organic resources update

Organic Resources Notebook

All over Africa, interest in organic farming is increasing and will soon spread like a wild fire. From Senegal to Egypt to Kenya, many commercial producers are considering organic production methods. And it is not all a bed of roses and now questions are being asked which need urgent answers.

Since the formation of the International Forum for Organic Agriculture Movement (IFOAM), just over a decade ago, there has been an incredible spread of organic farming all over the world. But, different people are adopting and using organic farming for different reasons. There has also been a wide deviation by different people from the originally thought principles and guidelines.

Organic farming as seen by many people is not just about growing crops using compost or biological pesticides, it goes beyond there to include social, ethical and economic dimensions. And in a recent African-wide meeting held in Cairo, Egypt (17^th – 22^nd November 2000), African delegates felt that the "North" was only paying lip service to these issues. Professionals have managed to convince many consumers in Europe and America that eating organic food is desirable and good for their health. And, Africa trying not to be left behind in catching up with new market trends is struggling to off-load some organic produce in the small-restricted nitch in the North. But they are facing many problems, including:

Certification: It is required that organic produce sold to Europe and elsewhere be certified as organic. Many companies have been set up to carry out certification. But there is too much exploitation. Up to today, only companies registered outside Africa are doing organic certification - at very high cost. And, produce to Britain must be certified by a British Company while that to Germany must be done by a Germany company etc. Exploitation is rife and ethical and social equity questions have simply been thrown out through the window, as companies try to establish themselves and make a cut in the whole confusion.

Authenticity: Many companies are buying products in Africa, as conventional produce (at low prices) and then certifying them as organic in the high seas (and hence fetching very high prices, unfairly) and off-loading them in developed countries.

Socially: Much of the bananas, cassava, potatoes etc. grown in Africa have in most cases really used organic methods. This could be for cultural and economic reasons. This reality is well understood by many people, but it is very well and carefully ignored.

African Market: Africans struggling with perennial hunger and starvation do not see much value in eating organic food. All NGOs at the Cairo meeting reported that they had difficulty selling organic produce in their local markets, and were all looking for markets in Europe. Is this sustainable?

Organic Products Inspection and Certification in Kenya

by John Nderitu, CATOK

Organic food production, inspection and certification services have not yet been fully established and are not accessible to most producers. The solution to this problem has been the creation of an institution, facilitated under the government enabling environment, to put in place mechanisms for the provision of affordable inspection and certification services. Organic agricultural producers and processors who wish to exploit the domestic and export markets for such products now have new opportunities. In response to the above need, a group of practicing agricultural technologists and agribusiness stakeholders have dedicated themselves to the founding and promotion of organic agriculture in Kenya.

In this endeavor they have formed the Conservation Agriculture Trust of Kenya (CATOK), a non-profit trust duly registered under Trustship Act of Kenya with the aim of assisting farmers and agricultural exporters access the services of internationally recognized organic inspectors and certification bodies within the meanings prescribed by FAO, IFOAM and EU. To this end CATOK is establishing partnerships or working relationships with certification service providers who already have achieved international or national recognition in their home countries.

The mission of CATOK is to contribute by opening up new opportunities for farmers to participate commercially in modern agricultural production and food processing activities in conformity with existing rules and regulation relating to the use of agrochemicals and food additives in a more sustainable agricultural development setting. In particular, we wish to work with inspection and certification bodies operating in the EU and other countries where Kenya organic food products can be exported alongside the conventionally produced products and enjoy a fair share of the market.

Conservation Agriculture Trust of Kenya (CATOK) has a group of trained inspectors who are forging effective linkages with international certifiers to provide most of the pre-certification services and thereby assist the potential certifying body in achieving the licensing status of producers at an affordable cost. Already CATOK is providing services to a group of commercial producers and processors who are in the process of conversion to organic status. They need linkage with internationally accredited certifying bodies. International certification bodies wishing to provide certification services as a business in Kenya may contact CATOK: Chairman: stdavids@nbnet.co.ke or Nderitu: nderitu@nbnet.co.ke

Availability of Organic Resources in Kenya and Carbon Sequestration

by Paul Woomer , Sacred Africa, Nairobi, Kenya

It is possible to make crude estimates concerning the total availability of organic resources in Kenya. For example, if total national maize yields are 2.8 million tons, as reported by FAO in 1998, and the harvest index of maize (the proportion of the aboveground plant that is grain) is 0.32, then the estimate of total stover + cob biomass is 5.9 million tons per year. Total availability of maize bran may be estimated by assuming that bran constitutes 8% of the milled grain, resulting in 224,000 of tons of bran per year. Obviously, organic residues from maize are a massive organic resource, much of which is fed to livestock.

