Guyana must focus on harvesting and processing/ storing the invaluable Antelope grass

Feb 08, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Recently, I have been noticing several media reportages which describe the Antelope grass as a “major weed problem in Guyana”. One publication mentioned that the agricultural experts did not cater for “the fact that Antelope grass thrives near water, and actually grows in it”, and went on to describe Antelope grass as an “aquatic weed”.

According to another report, an expert brought in from the FAO is going to carry out (together with NARI) “herbicide trials” on Antelope grass (=chemically killing the grass), since, as the article noted, there is no biological control for Antelope grass.

In response, allow me to firstly point out that Antelope grass (Echinocloa pyramidalis) was not chosen by accident. During the mid-seventies, several comparative trials were undertaken to ascertain which of the grasses would prove to be the best to support the emerging livestock sub-sector.

Before then, Tanner grass (Bracharia spp), Pangola (Digitaria decumbens), Guinea grass (Panicum maxium), Coastal Bermuda (Cynodon dactylon), and some Elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) were the species mostly used in the coastal and riverain areas.

Antelope grass proved itself as the superlative grass for the multiple reasons mentioned below.
• It does not succumb irreversibly to drought, waterlogging, or burning.

• It withstands heavy grazing pressures.

• It possesses an excellent palatability (animals prefer it).

• It possesses a high degree of digestibility.

• It is easy to establish — since it is propagated from sprigs which can be easily introduced into the soil; and it spreads rapidly.

• It contains comparably high protein content, especially when harvested at the right age. The
roughage content is also good.

• There is a quick growth recovery after adverse factors are reduced/removed and the environment becomes more amenable to growth. This speedy re-growth is especially meaningful within the rotational grazing system taught to and used by farmers.

• The total yield (tonnage) per acre is better than most grass species, and there is a good leaf-stem ratio.

• Antelope grass survives with minimum management

• Antelope grass flourishes without great inputs of fertilizer (prompting some scientists to argue that the plant actually fixes Nitrogen). Pastures established decades ago still maintain an acceptable sward, and have never been rehabilitated.

• This grass has the ability to ward off threats of diseases, and has not succumbed to insect invasions that devastate other grass species.
• It is easily processed into silage/hay.

From the above, it is quite clear that this grass is an asset and an integral part of the development of animal agriculture in Guyana. If we agree with this proposition, then the chemical killing of this grass (with all of its attendant repercussive effects) must not be an option.

The fact is that, after extensive (costly) research both in the laboratory and in the field, over a great period of time, Guyana has to identify the two grasses which fare best on the Coast and in the Intermediate Savannahs, viz Antelope grass and OF 717 (Bracharia humidicola) respectively.

We must jealously safeguard the continued existence of these grasses. If we recognise that Antelope grass is a valuable and exploitable asset within the nation’s livestock development thrust, then we must not be looking for ways to kill this grass.

Rather, we must be focusing on harvesting the grass (yes, even from the waterways where it may exist) and processing/storing this grass for daily and dry-season usage. Cuba, for example, has had so much success in propagating cheap but functional multiple-tonnage grass preservation methods and establishing non-pit, surface storage silage mounds (Heap Silos).

I am willing to share the experience which I had accrued during my stint with the NDDP, (relative to the harvesting and preservation of this grass) with the current officers of the Ministry of Agriculture. Also, the National Dairy Development Programme may still have records of its success pertaining to silage-making and hay-baling on small and large scales. (Great losses of documents occurred during the 2005 flood after the NDDP was removed to Mon Repos).

Finally, those of us who established this grass pan-Guyana know fully well that it throve in waterways (we only had to look at our neighbour, Suriname, to see the effect). It was for that reason that farmers were educated not to throw the residual fodder from the cow pens into the canals, and to guard against every possibility of the grass entering our waterways.

I wish the FAO consultant a productive sojourn in Guyana, and advise that he might wish to meet with those within and without the Ministry of Agriculture who might have some knowledge about the management of this grass. Names such as Nigel Cumberbatch, Noel Holder, Courtney Sullen, Errol Luke, Walter Lachman, Dr. Dindyal Permaul (all of whom are still in Guyana) spring to mind.
Dr. S. Surujbally, A. A.

---

---