Potential for Pigeonpea in Thailand Indonesia and Burma E.S ...

Potential for Pigeonpea in ThailandIndonesia and Burma

E.S WallisR.F. Woolcockand D.E. Byth

The CGPRT Centre

CG PR T No . 15

The CGPRT CentreThe Regional Co-ordination Centre for Research and Development of Coarse Grains, Pulses, Roots and Tuber Crops in the Humid Tropics of Asia and the Pacific (CGPRT Centre) was established in 1981 as a subsidiary body of UN/ESCAP

ObjectivesIn co-operation with ESCAP member countries, the Centre will initiate and promote research, training and dissemination of information on socio-economic and related aspects of CGPRT crops in Asia and the Pacific. In its activities, the Centre aims to serve the needs of institutions concerned with planning, research, extension and development in relation to CGPRT crop production, marketing and use.

ProgrammesIn pursuit of its objectives, the Centre has three interlinked programmes to be carried out in the spirit of TCDC:

1 Research, which entails the preparation and implementation of studies covering production, utilization and trade of CGPRT crops in the countries of Asia and the South Pacific;

2. Training of national research and extension workers;3. Information and documentation which encompasses the collection, processing and dissemination of

relevant information for use by researchers, policy makers, and extension workers.

Other CGPRT Centre publications currently available:

(Continued on inside back cover)

CGPRT no. 1 Research Implications of Expanded Production of Selected Upland Crops in Tropical Asia (Proceedings of a Workshop)

CGPRT no. 2 Future Potential of Cassava in Asia: Research Development Needs (Proceedings of a Workshop)

CGPRT no. 3 The Soybean Commodity System in Indonesia

CGPRT no. 4 Socio-economic Research on Food Legumes and Coarse Grains: Methodological Issues (Proceedings of a Workshop)

CGPRT no. 5 Soybean Development in India by S. Bisaliah

CGPRT no. 6 Coarse Grains and Pulses in Nepal: Role and Prospects by Bed B. Khadka

CGPRT no. 7 Adoption of Soybean in Lupao. Nueva Ecija The Philippinesby Paciencia C. Manuel, Romeo R. Huelgas and Leina H Espanto

CGPRT no. 8 Agricultural Marketing and Processing in Upland Java: A Perspective from a Sunda Villageby Yujiro Hayami. Toshihiko Kawagoe, Yoshinori Morooka and Masdjidin Siregar

CGPRT no. 9 CGPRT Crops: Processing and Nutrition by Aviar К. Kaul

Potential for Pigeonpea in Thailand, Indonesia and Burma

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The opinions expressed in signed articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the United Nations.

CGPRT NO. 15

Potential for Pigeonpea in Thailand, Indonesia and

Burma

E.S. Wallis R.F. Woolcock and D.E Byth

The CGPRT Centre Regional Co-ordination Centre for Research and Development of Coarse Grains, Pulses, Roots and Tuber Crops in the Humid Tropics of Asia and the Pacific

CGPRT CentreJalan Merdeka 99, Bogor 16111Indonesia© 1988 by the CGPRT CentreAll rights reserved. Published 1988Printed in Indonesia

National Library: Cataloguing in Publication

WALLIS E.S.Potential for Pigeonpea in Thailand,Indonesia and Burma/E.S. Wallis, R.F. Woolcock and D.E. Byth Bogor: CGPRT Centre, 1988.xiv, 74 pp.; 24.5 cmBibliography: p. 71ISBN 979-8059-01-8.I. Pigeonpea - Economic AspectsI. Title II. Woolcock, R.F. III. Byth, D.E

338.175 652

Wallis, E.S.Food Legume CoordinatorDepartment of AgricultureUniversity of QueenslandSt. Lucia 4067 Australia

v

Table of Contents

Page List of Tables and Figures…………………………………………………….. vii Preface……………..………………………………………………………….. xi Summary and Consclusions………..………………………………………….. xiii 1. Introduction...……………………………………………………………… 1 2. Pigeonpea: Uses, Potential, Production, Production Systems and Research 3

Introduction...…………………………………………………………… 3 Uses of pigeon ………..………………………………………………... 3

Use for human consumption………………………………………… 3 Use of seed in animal feed………………………………………….. 4 Use as forage…………………………………………………........... 7 Potential as a dual-purpose forage and seed crop……………........... 7 Other uses……………………………………………………........... 8

Production systems of pigeonpea for seed……………………………... 8 Traditional intercropping farming systems…………………………. 8 Pure crop systems…………………………………………………… 9

Research on pigeon pea………………………………………………… 12 3. Technical Feasibility of Pigeonpea Production in Thailand and Indonesia 13

Introduction…………………………………………………………… 13 Environmental and soil constraints to pigeonpea production………… 13

Thailand…………………………………………………………… 13 Indonesia………………………………………………………….. 16

Production systems for pigeonpea in Thailand and Indonesia………. 16 Agronomic potential for production of pigeonpea in Thailand and Indonesia……………………………………………………………. 20 Conclusion………………………………………………………….. 21

4. The Animal Feed Industries in Thailand and Indonesia……………….. 23

Background ………………………………………............................ 23 The animal feed industry in Thailand………………………………. 25 The animal feed industry in Indonesia……………………………… 30

5. Pigeonpea in Human Diets…………………………………………….. 35

Dry seed……………………………………………………………. 35 Green seed…………………………………………………………. 36 Fermented products………………………………………………… 37

6. Economic Potential for Pigeonpea in Thailand and Indonesia………... 39

Introduction………………………………………………………… 39 Demand for pigeonpea…………………………………………….. 39

vi

Demand for pigeonpea for animal feed…………………………… 39 Demand for pigeonpea for human consumption………………….. 41

Potential supply of pigeonpea………………………………………... 42 Potential for pigeon pea……………………………………………… 44

7. Potential for Pigeonpea in Burma………………………………………. 47

Introduction………………………………………………………….. 47 Overview of agriculture in Burma…………………………………… 47

Location and environment………………………………………... 47 Crop production…………………………………………………... 47 Soils………………………………………………………………. 50

Research organizations within the Ministry of Agriculture…………. 52 8. Pigeonpea: Production, Productivity, Utilization and Returns in Burma 55

Introduction…………………………………………………………. 55 Production and productivity of pulses in Burma…………………….. 55 Utilization of pulses in Burma……………………………………… 56 Economics of production of pulse crops…………………………… 58 Production systems for pigeonpea in Burma………………………… 59

Traditional production systems…………………………………… 59 Alternative production systems…………………………………… 60

Research on pigeonpea in Burma……………………………………. 60 Recommendations for research on pigeonpea in Burma……………. 61

Appendix…………………………………………………………………….. 63 Persons Contacted………………………………………………………. 63

Glossary……………………………………………………………………… 69

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………. 71

vii

List of Tables and Figures

Tables Page 2.1 World pulse and pigeonpea production, 1970 to 1980……………………. 4 2.2 Mean feed conversion efficiencies (FCE), intakes and liveweight gains

(LWG) of chicks fed diets containing varying levels of heat-treated or raw pigeonpea meal……………………………………………………………. 5

2.3 Mean egg production and feed intakes of laying pullets fed diets

containing varying levels of raw pigeonpea…………………………….... 5 2.4 Effect of temperature on trypsin inhibitor activity in pigeonpea meal and

soybean meal fed to growing pigs……………………………………… 6 2.5 Yield of top 10 pigeonpea lines at three locations in southeastern

Queensland, 1984………………………………………………………… 11 2.6 Yield of preliminary tests at Redland Bay, Queensland, 1984…………… 11 3.1 Thai soils suitable for production of legumes……………………………. 14 3.2 Land use in northeastern Thailand……………………………………….. 19 4.1 Livestock population in Thailand, 1974 to 1983…………………………. 25 4.2 Livestock slaughtered in Thailand, 1974 to 1984………………………….. 26 4.3 Annual export of poultry meat, Thailand………………………………….. 26 4.4 Estimated total demand for animal feed, Thailand……………………….. 27 4.5 Production of commercial animal feeds in Thailand, 1978 to 1984………. 27 4.6 Feed usage by animal type, Thailand, 1980………………………………. 27 4.7 Common ingredients and price of compound animal feeds, Thailand……. 28 4.8 Export of animal feed components, Thailand, 1979 to 1983………………. 28 4.9 Annual production and export of fish meal for 75 factories in Thailand….. 29 4.10 Soybean and soybean meal: domestic production and imports, Thailand, 1980 to 1984..…………………………………………………………….. 29

viii

4.11 Animal products in the Indonesian diet, 1982…………………………… 31 4.12 Growth in the use of animal feed components in Indonesia, 1978 to 1982 32 4.13 Ingredients of a typical poultry diet, Indonesia…………………………. 32 4.14 Imports of soybean meal by BULOG, since 1982……………………… 33 4.15 Demand for raw materials for concentrate feed production: fourth Five-

Year Development Plan, Indonesia ……………………………………. 34 5.1 Price of pigeonpea in India………………………………………………. 35 5.2 Production and growth rate of various crops in Thailand and Indonesia, 1981 to 1984……………………………………………………………… 36 5.3 Comparison of soybean and pigeonpea in tempe production……………. 38 6.1 Cost of marketing mungbeans in Thailand………………………………. 41 7.1 Area and percentage area under various groups of crops, Burma, 1979/1980 49 7.2 Area distribution of oil crops in Burma, 1981/1982………………………… 50 7.3 Area distribution of food legume crops in Burma, 1981/1982……………… 50 8.1 Area, production and productivity of major pulses in Burma, 1985/1986….. 55 8.2 Area, production and productivity of pigeonpea by state or division,

Burma, 1985/1986…………………………………………………….......... 56 8.3 Area, production and productivity of chickpea by state or division, Burma, 1985/1986…………………………………………………………………. 56 8.4 Exports of major pulse crops from Burma………………………………… 57 8.5 Farm price, cost of production and net return of major pulse crops in Burma, 1985/1986…………………………………………………………. 58

Figures

2.1 Generalized classification of production systems in pigeon pea…………... 8 2.2 Dry-seed production systems for pigeonpea (southern hemisphere)……… 10 3.1 Potential areas for pigeonpea production in Thailand……………………... 15

ix

3.2 Number of days from sowing to flowering and maturity of pigeonpea lines QPL 42 and ICPL 265 in a serial sowing at Khon Kaen, Thailand………. 18

5.1 Use and source of soybean in Indonesia, 1986……………………………. 37 7.1 Temperature and precipitation in Burma…………………………………... 48 7.2 Area under food legumes in Burma, 1973 to 1976 average……………….. 51 7.3 Agricultural Corporation of the Ministry of Agriculture, management structure……………………………………………………………………. 53

Blank page _____________

Page blanche

xi

Preface

This report gives the results of surveys conducted in Thailand and Indonesia in July 4985 and Burma in January 1987 to investigate the potential for the production and use of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) in these countries.

The survey in Indonesia and Thailand was conducted by D.E. Byth, Dean, Faculty of Agricultural Science, University of Queensland, from I to 6 July, 1985; R.F. Woolcock, Agricultural Economist, GRM International, Brisbane, from 1 to 13 July, 1985; and E.S. Wallis, Agronomist, Department of Agriculture, University of Queensland, from I to 19 July 1985.

The survey in Burma was conducted by E.S. Wallis from 23 to 31 January, 1987. Dr D.G. Faris of ICRISAT was present during the survey. His input to discussions in Burma is acknowledged. The report remains the responsibility of the author.

The help of the various scientists and institutions listed in Appendix 1 is acknowledged, with thanks.

Blank page _____________

Page blanche

xiii

Summary and Conclusions

Two preliminary surveys to assess the potential for Cajanus cajan (pigeonpea) as a crop in Thailand, Indonesia and Burma have been completed. The first, in Thailand and Indonesia, was carried out by D.E. Byth, R.F. Woolcock and E.S. Wallis in July 1985. A total of three man-weeks was spent in each country. The second survey, in Burma, was carried out by E.S. Wallis in January 1987 (one man-week).

The surveys investigated the technical feasibility of pigeonpea production, identified areas suitable for production, determined possible uses of the crop and made a preliminary assessment of the economic viability of the crop in the these countries.

Experimental evidence indicates that excellent vegetative growth and acceptable seed yield levels are possible from pigeonpea in each country. Areas are identified that are well suited to pigeonpea production in terms of climate, soils and current farming systems. Further evaluation, both on research farms and under farmers' conditions, will be required to fully assess productivity in these regions.

Insect pests are known to be a major limitation to yield. Appropriate genetic and cultural control measures must be developed if pigeonpea is to be adopted as a crop on a large scale. Research on such measures is in progress at a number of institutions and control is technically feasible. Evaluation of control measures currently available in these countries is required.

In Thailand and Indonesia pigeonpea is a new crop, and therefore studies of its adoption as a crop must give high priority to the social and economic constraints to farmers. In Burma, however, pigeonpea is an important traditional crop. It is currently used both as a source of' human nutrition and as an export crop. Research on pigeonpea in Burma should therefore include a focus on productivity as well as studies on the impact of improved cultural practices on the current constraints in farmer's fields.

During the surveys, several uses of the crop and its products were considered, including the use of seed for human and animal consumption. Seed can be harvested for human use either as a dry seed or as a green vegetable. The major users of the dry seed are peoples of Indian origin, and an export market exists. Pigeonpea is also a traditional dietary component in Burma. Recent research in Indonesia has demonstrated that pigeonpea can successfully replace soybean in the production of tempe (a fermented product important in human diets in Indonesia). This use of pigeonpea is very promising.

The value of pigeonpea as a feed for monogastric animals has been reviewed and related to the animal feed industries in Thailand and Indonesia. No data on the feed industry in Burma was available. Both Thailand and Indonesia have large feed industries which rely partly on the import of protein concentrate (mainly soybean meal) to supplement local production. Pigeonpea could replace some of this imported product.

Assessment of the potential for economic success of pigeonpea was made difficult by the lack of accurate information about costs of production for pigeonpea in the regions considered to be best suited to this crop. Cost of production estimates for other crops were also difficult to obtain, and the data collected was not considered reliable

xiv

or accurate. This is an area where further research is required if more definitive work is to be accomplished on pigeonpea.

The authors drew the following conclusions from these surveys

General conclusions (Thailand, Indonesia and Burma)

• Evaluation of promising genetic and breeding material and appropriate manage-ment systems should be continued, with an emphasis on pest management.

• Studies of the cost-of-production for a range of farming systems is required.

• The influence of changes in traditional and newly developed production systems on adoption by farmers must be monitored to ensure their impact is fully realized.

• Research into potential markets available for export pigeonpea, and into the most appropriate product specification for particular markets, should be conducted as soon as possible.

Specific conclusions (Thailand and Indonesia)

• Because the production of tempe appears to be the most promising market for pigeonpea in Indonesia, further research into the production and marketing of pigeonpea-based tempe and other fermented products is a high priority.

• Further studies are required in northeastern Thailand and on the outer islands of Indonesia to confirm the promising experimental yields of pigeonpea in these regions. Initially, emphasis should be given to production systems on marginal lands.

• Trials under commercial conditions should be implemented.

• Although the prospects for inclusion of pigeonpea in feeds for intensively raised poultry are not encouraging, the potential role of locally-produced pigeonpea in poultry nutrition in remote rural communities warrants further study.

Specific conclusions (Burma) • Identification of improved varieties resistant to the major diseases and pests in

traditional production systems should receive highest priority.

• Investigations aimed at ensuring establishment of adequate plant populations in farmers' fields are required.

• Evaluation of early-maturing, large-seeded cultivars is warranted in both traditional areas of production and in the delta region following rice.

• Systematic germplasm collections of landrace varieties of pigeonpea should be carried out before this resource is eroded and possibly lost by the introduction and use of improved varieties.

1

1

Introduction

The objective of these studies was to make an initial assessment of the potential for the production of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) for both human consumption and animal feed in Thailand, Indonesia and Burma.

The surveys were requested and financed by the Regional Co-ordination Centre for Research and Development of Coarse Grains, Pulses, Roots and Tuber (CGPRT) Crops of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). The CGPRT Centre is located in Bogor, Indonesia. The Centre's interest is in developing an understanding of both the social and technical constraints to increasing production of non-rice crops in Asia and the Pacific. This survey falls within these general guidelines.

The survey of Thailand and Indonesia was conducted in July 1985 by E.S. Wallis (three weeks), R.F. Woolcock (two weeks), and D.E. Byth (one week). Only three manweeks were spent in each country collecting the data; thus, the survey was preliminary in nature, and this report is intended to provide only an overview of the potential for pigeonpea in these countries.

The survey in Burma was conducted from 23 to 31 January, 1987 by E.S. Wallis. A basic question that should be answered at this stage is, "Why survey the

potential of pigeonpea in those countries?" While pigeonpea is widely grown and consumed in, for example, India, it’s not currently grown to any great extent in either Thailand or Indonesia, although Burma is a significant producer. The First two countries were chosen for this survey primarily because they are now self-sufficient in rice and are presently diversifying the basis of their crop production.

There appears to be considerable opportunity for this crop to develop in Thailand and Indonesia. Pigeonpea is a crop with a number of advantages over other crops currently grown. These advantages include: 1) perenniality leading to a wide range of possible production systems; 2) ability to grow on soils of low fertility, including acid soils with high alumunium saturation; 3) drought tolerance; and 4) a non-shattering or lodging habit. The most important advantage is that pigeonpea is a legume, and tends to increase soil fertility through nitrogen fixation. (These advantages are discussed in detail in Chapter 2.)

A number of problems require research if pigeonpea is to be adopted in a range of production environments. These include: susceptibility to waterlogging and insect damage (particularly from pod borers), control of disease, and the long duration of many cultivars. In the context of Thailand and Indonesia, the sociological constraints to adoption of a non-traditional crop are of particular concern. Ninety percent of the world's pigeonpea seed is produced in India. Much of this (> 60%) is late-maturing (> 250 days) and is normally grown as an intercrop. This form of agriculture is not widespread in either Thailand or Indonesia, where farming systems involving rapid cycling of short-season crops are preferred. In Burma the intercrop system is very common. Only recently (in the 1970s) have early-maturing (about 110 days to maturity)

2 Introduction

pigeonpea genotypes been released. This development, coupled with the pigeonpea’s ability to grow in marginal farming conditions, has led to an increased interest in the crop.

Both Thailand and Indonesia currently import large amounts of soybean products for their commercial feed industries. Both countries plan to increase production and productivity of soybean to reduce import requirements. The authors of this ref contend that pigeonpea could replace soybean in animal diets and may have potential to contribute directly to human diets locally and as an export crop.

Pigeonpea requires good drainage because it is vulnerable to waterlogging, e for short periods. This requirement restricts pigeonpea to upland cultivation (although culture in the dry season, before or after rice, may be possible in lowland areas) number of crops are currently grown in upland areas, including cassava, peanut, and kenaf. In general, the soils of these areas are of relatively low fertility, with low water- holding capacity. In view of its tolerance of such conditions, pigeonpea may extend farmers' options in these marginal environments.

