Grassland Congress of the Philippines. ERDB, College, Laguna, Philippines, September 26-28, 1995. pp. 25-31. Siota, C.M., A.P. Castillo, F.A. Moog and E.Q. Javier, 1977. Beef production on native stylo and native centro pastures. Phil. J. Animal Industry. 32(1-4): 25-34. Valenzuela, F.G., F.A. Moog, R.G. Tibayan and H.P. Tombocon 1982 Productivity of guinea grass/cook stylo mixed pastures at different stocking rates. Phil. J. Ani. Ind. 37(1-4).

Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile

23

9. CONTACTS
This forage resource profile was first prepared in 1998/99 and revised in 2005 by: Francisco Frank A. Moog, Chief, Research Division, Bureau of Animal Industry, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. e-mail< [email protected] > He is currently the International Coordinator of the FAO Regional Working Group on Grazing and Feed Resources for Southeast Asia. Periodic updating of the profile will be undertaken by the author. [The original profile was prepared by Francisco Moog in 1999 when editing was done by Max Shelton; a revised profile was prepared by Francisco Moog in May/June 2005 and the profile was edited by J.M Suttie and S.G. Reynolds in June/July and slightly modified by S.G. Reynolds in October 2006.]