Efficient manure collection as demonstrated by John Lekasi

Photo: The importance of efficient collection and

handling of livestock manure was emphasized

by many speakers and exhibitors at FORMAT

 (photo by J.K. Lekasi).

Which leads us to the next estimate, total manure production in Kenya. If 14 million head of cattle, as reported in 1998 by FAO, each produce 0.7 tons of recoverable manure per head per year, then total cattle manure production in Kenya is estimated to be 9.8 million tons per year. If this manure was evenly spread across Kenya’s 4.5 million ha of agricultural land, then an average of 2.2 ton of cattle manure per ha could be applied. Obviously, these are very rough estimates of organic resource availability and FORMAT invites readers to send more refined calculations.

What is more difficult to estimate is the massive amount of seaweed deposited along Kenya’s coastline. During some times of the year, entire beaches are covered, disappointing visitors seeking white sand and blue sea. Even the largest resorts make token effort to remove the deposits under the assumption that the next tide will replace what is removed. FORMAT calls upon readers to submit ideas and information on better utilization of seaweed. Remember, "Surely, nothing is useless". Information on seaweed utilization in Ireland may be obtained over the internet at seaweed.ucg.ie.

Opportunities for Carbon Sequestration by Smallhold Farmers in the Tropics

Carbon sequestration in soils is becoming a major issue throughout the world. It is anticipated that energy producers in developed countries will be required to "offset" future CO₂emissions into the atmosphere by purchasing carbon credits from those who produce and protect carbon stocks elsewhere. This environmental regulation could result in billions of US dollars being transferred from developed to developing nations each year. Developing nations are being encouraged to form negotiating teams in compliance with the international Clean Development Mechanism. Carbon offsets in smallhold systems will likely be covered during the next meeting of FORMAT.

Smallhold farming communities have great potential as agents of carbon sequestration, but one that is more difficult to realize than in more conventional forestry offset approaches. In the past, smallholders were responsible for the loss of carbon contained in vegetation and soils as they converted natural ecosystems to agriculture but this trend is reducing as access to new diminishes. Carbon (C) loss in the tropics due to land conversion ranges from approximately 40 C t ha^-1 in semiarid areas to as much as 280 t C ha^-1 in the humid forest zone, with proportionately greater loss occurring as vegetation in wetter climates. Loss of system C due to continuous land management was accompanied by reduced access to organic resources as farm inputs and by soil fertility decline resulting from an imbalance of soil organic inputs and losses. The predominant entry point for C offsets by smallholders is the confluence of interest between farming system C gains and increased farm productivity. Several options are available to raise farm C stocks including conversion of annual crop lands to agroforestry, orchards or woodlots, establishing live fences along farm boundaries, planting drought-tolerant relay fallows at the end of the rains, employing better manure collection, storage and application strategies and by retaining low-quality crop residues as litter and soil organic inputs. Examination of smallholder offset options in the sub-humid East African highlands suggests that C stocks may be increased by 66 t C ha^-1 through practises that are primarily intended to increase farm productivity and income, but above that level, the household sacrifices food security by competition between trees and annual field crops. Protection of soil organic matter results in 23% of these gains but will vary between soils as the conversion efficiency between organic inputs to soil and soil organic carbon (SOC) is less as the fraction of sand increases. Studies from a long-term field experiment at Kabete, Kenya, a loamy Nitisol, indicate that about 7% of applied manure and crop residue C was stabilized into SOC at a cost of $260 t C and with a return ratio to investment of 1.6. All three of these key ratios, the proportion of soil C gain to system C gain (23%), the conversion of input C to soil C (7%) and the value of yield increase compared to the cost of organic inputs (157%) must be improved before widespread adoption of soil C offset measures becomes feasible.