In the upland, well-drained soils with better moisture-holding capacity and higher fertility, pigeonpea must compete with crops such as cotton, maize, soybean, sugar-cane and mungbean. No experimental evidence exists to predict pigeonpea performance these soils in Thailand or Indonesia, so that assessment of the economics of pigeon cultivation in these countries is not yet possible. However, pigeonpea grows performs well on similar soils elsewhere in the world.

It is unlikely that pigeonpea will become an important crop on lowland s because of its sensitivity to waterlogging and the possibility of prolonged inundation these areas during the wet season.

The authors conclude that in Indonesia and Thailand, pigeonpea is a crop with potential in upland areas, but with only limited potential in lowland, rice-based production systems. This survey provides some preliminary information on the areas, production systems, and uses for which pigeonpea may be a successful crop in Thailand and Indonesia.

In Burma where pigeonpea is widely grown, the survey has indicated some of the major limitations on crop production and productivity. Pigeonpea production could be increased by the adoption of several innovations with associated research to assist in the resolution of particular problems.

3

2 Pigeonpea: Uses, Potential, Production Systems and Research

Introduction Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) is widely grown in the tropics and subtropics as a

source of seed for human nutrition. It is most commonly used as dhal in vegetable-based diets on the Indian subcontinent. The seed contains 20% to 25% protein.

Pigeonpea is a short-lived perennial, and has a number of advantages over other leguminous crops. These include drought tolerance, and lodging and shattering resistance. Its perenniality allows the possibility of ratoon crops, and its use in animal feed production systems which incorporate crop residue, failed seed crops, or ratoon crop growth.

The disadvantages of pigeonpea as a crop include its susceptability to waterlogging, frost and insect attack (particularly pod borers). In addition, most cultivars are of long duration which restricts their adaption. Crop losses due to several diseases are serious in much of Asia and Africa.

The potential uses for pigeonpea as seed and for fodder have recently been reviewed by Wallis et al. (1985).

Uses of pigeonpea Pigeonpea is an important component of human nutrition, particularly in

vegetable-based diets. The major producer is India, but substantial production also occurs in Africa (Table 2.1).

Use for human consumption

While the major use of pigeonpea is in the dry split seed form (dhal), pigeonpea pods and seed are harvested and eaten as a green vegetable in a number of countries, including some countries in the Caribbean.

The international market potential for dhal and whole seed of pigeonpea is unknown since only small amounts of these products enter world trade. However, it is clear that considerable potential exists for export of pigeonpea to people of Indian descent. Price will be determined by characteristics such as seed size, colour, and the more complex attributes associated with appearance, cooking time and taste.

In the 1970s, a market in excess of US$ 5 million per annum existed for canned or frozen green pigeonpea seed from the Caribbean region exported to expatriates living in the US, Canada and the United Kingdom. The present status of this market is unknown. In countries where dhal and green vegetable uses of pigeonpea are not part of traditional diets (e.g., in most of Southeast Asia), other uses of locally produced pigeonpea have to be evaluated. Some potenial uses for human consumption are the production of Chinese/Thai-style noodles, tempe and other fermented products.

4

Table2.1 World pulse and pigeonpea production, 1970 to 1980.

1970 1974 1979 1980a

World P u l s e s Area harvested ('000 ha) 68,831 71,804 72,303 73,261 Yield (kg/ha) 701 672 680 673 Productions ('000 t) 48,225 48,230 49,141 42,279 World P i g e o n p e a Area ('000 ha) 2,982 2,999 3,000 2,951 Yield (kg/ha) 684 541 703 684 Productions ('000 t) 2,039 1,622 2,111 2,017 Africa Area ('000 ha) 214 214 252 255 Yield (kg/ha) 593 565 589 599 Productions ('000 t) 127 136 149 153 North and Central America Area ('000 ha) 24 28 2 9 Yield (kg/ha) 1,603 1,411 2,500 2,222 Productions ('000 t) 38 40 5 20 Asia Area ('000 ha) 2,723 2,723 2,718 2,656 Yield (kg/ha) 703 530 713 687 Productions ('000 t) 1,913 1,442 1,938 1,824 India Area ('000 ha) 2,655 2,646 2,663 2,600 Yield (kg/ha) 709 532 719 692 Productions ('000 t) 1,883 1,408 1,914 1,800

Sourch: Parpia 1981 aFAO Estimates which include China

Use of seed in animal feed

Although human consumption of good quality pigeonpea seed is likely to provide the most remunerative market, it is probable that pigeonpea will increasingly be used compound rations fed to livestock.

Relatively little research has been conducted on the feeding of animals with pigeonpea seed (Whiteman and Norton 1981). The nutritional quality has been reviewed by Singh and Eggum (1984), and some research into feeding poultry pigeonpea-based diets has been reported (Draper 1944; Springhall et al. 1974 Springhall (op. cit) indicated that pigeonpea meal (21% crude protein, 9.2% crude fiber) could be included at levels up to 30% in broiler chick diets with no significant depression in liveweight gains. They considered that low levels of cysteine, tryptophan and phenylalanine restricted inclusion at higher levels.

More recent studies at the University of Queensland have investigated the potential of pigeonpea as a substitute for cereal grain and vegetable protein meal in poultry diets. George and Elliott (1986) included pigeonpea (raw or heat-treated) at varying levels in diets for young growing chicks. Feed intakes and liveweight gains were measured in the standard three-week period test and compared with the performance of chicks fed a commercial chick-grower diet (12.5 MJ metabolizable energy and 200 g crude protein/kg). Although heat treatment (120°C for 20 min) reduced antitrypsin activity from 11.6 units/mg in the raw meal to 1.2 units/mg, growth rates, feed intakes and therefore feed conversion efficiencies were similar in all groups (Table 2.2). No chick deaths were recorded during the experimental period.

Pigeonpea: Uses, Potecial, Production Systems and Research 5

Prior to the experiment, the apparent metabolizable energy (AME) content of the pigeonpea meal was evaluated using the practical diet replacement method described by Sibbald and Slinger (1963). Either raw or heat-treated pigeonpea meal was substituted at a rate of 500 g/kg into a commercial ration (AME content of 12.4 MJ/kg DM (dry matter).

Table 2.2 Mean feed conversion efficiencies (FCE), intakes and liveweight gains (LWG) of chicks fed diets containing varying levels of heat-treated or raw pigeonpea meal.

Parameter Control Raw Pigeonpea Heat-treated

Pigeonpea SE

Level of Pigeonpea inclusion (g/kg)

0 150 300 450 150 300 450

FCE 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.4 0.17 Feed Intake (g/d) 24 25 25 24 22 24 26 3.5 LWG (g/d) 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.5 10 10.3 10 1.8

Source: George and Elliott 1986.

There was no significant difference in AME value between the heat-treated and raw pigeonpea meal (11.6 + 0.11 vs. 11.5 + 0.20 MJ AME/kg DM, respectively). Recent work by Nwokolo and Oji (1985) has reported a significant increase in AME content of pigeonpea after heat treatment (12.1 to 13.2 MJ AME/kg DM). However, these workers included pigeonpea in the diet only at 250 g/kg and did not report levels of antiprotease activity. It is possible that at high levels of dietary inclusion, other antinutritional factors (e.g., polyphenolics) may influence the nutritive value of the seed (Singh 1984).

The results of the chick growth trial suggest that once the nutrients limiting optimum growth are provided in adequate quantities, even raw pigeonpea can be included at high levels. Springhall et al. (1974) found that pigeonpea inclusion above 300 g/kg into a grower ration restricted growth, but suggested that this was due to inadequate levels of essential amino acids.

In a second experiment (George and Elliott 1986), raw pigeonpea meal was substituted at rates up to 400 g/kg in a commercial layer diet. Egg production and feed intake were monitored over an eight-week period in pullets at peak of lay. No significant differences in egg production were noted and the health and feed intake of the birds were not affected by increasing the rate of pigeonpea inclusion in the diet (Table 2.3).

Table 2.3 Mean egg production and feed intakes of laying pullets fed diets containing varying levels of raw pigeonpea.

Level of raw pigeonpea inclusion (g/kg) Parameter 0 200 300 400

SE

Laying (%) 73 79 75 72 6.4 Egg weight (g) 53.2 55.3 49.8 54.3 4.2 Feed intake (g/d) 110.4 119.4 116.6 115.2 10.4

All diets were formulated to meet the nutrient requirements of the laying bird by

a practical least-cost formulation programme. However, the diets formulated to a least-

6 Pigeonpea: Uses, Potecial, Production Systems and Research

cost programme revealed one important restriction in the use of high levels of pigeonpea meal in diets for poultry: as the level of inclusion increases, so must the level of supplementary lipids to achieve an adequate concentration of metabolizable energy in the diet.

In general, lipid supplements are costly and difficult to handle and store, particularly in tropical regions. This problem might be solved by combining pigeonpea meal with rice pollard, which is relatively rich in essential fatty acids and the sulphur- containing amino acids.

The results of these experiments suggest that raw, ground pigeonpea can be a valuable energy and protein source in poultry diets and can be included at rates of up to 450 g/kg of the dietary dry matter without adversely affecting the health and productivity of the bird.

Only two studies (Falvey and Visitpanich 1979; Falvey and Visitpanich 1980; Visitpanich et al. 1985a, 1985b) have investigated use of pigeonpea in pig nutrition. Falvey and Visitpanich demonstrated that the inclusion of pigeonpea seed in a ration for pigs made up of chopped banana stalk, rice, bran, corn and (unsaleable) red kidney beans improved liveweight gains. This work indicated that pigeonpea seed would have to be ground and boiled to inactivate an antimetabolite.

Visitpanich et al. reported a more extensive investigation of pigeonpea meal in pig nutrition. These authors compared chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and pigeonpea meal with soybean meal as energy and protein sources for growing pigs. Pigeonpea meal as 30% of the diet resulted in a lower dressing percentage (P < 0.05), and growth rate and feed conversion were inferior on a carcass basis (P < 0.01) compared with the other diets.

In a second series of experiments, Visitpanich et al. (1985b) investigated the effect of autoclaving the seed on removing the growth-inhibiting factors in pigeonpea meal fed to pigs. These trials indicated that autoclaving pigeonpea for 15 minutes at 110° 124° or 140° C reduced trypsin inhibitor activity of the meal from 11.2 to 0.7 units/mg. Compared with pigs fed on unheated pigeonpea meal, pigs fed diets which include autoclaved meal had higher (P < 0.05) growth rates and improved feed conversion ratios. These improved growth responses were similar to responses produced with soybean meal (Table 2.4). However in these studies, the trypsin-inhibitor content of pigeonpea was lower than that usually found in soybean seed; more recent studies have shown similarly low values for a wide range of different selections of pigeonpea (Elliot personal communication).

Table 2.4 Effect of temperaturea on trypsin inhibitor activity in pigeonpea meal and soybean meal fed

to growing pigs.

Diet no. 1

Soybean meal

2 Pigeonpea

meal

3 100ºC

Pigeonpea

4 124ºC

Pigeonpea

5 140º

Pigeonpea SE

Trypsin inhibitor activity (units/mg) - 11.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 Liveweight gain (g/day) 627

a 552

b 618

a 630

a 608

a 19.3

Feed Conversion ratio 2.08a 2.33

b 2.08

a 2.07

a 2.15

a 0.06

Sourch: Visitpanich et al. 1985b a Pigeonpea seed and soybean seed autoclaved at given temperatures for 15 minutes

Value with different letters differ, P < 0.05.


This data suggests that pigeonpea meal is suitable for inclusion in compound rations for growing pigs if autoclaved for 15 minutes at 1l0°C.

From these results and reports in the literature, it appears that pigs are more susceptible than poultry to the antinutritive factors present in raw pigeonpea. It has been shown that the activity of protease inhibition differs between species (Holm and Krogdahl 1982) and therefore it may not be possible to predict trypsin or chymotrypsin inhibitor activity for poultry using enzymes other than avian pancreatic enzymes.

While the use of pigeonpea meal in monogastric animal diets appears to be technically feasible, in practice its use will depend on the price of the product in relation to alternative protein and energy sources.

Use as a forage

Wijnberg (1983) reviewed the forage quality of pigeonpea and concluded that leaf nitrogen levels are consistently high (having an average of 2.9% from five separate experiments). Leaf nitrogen levels were higher at seed maturity than in soybean, probably due to the perennial habit and reduced leaf senescence of pigeonpea.

From reports of grazing trials, it is clear that high levels of animal production are possible from pigeonpea forage (6.2 kg/ha/day for cattle, Akinola et al. 1975; 3.34 kg/ha/day for goats, Bint and Norton 1982). However, there appear to be limits to intake, and hence to liveweight gain, when pigeonpea forage is the sole source of feed.

The high protein content of pigeonpea leaves suggests that the optimum use of the crop for forage may be as a supplement to low quality forage (rice or wheat straw) or as the protein source in compound diets. The perennial habit of the crop makes it valuable as a standover high-protein fodder for those times of the year when protein shortage is the major limit to production. Work in this area, comparing various legume straws as supplements to a basal diet of rice straw, is currently in progress at the University of Queensland.

Harvest trash (pods, cracked seed, and leaves) has been found to be palatable to livestock. The protein content of this material is low, but inclusion of trash at rates up to 500 g/kg of the ration improves overall digestibility and intake of accompanying low-quality hays (Quirk 1979).

Potential as dual-purpose forage and seed crop

The single study that discusses the use of pigeonpea as a dual forage and seed crop is that of Wijnberg (1983). In this study, various defoliation and grazing treatments by goats were applied to a short-statured, early-maturing pigeonpea (QPL 4). It was concluded that grazing at any stage of growth (prior to flowering, at pod fill and after seed harvest) was detrimental to seed yield and caused plant mortality. Grazing of failed seed crops (failure because of drought, insect damage or other stresses) remains an option.

In a rice-based farming system, it seems possible to grow a seed crop after rice and ratoon - the crop for forage production. The production of crops in paddies following rice is a potentially valuable source of income, feed or food. However, several factors may limit growth and development, including impedence of roots by the "puddled" soil layer in the paddy. Second crops are usually grown in the driest


period of the year and are therefore subject to severe moisture deficiency. This is particularly so in the paddy situation where poor moisture and root penetration are common. Because of the severe limits imposed by such an environment, the production of such systems may be 1ow. However, in many cases, pigeonpea survived over the dry season and grew rapidly during early storms of the next wet season to provide a useful food supplement for grazing animals at a time of year when feed was in short supply.

Other uses

Among the many other uses of pigeonpea which been reported are its uses in green manure crops, as a source of fuel for fires, and for medicinal purposes. These have been reviewed by Morton (1976) and Whiteman and Norton (1981).

Production systems of pigeonpea for seed Pigeonpea is produced in an array of systems. This is partly because of the wide

range of phenological development possible, from photoperiod-sensitive genotypes grown as long-season (nine to 11 months) or full-season (six to eight months) crops, to photoperiod-insensitive genotypes grown as short-season (three to five months) crops. Phenological development is influenced by photoperiod and temperature, and response to these factors governs the ecophysiological adaptation of pigeonpea. Byth et al. (1981) have defined general systems for pigeonpea seed production (Figure 2.1). In this classification, it is clear that many production systems are possible and that it is possible to exploit the perennial nature of the crop of seed and forage in ratoon crops.

Figure 2.1 Generalized classification of production systems in pigeonpea. Source: Byth et al. 1981.

Traditional intercropping farming systems

In India most pigeonpea is grown as an intercrop, in which late-maturing (nine to 1 months) pigeonpea is grown in wide rows (one to 1.5 m or greater) with another


crop (commonly sorghum or millet) in the inter-row space. The cereal is harvested before the pigeonpea flowers, and pigeonpea then completes its crop cycle on residual moisture during the dry season.

Many different intercropping systems are used, including some systems in which the pigeonpea component is very low. However, Willey et al. (1981) have described intercropping systems of pigeonpea and other crops, in which the intercrop yields of the other crops are not significantly reduced compared with a crop of each species alone, and up to 70% of the yield of a crop of pigeonpea alone can also be obtained. Such cropping systems are being thoroughly researched and it appears that in particular environments, the potential for good yields is high.

Pure crop systems

In general, pure crop systems are most relevant to full-season and short-season genotypes although very high seed yields have been reported on occasion from pure-crop, long-season genotypes in northern India. As with all pure-crop agriculture, high seed yields require optimal plant population and arrangement.

Change of sowing date (or change of latitude) has a substantial influence on the phenology and vegetative development of photoperiod-sensitive genetic material. As a result, important interaction exists between sowing date versus plant density and arrangement, and therefore management is an important determinant of seed yield. For example, photoperiod-sensitive cultivars such as Royes (Wallis et al. 1979) can be sown on or after the longest day of the year in the subtropics (Figure 2.2) in order to reduce the preflowering period and thus avoid excessive vegetative growth. To obtain optimum canopy development and maximum seed yield, however, plant population must vary from 50,000 plants/ha for sowing on the longest day, to 250,000 plants/ha for sowing 2 to 3 months after the longest day.

Although high seed yields are possible using this production system, it had limited application in many agricultural environment of the subtropics and tropics because of its inherent managerial complexity, and also because pod and seed development occurs during the coolest or the driest period of the year. In warmer environments (e.g., Fiji), the production system has been more successful. Ratoon cropping is feasible in favourable environments (Wallis et al. 1981) and experimental yields exceeding 4 t/ha/year from two harvests have been achieved.

Photoperiod-insensitive cultivars that flower in approximately 60 days have recently received considerable attention from researchers. These cultivars will flower and mature in approximately the same time, regardless of sowing date, providing temperature is not limiting. Ratoon cropping is feasible (Figure 2.2). Little plant improvement has been attempted in this production system, but extremely high seed yields have been obtained experimentally (Wallis et al. 1983), with line mean yields from a plant crop in excess of 8 t/ha under favourable experimental conditions. Plant populations of 400,000 to 500,000 plants/ha are necessary (Wallis et al. 1981), and such canopies are suitable for mechanical harvesting.

These short-season production systems have been tested internationally since the early 1980s. It is clear that, under favourable conditions, yields in excess of 2.5 t/ha from the plant crop are possible in a wide range of environments: for example, in Hisar in northern India (Gupta personal communication), in Khon Kaen, Thailand (Wimolrat personal communication), and in Nadi, Fiji (Singh personal communication).


A. cv. Royes

(photoperoid-sensitive)

B. photoperoid-insensitive cultives

S O N D J F M A M J J A Longest day Short day Figure 2.2 Dry-seed production systems for pigeonpea (southern hemisphere). Source: Walks et al. 1981.

Further testing of these production systems for dry-seed, including the potential for ratoon cropping, is being carried out.

Research into early-season pigeonpea has increased in India and Australia since the mid-1970s. In India, the emphasis has been on developing early-maturing cultivars that can fit into wheat rotations in northern India. This objective requires a pigeonpea crop that can be harvested before the middle of November so that wheat yields will not be reduced as a result of late sowing. Cultivars have been developed for this purpose and experimental yields of up to 4.5 t/ha (Gupta personal communication) have been obtained. Farmers in northern India are beginning to adopt this rotation system, and the incorporation of disease and pest resistance in early-maturing genotypes remains a high priority (Kanwar 1981).

The high seed yields reported above have been achieved by the use of early-maturing, photoperiod-insensitive material which is grown in high-density populations (400,000 to 500,000 plants/ha). The objective of these studies has been to synchronize flowering (by choice of determinate cultivars and high-density plantings) to enable efficient insect control and the possibility of mechanized harvesting. In certain situations, ratoon cropping can be achieved (Figure 2.2). Yields of these early-maturing types have been most encouraging (Tables 2.5 and 2.6).

A further advantage of the perennial nature of this crop is that it provides a homeostatic mechanism to stabilize yield where environmental or biotic factors (eg., drought, insects) impose stress at particular phenological stages. Perenniality enables pigeonpea to produce new flushes of flowering following relief of such stress, and plants can develop viable (albeit deferred) seed yields where other pigeonpea crop species may fail.The seed production systems could be integrated with forage systems.

Harvest of plant crop

Sow Harvest plant crop

Ratoon Flower

Harvest Ratoon

Flower Ratoon

Harvest Ratoon

Sow Flower Harvest Ratoon Flower

Harvest Ratoon

Flower 2nd

Ratoon

Continues if desired


Table 2.5 Yield of top 10 pigeonpea lines at three locations in southeastern Queensland, 1984 (restricted to genotypes of 60 to 70 days to flowers, sown at 400,000 plants per hectare)

Redland Baya Kingaroy Gatton Entry

Seed size (g/100 seeds)

Yeald (kg/ha)


Yeald (kg/ha)


Yeald (kg/ha)

QPL 274 -b - 7.8 3000 10.5 3800 QPL 118 - - 9.5 2800 - - QPL 332 - - 8.9 2700 10.2 3700 QPL 356 - - 9.1 2600 10.5 3800 QPL 503 10.6 2400 8.2 2500 9.7 3800 QPL 40 10.9 2600 7.5 2500 - - QPL 423 - 8.4 2500 9.6 3800 QPL 558 10.8 2500 8.1 2400 - - QPL 23 - 7.0 2400 - - QPL 559 11.2 2300 8.6 2300 9.9 3900 QPL 137 10.2 2100 - - 8.7 4000 QPL 520 10.1 2200 - - 8.9 3900 QPL 58 - - - 9.3 3800 QPL 132 11.4 2300 - - 9.9 3800 QPL 423 10.1 2800 - - - - QPL 131 11.9 2600 - - - - QPL 126 10.2 2300 - - - - Hunt (check) 9.3 850 6.1 2400 8.7 2700 Trial mean (19) 2000 2300 3600 CV (%) 23 23 12

Source: Wallis et al. unpublished aYeild low due to environmental factors

bNot ranked in top 10 entries at particular site

Table 2.6 Yield of preliminary tests (two replications) at Redland Bay, Queensland, 1984 (restricted to trials 60 to 70 days to flowers

Entry


Yeald (kg/ha)

Series 1 QPL 487 10.5 4900 QPL 494 12.1 4000 QPL 357 11.5 4900 QPL 165 11.3 3900 QPL 489 11.3 3900 Trial mean (61 entries) 2800 CV (%) 26 Series 2 QPL 67 8.6 4800 QPL 131 - 4700 QPL 637 10.0 4600 QPL 638 10.4 4400 QPL 207 11.2 4500 Hunt (check) 9.2 2700 Trial mean (53 entries) - 3200 CV (%)

Sourch: Wallis et al. unpublished


Research on pigeonpea

The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) at Hyderabad in India has the world mandate for pigeonpea improvement. ICRISAT maintains the world germplasm collection and has large programmes in breeding pathology, entomology, physiology, rhizobiology and farming systems. Activities in the pigeonpea programme are concentrated in India, but expansion to other countries is a current objective. Extensive germplasm collection and distribution is fostered by ICRISAT.

ICRISAT is currently developing an Asian Grain Legume Network to cover pigeonpea, chickpea and peanut. Meetings were convened by ICRISAT in Hyderabad, in December 1983 and December 1985, to discuss objectives. Dr. D.G. Faris was appointed co-ordinator, and a research programme is being developed.

India's national programme for pigeonpea improvement is also substantial. It has undertaken activities in breeding, pathology, entomology and agronomy.

A programme for pigeonpea improvement has been under way at the University of Queensland in Australia since the early 1970s. This programme has received support from the Rural Credit Development Fund of the Australian Government, directly from ICRISAT, and currently from the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). This programme is concentrating on the development of short season production systems and is currently conducting research on pigeonpea production systems in Thailand, Indonesia, Fiji and India. These activities were reviewed recently by Wallis et al. (1985).

Research on pigeonpea improvement is also conducted in the Caribbean (Trinidad, Jamaica, Puerto Rico and Venezuela); Africa (Kenya, Tanzania and Malawi) and to a lesser degree, in other locations.

13

3 Technical Feasibility of Pigeonpea Production in Thailand and Indonesia

Introduction

The objective of this study was to establish the potential for pigeonpea production in Thailand and Indonesia, where currently only minor amounts of the crop are grown. As is the case for all new entrants into regional cropping systems, social factors as well as technical and economic considerations will play an important role in the adoption of pigeonpea.

This chapter collates the information gained during a brief field programme in each country with local experience with the crop, often as a result of the ACIAR pigeonpea project (see Chapter 2) and the ICRISAT testing programme.

Legume crops are important components of farming systems in both Indonesia and Thailand, but their production is dwarfed by that of the cereal crops, particularly rice. (Further details of relative production of these crops are provided in Chapter 5). Production and productivity data is difficult to obtain for pulse crops. Individual figures are generally available for the major leguminous crops (soybean, peanut and mungbean) but other such crops are usually grouped as pulses.

The governments of Thailand and Indonesia have stated in their most recent development plans that increased production and productivity of the major legume crops is a priority. This decision is based on the need to reduce the large quantity of imports of some leguminous products, mainly soybean, as seed for human consumption and meal for animal feeds.

Pigeonpea has the potential to substitute for imported soybean meal (see Chapter 2) and may provide a new export crop, allowing further diversification. Other local food uses are also possible. These will be discussed below.

Environmental and soil constraints to pigeonpea production

Thailand

The range of legumes grown in Thailand and the research aimed at improving their productivity was reviewed by Na Lampang (1985). He observed that the major legumes grown are soybean, peanut, greengram, blackgram and ricebean. Other legumes are minor crops and have an insignificant impact both on research activity and in the market.

The areas of Thailand considered suitable for legume production were surveyed by the Department of Land Development. The survey identified three soil classes based on their suitability for legume production (soybean, peanut and mungbean). The results are summarized in Table 3.1.

These data indicate that Class I areas amount to approximately 10 million hectares, which are well suited for production of legumes. Soils within the group are

14 Technical Feasibility of Pigeonpea in Thailand and Indonesia

grumusols, rendzinas, non-calcic, brown soils, red-brown earths, reddish-brown lateritic soils and reddish-brown latosols. These Class I soils are the most productive non-rice soils in the country. If pigeonpea is to become a major crop on these soils, it would be necessary to demonstrate superior profitability in a situation where profitable crops are already established and where there is little pressure to introduce new crops into farming systems. This is unlikely in the short term. Table 3.1 Thai soils suitable for production of legumes.

Class % of Total land area

a % of Total land area

suitability for Soybean, peanut, mungbean

Classification on soil properties alone

Classification on soil and climate properties

I. Soils generally suited 20 20 II. Soils conditionaly suited 45 35 III. Soils unsuited 35 45

Source: Thailand. Dept. of land Development aTotal land area is 514,000 km²

Class III soils include the saline alluvials and acid sulphate soils, which are not

suitable for legume production. The above classification is useful but does not provide sufficient data to

determine with any precision the areas where pigeonpea production is feasible. The major areas of Class I soils are found in the central plains and northern Thailand where soybean and mungbean production is concentrated. Large areas of northeastern Thailand fall into Classes I and II.

It is expected that pigeonpea may find a niche within Class II soil types in areas where drainage is not expected to be a problem, (e.g., red-yellow podzolics). The better drained alluvials could also be suitable but the low-humic clay soils would not be suitable due to waterlogging problems.

The influence of other variables (climate, fertility, temperature) on the suitability of the environment for pigeonpea in Thailand can only be considered briefly here. While Thailand is under the influence of a monsoonal rainfall pattern, this varies across the country. In general, the wet season commences in May/June and stop in October/November. Local influences can have a marked effect on the rainfall patterns. Much of the northeastern area of Thailand (approximately 30% of the total land area) is influenced by both the northeast and southwest monsoons. Rainfall is not as great as would be expected under these influences due to the topography of the region (Topark Ngarm personal communication).

Cropping patterns (or production systems) will be influenced by the timing and duration of the wet season and its influence on the growing season. This relationship will be discussed in a later section of this chapter.

From this brief review of the soils and climatic constraints on pigeonpea production in Thailand, the authors conclude that two potential areas for production exist. The first is the northeast region of drier, well-drained soils with low fertility where upland cropping systems prevail. The second is part of southern Thailand where the rainfall is high, but there is a distinct dry season for post-wet season crops in some production systems (e.g., intercropped with rubber) (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Potential areas fог Pigeonpea production in Thailand.

Chiang Mai

Khon Kaen

Bangkok

Songkla


Indonesia

Indonesia has a total area of 1.9 million square kilometres spread over l3,667 islands. The major islands are Sumatra, Java, Kalimantan, Sulawesi and Irian Jaya.

The population in 1984 was approximately 162 million, of which more than 60% resided on Java. There are serious population pressures on Java, which comprises only 131,340 km², or 7% of the land area.

The major crop in Indonesia is rice (37.5 million tons). Ninety percent of this crop is produced on wetlands, and rice production often forms part of a complex production system with other crops.

The major legume crops of Indonesia are peanuts (476,000 t in 1983) and soybean (615,000 t). Other legumes were considered to be of minor importance.

The complexity of the geography of Indonesia makes generalization of climate and soils almost impossible. The major islands have been classified (Oldeman 1975; Oldeman and Sjarifuddin 1977; Oldeman et al. 1980) on the basis of climate and soils. No clear information on suitability of the various soils and land systems for pigeonpea is available from farmers or from experimentation.

All non-rice crops (palawija or secondary crops) are traditionally expected to have low productivity. This expectation in turn has led to low inputs to such crops, and to their production during the more difficult times of the year on the poorer soils. These limitations restrict these crops (particularly the legumes) to a secondary role. A major sociological change will be required to increase production and productivity.

Pigeonpea is currently a minor crop in Indonesia. It is grown in the eastern islands and in some parts of central Java. Its uses are discussed in Chapter 5.

Many of the soils of the outer islands (off Java) are highly acid and have a high level of aluminium saturation, leading to low effective cation exchange capacity. Programmes to bring such soils into production have received high priority in Indonesia. Settlement is encouraged and inputs of fertilizer (including lime) and seed are subsidized. The Government of Indonesia hopes that leguminous crops (e.g.,soybean) can be grown in such areas. Climatic constraints, and the acidity, low fertility, aluminium toxicity and low water-holding capacity of these soils, make wide-scale success of soybean production in these areas unlikely.

Alternative crops are peanut and, possibly, pigeonpea. Experience in Fiji indicates that some cultivars of pigeonpea can grow well vegetatively on acid soils with aluminium saturations of up to 55% (Mehaffey personnal communication). Research to ensure adequate seed yield under such conditions must be a high priority if growth of pigeonpea on these outer islands is to be successful.

The amount and distribution of rainfall in much of Java is not suitable for the successful production of pigeonpea. It is possible that some areas in east Java and on Madura have potential for pigeonpea production. However, the major areas most suitable for pigeonpea production in Indonesia are on the outer islands, particularly on the well-drained acid soils of Sumatra, Sulawesi and the eastern islands.

Production systems for pigeonpea in Thailand and Indonesia As described in Chapter 2, pigeonpea is grown in many different productions

systems. These systems have been tested to only a limited extent in Thailand and Indonesia. Most research has formed part of the ACIAR-supported pigeonpea improvement project.

Technical Feasibility of Pigeonpea in Thailand and Indonesia 17

The methodology adopted in the ACIAR project to evaluate the technical feasibility of pigeonpea production in Indonesia was similar to that used in Thailand. These methodologies evaluated the potential of a non-traditional crop through collaborative research involving both scientists of the country involved and the staff of the University of Queensland.

A three-step evaluation of pigeonpea was adopted.

1. Sowing date studies were conducted at several locations, using a broad range of genetic material from phenological groups ranging from early-flowering photoperiod-insensitive to late-maturing types (some material was supplied by ICRISAT).

2. A "best bet" agronomic package of lines, sowing dates and densities for early-

maturing and medium-maturing production systems was chosen and evaluated at several sites.

3. A range of material from the University of Queensland, ICRISAT, and local

collections was included in genotypic evaluations at a number of sites. These evaluations were repeated for successive years, incorporating new and elite material as it was identified.

This system of evaluation was designed to enable collaborating scientists to

develop an understanding of the crop, and also to identify genetic material that would fit into existing and new cropping systems.

The results of this research to date are briefly reviewed below to enable potentially useful production systems to be identified.

The sowing date studies confirmed that phenological development of particular cultivars could be predicted based on data derived from a range of sites. Studies at Khon Kaen (17°N), Hat Yai (8°N), Muneng (5°S), Brisbane (29°S) and at ICRISAT (17°N) all confirmed that the standard cultivars performed in the manner predicted for these environments.

These studies also confirmed that later-maturing types were not desirable in Thailand or in some production systems in Indonesia owing to excessive vegetative growth coupled with delayed maturity. Cultivars can now be selected to fit into many existing production systems in both countries. The feasible production systems can be summarized as:

1. Wet season crop on upland soils, with or without ratoon; 2. Sown at the beginning of the wet season, and follow with another crop (e.g., rice); 3. Sown post-wet season following other crops (e.g., rice, maize, kenaf); 4. Sown as an intercrop with cassava or with plantation crops such as rubber.

Different forms of phenological development are required for the successful exploitation of the various production systems. This is depicted in Figure 3.2. For


Figure 3.2 Number of days from sowing to flowering and maturity of pigeonpea lines QPL 42 (solid

lines ICPL 265 (broken lines)

example, in the early-wet season system, early maturity and photoperiod insensitively are essential to ensure harvesting of the crop prior to planting the succeeding crop.

The early-wet season and post-wet season environments present difficult conditions for any crop. Water deficits are common and productivity is low. While crops such as cowpea, mungbean and other legumes are often grown in this situation, pigeonpea may have some advantages over these crops due to its ability to survive severe water deficits. However no definitive evidence exists to support a choice among the options available; further research is required.

It was apparent that short-season pigeonpea types are required to fit into production systems examined. Early-maturing pigeonpea lines (110 to 120 day) are now available. However this remains a longer duration than that for mungbean soybean or cowpea.

To date, all research in this project has been in experimental situations. While semi-commercial trial areas are planned in the near future, no data are currently available on productivity under farm conditions. This is a serious deficiency and makes the economic evaluation of potential for pigeonpea difficult (see Chapter 6).

Northeastern Thailand is one area where pigeonpea production could be considered. The land use in this region is given in Table 3.2.


Table 3.2 Land use in northeastern Thailand (in million ha).

Paddy

Field crops

Trees and vegetables

Grassland

Idle Other

Total

Area 5.76 1.72 0.1 0.08 6.34 0.11 8.3 % 71 21 1.2 1 4 1.3 100

Source: Topark-Narm personal communication.

Three major land use systems are currently in use: 1. upland - used for field crops, mainly cassava, kenaf and peanut;

2. upper paddy - used for a single rice crop in a good year, either left idle or used for

a field crop in dry years;

3. lower paddy - always used for rice.

The major potential for legumes is as pre- or post-paddy crops in the lowland paddies; as alternatives to rice (possibly before or after rice) on the upper paddy; and as upland crops to replace cassava or kenaf.

Pigeonpea will be best suited to the upland and upper paddy situations, and therefore could be used in any of the four production systems defined above.

Results of studies to date are summarized below: 1. Pigeonpea will grow vegetatively very well on the upland and upper paddy soils

of northeastern Thailand.

2. Yield levels in experimental plots have exceeded 3t/ha at several locations.

3. Sowing at the end of the wet season causes severe reductions in yield.

4. Plant nutrition problems have been indentified but the causes are not yet known. 5. Damage by pod borers is the single most important factor constraining yields of

pigeonpea. 6. Genotypic differences exist and selection of elite material is in progress.

Studies at Hat Yai in southern Thailand have demonstrated some potential for pigeonpea as an intercrop in rubber plantations. The perennial nature of the crop allows excellent weed control in young rubber intercrops and the possibility of a cash return to the farmer. Growth is possible in this situation for approximately three years prior to the closure of the rubber canopy and the resulting yield reduction due to low light intensities. It is estimated that 50,000 ha per annum is replanted to rubber, providing a potential 150,000 ha for growth of intercrops. A long-term study is currently in progress at Hat Yai to evaluate the potential of pigeonpea in this system (Laosuwan personal communication).


In Indonesia, results to date have also demonstrated some potential for the crop in particular areas. In 1985, yields reached 2 t/ha in a single harvest with the plant and ratoon crop of some lines reaching 3.3 t/ha (Sumarno personal communication). To date, studies have been conducted at nine locations throughout Indonesia mainly on Sumatra, Java, Sulawesi and Timor. Demonstration plots have been sown in several areas to introduce the crops to farmers. Trials in the wetter areas of western Java have suffered from insect damage and poor seed set. Plant growth has been excellent in the drier areas of eastern Java and on other islands. Experimental results in Indonesia remain less comprehensive than those for Thailand, and research is continuing.

In Indonesia, as in Thailand, the vegetative growth of pigeonpea has been excellent. The major limitation to seed yield is damage caused by insect pest particularly pod borers.

To date, only limited research has been conducted on the acid soils of the outer islands. This effort is to be expanded in 1986 to evaluate the potential for the crop in these regions. Yields in preliminary trials at Sitting in West Sumatra have reached 1.0 t/ha on an acid, upland soil.

In summary, the production systems with greatest potential for pigeonpea are:

Thailand

1. Short-season, photoperiod-insensitive types planted as wet season crops on the upper paddy or upland areas of northeastern Thailand.

2. Short-season and later-maturing types planted as intercrops in rubber plantations.

Indonesia

1. Short-season, photoperiod-insensitive types planted as wet season crops on the outer islands (and possibly eastern Java), particularly on the acid soils of Sumatra, Sulawesi and the eastern islands.

2. Crops produced as a green vegetable on a small-scale.

Agronomic potential for the production of pigeonpea in Thailand an Indonesia

Pigeonpea is capable of high yields of dry seed under favourable conditions in Australia, Thailand, Indonesia and India. Pigeonpea has advantages as a crop in many production systems and the identification of early-maturing, photoperiod-insensitive cultivars has provided further incentive to evaluate the crop in Thailand and Indonesia.

A number of major management challenges must be met before wide-scale adoption of the crop in these countries can be expected. These include insect and disease control, definition of appropriate production systems, study of responses to fertilization, weed control and extension of research to the farm situation.