Criteria for considering the eligibility of smallholder-based carbon offset projects include credibility, reliability, measurability, cost effectiveness, expandability and opportunity. Credibility refers to the conceptual ability of an approach to sequester or protect C under prevailing conditions. Reliability is based upon the risks or success of similar projects. Measurability requires that C gains are quantifiable by key indicators, direct measurement or models. Cost-effectiveness refers to comparison of the unit cost of C-loading with additional consideration for indirect benefits. Expandability (and reproducibility) describes the potential of a given project to be replicated in a more cost-effective and timely manner in the future, in contrast to projects that are highly site specific. Opportunity considers the time frame over which a project retains its advantages and may be used as the basis to expedite some projects. Each of these criteria is briefly considered in turn with arrows (¯ or ) indicating the relative trend and weight of various considerations. Credibility: most smallhold farmers and many agricultural planners are unfamiliar with the concept of carbon offsets (¯ ) yet C-loading targets of 40-60 t C ha^-1 over 20 years are feasible ( ). Reliability: smallholdings are undergoing continuous sub-division and new land managers would be unlikely to honour past commitments in absence of immediate and direct benefits (¯ ). Measurability: detailed estimates of carbon stocks as in mixed-enterprise smallhold systems are time consuming and technically demanding for project monitoring (¯ ¯ ), but farmers could periodically measure tree diameter growth and report these and accompanying soil conservation measures to local data gatherers ( ). Cost effectiveness: the cost per unit C is greater within smallholdings than in forestry offset projects (¯ ) but the social benefits are far greater as revenues from C gains would have a significant economic impact within participating communities ( ). Expandability: because of the lack of precedent for smallholder-based C offset projects, effort spent in developing guidelines for project implementation could pave the way for stepwise expansion or replication elsewhere ( ) but several factors may work against this criterion, including illiteracy of land managers, lack of understanding by grass-roots development agencies and linguistic differences over short distances (¯ ¯ ). Opportunity: unrealized opportunity exists to incorporate carbon offsets within broader rural development projects but these are unlikely to be realized until the availability of land for more conventional approaches, particularly tropical tree plantations, become diminished (¯ ). Opportunities will increase as agroforestry initiatives include C studies within their programs and, then again, as the scope for carbon sequestration is examined within more intensively-managed, market-oriented smallholdings.

Managing Beneficial Interactions in Legume Intercrops (MBILI)

by Margaret Lan'gat, Eusebius Mukhwana and Paul L. Woomer, SACRED Africa

Background. SACRED Africa has obtained an additional grant to continue its attempts to improve upon the maize-legume intercrop in ways that can be quickly adopted by farmers. This project is titled Managing Beneficial Interactions in Legume Intercrops (MBILI), which aims at improving yields and returns of the legumes grown with maize. The basic approach is to stagger the rows of maize, allowing for better light and soil conditions within the understorey legumes while continuing to maintain the same plant populations (see diagram, right). The first round of field work was conducted during the "second" growing season (October 1999 to February 2000) at seven farms in Bungoma and examined the effects of row arrangement, choice of legume crop and the addition of DAP fertilizer. The growing season was marked by lower than expected rains causing moderate mid-season drought. The study indicated that planting in the MBILI arrangement can improve legume yield and total crop value by 12% without requiring additional investment by farmers or reducing the yield of maize. Legumes that require more sunlight, such as green gram and groundnut, performed particularly well when planted using MBILI. Farmers found it easier to weed and top-dress the legumes but also discovered that poor legume seedling emergence could result in larger "gaps" in their fields. The greatest economic return resulted from groundnut intercropped in the MBILI arrangement with addition of 150 kg DAP per ha (KSh/74,118), partly because the prices for groundnut were very high that season.

The past season. The second round of field experiments was conducted between June and October 2000 on four farms in Bungoma. This experiment compared conventional and MBILI intercrops of beans, green gram and groundnut with and without 150 kg DAP per ha. Also included as treatments were maize and legume monocrops, which allowed us to not only compare the two intercrop systems, but to also calculate the overall advantages of intercropping. The season's rains were favourable, although the field trails were planted late in the season. Maize yields were better during the second experiment (1437 kg per ha) with increase of 530 kg compared to the previous season. Maize grown under the MBILI row arrangement performed slightly better (+158 kg per ha) than conventional intercropping. The conventional maize-bean intercrop without addition of DAP produced 775 kg of beans and 1196 kg of maize per ha, which were valued at KSh/32,600 (see table, top of next page). Shifting to MBILI row arrangement increased crop value to KSh/35,800 and combining MBILI and DAP fertilizer (costing KSh/4200) resulted in a maize-bean intercrop worth KSh/46,900, and increase of 44%!