The most serious challenge identified to date is control of insect pests. Pod boring insects (particularly Halitosis and Maruca) can cause substantial damage. Experience in Australia and elsewhere shows that it is technically feasible to control insect pests in pigeonpea. Appropriate chemicals, technology and equipment for application are available. Where insect pest control is coupled with management practices which


synchronize flower and pod development, satisfactory control of the insect pests can be attained. However, the rapid adoption of this relatively complex package of practices by the smallholders of Thailand and Indonesia cannot be assumed.

Other insect pests were recorded during the preliminary evaluations. These pests include various sucking bugs which can cause severe losses in the vegetative phase. The pod fly (Melanagromyza) might be an important pest, but no evidence is available yet to determine the impact of this pest outside India.

Host plant resistance to insect attack is, obviously, an attractive means of plant protection. ICRISAT has an extensive research programme in this area and has recently identified material thought to exhibit resistance to Heliothis. The mechanism of resistance is not yet understood but the factor(s) have been incorporated into a range of phenological backgrounds for evaluation over a wide range of environments. This material will be tested for the first time in Thailand and Indonesia in 1986. While it is possible that this mechanism for resistance may provide only relatively limited protection, host plant resistance combined with appropriate chemical control may be an effective, economical and practical system of management. A working group of entomologists and agronomists met in September 1986 in Thailand (under the auspices of ACIAR and ICRISAT) to discuss control of insects in pigeonpea crops in the experimental and farm situations.

Diseases of pigeonpea in Thailand and Indonesia are currently of minor importance, and this situation appears likely to continue in the near future. However, disease will probably become of greater significance when the crop is adopted to any extent. The major diseases of concern in India are sterility mosaic virus (which may have been identified in Thailand), Phytophihora blight and Fusarium wilt. ICRISAT has conducted some research on disease resistance, and has made excellent progress in the identification of sources of resistance and the incorporation of these resistances into a range of breeding materials, including multiple disease resistance. Relatively little knowledge exists of the genetic diversity of the pathogens involved, so that the ultimate effectiveness of the current sources of resistance to disease in Thailand or Indonesia cannot be predicted. Close collaboration with ICRISAT is required to monitor the disease status of crops in these countries.

Witches broom, caused by a mycoplasma, has been observed in Indonesia and the incidence has been particularly severe in some ratoon crops. This disease is probably transmitted by white fly, but no definitive evidence is available. No resistance is known.

As part of the ACIAR-sponsored pigeonpea improvement project, research is currently under way, on a limited scale, to further investigate production systems response to applied fertilizer and extension of these findings to the smallholdings. Appropriate weed control measures also require research. Effective herbicides are available but may not be applicable in the Thai or Indonesian situation.

Conclusion There is considerable potential for production of pigeonpea in both Thailand and

Indonesia. Suitable climate and soils exist in large areas of each country, and genetic material adapted to such conditions and production systems is available. Several important management challenges must be met before pigeonpea will be adopted widely in either country. These challenges include pest and disease control.


It is probable that the greatest prospects for development of pigeonpea are in the upland farming systems, and particularly in the more marginal areas. The areas with greatest potential appear to be:

1. Northeast Thailand on the upper paddies and upland areas, and 2. the outer islands of Indonesia, particularly on acid well-drained soils.

23

4 The Animal Feed Industries in Thailand and Indonesia

Background1

Until the 1970s, world demand for, and the production of, livestock products grew rapidly a result of increasing populations and per capita incomes. Consumption in the developed countries began to slow during the 1970s as per capita consumption approached saturation levels and population growth slowed, but has accelerated in the developing countries generally. Despite these trends, per capita consumption of livestock products in developing countries is still only one-fifth that of the developed countries.

Expansion in consumption of livestock products has occurred more markedly in the higher income developing countries and has been confined to small sections of the population in others. Expansion has occurred mostly in the pig meat, poultry and egg industries where technological advances have provided significant gains in productivity. Advances in animal breeding, animal health, and feed technology have contributed to significant improvements in feed conversion efficiency and shorter production cycles, which have resulted in lower relative prices for pig and poultry products.

Current average productivity levels in developing countries within the intensive pig and poultry industries do not differ much from those in developed countries. The feed conversion ratio for broilers has now fallen to 2.0 kg feed per kg of liveweight in the US, compared with 4.0 kg for subsistence poultry. In the US, feed consumption per dozen eggs decreased from 2.6 kg in 1955 to 1.9 kg in 1980; and for broilers, consumption has fallen from 2.8 kg to 2.0 kg per kg of live weight over the same period. Pig meat conversion factors have shown similar decreases in feed consumption from 3.1 kg to 2.7 kg from the early 1960s to the late 1970s. In developing countries, similar improvements have been achieved in the intensive feeding sectors. For example, Brazil and Chile have improved broiler conversion from 3 kg in the 1960s to 2.2 kg in the early 1980s. Thailand and Korea report conversion ratios for broilers of 2.4 and 2.5 kg, respectively. Thailand's commercial pig sector operates with a conversion ratio of 3.2 to 3.5 kg, compared with 6 to 7 kg in traditional pig production.

Production in these sectors has expanded largely outside the traditional agricultural sector, along the same lines which evolved in developed countries; that is, as capital-intensive, integrated production and processing facilities close to large urban centres. The proportion of intensive commercial production is closely correlated to the level of socio-economic development. In the higher income, more urban countries of Latin America, North Africa and the Far East, the proportion is between 70% and 90%, and it has reached 90% to 100% in some Near East countries. However, even in the lower income countries in Asia and Africa (Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Zambia and Ghana), the proportion ranges from one-third to two-thirds. 1 United Nations. Food and Agriculture Organization (1982, 1983, 1984).


These large-scale enterprises are heavily dependent on imported technology and equipment, especially breeding stock, and are totally dependent on concentrate feeds The increasing tendency toward intensive commercial production, and the swing to monogastric livestock, which are more heavily dependent on concentrates then ruminants, have caused a very rapid increase in the demand for feedstuffs which has far outpaced the increase in domestic supplies. Output in developing countries has risen at an average rate of 15% per annum since the mid-1970s. As a result, developing countries have imported large amounts of grains to cover both the growing gap between domestic supply and demand, and fluctuations in domestic production.

In most countries, rations have been based primarily on grain (notably maize), oilcakes and meals. Apart from vitamins and minerals, rations typically contain 50% to 60% of grains, 10% to 15% of oilcakes, with milling by-products accounting for the remaining volume. Imports of oil meals into developing countries have been growing by nearly 20% per annum over the last decade, despite many of these countries also exporting certain oil and protein meals. The reason is that pigs and poultry require high quality protein, such as soybean or fish meal, which cannot be replaced by products such as copra and palm kernel meal.

In the higher-income developing countries, the demand for live-stock products is likely to continue to grow strongly. However future feed requirements will depend on government decisions taken on the available options, namely: 1. import more livestock products,

2. increase domestic production based on imported feeds, and 3. produce both livestock and their feedstuffs locally.

In the medium-term, governments are likely to encourage domestic livestock production because of consumer preference for fresh food, and because of a cost advantage in importing concentrate feeds rather than livestock products. In low-income developing countries, the demand for livestock products will continue to grow faster than population. However the outlook for trade and feed grains utilization will remain limited by the inability of these countries to increase domestic feed production, and by financial constraints on increasing imports. Imports of concentrate feeds are likely to continue to grow in these countries. The volume of imports will depend on the type of livestock chosen, on progress achieved in improving feed conversion ratios, and the extent to which domestic feeds can be increased.

Many countries appear to have considerable potential for improving domestic feed supplies and/or drawing on unconventional feed resources which would enable reduction in the cereal content of compound feed rations. For example, in some European countries, feeds such as cassava, citrus pulp, maize gluten, molasses, milling by-products and oil meals have been used to reduce the amount of grain in compound feeds. This substitution has been partly a consequence of EEC pricing policies which have kept internal feed grain prices high while maintaining low tariffs on imports of other feeds. Outside the EEC, grain substitutes appear to have had little impact on imports of grains, since their prices have not generally been competitive with those of feed grains. It is believed that the use of cassava for animal feed in producing countries such as Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam has grown, though a lack of processing

The Animal Feed Industries in Thailand and Indonesia 25

facilities, high transport costs, and the importance of cassava as a staple food in some countries appear to have been limiting factors. In addition, cassava pellets need to be mixed with soybean meal in the ratio of 4:1 to be nutritionally equivalent to maize. This requirement effectively decreases the value of cassava as a feed component and increases the demand for imported oil meal.

A major advantage of compound feed production is that a greater variety of ingredients can be used for livestock feed in developing countries. Thus, although the compound feed industries in developing countries still follow the technology evolved in developed countries, there are no technical obstacles preventing the use of larger amounts of locally available non-cereal feed components.

About 12% of the pulses harvested in developing countries (chiefly in India and other large pulse-producing countries in Asia) are fed to animals in the form of milling and processing by-products and damaged seeds.

The animal feed industry in Thailand Compared with many of its ASEAN neighbours, Thailand's livestock sector is

well developed and efficient. There is a domestic surplus of all the animal feedstuff, except high quality protein meal (e.g., soybean), and this surplus is exported in large quantities. Thailand is an exporter of animal products, particularly chicken. There is a high proportion of commercial intensive production, and feed conversion ratios are good.

The livestock populations for the period 1974 to 1983 are provided in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Livestock population in Thailand, 1974 to 1983.

No. of head x 106 Year

Buffaloes Cattle Swine Chickens Ducks Geese

1974 5.6 4.1 3.8 47.8 12.7 0.6 1975 5.6 4.1 3.5 53.9 10.9 0.6 1976 5.9 4.3 3.4 49.9 11.7 0.2 1977 5.8 4.3 3.3 56.3 10.0 0.2 1978 6.0 4.4 5.3 65.3 9.0 0.3 1979 6.0 4.3 3.4 60.5 10.2 0.2 1980 5.7 3.9 3.0 56.0 11.0 0.2 1981 6.1 4.5 3.6 63.3 13.4 0.1 1982 6.4 4.6 4.0 65.2 13.7 0.2 1983 6.4 4.8 4.2 78.2 14.2 0.3 Source: Thailand. Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives. Office of Agricultural Economics.

Agricultural statistics of Thailand: crop year 1983/1984.

While specific production statistics are difficult to obtain, an indication of the magnitude of production is given by slaughter statistics for the period 1974 to 1984. These figures are presented in Table 4.2.

Thailand is a significant exporter of chicken meat, and is second only to the US as a supplier to Japan. Aproximately 90% of the chicken exported goes to Japan as boneless chicken meat. Export statistics for poultry meat are provided in Table 4.3.

Thailand exports only boneless chicken to Japan, despite the higher tariff rate on this product. Due to Japan's traditional preference for importing materials with a


Table 4.2 Livestock slaughtered in Thailand, 1974 to 1984. Thousands of head

Buffaloesa Cattlea Swinea Chickensb 1974 20.5 21.2 433.5 1975 17.2 17.4 450.9 1976 28.2 27.6 657.1 1977 42.3 40.6 631.2 1978 41.6 39.7 955.8 157,000 1979 32.1 34.4 1,033.9 190,000 1980 25.6 21.6 712.3 211,000 1981 18.8 20.2 714.5 1982 19.6 20.3 767.5 1983 24.0c 20.8c 636.9c 234,000 1984 n.a n.a n.a 330,000

Sources: aAgricultural statistics of Thailand: crop year 1983/1984 bUnofficial statistic, various sources, including personal communications

cFAO estimates for 1983 were 285 x 103,740 x 103 and 5,100 x 103 for buffalo, cattle and swine respectively; these discrepance remain unexplained.

minimum value-added component, the import duty on boneless chicken is currently higher at 18% than the 10.3% for boneless in chicken. The Japanese tariff for boneless chicken is likely to be reduced to 13% next year for all ASEAN countries (of which Thailand is the only exporter). The main competitors in the market are the US, Brazil and France, who export bone-in chicken at the lower tariff rate. In addition, Brazil and the EEC subsidize production and exports, which undermines Thailand's ability to compete in this market. The lower cost of labour in Thailand is probably the reason for its ability to continue exporting boneless chicken. However, the prospects for significant expansion of this market in the future do not appear bright. Other markets are narrower, and it is difficult for Thailand to compete with the US in these markets. Table .4.3 Annual exports of poultry meat, Thailand.

Tonnes Value (Bhat x 106) 1979a 14,158 517 1980a 18,503 656 1981a 26,769 1,186 1982a 32,217 1,310 1983a 22,926 946 1984b 36,864 n.a. Sourch: aAgricultural statistics of Thailand: crop year 1983/1984. include all poultry types. bPersonal communications. Departement of Lifstock. Chicken only

Thailand is also an exporter of pig meat, but the quantities are small. Although there is a significant domestic surplus of pork, the major limitations to expansion of exports are foot and mouth disease, and the ability to meet price competition. Existing markets are Hong Kong, Vietnam, Laos and Singapore. Singapore is phasing out its pig production, but it appears that Thailand may not be able to compete with Australia in this market.

The estimated demand for feeds by the various animal groups is provided in Table 4.4 for the period 1978 to 1980.


Table 4.4 Estimated total demand for animal feed, Thailand (tonnes).

1978 1979 1980

Broilers 593,460 718,200 797,580 Layers and breeders 307,,000 509,400 587,800 Pigs (market) 1,870,000 1,326,000 1,819,000 Pigs (breeders) 532,500 532,500 532,500 Ducks 450,000 500,000 550,000

Sourch: Ministry of Agriculture

There are no official statistics available on the proportion of the livestock population in Thailand fed on commercially prepared concentrate feeds. One estimate from the Ministry of Agriculture is that 90% of the broiler and egg-laying chicken population, and 30% of the pig population, is fed on concentrates. There are currently 33 feedmills in Thailand. Production of feeds for the period 1978 to 1984 is provided in Table 4.5. The figures shown include both complete feeds and concentrates; the latter are mixed with other components on the farm. Approximately 78% of the feeds are complete, and the balance is in concentrate form.

Table 4.5 Production of commercial animal feeds in Thailand, 1978 to 1984.

Year Production (million tonnes)

1978 1.15 1979 1.2 1980 1.43 1981 1.56 1982 1.5 1983 1.5 1984 1.8

A breakdown of the usage of feed by animal type is available for 1980 only and

is provided in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Feed usage by animal type, Thailand, 1980.

Feedmills typically use computer programmes to formulate least-cost mixes from

the range of ingredients available at current prices to meet minimum feeding requirements for each type of animal. The ingredients commonly considered in such calculations, together with their current price levels, are provided in Table 4.7.

Animal type Feed type Quality (t) Percentage

Broiler Complate 572,800 40 Layer and breeders Complate 243,440 17 Layer and breeders Concentrate 57,280 4 Pigs Complate 286,400 20 Pigs Concentrate 186,160 13 Ducks Complate 14,320 1 Ducks Concentrate 57,280 4 Other 14,320 1

Total 1,431,990 100


Table 4.7 Common ingredients and price of compound animal feeds, Thailand.

Raw material Price (July, 1985)

Baht/kg Fish meal 60% 8.70 Soybean meal 6.75 Peanut meal 6.50 Kapok meal 2.90 Copra meal 2.75 Corn 3.00 Sorghum 3.50 Cassava 1.75 Broken rice 3.50 Rice bran 3.10 Defatted rice bran 3.00 Ipil (Leucaena) 3.90 Rice bran oil 10.00 Tallow 10.00 Molasses 1.40 Skimmed milk 17.00 Salt 0.80 Rock phosphate 2.00 Lime 0.34 Vitamins and minerals n.a

Table 4.8 Export of animal feed components, Thailand, 1979 to 1983

Component 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983

Broken rice 443 518 483 179 515 Maize 2,410 3 2,603 3,021 2,801 2,646 Maize groats and meal 1,988 2,175 2,547 29 29 Sorghum 167 181 221 289 226 Cassava pellets 3,696 4,811 5,620 6,893 4,545 Molasses 533 246 443 927 773 Cotton seed 24 41 51 54 29 Fish meal 199 114 114 83 93 Coconut cake 14 4 2 9 8 Vegetable products for animal feed 4 8 17 17 24 Wheat bran 32 34 39 27 35 Rice bran cake 6 4 1 13 28 Cotton seed cake 13 12 15 20 9 Kapok seed cake 28 17 6 ll 3

Source: Agricultural statistics of Thailand: crop year 1983/1984

The prices shown fluctuate markedly throughout the year and least-cost formulations are reviewed frequently. The quality of individual components also fluctuates markedly, necessitating frequent changes to formulations. Blending of ingredients is often necessary to achieve some degree of uniformity. A typical feed contains 60% to 65% maize, 15% to 20% soybean meal, 10% to 15% rice bran (bran can be as high as 25% to 30% when prices are low), and 4% to 15% percent fish meal.

Excluding vitamins, minerals and other miscellaneous supplements which are imported, Thailand has a surplus of all ingredients except quality protein. As a general rule, no single source of protein meal is sufficient to provide the complete dietary requirements of a ration, and it is necessary to blend a number of meals using the


least-cost programme to achieve the minimum levels of individual amino acids. High quality protein meals such as soybean and fish meals, which contain a broader range and higher concentrations of some of the essential amino acids, are an essential component of most rations. Table 4.8 lists exports of potential ingredients of animal feeds for the period 1979 to 1983.

In the list of surplus protein meals (Table 4.8), fish meal is the only real alternative to soybean meal. There are approximately 75 factories producing fish meal in Thailand; their annual production and export figures are given in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9 Annual production and export of fish meal for 75 factories in Thailand (tonnes).

Year Production Exports Export percentage

1980 201,190 114,343 49 1981 185,095 115,432 47 1982 175,840 83,074 62 1983 190,000 92.751 57

Source: Personal communication, Ministry of Agriculture

Although fish meal does not completely substitute the amino acid range in soybean, it is apparent that less fish meal is being incorporated into rations than is technically feasible due to a number of constraints. The current price is around 9 baht/kg, and this price can rise to 10 or 11 baht/kg at times. At these levels, price becomes a barrier to the inclusion of fish meal in diets. There are also quality constraints. The salt content of fish meal is often too high (it can reach 3%) and protein content fluctuates markedly, which not only affects the value of the fish meal, but also causes problems in formulation of feeds. The upper limit for inclusion of fish meal in rations is approximately 16%.

The Thai Government has been promoting additional domestic production of soybeans for some years, but the demand for food for both humans and animals has been increasing rapidly, and imports of soybean meal for animal feed have shown similar growth rates. These trends are shown in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10 Soybean and soybean meal: domestic production and imports, Thailand, 1980 to 1984.

Source: Agricultural statics of Thailand and personal communications, Ministry of Agriculture

It is reported that, largely as the result of government initiatives for expansion of the domestic soybean industry, production in the 1984/1985 crop year has reached 240,000 t, which is almost 50% of domestic demand.