Green gram and groundnut performed even better in the MBILI planting arrangement than beans. Groundnut yield improved by over 110% using the MBILI strategy and when DAP was applied the total crop value was increased by 120% to KSh/57,100 per ha. The highest crop returns were with green gram because its yields were substantially improved in the MBILI system and its price remained very high through the end of the season. The best system was green gram intercropped with maize in the MBILI arrangement and fertilized with 150 kg DAP per ha. This cropping strategy produced 1384 kg of green gram and 1800 kg of maize per ha that was worth KSh/73,200 at season's end! Shifting from an unfertilized maize-bean intercrop to a fertilized maize-green gram MBILI arrangement resulted in greater yields worth an additional KSh/40,600 per ha and required only a modest additional investment of less than KSh/5000 per ha!

________________________________________________________________________________

Some results from MBILI's past season field trials conducted on four farms in Bungoma, Kenya.

Cropping strategy legume yield maize yield total crop value

----- kg per ha ---- KSh per ha

bean monocrop without fertilizer 930 n.a. 20,700

maize-bean intercrop without fertilizer 775 1196 32,600

MBILI maize-bean without fertilizer 878 1264 35,800

MBILI maize-bean with DAP 1152 1640 46,900

MBILI maize-groundnut with DAP 743 1706 57,100

MBILI maize-green gram with DAP 1319 1800 73,200

________________________________________________________________________________

What next? SACRED Africa and its cooperators are very excited about the prospects on MBILI but at the same time we must be cautious in how these results are interpreted. In many cases, even modest investment is difficult for farmers and we should find ways to help farmers to evaluate MBILI on part of their land. Much of MBILI's economic advantage rests in the farmer's ability to grow higher value legumes such as groundnut and green gram, and if the supply of these legumes were to rapidly increase, their prices would likely drop. Also, the MBILI approach may not out-perform conventional intercrops where maize yields are very high, because its advantage of providing more light to understorey legumes becomes less as maize growth potential increases. The real test of the MBILI approach rests in its large-scale evaluation by farmers, and their willingness to adjust their cropping practices in terms of row arrangement and legume intercrop, and this important evaluation will be a major objective of SACRED Africa and its cooperators over the next two years. This work will begin in March and is made possible through a grant provided by The Rockefeller Foundation.

Already we have made several important findings and we encourage others to test this promising new technology as well. Too many other "breakthroughs" require that farmers commit excessive investments of their scarce labor or finances, and despite being technically feasible, they actually offer little practical advantage to farmers. We maintain that MBILI does not fall into this category because it begins with the farmer's main enterprise, the maize-legume intercrop, and requires neither additional labour nor investment when practised in its simplest form. We have demonstrated that the MBILI planting arrangement can result in higher yields, considerable economic gain and more efficient use of land area. Maize-legume intercropping is widely practised by farmers because they know it offers higher returns and less risk. Our studies indicate that conventional intercropping makes 67% better use of the land than growing maize and legumes separately as monocrops. Shifting that intercrop system to MBILI results in an additional 40% land use efficiency, an improvement that can make a huge difference in smallholders' food security. Even without additional investment, by holding legume intercrop and fertilizer inputs constant, MBILI results in an overall gain of KSh/8,800 per ha, income that can help meet farm families' hopes and expectations for a better life.

MBILI was recently demonstrated to over 600 farmers and many officials from the Ministry of Agriculture at the Bungoma Farmers Training Centre and the response by most observers was quite favourable. Several farmers asked "this seems almost too good to be true, why were we not shown this technology before?". Farmers are quick to understand the basics of this technology, and often relate to MBILI's staggered row intercrop as "two-by-two", an interesting play on words considering that the acronym MBILI is also the Kiswahili word for the number "two" (mbili). If you have further questions about in the MBILI approach, or wish to include it within your farm, community development or research activities, please contact SACRED Africa for more information about the MBILI project.

Try the MBILI approach to maize-legume intercropping

for higher yields, easier management, more efficient

land use and greater return to inputs!

RESULTS FROM MBILI

For more information on MBILI, contact SACRED Africa,

P.O. Box 2275, Bungoma, Kenya.

Telephone 254-0337-30788, Email sacred@africaonline.co.ke

AABNF’s New Paradigm for Achieving Impacts through BNF Research

Several members of the African Association of Biological Nitrogen Fixation (AABNF) met from 19 to 23 February 2001 in Accra, Ghana to develop a mid-term plan and discuss funding opportunities for collaborative research. During that gathering, attention was directed toward the role of biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) research within the larger social concerns of food security and environmental protection. It was agreed that scientists working in BNF need to more effectively operate at the agroecosystem level, a notion that was formalized into a paradigm framed by The Second BNF Paradigm Gang (follow hyperlink below).