Future trends in the demand and supply of soybean meal are difficult to predict for a number of reasons. First, the domestic supply of meal will depend heavily on the

Domestic production ('000 t) Imports Total available Year

Soybean Soybean meal meal meal

1980 102 49 155 204 1981 100 36 143 179 1982 132 50 209 259 1983 113 41 187 228 1984 179 n.a n.a n.a


success of the government's plans to expand domestic soybean production, and on the proportion which is crushed for oil rather than consumed as whole seed. The cost of production of soybeans in Thailand is very high by world standards despite the subsidies which apply, and this high cost is likely to be a serious constraint to expansion in the long-term. From Table 4.10, it appears that less than one-half of the domestic production was crushed for oil during the period 1980 to 1983. However there is insufficient data to indicate trends, especially if the domestic availability of soybeans is significantly expanded.

Secondly, the demand for soybean meal will depend largely on the prospect for expansion of the livestock sector, particularly of the pig and chicken industries. In the limited time available for this preliminary study, it was not possible to obtain the data required for projections of this nature. However, some general comments can be made. The proportion of intensive commercial production of chickens is already very high, so that growth in demand for feedstuffs will depend largely on the potential for chicken meat. The prospects for expansion in the export trade do not appear particularly bright, but there appears to be considerable potential for expansion in domestic per capita consumption of chicken meat, and strong growth in this market appears to be a realistic assumption. Similar prospects exist for the pig industry, with the additional prospect of an increase in the proportion of pigs fed on intensive commercial rations.

Thirdly, the potential for substitution of unconventional feed resources for grains may have some impact on the demand for protein meals. For example, Thailand is the world's largest exporter of cassava (exported mainly to the EEC), and there appears to be a limited future for this market. The government is endeavouring to promote the use of cassava in animal feeds, as one solution to this problem. However, there has been very little use of cassava in compound rations within Thailand, despite the dramatic fall in prices over the last 18 months. The main limitations appear to be farmer prejudice against cassava, the pale colour of the feeds produced, and some quality problems. However, it appears inevitable that future pressure from the EEC on quotas, and further reductions in price, will eventually trigger an increasing use o1 product in animal rations. Experience in the EEC has shown that soybean meal must be added to cassava in the ratio of 1:4 to attain nutritional equivalence to five parts of maize. Thus, the use of a significant feed source in Thailand will depend on the availability of a suitable source of protein. It is possible that expansion of meal imports may be desirable in this case, and could be partially offset by increased availability of maize for export.

In summary, it appears that there will continue to be a strong and increasing demand for soybean meal in the future. Domestic production may not expand as quickly as demand.

The animal feed industry in Indonesia1 Demand for various meat, fish and dairy products in Indonesia for 1982 is shown

in Table 4.11. Animal protein constitutes only 12% of the total protein in the average Indonesian

diet. Moreover, the animal food sources which are potentially linked to the animal

1 Much of the background information and basic data in this section has been drawn from SD Mink, corn in the Indonesian Livestock Economy. BULOG-stanford Corn Project. Working paper 10. 1984.


feed industry (poultry meat, pork, and eggs) comprise only 2% of the total protein in an average Indonesian diet (Food Balance Sheet 1982). Table 4.11 Animal products in the Indonesian diet, 1982.

Import Exports

Product

Total consumtion

('000 t)

Per capita consumtion

(kg/year) ('000 t)

Meat Chicken -village 66 0.41 - - - improved 29 0.18 - - Beef 125 0.78 3 - Pork 70 0.43 - - Other meat 95 0.59 - - Offal 97 0.63 - - Eggs - Hen -village 50 0.17 - - -improved 149 0.96 - - Duck 68 0.31 - - Milk 653 4.17 536 - Fish 1,829 10.15 14 183

Source: Biro Pusat Statistic. Food balance sheet in Indonesia, 1982

Commercial poultry production (layers and broilers) has always been a small-operator activity in Indonesia, despite the existence in the 1970s of large, modern operations. This situation was reinforced in 1981 by government policy which introduced regulations phasing out operations with more than 5,000 layers or which produce more than 750 broilers per week.

Small-scale operations depress productivity from modern industry standards through poor management skills, inadequate investment in facilities, poor sanitation, water supply and disease prevention, and difficulties with heat stress. As small-scale producers do not have the expertise or equipment for feed mixing, they depend on purchased feed. Small urban operators generally buy complete feeds, while rural producers buy commercial concentrates and mix them with locally available energy sources, which save double transport costs. Feed conversion ratios are approximately 2.5:1 in this sector, compared with 2:1 in more efficient environments.

The productivity of village chickens is very low, but because of their enormous numbers, their contribution to total production is substantial. Data (see Table 4.11) indicate that village chickens account for 40% of the total production of chicken ‘meat and eggs. Village chickens scavenge for food, and this diet is supplemented with corn, rice bran and other surplus or spoiled materials.

Commercial pig production is mostly an activity of the Chinese and Christians on Java, the Hindus on Bali, and the Christian Toraja on South Sulawesi. Intensive commercial operations have made significant gains in production efficiency, with the time required to reach a slaughter weight of 90 kg being reduced from 10 to 12 months in the early 1970s to 8 to 10 months in 1985. However this time is still double that required in the US. Complete feeds are required because the pigs are confined, but food composition varies enormously according to the availability of materials at individual locations.

In traditional confinement systems, productivity is poor, feeds have inferior composition, and the inclusion of high quality proteins is rare. Extensive pig husbandry


is also and practised outside Java, where scavenging is the only source of feed productivity.

The feed industry in Indonesia consists of more than 50 firms involved in mixing complete and concentrate rations. Over 90% of output is for domestic poultry; the rest is divided among swine, dairy cows, ducks and fish. The modern feed industry was established in 1972, and expanded rapidly until the end of that decade. As growth slowed in the early 1980s, the industry was restructured. In recent years, the feed industry has been dominated by large firms in urban locations. Smaller firms which are situated closer to domestic feed inputs are producing less and/or closing down, which has increased the freight component of costs. This in turn has led to a higher proportion of concentrates being used in rural areas.

There appear to be no reliable statistics on the quantities of feeds produced by the feed industry in Indonesia. One industry source has estimated present at 1.2 production a million tones per annum. The growth in the use of various feed components is given in Table 4.12.

Table 4.12 Growth in the use of animal feed components in Indonesia, 1978 to 1982 ('000 t).

Feed component 1978 1982 Average

growth/year (%) Corn 122.1 315.4 39.6 Coconut cake 176.8 243.7 9.5 Rice bran 863.1 1201.6 9.8 Corn bran 152.5 199.9 7.8 Soybean cake 56.5 167.5 49.1 Fish meal 22.3 65.5 48.4 Guplek/cassava chips 328 425.4 7.4 Sago 63 91.6 11.3 Others 174.1 247.9 10.6

The ingredients of a typical poultry diet as supplied by a commercial feedmiller,

together with current prices, are given in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13 Ingredients of a typical poultry diet, Indonesia

Content range (%) Price

Rp/kg Corn 50 165-180 Fish meal 6-May 600 Soybean meal 15-Oct 300 Meat and bone meal 3 400 Rice bran 15 60 Wheat bran 15 100 Leucaena meal (17% to 20% protein) 3 (max.) 130 CaCo3 - - Vitamins and minerals - -

In general, Indonesia has sufficient domestic supplies of the energy components

of feeds and some protein meals, but is deficient in high quality protein. The situation is similar to that in Thailand. There is a domestic surplus of some protein meals, such as


copra and palm kernel meals. The complete range of amino acid requirements can only be filled partially by fish meal and completely by soybean meal. Unlike Thailand, Indonesia does not produce fish meal in large quantities, and both these components need to be imported.

As part of Presidential Decree no. 50 of 1981 (the government programme to phase out large poultry producing units), the government import and stock monopoly (BULOG) was given responsibility for stabilizing prices and supply of animal feed inputs. In March 1982, BULOG was granted the sole right to import soybean meal, the protein feed source preferred by millers. Since then, BULOG has distributed imported soybean meal via two channels; that is, directly to the large feed mills and indirectly to small mills through the marketing agent ASBIMTI. In an attempt to ensure that small millers are not disadvantaged, BULOG sells to ASBIMTI at a discounted price to allow for additional handling, transport and administrative costs.

After the rupiah devaluation in March 1983, BULOG was requested to reduce its foreign exchange requirements, which led in part to a reduction in soybean meal imports by 20%. Feed mills were advised to shift to domestic protein sources, such as copra meal, fish meal and wheat bran. This action had the following consequences:

1. the cost of soybean meal rose;

2. supplies leaked from licensed marketers onto the free market, and smaller mills

faced a difficult supply situation and even higher prices than larger mills; 3. large feed mills shifted to alternative imported protein feeds not under the control

of BULOG, such as rapeseed and sunflower seed meals; 4. the potential for use of alternative energy sources, such as cassava, which require

the addition of soybean meal, diminished or disappeared.

Indonesia has a large soybean industry, but as there are no oil extraction plants in the country, none of this production finds its way into animal rations. Imports of soybean meal by, BULOG since 1982 are given in Table 4.14. Table 4.14 Import of soybean meal by BULOG, since 1982 (tonnes).

Source: Personal communication, BULOG

Projections of future feed use with particular reference to corn, have been made by Mink (op. cit.), and by the Government in its fourth Five-Year Development Plan (PELITA 4 1984 to 1988). The PELITA 4 projections are shown in Table 4.15.

These projections show results for corn similar to those of Mink, which indicate a corn demand of 931,000 t (derived demand approach) and 1,008,000 t (animal population projections approach) in 1988. The main force behind the rapidly

Quarter 1982 1983 1984 1985

1 n.a. 47,200 43,615 27,949 2 n.a. 30,000 92,452 n.a. 3 25,696 5,900 48,743 - 4 40,985 49,799 33,140 -


Table 4.15 Demand for raw materials for concentrate feed production: fourth Five-Year Development Plant Indonesia. ('000 t)

Commodity 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

Corn 725.9 792 866.5 950.7 1046.5 Copra cake 296.8 329.7 368 423.4 525.4 Rice bran 1330 1434.2 1547.4 1687.2 1890.1 Corn bran 233 241 260.9 286.4 325.6 Soybean meal 224.1 252.2 283.5 319.9 362.4 Fish meal 85.9 95.7 107.1 119 135.5 Cassava chips 451.6 479.7 509.3 541 574.1

Source: Indonesia Government (PELITA 4 figures) expanding feed demand as shown in these projections is income growth, which permits shifts in household diets toward greater consumption of meat and dairy products.

In Indonesia, the current marketing systems of soybean for human and animal consumption are not interrelated because the large demand for human consumption absorbs all of the domestic production and whole seed imports, and because there are no soybean crushing plants. Animal feed requirements are satisfied by imported soybean meal. However, this situation may change in the medium-term.

In our attempt to close the increasing gap between human consumption and domestic production, the government has launched a massive programme in PELITA 4 to increase production. PELITA 4 projections of both demand and production of soybean indicate that by 1988 there will be a domestic surplus of 56,000 t. However, these projections are highly optimistic; imports in 1984 increased to over 400,000 t compared with a projected fall to 183,000 t. In addition, the PELITA 4 projections have not allowed for animal feed demand, which is expected to grow to 362,000 t of meal by 1988 (equivalent to say 425,000 t of whole beans).

Even if PELITA 4 targets are met, there will be a large domestic deficit of high quality protein for animal feed, and current indications are that there will continue to be a substantial deficit of soybeans for human consumption.

35

5

Pigeonpea in Human Diets

Dry seed India is the major world producer of pigeonpea, producing more than 90% of the

world crop. The seed is used almost exclusively as dry seed for human consumption. The testa is removed by milling, and the seed is split by separating the cotyledons. This product is known as dhal.

Pigeonpea dhal is an important component of vegetable-based diets of people from the Indian subcontinent. It is impossible to estimate the potential size of the international market. None of the pigeonpea produced in India is exported. Therefore little pigeonpea is traded internationally.

The price of pigeonpea seed and dhal in India is presented in Table 5.1. Prices are high in India and there may be potential to develop an export market for pigeonpea to India or to other countries where Indians have settled.

Table 5.1 Price of pigeonpea in India.

Period Wholesale price of seed (US$/t)

Wholesale price of dhal

(US$/t)

Retail price of dhal

(US$/t) 1982 263 -358 396 1983 291 396 437 1984 361 491 542

Sourch: ICRISAT unpublished

The final price will depend upon characteristics such as seed size, colour, and more complex attributes associated with appearance, cooking time, and taste. Seed size preference varies among regions of India. However, investigations indicate that white seeded types of approximately 12 g/100 seeds are acceptable to most consumers (Byth and Wallis unpublished). White or light-coloured seed is generally preferred because of a higher recovery of dhal during milling, and thus these types command a slightly higher price.

Pigeonpea is not grown widely in either Thailand or Indonesia. The plant and its products are not significant traditional components of human or animal diets. In both countries, legumes in general are less important than are cereals, such as rice, maize and sorghum (Table 5.2).

Statistics for pulse crops (leguminous crops excluding soybean and peanut) are available only as a group. Thus it is difficult to determine the actual planted areas and productivity for individual crops.

In both Thailand and Indonesia, the adoption of non-traditional food or animal feed products will depend on productivity, suitability of the crop for culture in specific farming systems, acceptability of the crop and its products, socio-economic factors, and

36 Pigeonpea in Human Diets

other variables. Locally produced pigeonpea could be used domestically, or exported from both countries.

In an export market, both Thailand and Indonesia would have a potential advantage over traditional suppliers (Malawi and Tanzania) as a result of the lower cost of freight to India. However, no definitive studies on the potential of pigeonpea as an export crop have been completed. This is a serious deficiency which must receive a high priority for future investigation.

In Thailand, a small market exists for dry pulse seed used to make Chinese-style noodles. The major product now available is made from mungbean flour. Although similar noodles (and several confectionary items) can be made from pigeonpea flour, the impression gained during this survey (and the experience of the current ACIAR -funded project led by Byth and Wallis) is that the potential for this use is very small. It is also most unlikely that dry seed of pigeonpea would be readily incorporated into traditional Thai cuisine. Local consumption of pigeonpea by Thais is therefore unlikely to be of sufficient significance to warrant further research or development of this crop for local consumption.

Table 5.2 Production and growth rate of various crops in Thailand and

Indonesia, 1981 to 1984 (million tonnes).

Thailand Indonesia Rice Production (mt) 20 35 Coarse grains - Production (mt) 43 45 - Growth rate (%) 6.8 4.6 Peanut - Production (mt) 0.16 0.83 - Growth rate (%) 3.5 2.3 Soybean - Production (mt) 0.18 0.63 - Growth rate (%) 14.3 -2.7 Pulses - Production (mt) 0.36 0.31 - Growth rate (%) -0.3 0.3

Source: FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

In Indonesia, approximately 1.1 million tonnes of soybean is used annually in various fermented products (tempe, tofu, tauco, kecap, etc.) (Figure 5.1). Several studies have been completed on the potential of various legumes to substitute for soybean in these products.

Green seed Pigeonpea pods and seeds are consumed extensively as a green vegetable in

Caribbean countries, and to a lesser extent in many other countries. In Indonesia, the young pods (approximately 1 cm long) are consumed whole in

parts of the eastern islands (Siwi personal communication). The contribution to human diets of this form of consumption is likely to be low, and expansion for this use is unlikely on a large-scale.

A common use of pigeonpea in Africa and many other areas is in the kitchen garden where the crop is harvested as required for human consumption of the seed as a

Pigeonpea in Human Diets 37

green vegetable or in the whole dry form. The importance of pigeonpea in this system is difficult to quantify.

ICRISAT has an active improvement programme for vegetable pigeonpea. Potentially useful material is being screened in Thailand and Indonesia. However, the potential for this use of pigeonpea is thought to be small.

It has been reported that pigeonpea forms an important component of the farming system and diet in Timor (Field personal communication), and that traditional varieties and complex cropping systems incorporating pigeonpea with a range of crops have been developed. However, relatively little evidence of the crop was observed by Wallis and Byth (1984), and further studies may be warranted.

Figure 5.1 Use and source of soybean in Indonesia, 1986.

Fermented products As indicated above, there is potential for the use of pigeonpea as a substitute for

soybean in fermented human foods. Tempe is an important source of protein in human diets, particularly on Java. Its

production involves soaking and removing the testa and inoculating it with moulds of the Rhizopus genus. Tempe production is a small-scale industry in Indonesia, usually run as part of a co-operative. Since the testa is removed by hand after soaking, production is more efficient when larger-seeded legumes are used. In the village situation, other ingredients are added to tempe (e.g. 10% cassava flour) to reduce the price.

Sibrani (1982) has studied the suitability of locally available pigeonpea for tempe production. He concluded that tempe could be made successfully from pigeonpea and that the appearance, flavour and texture of the product were acceptable. The shelf life of pigeonpea tempe was less than that of soybean tempe (27 hours c/t soy 48 hours) and the flavour was less acceptable than that of soybean tempe.

In more recent studies (Widowati personal communication) as part of the ACIAR supported pigeonpea project, various proportions of soybean and pigeonpea have been tested in tempe production. In organoleptic tests (based on visual and taste preferences), tempe made from 33% soybean and 67% pigeonpea was as tasty as, and had a similar texture and colour to, pure soybean tempe (Table 5.3).

Imports

Soymeal

202.000t

Feed Industri

Whole soybean

401.000t

1.144.000t

743.000t

Whole soybean

Local Production

Tofu 30 %

Tempe 60 %

Kecap 5%

Other 20%

Seed 3%

38 Pigeonpea in Human Diets

Table 5.3 Comparison of soybean and pigeonpea in tempe production.

Tempe composition ratio Taste Texture Appearance Colour % Protein Soy:pigeonpea 3:0 2.5 3.4 3.3 3.1 22 Soy:pigeonpea 2:1 2.8 2.6 4.2 2.9 17 Soy:pigeonpea 1:2 3.8 3.3 2.6 3.9 16 Soy:pigeonpea 0:3 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.1 12

As expected, the protein content of the tempe declined as the pigeonpea content was increased.

The data suggests that further study of the value of pigeonpea as a substitute for soybean in tempe production is warranted. A small research project with these aims is included in the current ACIAR pigeonpea project and collaboration in this research is being considered by the ICRISAT Asian Grain Legume Network.

Kecap of acceptable quality has been made successfully from pigeonpea (Sumarno personal communication). However, the size of the market for this product is not known.

There is little information available about the suitability of pigeonpea for another major fermented product, tofu. It has been reported that the starch in the pigeonpea seed is less successful in tofu production than are the more complex carbohydrates. However, there is some evidence that starch levels in pigeonpea seed are relatively low (Elliott personal communication), which suggests that tofu production may be at least technically feasible. Research is required into the chemical composition and formulation of this product using pigeonpea.

39

6

Economic Potential for Pigeonpea in Thailand and Indonesia

Introduction An assessment of the economic potential for pigeonpea in Thailand and Indonesia

can be divided into two major components: namely, an assessment of the characteristics of the 1) supply function (cost of production) and 2) demand function (value of production). Ideally, if both of these functions could be quantified, their intersection would indicate the prices and quantities of production which would be economically viable. Given the preliminary nature of this study and the brief period for investigation of these factors, it is not possible to produce a quantitative assessment of the potential for the crop here. Such an assessment would require a detailed marketing study, involving export and local markets for human and animal feed uses, as well as an in depth study of the costs of production in each of the environments considered to be suitable for the crop.

Previous sections of this report have outlined the most probable uses for the crop, defined the technical requirements of the crop, narrowed the range of suitable environments (soils, climate, etc.) to the most likely, and discussed appropriate production systems. This chapter will provide a very broad qualitative assessment of the economic potential for the crop, and indicate key areas where more detailed study is required. Demand for pigeonpea

Demand for pigeonpea for animal feed The discussion in Chapter 4 has shown that a shortage of domestically produced,

high-quality protein for compound animal rations exists in Thailand and Indonesia. Thailand has a domestic surplus of all animal feed components except high-

quality protein, and this surplus is exported, as are the animal products themselves. Prospects for expansion of export markets for animal products are not bright. However strong sustained growth in the demand for animal feedstuffs is expected due to the expansion in the domestic per capita consumption of animal products, particularly of chicken meat. Despite Thai Government initiatives for the expansion of the soybean industry, it appears that domestic soybean production will not expand as fast as demand, and soybean meal will continue to be imported in significant quantities.

In Indonesia, as in Thailand, there is sufficient domestic availability of the energy components of feeds and a deficit in high-quality protein. The main difference between the two countries is that Indonesian animal industries are less sophisticated, less efficient in terms of feed conversion, and per capita consumption of animal protein is very low. This situation could give rise to rapid growth rates in animal feed requirements, which is confirmed by government and other projections. The

40 Economic Potencial for Pigeonpea in Thailand and Indonesia

government is attempting to stimulate domestic production of soybeans. However its efforts are aimed at satisfying the demand for human consumption, and it is apparent that even this objective is not being met. The conclusion is that there will continue to be a large deficit in soybeans available for human consumption and for use in animal feeds.

The suitability of pigeonpea for animal feed was discussed in Chapter 2. Pigeonpea is a medium-level protein source and a medium-to-high energy source which has been included in dietary rations of commercial layers at up to 450 g/kg without adversely affecting bird performance. More limited scientific evidence for pigs indicates that pigeonpea is also a suitable component of pig rations, provided that trypsin or chymotrypsin inhibitor activity is neutralized by some process such as heat treatment. It appears that pigs are more susceptible than poultry to these anti-nutritive factors present in raw pigeonpea. As heat and other such treatments are expensive, and chicken production is likely to show the fastest future rates of growth, subsequent discussion is focused on the demand from the chicken production segment of the animal feed market.

Given the nutritive value of pigeonpea, the extent of its inclusion in compound rations will depend on the price at which it can be obtained relative to the prices of other equivalent sources of protein and energy. Conversely, it is possible to calculate shadow prices for pigeonpea using least-cost formulation programmes, at which inclusion in ration would be feasible. "

During the study, a number of feedmillers' opinions of the value of pigeonpea were sought, and in two instances, shadow prices were calculated. During the field trip, the information available on the nutritive value of pigeonpea was incomplete, which caused some problems in obtaining specific values. Estimates of the value of pigeonpea were generally expressed as a proportion of the price of soybean meal and ranged from 50% to 65% of the soybean meal price. More recently, some of the nutritive information gaps have been filled, and a more objective assessment of values was obtained using the least-cost programme and price data from Monsanto Singapore Co. (Pte) Ltd. Using a range of ingredients standard for Thailand (and generally applicable elsewhere in Asia), together with the prices of ingredients prevailing in Thailand in February 1986, a value of US$ 155/t was obtained for use of pigeonpea in broiler diets Sensitivity analysis using a range of prices for some of the other ingredients (soybean meal, fishmeal and corn) indicated a range in pigeonpea prices of US$ 42 to U 185/t.

As the price of soybean meal will largely determine the value of pigeonpea, it is useful to express such value as a proportion of the soybean price. In the above calculations, pigeonpea was worth 50% to 55°/o of the price of soybean meal. This is an expected result, as pigeonpea has approximately one-half the protein content of soybean meal and a slightly higher energy value.

In summary, it appears that the shadow price for pigeonpea is US$ 130/t in Thailand and US$ 147/t in Indonesia, which represents 55% of the price of imported soybean meal in July 1985. These prices represent the value of pigeonpea to feedmillers, delivered into their factory.

Feedmilling facilities are generally concentrated near large urban centres. The prices above thus reflect a situation in which domestically produced ingredients are transported from rural areas with significant freight and handling costs included, and imported ingredients are available close to the point of landing. It follows that the cost

Economic Potencial for Pigeonpea in Thailand and Indonesia 41

of compound feeds in the outer rural areas is high due to freight charges and the double handling of domestically produced ingredients. This problem is overcome to some extent by shipping only the concentrated part of compound rations, to which locally available roughage and grain is added. However, the high cost and restricted availability of such feeds in the outer rural areas has led to a higher proportion of less intensive, traditional methods of animal production and lower consumption rates of animal proteins in human diets. In this situation, the availability of a locally produced source of high-quality protein would have obvious advantages, and the shadow price at which pigeonpea would be included in compound rations would be higher than that indicated above.

An example of this situation is in the eastern island provinces of Indonesia, where there is a shortage of protein in human diets, and where the area has been shown to be suited technically to pigeonpea production. Pigeonpea is currently produced on a very limited scale in these areas and consumed as a green vegetable. An assessment of the value of pigeonpea in these areas requires further investigation.

Demand for pigeonpea for human consumption As discussed in Chapter 5, most of the world's pigeonpea is consumed as dhal by

people living in, or originating from, the Indian subcontinent. A large market exists in India and elsewhere where people of Indian ethnic origin have settled. In 1984, the wholesale price of seed in India was US$ 361/t.

A detailed marketing investigation would be required to translate this price into a farm gate equivalent price. However, an indication of the costs involved in the marketing chain was obtained from a Thai exporting company using figures supplied for mungbeans. These costs are given in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 Cost of marketing mungbeans in Thailand.

Transaction Cost

Farmer to middleman 0.35 Bht/kg Middleman to wholesaler 1.0 Bht/kg International freight US$ 40 to US$ 45/t

Warehouse to f.o.b. US$ 10 to US$ 15/t

There are undoubtedly other costs involved, such as wharf, handling and freight charges in India, and exporter margins in the country of origin. If an additional US$ 50/t is allowed to cover these expenses, the total costs, including the charges outlined in Table 6.1, would be approximately US$ 160/t which converts to a farm gate price of around US$ 200/t.

There is also a small market for dhal in Malaysia which may be exploited in the future. In addition to consumption of pigeonpea in the form of dhal, there may be potential to use pigeonpea in a range of fermented products in Indonesia. As outlined in Chapter 5, experimental batches of tempe made by substituting pigeonpea for soybean have been successful, producing a product similar in taste, texture and colour to pure soybean tempe. Kecap of acceptable quality has also been made from pigeonpea. The manufacture of tofu from pigeonpea has not been investigated.

The potential demand for raw materials for fermented products is large.


Approximately 1.1 million tonnes of soybean are utilized annually for all such products, in Indonesia. The price of domestic soybeans is well above international market prices, due to high local production costs. Local prices range from Rp 465 to Rp 475/kg in Jakarta (US$ 420 to US$ 432/t, based on Rp 1,100/US$ 1, July 1985). BULOG imports soybeans at world market prices and re-sells to traders at current domestic market prices. There is special provision for BULOG to sell imported soybean to members of KOPTI (a co-operative of private enterprises making fermented product at Rp 415/kg (US$ 377/t).

Large-scale penetration of this market by pigeonpea must be viewed with some uncertainty. Further research into the technical aspects of tempe production is currently being sponsored by ACIAR. Although it has been demonstrated that tempe can be produced successfully from pigeonpea, the incentive for manufacturers to switch to pigeonpea would have to be triggered either by an increasing shortage of soybean, or the availability of pigeonpea at prices significantly lower than soybean. Continuity of supply is also a problem expected in the initial stages of market development. However, as imports of soybean for human consumption have grown to approximately 500,000 t per annum, government assistance in fostering a domestically produced substitute could be expected.

As discussed above, there is a shortage of protein in human diets in the eastern islands of Indonesia. Fermented products such as tempe, are not generally consumed in these areas, as soybeans do not grow well there and are not available at affordable prices. It is expected that a locally produced substitute for soybeans would be more acceptable for producing tempe in this situation than in the areas where soybean tempe is traditionally produced and consumed.

Potential supply of pigeonpea Pigeonpea is produced in a diverse array of systems, and has a number of

advantages over other leguminous crops including drought tolerance, lodging and shattering resistance, perenniality, and ability to grow on soils of low fertility. The technical suitability of the crop to a wide range of environments in Thailand and Indonesia has been demonstrated and discussed in earlier sections of this report. In identifying the most likely situations where the crop may develop in these countries, economic and social factors were considered in addition to the technical challenges. Pigeonpea is a new crop in both countries, with no established end-uses or market outlet. Clearly, the potential for adoption of the crop will depend on its ability to compete with other crops for the limited land resources available, in terms of its profitability as a cash crop, its contribution to subsistence farming objectives, and its ability to blend into the existing social structure.

It is considered unlikely that pigeonpea will be accepted, at least initially, in areas with fertile, well-drained soils most suitable for its production. In these areas, production options currently are not limited; the most profitable farming systems have already been established; there is little pressure to introduce new crops; and there would be little incentive to adopt a crop such as pigeonpea without an established market, especially with higher levels of risk due to technical uncertainties. It follows that pigeonpea will probably find initial acceptance in more marginal environments and on less suitable soils, where the special advantages of pigeonpea may allow more profitable exploitation than the other cropping options currently available. These areas


have been identified and discussed in detail in Chapter 3. It is beyond the scope of this report to estimate production costs in each of these

environments. Research data directly applicable to these areas is limited, and there are no commercial production data available on which to base the estimates.

From the discussion of demand for pigeonpea, it is apparent that the potential for the crop as a substitute for soybean on a large-scale in the main urban markets (as an animal feed or for human consumption) will depend largely on the scope for production at a lower unit cost than for soybean. This can be achieved only through higher yields or lower total costs per unit area.

If pigeonpea is produced in traditional legume growing areas, in competition with other legumes for scarce land resource and using the same technology and intensity of production, then a lower output cost could presumably be achieved only through higher yields. It is unlikely that pigeonpea will be readily accepted in this situation unless outstanding yield performance can be demonstrated, and a market at remunerative prices is available. The main problems are the high opportunity cost of such production (i.e. the cost of foregoing production of the alternatives available and an output which is less valuable in many end uses than other legume products).

Production in marginal areas will have a negative effect on potential yields. However it is believed that the advantages of pigeonpea in these environments, particularly drought tolerance and performance on low-fertility soils, would result in better yield performance than the alternative crops available. Success in this situation would thus depend on achieving a low-cost production system.

There are a number of possibilities in this regard:

1. Taking advantage of the attributes of pigeonpea, a low-intensity production system could be adopted, which would eliminate the costs of irrigation and reduce input, such as fertilizers, land preparation, etc.

2. Introduction of insect-resistant lines would reduce a major cost component of

more intensive production systems. There appears to be a reasonable prospect of development of insect-resistant genetic material in pigeonpea, at ICRISAT.

3. The possibility of producing pigeonpea as a ratoon crop could signifcantly reduce

costs.

4. In marginal areas, the opportunity cost is lower, and other costs such as overheads (through, for example, lower land values or rents) and labour costs would be less.

5. Production and consumption in outer rural areas may result in significantly

reduced freight and handling charges incurred on products shipped into the area from elsewhere in the country or overseas. Where raw materials are shipped to urban centres for processing and re-shipped back to rural areas (e.g. materials for animal feed concentrates), a double saving on freight and handling charges may result.

More detailed investigation will be required to determine whether these cost

savings are possible, and whether the cost reductions are sufficient to offset the effects on yield and provide a competitively priced product.


Some examples of the environments envisaged for production and implications for cost are:

1. Northeastern Thailand

This area is a relatively harsh enviroment for crops. A large export-oriented cassava industry has been established in this area. Growth in cassava production during the 1970s was very rapid, rising from approximately 2 million tonnes to 17 million tonnes by 1980/1981. Previously, kenaf was the principal crop in this marginal area, where other cropping options are extremely limited.

The imposition of quotas by the EEC has created a cassava surplus, and prices have fallen markedly. While this market is volatile, the long-term future of the industry is in doubt. For this reason, the government is anxious to diversify the cropping base. In addition, there is a potential for long-term degradation of soil under cassava. The search for viable alternative crops has not been particularly successful to date. The introduction of a legume into the cropping system would be desirable for soil rehabilitation and maintenance of fertility. Other legumes, such as soybean and mungbean, are not suitable crops for this area.

It is believed that pigeonpea would be a relatively well-adapted crop for this area, and could be grown in a low-intensity, low-cost system in a situation where farmers are actively seeking alternative options. In addition, the government is concerned about a potential welfare problem if the cassava industry collapses, and so could be expected to support a new crop.

2. Thailand - intercropping with rubber

Pigeonpea has been found to be an excellent perennial cover crop in young rubber plantations, for the control of weeds. Growth is possible for three years until the mature canopy reduces light intensity. Approximately 50,000 ha per year are replanted to rubber, providing a potential of 150,000 ha for intercropping.

This situation has the potential to provide a low-cost production system for pigeonpea. As a cover crop is required in young rubber plantations, the establishment of the crop and its maintenance are costs borne by the rubber enterprise. If such a crop can be chosen so that a saleable product can I harvested, the additional revenue can be achieved at a very small marginal cost. Some preliminary results suggest that a specific benefit to the replanted rubber trees (faster, straighter growth) may exist.

3. Eastern Indonesian provinces

This area has high freight costs and shortages of protein for human and animal diets. Production and consumption of pigeonpea in the same area would enhance the profitability of the crop. An examination of the retail price structure c soybean throughout the country indicates that prices in the outer islands can be u to 1.5 times higher than in urban centres, such as Jakarta.

Potential for pigeonpea In the absence of sufficient data to quantify production costs, it has not been


possible to provide a definitive assessment of the potential of the crop. Nevertheless, the following observations can be made.

1. Animal feeds

In the main animal feed markets around urban centres, the value of pigeonpea is indicated at 50% to 55% of the price of soybean meal at the factory gate. This is equivalent to US$ 130/t in Thailand and US$ 147/t in Indonesia.

In both countries, the production of soybean is heavily subsidized, although the full extent of the subsidies could not be determined. Locally produced soybean meal is available in Thailand at 6.7 Bht/kg (US$ 248/t), and imported meal at 6.1 Bht/kg (US$ 226/t). Imports are restricted to a 1:1 ratio of local to imported meals. Soybean meal is not produced domestically in Indonesia, and imported meal is available at Rp 300/kg (US$ 272/t), which is the world price plus a small margin.

Whole soybean seed costs 7 Bht/kg at the mill in Thailand (US$ 259/t) and Rp 470/kg (US$ 420/t) in Indonesia. Thus expressed in terms of the percentage of production costs of soybeans, it is apparent that for viability, it would need to be produced at 50% of the cost of producing soybeans in Thailand and 35% in Indonesia. This assumes that similar subsidies exist and a similar marketing system is available for both crops. It is believed that cost savings of this magnitude would be most difficult to achieve, especially as such measures will have negative effects on yields. The prospects for large-scale substitution of soybean by pigeonpea in animal feeds are therefore not good. The prospects for substitution in remote rural areas, using locally produced pigeonpea, appear to be greater.

2. Exports for human consumption

For the export of pigeonpea seed to India, a farm gate price of around US$ 200/t in Thailand is indicated (see earlier section). The additional costs of handling and transport from the outer islands of Indonesia appear to preclude exports from these areas.

Farmers in Thailand receive approximately 6 Bht/kg for soybeans (US$ 215/t). Thus, this market may be a viable one, provided that production costs can be reduced to 10% below soybean costs. It is not known if this is feasible, but it clearly has a far greater chance of success than does large-scale entry into the animal feed market.

3. Fermented products

Evidence suggests that pigeonpea can substitute directly for soybean in the manufacture of tempe in Indonesia with little or no loss of quality. In the long run, a large market may be available for pigeonpea which does not require any reduction in production costs to be competitive with soybean. As discussed in earlier sections, the availability of pigeonpea at reduced prices will initially be required to trigger its acceptance by manufacturers. This market shows the greatest potential in Indonesia, and it is suggested that further research and investigation of consumer acceptance of these products should be undertaken.

Blank page _____________

Page blanche

47

7 Potential for Pigeonpea in Burma Introduction

The purpose of this study was to make an initial assessment of the production, utilization and potential of pigeonpea in the Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma.

Burma is a traditional producer of pigeonpea and thus has different requirements for research than Thailand or Indonesia where the crop is of minor importance. These differences will be pointed out as necessary.

Overview of agriculture in Burma Location and environment

The environment in Burma is dominated by the southwest monsoon. The wet period is normally between May and October with the peak activity in July and August. The annual rainfall and temperatures in the country are provided in Figure 7.1

Two major regions are recognized in the country: upper and lower Burma. Lower Burma is dominated by the delta of the Irrawaddy River and is the major area (70%) for production of rice. This region is tropical in nature, with higher temperatures and high annual rainfall.

Upper Burma is cooler and contains an area known as the central dry zone which is the major area of pigeonpea production.

Crop production

The area of major crops in Burma is given in Table 7.1. Rice is the major crop (approximately 14 million tonnes in 1986) covering an area of 5 million ha. Irrigation of rice is not practised although 18% of the rice area is provided with irrigation for subsequent crops such as cotton and sesame. High-yielding varieties of rice developed in recent decades occupy approximately 50% of the total area. The introduction of these varieties has had considerable impact in Burma (Khin Win and Price 1980). Burma produces a domestic excess of rice, and exports approximately 2 million tonnes per annum. Quality problems and low world prices mean that this export is often sold at or below cost of production.

The next most important group of crops in Burmese agriculture is oilseeds for the production of edible oil. Major crops are peanut, sesame and sunflower (Table 7.2). These crops receive high priority, as edible oil is a major component of the Burmese diet. Extraction plants and recovery of oil are relatively inefficient. Several large projects (USAID, JICA) are currently involved in the improvement of cilseed crops and extraction technology. Soybean is considered a minor crop in Burma currently, due to lack of appropriate extraction technology and local taste preferences. The potential for development of soybean as an oil crop is worthy of further research.

Figure 7.1 Temperature and precipitation in Burma.