The process of biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) and isolation of the microorganisms responsible were two very important scientific developments of the late 19^th Century. Over the next several decades, these discoveries lead to detailed understandings of nitrogen (N₂) fixing symbioses, the biology and physiology of N₂-fixing organisms, the industrial production of N₂-fixing organisms and the profitable use of inoculants by land managers. Studies of the genetics of nitrogen fixation contributed to pioneering work in molecular biology and by the close of the 20^th Century, these studies occupied a recognized position within the rapidly growing field of genetic engineering. While molecular discoveries excited the scientific community, these were often viewed as disciplinary ends-in-themselves, and the anticipated benefit of increased biological nitrogen fixation through molecular improvement did not materialize and many genetic engineers moved from work on biological nitrogen fixation to other areas of study.

During the 20^th Century, The First Paradigm for Nitrogen Fixation Research emerged that may be summarized as “the upper limits of biological nitrogen fixation may be steadily increased by the collection and evaluation of ever-more effective N₂-fixing microorganisms and their hosts because the distribution of this elite germplasm will necessarily accrue benefits following their introduction to production systems”.The rationale for this paradigm may largely be attributed to the early, and relatively easy, success of reuniting legume hosts that were transported overseas between the 16^th and 19^th Centuries with their non-accompanying microsymbionts. Challenges to that paradigm arose with the growing impression that greater knowledge over time was not accompanied by improved BNF in the field. While the frontiers of science were advancing, the anticipated benefits from that research were slow to materialize at a time when more fixed nitrogen was urgently required to meet social needs, particularly the expectations of impoverished populations in developing countries.

The widening gap between scientific advance of BNF and opportunities realized from their application is leading to the evolution of a new paradigm for BNF research. The paradigm is intended to guide more relevant research application into the 21^st Century based upon the necessity that BNF research not be conducted for its own sake, but rather should be regarded in a broader systems-context before its complete benefits are realizable. The 21^st Century Paradigm for BNF Impacts may be summarized as “research in biological nitrogen fixation must be nested into larger understandings of system nitrogen dynamics and land management goals before the comparative benefits of N₂-fixation may be realistically appraised and understood by society-as-a-whole”. This assumption does not reduce the importance of nitrogen-fixing organisms and their products, but rather repositions them from a central autoecological focus into a more integrated component of a larger, more complex task. It is not biologically-fixed nitrogen alone which sets the standard for successful contribution to social needs, but rather the products realized from more resilient and productive ecosystems that are strengthened through BNF.

AABNF encourages research addressing the smallhold farming sector throughout the diverse agroecological zones of Africa. This priority does not exclude process and molecular approaches, but rather suggests that these tools be focused upon recognized constraints within farming systems. BNF studies thereby become tools toward larger purpose, particularly in achieving food security and improving the diets of Africa’s poor. Other important social contributions from biological nitrogen fixation are the supply of nitrogen to land reclamation and nutrient replenishment initiatives and, over a longer term, satisfying the anticipated massive nitrogen requirements of future carbon offset projects in Africa that are intended to mitigate global climate change. The most immediate challenge to BNF studies is their contribution to the crucial transition of smallholders in Africa from subsistence agriculture to mixed-enterprise, market-oriented production systems because it is only through this development that spiraling declines poverty, food insecurity and land degradation may be addressed.

Research should proceed along the process-component-systems continuum and lead to demand-driven, on-farm problem-solving. Similarly, the transfer of emerging technologies between geographic areas and agroecological zones of Africa should be reinforced by process studies that lead to better understanding of the biophysical constraints to system performance and more effective transfer of land management strategies. Given the diversity of N₂-fixing organisms, symbioses and habitats in which these organisms operate and the wide application and demand for fixed-nitrogen, BNF studies are by definition multi-disciplinary. Under the First Paridigm for Nitrogen Fixation Research, microbiologists, plant physiologists and agronomists recognized the need for collaboration to respond to challenges posed by better management of nitrogen fixation, and now is the time to recognize the additional strengths derived from expanding this collaboration into wider interdisciplinarity as a means of better translating research findings into social benefits. The 21^st Century Paradigm for BNF Impacts is intended to provide guidance to AABNF on how this goal may best be accomplished.

Processing Water Hyacinth into Compost, Silage and Fibre

Alice Amoding¹, Millicent Olal², David Mutetikka¹ Robert Muzira¹ and Paul Woomer³

1Makerere University, ²Hyacinth Crafts and ³SACRED-Africa

Water hyacinth is the aquatic weed that is invading the freshwater lakes, rivers and ponds of East Africa at an alarming rate. The floating plant originates from the Amazon in South America and was hastily distributed throughout the tropics by horticulturists about 100 years ago because of its attractive violet flowers. East Africa is one of the last areas of the tropics to suffer invasion by water hyacinth and many of the control strategies developed elsewhere are assisting local control efforts. Two control technologies that were rapidly adopted in Kenya and Uganda are the rearing and release of a biological control agent, the smooth water hyacinth weevil, and mechanical clearing with floating rakes.

Yet shoreline communities are still subject to blockage of small harbours and lost access to aquatic resources. It has proven difficult to involve local stakeholders in water hyacinth control because of the temporary nature of benefits from manual clearing. Several days of hard work in clearing a small harbour may be rewarded by discovering that a change in wind or current results in an overnight return of the problem. One promising option is to develop accompanying strategies of water hyacinth utilisation to act as an incentive for more localised aquatic weed control. We offer step-wise procedures for processing water hyacinth into compost for nutrient addition to soils, silage for feeding livestock and fibre as a first stage in making handicrafts such as woven furniture, rope, picture frames and jewellery.

Processing into compost. Water hyacinth wastes can be supplemented with materials such as sawdust, cow-manure or wood ash. To hasten decay, small quantities of fertilisers may be added along with a little soil to ensure the presence of decay organisms. The materials can be kept in a pile, in a wooden or concrete bin or a pit lined with plastic. Composts must be kept moist (50-70% water) and should be moderately packed to avoid drying. Periodic turning of the material is necessary to achieve good quality compost and to allow aeration into the system. The heat from decomposition of organic material increases the temperature of the compost, temperatures of 50-72^oC being reached when decay is occurring rapidly. At these temperatures most weed seeds are destroyed along with most plant disease organisms. A simple procedure for pit composting follows:

Dig. Prepare a pit 3 m x 3 m x 1 m (deep) and line the sides and bottom with plastic sheet.

Add hyacinth. Obtain 5 to 10 tons of fresh water hyacinth plants, place into the pit, spread 10 to 20 kg of cattle manure (a biological activator) across the top and cover the pit with plastic sheeting.

Mix. After 1 month, uncover and mix with a pitchfork. By this time, plants are light brown, leaves are decomposing and stems and roots are more-or-less intact.

Mix again. After another month, uncover and mix with a pitchfork again. Material is now dark brown, shoots are decomposed and corms and roots are beginning to fragment. Replace plastic cover.

Recover. After one more month, uncover and remove finished compost from the pit, spread, break apart large "clods" and dry. After drying, compost is ready for application to soil. The nutrient content will vary with the source of the material and enrichments added to it.

Combine. If compost is to be used as a potting mixture, pass through a coffee mesh, then add equal parts sand and fertile loam soil.

The finished compost prepared in this way at Makerere University contains 3.6% nitrogen, 0.2% phosphorus and 1.1% potassium and has proven useful as an organic fertilizer for vegetables and as the main ingredient of potting mixture. Fortified composts are prepared by mixing compost with 2-5% natural rock phosphate to improve the low phosphate content.

Preparing silage. Scientists in the Faculty of Agriculture at Makerere University in Uganda have developed a simple method to prepare nutritious feed for livestock from water hyacinth that promises to commercialize this use. Silage is made by combining wilted water hyacinth with 10% maize bran and allowing the mixture to ferment for 20 days. Silage is produced by the activities of naturally-occuring bacteria that convert some of the plant sugars into organic acids that preserve nutritional qualities. The finished product is golden brown in colour, sweet smelling, readily acceptable to cattle and may be stored for long periods without loss of quality. Here is how the silage is made:

1. Recover. Fresh water hyacinth plants are recovered from a clean water body and the roots removed and dried for use as an ingredient in potting soil. Do not use water hyacinth taken from polluted waters as it may contain toxic heavy metals.