Average temperature

July

January

25°C

18°C

21 °C

20°C

2 4 °C

26°C

15°C< 1,000mm

1,000 — 1,500

1,500 — 2,000

2,000 — 3,000

3,000 — 5,000

> 5,000mm

Annual Precipiation

0 300km

Table 7.1 Area and percentage area under various groups of crops, Burma 1979/1980. Crops Area ('000 ha) Percentage

(sown area) Cereals 5,606 59.4 Paddy 5,030 53.2 Wheat 83 0.8 Maize 232 2.4 Other cereals 361 2.7 Oil crops 1,594 16.9 Groundnut 486 5.1 Sesamum 1,038 11.0 Sunflower 34 0.3 Other 37 0.3 Peas and beans 697 7.3 Black mung 85 0.9 Burma white bean (butter beans) 66 0.7 Burma red bean (sallwii/pva) 64 0.6 Gram 114 1.2 Pigeonpea 55 0.5 Others 313 3.3

Industrial crops 490 5.1 Cotton 194 2.0 Jute 107 1.1 Sugar-cane 96 1.0 Rubber 82 0.8 Virginia tobacco 12 0.1 Food crops 296 3.1 Potato 12 0.1 Onions and garlic 30 0.3 Chilies 63 0.5 Vegetables 184 1.9 Spices 7 0.0 Plantation crops 368 3.8 Tea 53 0.5 Coffee 2 0.0 Coconut 23 0.2 Toddy palm 28 0.2 Fruit trees 163 1.7 Others 99 1.0 Miscellaneous 386 4.0

Total 9,438 100

As all of the oil crops are used for oil extraction, a considerable amount of

protein-rich cake is available within Burma. A small amount is exported and the remainder fed to livestock. Principally, the protein cake is fed to cattle mixed with chopped cereal residue. Intensive production of poultry and pigs is not well developed but may become important in the future.

Food legumes (non-oil crops) are also an important sector of Burmese agriculture. The area of the crops in this group is given in Table 7.3 and mapped on Figure 7.2. The major crop is chickpea although significant areas of lablab, lima bean, blackgram and pigeonpea are produced.

50 Potential for Pigeonpea in Burma

Table 7.2 Area distribution of oil crops in Burma 1981/1982.

Crop species Area (ha) % of total

oil crop area Erect groundnut (rain) 153,000 7.2 Erect groundnut (winter) 302,000 14.3 Spreading groundnut (rain) 143,000 6.8 Sesame 1,370,000 64.7 Sunflower 104,000 4.9 Mustard 15.000 0.7 Others 30,000 1.4 Total 2,199,000 100.00

Soils Three soils are of agricultural importance: alluvial, black (vertisols) and red

laterites. The alluvial soils occupy approximately 50% of the crop area in the basins of the

major rivers. Rice production in the monsoon season is practised, with pre- and post-rice crops common although not universal.

Table 7.3 Area distribution of food legume crops in Burma, 1981/1982.

Crop species Area (ha)

% of total food legume

area Chickpea (Kalape) 215,500 25.2 Lablab bean (Pegyi) 83,500 9.8 Pigeonpea (Pesingone) 76,000 8.9 Lima bean (Hlawbutpe) 60,000 7 Blackgram (Matpe) 87,000 10.2 Lima bean (Sultapya) 50,000 5.8 Mungbean (Pedisein) 42,000 4.9 Mungbean (Penauk) 50,000 5.8 Pea (Sadawpea) 26,000 3 Soybean (Peboke) 28,000 3.3 Cowpea (Pelun) 26,000 3 Cowpea (Bocate) 31,000 3.6 Rice bean (Peyin) 12,000 1.4 Lima bean (Pegya) 6,000 0.7 Lima bean (Sultani) 6,000 0.7 Lentil (Peyaza) 1,900 0.2 Lima bean (Pebyugale) 1,300 0.2 Others 54,000 6.3

Total 855,000 100 Source: Settlement and Land Record Department.

The vertisols usually occupy 30% of the crop area in the lower rainfall area (500 mm to 1000 mm). Cropping patterns to utilize available irrigation and conserve moisture for dry season crop production are practised.

The red laterites occupy the remaining 20% of cropped lands and are generally found in the gently undulating uplands with rainfall between 1000 mm and 300 mm.

28

26

24

Lashio

22

20

Toungoo14

18

12

16

98

96 98 100

Mandalay

Myingyan

ThathonPaan

Laikaw

BURMA

Area Under Food Legumes 1973-76 Average (In Hectares)

Patarn

Akyab

Minbu

Myitkyina

400 ha

Pyinmana

Prome

Henzada

Figure 7.2 Area under food legumes in Burma, 1973 to 1976 average.

Area Reported 673,035 ha Area Mapped 518,000 ha

Tovey

Tenasserim

102

16

28 94 96 100

26

24

Shwebo '

22 Monywa

Sagaing

20,

TaunggyiMeiktila

Magwe

Yamethin

18Í

Thanawaddy

Rangoon

Pegu

Bassein

4000 ha

40.000 ha

9492

52 Potential for Pigeonpea in Burma

Research organizations within the Ministry of Agriculture The Agricultural Corporation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests has the

primary responsibility for agricultural research, development, production and extension. The management structure of the Agricultural Corporation is presented in Figure 7.3.

Research is conducted by two institutes of the Agricultural Corporation: the Agricultural Research Institute and the Applied Research Division.

The Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) is located at Yezin and its objectives are: 1. to intensify the research activities on crops of economic importance, and

2. to carry out research programmes to establish appropriate cropping systems for

different localities.

The Applied Research Division (ARD) has the following objectives:

1. to evolve improved crop varieties and to identify better crop management techniques for different agro-ecological zones,

2. to transfer improved technology to agriculturalists and farmers, and 3. to multiply and distribute quality seeds.

While these institutes appear to have similar objectives, they co-operate to improve productivity and production of major crops. ARI has national responsibility compared to the regional responsibilities of ARD. Closer collaboration between these two institutes is currently being fostered and a reorganization of the structure to unite them into a single body is in preparation.

Two recent reports to AIDAB (Britten 1984; Byth, Hughes and Zillman 1986) have reviewed the manpower and training status of ARI, ARD and other institutes in the Agricultural Corporation.

Training of local staff is considered to be of the highest priority in Burma Relatively few scientists in Burma have studied for higher degrees outside the country. This situation is changing due to the emphasis of the Government and the provision of training funds by international assistance programmes.

Training proposed includes both postgraduate study and short-term fellowships (3 to 6 months) at various international research centres (CIMMYT, IRRI, ICRISAT) on particular crops and disciplines.

Figure 7.3 Agricultural Corporation of the Ministry of Agriculture, management structure.

Managing Director

General Manager Plantation crops

General Manager Extension

General Manager Procurement planning and statistics

General Manager Administration

General Manager Research

General Manager Accounts

Deputy General Manager

Land useGeneral Manager

Export

4 Divisions2 Divisions4 Divisions4 Divisions4 Divisions3 Divisions6 Divisions6 Divisions

Planning, statistics and monitoring

Rubber estates development

and production

Oilpalm estates development

and production

Procurement and distribution

Administration and accounts

Research and training

Extensions

Cereal oil and other crops

Industrial crops

State farms

Crop development project

Plant protection

Procurement

Supply and distribution

Statistics and plans

Co-ordination

Administration

Supply

General

Research plans

Cetral farms

Training

Seed farms

Financial procedures

Budget

Treasury

Monthly accounts statements and

audit

Plans

Administration

Procurement (other agricultural

products)

Handling storage and movement

Shipping and Documentation

Marketing

7 Divisions

Foreign projects

Long-term planning,

co-ordinationShort-term

planning and monitoring

Evaluation of planning

Agro-Economic survey

Administration

Overseas training programme

13 Divisions

Agronomy

Botany

Rice

Fibre crop

Pulses and bean

Cereal crops

Sugar-cane

Oil crops

Vegetables and horticulture

Entomolgy

Plant pathology

Soil chemistry

Administration

General Manager Agricultural Research

Instituts Yezin

General Manager Project Manage

ment and Evaluation

Blank page _____________

Page blanche

55

8 Pigeonpea:Production,Productivity, Utilization and Returns in Burma

Introduction Pigeonpea is a major pulse crop in Burma. It was ranked third behind chickpea

and blackgram in 1985/1986, occupying 83,000 ha (Table 8.1). Before further consideration is given to food legumes, the role of oilseed crops

must be considered. These crops have extremely high value and are in demand as a source of vegetable oil for cooking. Important oilseeds are peanut, sesame and sunflower. The oilseeds as a group are the most important agricultural product after rice.

Soybean is considered a pulse crop, not an oilseed. It is consumed as a roasted confectionary in place of peanut, or in fermented products. Almost all peanuts are used for oil extraction. This situation is apparently due to several factors including a taste preference for peanut oil and the lack of suitable extraction plants for soybean. It is most likely that soybean will become an important oilcrop in the future as extraction technology is improved. This change will undoubtedly provide an interesting study on adoption by farmers, and on sociological aspects of a change in diet.

Production and productivity of pulses in Burma Pulse crops are important in Burma. Chickpea is the most favoured of those

currently grown. It is normally consumed as whole seed or in the dry split dhal form. Pigeonpea is used a substitute for chickpea by poorer consumers and on a wider scale when chickpea is in short supply. Pigeonpea is also exported. The area, production and productivity of the major pulses in Burma are given in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1 Area, production and productivity of major pulses in Burma, 1985/1986.

Area sown (ha)

Area harvested

(ha) Average yield

(ha) Production

(t) Chickpea 272,000 253,000 954 241,000 Blackgram 102,000 93,000 970 95,000 Pigeonpea 83,000 77,000 668 52,000 Butterbean 76,000 71,000 1,317 93,000 Mungbean 63,000 53,000 577 31,000 Cowpea 31,000 30,000 808 23,000 Soybean 29,000 27,000 808 22,000

Source: ARI unpublished

Clearly pigeonpea is a major pulse crop in Burma. It is, however, of less importance than chickpea as a source of food.

The production of pigeonpea in the various regions of Burma is summarized in

56 Pigeonpea: Production, Productivity, Utilization and Returns in Burma

Table 8.2. It is clear that the production is centred on the central dry zone in upper Burma. This area receives less than 1000 mm rainfall per annum and can be considered a semi-arid environment. The rainfall in this area begins in May/June with a dry spell in July and reaches a peak in the August/September period.

Table 8.2 Area, production and productivity of pigeonpea by state or division, 1985/1986.

Area sown

(ha) Area harvested

(ha) Average yield (ha)

Production (t)

Mandalay Division

43,000 41,000 727 30,000

Sagaing division 26,000 25,000 606 15,000 Magwe division 13,000 11,000 583 9,000 Chin state 120 117 575 67 Pegu division 34 34 551 19 Kachin state 4 4 486 2 Source: ARI unpublished

The regional distribution of chickpea production is presented in Table 8.3. Again, most production occurs in upper Burma. Commonly chickpea is sown after rainfed paddy rice in the northern regions.

Table 8.3 Area, production and productivity of chickpea by state or division, 1985/1986.

Area sown

(ha) Area harvested

(ha) Average yield (ha)

Production (t)

Sagaing division 99,000 92,000 970 89,000 Mandalay division 60,000 55,000 947 52,000 Pegu division 49,000 45,000 970 44,000 Magwe division 34,000 32,000 808 26,000 Irrawady division 25,000 24,000 970 23,000 Rangoon division 3,000 3,000 970 3,000 Shan state 2,000 2,000 928 2,000 Kaya state 7 7 696 5 Source: ARI unpublished

Utilization of pulses in Burma All pulse crops are either consumed locally as part of human diets or are exported

for food. Chickpea is the preferred pulse. It is consumed in many forms including whole

dry seed, dry split seed and as a flour used in cooking. This multiplicity of uses is seen as a major advantage for chickpea.

Pigeonpea on the other hand has a more limited number of traditional uses. The major use is as the dry split seed (dhal). It is preferred by some sections of the Burmese population to chickpea. These sections include those of Nepalese and Indian descent. The dhal is made into the traditional Indian curry and consumed with rice.

Other important uses of the pigeonpea plant in Burma are as a source of fuel for domestic purposes (stems after harvest) and as a source of animal feed after harvest. No information was available on the income derived from these sources.

Both the leaves and the pod walls are fed to animals. The extent and importance of this is unknown. In general, animals, both cattle and buffaloes, are fed a diet of

Pigeonpea: Production, Productivity, Utilization and Returns in Burma 57

chopped rice straw plus a protein source in the dry season. The major protein sources available are derived from the meals produced as a by-product from the oilseed mills: peanut, sesame and sunflower meals. The role that pigeonpea plays in this system is unknown but considered to be minor.

Thus the major use of pigeonpea in Burma is as locally consumed food for the human population. It is also an export crop. The average exports for the 1985/1986 year and the prices received for other major pulse crops is presented in Table 8.4. From this data it is clear that pigeonpea is an important export commodity (approximately 11,000 t/year). In discussions with the Myanmar Export Import Corporation (MEIC), it was learnt that the majority of these exports were directly to India or to Singapore for transhipment to other destinations. Table 8.4 Exports of major pulse crops from Burma.

Average for perioda

1981 to 1986 1985/1986b

Price

(US$/t f.o.b.) Chickpea 46,000 - Blackgram 41,000 60,000 300 Pigeonpea 11,000 10,000 330 Butterbean 11,000 15 Mungbean 2,000 4,000 Cowpea 1,000 -

Source: aARI unpublished

b Myanma Export Import Corporation personal communication

The current price received for whole pigeonpea seed is approximately US$ 330/t f.o.b. Freight costs from Rangoon to Calcutta and Bombay were US$ 30 and US$ 45/t, respectively, in bagged form.

Exports have declined in recent years. The maximum levels were of the order of 30,000 t/year in the early 1980s and have decreased since. This decrease was due to an increase in local consumption (Myanma Export Import Corporation personal communication). The high figure reported here is not reflected in Table 8.4 for unknown reasons.

The price received for export pigeonpeas has also fallen dramatically in the last decade. Prices of US$ 700/t were common. In the same period a shift from sale of dhal to whole seed has also occurred and it is now uneconomic to produce dhal in Burma for export. Consequently, all exports are now of whole seed.

MEIC staff indicated that they have little problem selling pigeonpea internationally. Demand exceeds supply and they estimated that if sufficient seed was available at least 50,000 t/year could be sold at the current US$ 330/t. This would provide for expansion of local production to at least 40,000 t/year; that is almost a doubling in current production.

No quality problems have been experienced in selling the locally produced product. This is likely to be associated with the relatively large seeded (12 g/100 to 14 g/100) types that have been grown traditionally. This seed size is highly preferred on the Indian market and it is strongly recommended that any increased productivity in Burma should be of similar sized seed to avoid a discounting of the price.

It is interesting to note the shift to sale of whole seed rather than dhal. As has already been noted, the price for wholesale dhal in India is 1.36 times that of whole


seed. More efficient dhal production in Burma could capitalize on this value-added product and also reduce freight costs.

No data was available on the extent of the animal feed industry in Burma. It is clear that no major industries currently exist in which compound rations are fed to poultry or pigs. Presumably, this indicates that the feed industry is in its infancy. No animal feeds are imported into Burma. The by-products of the oilseed industry are the major source of supplements to livestock, and unlike other countries of Southeast Asia, this does not include soybean.

It follows that in Burma, unlike Thailand and Indonesia, pigeonpea has no role in replacing soybean as a source in either animal or human diets. This situation may change in the future but will not be considered further in this report.

Economics of production of pulse crops In the short time available for this survey it was not possible to collect much data

on the economics of production of these crops. The data that was collected are presented in Table 8.5.

Table 8.5 Farm price, cost of production and net return of major pulse crops in Burma, 1985/1986.

Farm gate price

(US$/t) Cost of production

(US$/t) Net return (US$/ha)

Chickpea 542 127 312 Blackgram 238 119 94 Pigeonpea 164 76 22 Butterbean 143 154 2 Mungbean 347 138 53 Cowpea 274 138 83

From these data, it is concluded that chickpea is the major crop and wherever

possible farmers will concentrate on increasing its productivity and production. Of the other crops, blackgram (also a major export crop) is important and

pigeonpea moderately so. It is interesting to note the marked discrepancy between the farm gate price (US$ 164/t) and the export price (US$ 330/t). The reasons for this are unknown. If the export price could be reflected in the farm gate price, then a considerable increase in the net return to the farmer could be expected. The other factor of interest is the relatively low cost of production for pigeonpea compared with the other pulse crops, which reflects the relatively low inputs of pesticides and fertilizers.

The net incomes referred to in Table 8.5 do not include the value of the fuel and fodder produced from pigeonpea.

No details are available as to the methods of calculation used in determining these figures. Further research would be required to determine their predictive value for planning purposes.

The Government of Burma has taken steps to improve the productivity of various crops, including pulses, by nominating particular townships for high yield programmes with subsidized inputs. Yield levels in these conditions have improved with the use of improved cultivars, fertilizer and pesticide inputs. In the case of pigeonpea the net


return to the farmer has tripled from US$ 22 to US$ 66/ha. Increases of a similar magnitude have been recorded in other crops.

This data indicates that higher returns are possible and this is encouraging for the potential future production of pigeonpea.

Production systems for pigeonpea in Burma Traditional production systems

As in most production areas of the world, most pigeonpea in Burma is grown on marginal lands. Production is concentrated in the central dry zone on the poorer classes of soil. Clearly it is grown in these areas because it is one of the few crops able to produce a consistent yield in most seasons. This phenomenon is not restricted to Burma.

Pigeonpea is traditionally grown in Burma as an intercrop. The most common intercrop is aboreal cotton and, unlike many other areas of the world, the cotton crop is of longer duration than the locally used pigeonpea cultivars.

Local cultivars are relatively large-seeded (12 g to 14 g/100 seeds) and often take 200 days to mature. The crop is normally sown in June and harvested in January/February. A short season crop, such as sesame, may also be sown with the cotton and pigeonpea. These systems occupy more than 75% of the pigeonpea area. Many other intercrops are used including maize, sorghum and sunflower.

In these production systems the major limitation to yield is lack of assured moisture due to the low and erratic rainfall, poor water holding capacity of the soil, and the relatively long duration of the crop.

Currently, the crop is little damaged by pests or disease in Burma. Damage by insects (notably Maruca, Heliothis and an unidentified pod fly, probably Melenagromyza) is recorded but not considered a major limitation to productivity in traditional farming systems, probably because of the dry conditions experienced at flowering and during pod development.

Diseases are present, notably Fusarium wilt and seedling pathogens (probably Pythium and others). These are not considered to cause major losses although seedling deaths cause low plant populations which are reflected in low yield. This situation is compounded by the poor quality of seed, largely due to Bruchid damage.

The local cultivars have either been available as landrace varieties for a long period of time or are the result of systematic introduction and evaluation since the early 1970s (Rajan 1978). Two or three varieties have been released but figures for the area under cultivation are not available.

As for all pigeonpea improvement programmes, the maintenance of pure seed of released varieties is a major problem because of the relatively high outcrossing within the genus. Pure seed schemes are currently being implemented on a small-scale in Burma to improve the purity of released cultivars.

Seventy-five percent of the pigeonpea area is sown in intercrop situations, and the remainder is sown as sole crop. In these situations the crop is sown in August/September following a sesame crop. Cultivars used are of approximately 285 day duration and on the most marginal areas where even aboreal cotton is not able to survive.


Alternative production systems

Although the traditional production systems have confined pigeonpea to the marginal areas, alternative systems are feasible.

Clearly, it is difficult to make major improvements to productivity in the marginal environments. Improvements must be made without the need to provide inputs that will reduce net returns. The most likely avenues for advance will be the introduction and release of cultivars resistant to insect and disease attack, and improved crop establishment.