2. Chop, dry and mix. The shoots, consisting of leaves, petioles (stalks) and rhizome (base), are chopped into large pieces and air dried to about 80% moisture. Drying a large pile requires about two days and periodic mixing until the leaves and stalks are just beginning to wilt. Add 7.5 kg of maize bran to 42.5 kg of water hyacinth and mix in a large tray or on a rolling tarpaulin until the maize bran uniformly coats the chopped water hyacinth. This mixture may be prepared by combining 9 large buckets of water hyacinth to 2/3 bucket of maize bran. Maize bran will not adhere to the chopped water hyacinth if it is too dry. If this occurs, sprinkle 2 litres of water on the chopped water hyacinth and maize bran and re-mix.

3. Bag and store. Tightly pack the mixture into a large, medium gauge, air-tight plastic bag leaving sufficient space free to close the bag's mouth with twine. Squeeze out any remaining air when tying the plastic bag. Stack 3-4 bags in an upside down position. This prevents the entry of air from small tears in the plastic bags. Place the bags away from the sun or cover with a non-transparant sheet. It is normal for the bags will feel warm to the touch after three days or so. The contents will turn from green to olive to brown during the first week.

4. Feed. The silage is ready for use after 14 to twenty days but will store for several months without loss of quality. Very little weight loss will occur during silage fermentation or storage. Use silage as a feed suppliment, not a complete ration. Poultry and ducklings perform poorly with this feed but cattle, goats, pigs and rabbits are well suited to it.

The silage is approximately 20% dry matter. The dry matter contains 13% crude protein, 20% acid detergent fibre, 0.4% calcium and 0.8% phosphorus. Silage was successfully prepared by substituting molassas for maize brain but the resulting feed was much lower in dry matter and crude protein. The silage resulting without addition of either maize bran or molasses has poor nutritional value and storage characteristics. The scientists at Makerere are currently investigating the use of sweet potato leaves and urea as additives as well as preparing the silage on a larger scale in brick-lined pits. Preparing silage from water hyacinth offers many advantages. It provides incentive for communities to recover water hyacinth from the shoreline, eliminates the problem of waste disposal and reduces the requirement for growing or collecting other fodders.

Processing into fibre. Hyacinth Crafts is a business founded in 1998 to develop ways of utilizing water hyacinth through handicrafts made by local artisans. It currently engages more than sixty individuals, mainly women, in this production. There are a number of products that include furniture (right) and household accessories such as lampshades, napkin holders, breadbaskets, picnic baskets, place mats, floor mats, office articles such as waste bins, file holders, stack trays, pen holders, desk tidies, tissue boxes. To produce the fibre from water hyacinth for handicrafting, the following procedure is followed:

Recover. Fresh water hyacinth is recovered and the leaves and roots are removed. The stem should be 50 cm long and mature as young stems are brittle or soft for producing fibre.

Split. The stem is then split lengthwise, the number of pieces determined by the thickness of string required but should be at least 2.5 cm in cross-section.

Dry. The cut, split stems are air-dried for 4 to 6 hours in the direct sun until stems are dry but pliable.

Treat and sort. Treat dried stems with a preservative. Prepare 250 g of sodium meta-bisulphite in 10 l of water. Soak 5 kg of stems by submerging for 1 hour. Rinse the stems in room temperature water and air dry for 1 day. Sort stems by length and cross-section so that rope and braid is more uniform.

Twist or braid. Fibre may be either twisted into rope or braided. For rope, twist two pieces of stem fibre into one by rolling. For braid, pass three pieces over-and-through to produce a single braided length.

Join. Toward the end of each stem segment, the fibre tapers. Combine additional tapered ends by joining additional twisted or braided segments until the desired length is achieved. As the fibre is processed it is rolled into loops or spools.

Hyacinth Crafts purchases the rope or braid from lakeshore producers per meter length and then distributes it to local artisans, who weave it around metal or wooden frames. This activity is a good example of using micro-enterprise to turn disadvantage (aquatic weed invasion) into new opportunity.

Careful with that weed. Everyone wins when we turn this terrible weed into organic fertiliser, livestock feed or furniture except when we unintentionally transport the weed to new waters. Those who prepare silage from water hyacinth must be aware that the small seeds of this aquatic weed may be present in the silage and scientists are uncertain if the seeds survive passage through the digestive systems of livestock. Better safe than sorry as far as the spread of water hyacinth is concerned and all potential silage producers are advised to transport the silage with extreme caution.