These improvements are being implemented and will provide a valuable increase in production and productivity.

Further gains in these relatively marginal zones could be made by later planting (August/September) in monocrop situations. Research has identified some suitable cultivars and is currently centred on the medium maturity (after 200 days) group. Some research into early cultivars in these situations is in progress, and more is warranted.

Other potential production systems are possible in Burma. One of the most interesting is production in lower Burma (Delta region) after the harvest of rice. Currently little use is made of this land in the dry season as irrigation is not available. The lower Burma region is too hot for chickpea production but could be suitable for pigeonpea. This production system would be similar to that practised in parts of India (Bihar) at higher latitudes, it was suggested by Rajan in 1978 but has yet to be evaluated. Other crops are also being considered in this region, with peanut already widely grown.

It was not possible to visit the Delta region during this assignment, and as a result only sketchy details can be provided of the environment. Although no irrigation is available in the region, the soils are freely drained and the water table is relatively shallow. This would appear to be an area of considerable potential. It is likely that the early maturing cultivars will be best adapted to this system although testing of later material would also be appropriate.

A further advantage of this system is the provision of forage for livestock at a time of year when little feed is available. The total seed crop would be available for export as no traditional consumers live in the area.

A limited potential exists for the expansion of pigeonpea utilization as a green vegetable, and as a substitute for soybean in fermented products.

Research on pigeonpea in Burma As discussed in Chapter 7 the Government of Burma has an active role in

supporting research into food legumes in Burma. The primary focus of this activity is through the Food Legume Division of the

Agricultural Research Institute, although the Applied Research Division also conducts some research on a regional basis.

The following priorities are given to various food legume crops by the ARI: First priority crops: blackgram (in order of priority) chickpea

pigeonpea lima bean


Second priority crops: cowpea coloured lima bean soybean winged bean field pea

These priorities are assigned as a result of both the domestic and export potential

of the crops. Several international agencies (FAO/UNDP, USAID, Burma/IRRI) are providing

limited support to pigeonpea improvement. This support is generally a minor component of a larger project aimed at a wide range of crops or in institution-building and the supply of field and laboratory equipment. There is no single project currently directed solely at pigeonpea. ICRISAT, however, has recently received Asian Development Bank assistance to further implement its Asian Grain Legumes Network (AGLN) in Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Burma. The details of this programme are not yet available but this support will assist in germplasm exchange, short-term training visits by ICRISAT staff, supply of small items of equipment and some support for joint research.

This connection with the ICRISAT/AGLN will constitute a substantial boost to the support for pigeonpea production in Burma, and should be fostered by other agencies.

The most outstanding problem in the research structure at present is a lack of scientists trained at postgraduate level. A number of projects are currently addressing this problem as a matter of urgency. However the small number of staff available for training and difficulties in arranging long-term absences have slowed the implementa-tion of these schemes. This is an area of major concern.

Recommendations for research on pigeonpea in Burma Following this brief survey the following recommendations for future research in

Burma on pigeonpea are made:

1. Identification of improved varieties resistant to the major diseases and pests in traditional production systems should receive highest priority.

2. Investigations aimed at ensuring establishment of adequate plant populations in

farmers' fields are required.

3. Evaluation of early-maturing, large-seeded cultivars is warranted in both traditional areas of production and in the delta area following rice.

4. Suitable agronomic practices should be identified for these short season types

including sowing date, plant density and arrangement and management practices appropriate to the inputs available.

5. The impact of changes in traditional and newly developed production systems on

adoption by farmers must be monitored to ensure that the impact is fully realized.


6. The collaboration between the Agricultural Corporation and ICRISAT's Asian Grain Legumes Network should be fostered and sources of additional support for this research and training sought.

7. Research on the potential markets available for export pigeonpea and the most appropriate product specification for particular markets should be conducted as soon as possible.

8. Systematic germplasm collections of landrace varieties of pigeonpea should be carried out before they are eroded and lost by the introduction and use of improved varieties.

63

Appendix

Persons Contacted Indonesia

CGPRT Centre, Bogor

Mr. S. Okabe, Director Ir. T. Bottema, Agricultural Economist Dr. I. Soejono, Agricultural Economist Dr. F. Dauphin, Agronomist Ir. G. Gijsbers, Agricultural Economist

Central Research Institute for Food Crops, Bogor

Dr. Sumarno, Soybean Breeder Mr. Sadikin, Peanut Breeder Mr. Irsal Las, Agroclimatologist Mr. Istiqlal, Soil Scientist Ir. Wargiono, Agronomist

Centre for Agricultural Economic Research

Dr. Faisal Kasryno, Director

Foodmillers

Drs. D. Rebo, P.T. Hirema Drs. K. Hazen, CP, Indonesia

BULOG

Mr. Chrisman Silitonga

KOPTI

Tempe Producers Association

Miscellaneous

Dr. G. Bouwman, Research Institute for Animal Production, Ciawi Ir. H. Bronckhorst, Department of Livestock Dr. J.L. McIntosh, IRRI Dr. D. Farrell, ADAB Mr. Arif, INKUD Mr. Sihombing, Director of Food Crop Production Mrs. S. Soebroto, Director, Directorate of Program Development Drs. Hardiyanto, Department of Co-operatives Dr. Sjarifuddin, Director of SURIF (Sukarami Research Institute for Food Crops)

64 Appendix

Thailand

ESCAP Secretariat

Mr. S.K. Kim, Senior Economic Affairs Officer Mr. Vudhithep, Technical Co-operative Division

Office of Agricultural Economics

Dr. Supote Dechates, Director

Division of Agricultural Economics Research

Mr. Pinit Kulamongkon, Chief, Legume and Oilseed Branch Mr. Kasem, Agro-Industry Branch Mr. Sakol Ouraikul, Livestock Products Branch Mrs. Kajanwan Itharattana, Chief, Macro-modelling Branch Miss Poojduan, Soybean Economist Mr. Supat Vitalphong, Legume and Oilseed Branch Miss Orawan, Chief, Root and Fibre Crops Branch

Department of Agriculture

Dr. Arwooth Na Lampung, Crop Specialist Mr. Nark Potan, Oilseeds Programme Leader Mr. Pisit Sepswadi, Entomologist Mrs. Paichit Chandrawong, Agricultural Chemistry

Department of Livestock Development

Mr. Panudej Sudasna, Director, Animal Nutrition Division Mr. Chanchai Manidool, Pasture Agronomist Mr. Ukol Limpoka, Feed Quality Control Division

Department of Land Development

Dr. Pisoot Vijarnsorn, Soil Scientist Mr. Aporn Promprasit, Soil Survey and Classification Division

Private Industries

Mr. P.L. Thomson, General Manager, Pacific Seeds (Thailand) Mr. Satit Manomaiudom, Manager, Feed Technology Department Laemthong Corporation Ltd., Vanit Building, 1121/1 New Petchburi Rd., Bangkok 10400

Mr. Kamchai lamsuri, Chairman, Kamol Kij Co. Ltd., 293/23-26 Surawongse Road, Bangkok 10500

Thai Castor Oil Industries Co. Ltd., Orakarn Building,

Appendix 65

26/42 Chidlon Road, Ploenchit, Bangkok 10500 Mr. Kangwan Tantiponganant, Managing Director Mr. Tavorn Tantiponganant, General Manager Mr. Tartree Sittajarnpong, Marketing Manager Mr. S. Supote, Feed Manager, Betagro

Bangkok Produce Merchandising Co. Ltd., United Finance Building, Siam Square, Phayatheii Road, Bangkok 10500

Mr. Somchai Kungsamutr, Manager, Trading Division, Oilseed Department Mr. Sumeth, Fish Meal Department Mr. Pravit Sribanditmongkol, Grain Division C.P. Intertrade Co. Ltd., United Finance Building, Siam Square, Phayatheii Road, Bangkok 10500

Dr. R.B. Singh, FAO Representative, FAO Regional Office, Bangkok

Burma

Agriculture Corporation

Dr. Myint Them, General Manager (Planning) Dr. Tun Saing, General Manager, Agricultural Research Institute

U Khin Mg Tint, General Manager, Administration U Hla Than, Deputy General Manager (Planning) Daw Trillion Hmon, Assistant General Manager U Thein Han, Assistant General Manager, Agricultural Research Institute, Head, Food Legumes Division

U Ko Latt, IRRI Liaison Officer

Myanma Export Import Corporation (MEIC)

U Khin Myint, Advisor U Thaung Sein, Deputy General Manager, Export Division U Ko Ko Gyi, Assistant General Manager

66 Appendix

UNDP

Mr. Cornelius Klein, Deputy Resident Representative Daw Than Nwe, Programme Officer U Myint Thar, Senior Administrative Assistant

FAO

Dr. T. Crowe, Acting Representative Dr. Amir Singh, Seed Project Dr. G.S. Sirochi, IARI, Delhi, Consultant on Dryland Farming Dr. W.J. Harten, Seed Processing Specialist/Team Leader Seed Development Project Phase II Dr. Hans-Benno Wech, Senior Research Management Specialist Seed Development Project Phase II

USAID

Earl J. Young, Head of Party Dr. D. Pickett, Agricultural Officer

Agricultural Research Institute, Yezin

U Hla Than, Deputy General Manager Head, Plant Pathology Division U Thien Han, Assistant General Manager, Head, Food Legumes Division U Htun Hlaing, Deputy General Manager, Sugar Crops U Saw Win Kyi, Deputy General Manager and Head Oil Crop Division Dr. R.K. Palis, Project Leader Burma-IRRI-CIDA Farming Systems Project U Tint Lwin, Agronomy Division

Oil Crop Division

U Myo Myunt, Plant Breeder (Sunflower) U Saw That Swe, Groundnut U Hla Kyauk, Sesame U Nyunt Lwin, Rape seed

Food Legumes Division

U Sein Hlaing, Chickpea U Saw Lucky Tun, Pigeonpea U Aung Shwe, Blackgram U Cho Win Hlaing, Chickpea U Thien Zaw, Cowpea Daw Khin Kpay Myint, Pigeonpea Daw Kyu Kyu Mar, Blackgram Daw Tin Tin, Pigeonpea (not present)

Appendix 67

Maize and Wheat Group

** U Toe Aung, Chairman Maize, Wheat and Sorghum Research and Development Working Group

** John Ba Maw, Assistant to U Toe Aung ** Dr. Christoph E. Mann, Wheat Breeder, CIMMYT, Thailand ** Dr. Wolfgang H. Pfeiffer, Wheat Breeder, CIMMYT, Mexico

Ye U Research Station, Pankon Farm

U Maw Kyi, Farm Manager U Khin Mg Latt, Inspector

Gwagon Seed Farm, Khin U Township

U Kyaw Ktwe, Farm Manager

Pyawbwe Seed Production Farm

U Sien Win, Junior Research Officer

Nyaung oo, ARI Substation (near Pagan)

U Nyund Hliang, Inspector Daw Mar Mar Chow Daw Myat Ngwe Ngwe Daw Tin Than

Myangyan, ARI Substation

U Yin Maung, Township Manager U Than Swen, Township Inspector Daw Khin Myint Kyi U Tin Ngwe

Zaloak Central Farm

U Kyi Kaung, Farm Manager Daw Nyaunt Nyaunt, Deputy Farm Manager

Kye Hmon Experiment Farm

U Kyi Han, Farm Manager

ICRISAT

* Dr. D.G. Faris, Co-ordinator, Asian Grain Legumes Network * Dr. S.C. Sethi, Chickpea Breeder

*Accompanied the author on trip. **Accompanied the author from Mandalay-Rangoon.

Blank page _____________

Page blanche

69

Glossary

BULOG Badan Urusan Logistik (Food Logisic Board) government body responsible for procurement, distribution and price stabilization of foodstuffs.

Dhal Mature dried seeds of legumes, cooked whole, split, broken or

ground in water with some spices to form a thick soup or sauce. Kecap A fermented sauce (condiment), sweet or savoury, made from

soybeans, (pronounced Ke'chap) Tauco A fermented Indonesian condiment made from split soybeans,

(pronounced Ta'oo-choh) Tempe A processed food made from fermented soybeans, important in the

Indonesian diet, (pronounced Tem'pay).

Blank page _____________

Page blanche

71

Bibliography

Akinola, J.O., C.J. Birch., P.C. Whiteman and E.S. Wallis. 1975. Grazing evaluation of pigeonpea. In Proceedings. Australian Conference on Tropical Pastures. Townsville.

Bint, J.S. and B.W. Norton. 1982. An evaluation of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.)

Millsp.) as a forage for grazing goats. goats. In Proceedings. Australian Society for Animal Production 14:471-474.

Britten, E.J. 1984. Agricultural tertiary education and research institutions in South

East Asia and the Pacific. Report to the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. unpublished.

Burma. Ministry of Agriculture and Forests. 1981. Notes on agriculture in Burma. Byth, D.E., J.D. Hughes and J.L. Zillman. 1986. A proposal for targeted training in

agricultural science for the South Pacific, Papua New Guinea, Burma and Thailand. Draft report of the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. unpublished.

Byth, D.E., E.S. Wallis and K.B. Saxena. 1981. Adaptation and breeding strategies for

pigeonpea. In Proceedings of the International Workshop (1980) on Pigeonpea 1:450-465. Patancheru (A.P.), India: ICRISAT.

Draper, E.I. 1944. Algaroba beans, pigeonpeas and processed garbage in the laying

mash. Progress Notes No. 44. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. Agricultural Experiment Station.

Falvey, J.L. and T. Visitpanich. 1979. Grain legume supplementation and growth

potential.Thai-Australian Highland Agricultural Project Report 4. _______. 1980. Nutrition of highland swine. Thai Journal of Agricultural Science 13:29-34. George, A. Susan and R. Elliott. 1987. Nutritional value of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan)

in poultry diets. Submitted to J. Animal Feed Science and Technology. Holm, H. and A. Krogdahl. 1982. Problems in predicting the inhibition of human

pancreas proteinases by soyabean proteinase inhibitors: in vitro assays employing human, bovine and porcine proteinases. J. Sci. Food Agric. 33:1164-1172.

Kanwar, J.S. 1981. Early maturing pigeonpea heading for a green revolution. International Pigeonpea Newsletter 1:6.

72 Bibliography

Khin Win, Nyi Nyi and Edwin C. Price. 1981. The impact of a special high-yielding rice program in Burma. IRRI Research Paper 58. Mink, S.D. 1984. Corn in the Indonesian livestock economy. BULOG-Stanford Corn Project. Working Paper 10.

Morton, J.F. 1976. The pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan Millsp.), a high protein tropical bush

legume. Horticultural Science 11:11-19. Na Lampang, A. 1985. Agronomic aspects of grain legume farming. In Tropical

legume improvement, edited by G.J. Persley. Proceedings of a Thailand/ ACIAR Planning and Coordination Workshop, Bangkok 10-12 October, 1983. ACIAR Proceedings 8.

Nwokolo, E. and U.I. Oji. 1985. Variation in metabolizable energy content of raw

autoclaved white and brown varieties of three tropical grain legumes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 13:141-146.

Oldeman, L.R. 1975. An agroclimatic map of Java. Contributions 17. Bogor: CRIFC. Oldeman, L.R., and D. Sjarifuddin. 1977. An agroclimatic map of Sulawesi.

Contributions 33. Bogor: CRIFC. Oldeman, L.R. L. Irsal and Muladi. 1980. The agroclimatic maps of Kalimantan,

Maluku, Irian Jaya, Bali, West and East Nusa Tenggara. Contributions 60. Bogor: CRIFC.

Parpia, H.A.B. 1981. Utilization - critique and synthesis. In Proceedings of the

International Workshop (1980) on Pigeonpeas. 1:484-486. Patancheru, (A.P.), India: ICRISAT.

Quirk, P. 1979. The comparative value of Cajanus cajan harvest trash as a feed for

goats, sheep and cattle. Australia: University of Queensland. Dept. of Agricultural Science.

Rajan, S.S. 1978. A food legume improvement programme for Burma. Final technical

report. UNDP/FAO Project BUR 72-003. ARI Publication 20. Sibarani, S. 1981. A study on tempe preparation using pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) by

traditional inoculum and analysis of its nutritive value. Master's thesis. Jakarta: University of Indonesia.

Sibbald, I.R. and S.J. Slinger. 1963. A biological essay for metabolized energy in

poultry feed ingredients together with findings which demonstrate some of the problems associated with the evaluation of fats. Poultry Science 42:313-325.

Singh, U. and B.O. Eggum. 1984. Factors affecting the protein quality of pigeonpea.

In Qualitative plant foods and human nutrition.


Singh, U. 1984. The inhibition of digestive enzymes by polyphenols of chickpea (Cicer

arietinum) and pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Nutrition Reporter International 29(3): 745-753.

Singh, U., K.C. Jain, R. Jambunathan and D.G. Faris. 1984. Nutritional quality of

vegetable pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan): dry matter accumulation, carbohydrates and proteins. Journal of Food Science. 49(3): 799-802.

Springhall, J., J.O. Akinola and P.C. Whiteman. 1974. Evaluation of pigeonpea seed

(Cajanus cajan) meal inchicken rations. In Proceedings of Australian Poultry Science Convention. Sydney, Australia.

United Nations. Food and Agriculture Organisation. 1982. Livestock development in

developing countries and implications for feed consumption and trade. CCP: ME 83/3.

________.1983. Changing patterns and trends in feed utilization. Economic and Social

Development Paper 37. Rome. ________.1984. Feed utilization patterns and implications for international trade in

grains. CCP: GR 84/4. Visitpanich, T., E.S. Batterham and B.W. Norton. 1985a. Nutritional value of

chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and pigeonpea meal (Cajanus cajan) for growing pigs and rats. I. Energy content and protein quality. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 36:327-335.

________.1985b. Nutritional value of chickpea (cicer arietinum) and pigeonpea meal

(Cajanus cajan) for growing pigs and rats. II Effect of autoclaving and alkali treatment. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 36:337-345.

Wallis, E.S., D.E. Byth, B.W. Norton and P.C. Whiteman. in press. Breeding

pigeonpea varieties for grain and fodder. In Proceedings of the IRRI Workshop (1985) on Varietal Improvement of Upland Crops for Rice-Based

Farming Systems. Pitsanuloke.

Wallis, E.S., D.E. Byth and P.C. Whiteman. 1981. Mechanized dry seed production of

pigeonpea. In Proceedings of the International Workshop (1980) on Pigeonpea 1:51-64. Parancheru. (A.P.), India: ICRISAT.

________.1979. Pigeonpea production systems in Australia. In Regional Workshop on

Grain Legumes. Trinidad. University of West Indies. Wallis, E.S., D.E. Byth, P.C. Whiteman and K.B. Saxena. 1983. Adaptation of

pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) to mechanized culture. In Proceedings of the Australian Plant Breeding Conference (Feb. 1983), Adelaide.

74 Bibliography

Whiteman, P.C. and B.W. Norton. 1981. Alternative uses for pigeonpea. In Proceedings of the International Workshop (1980) on Pigeonpeas 1:365-376. Patancheru, (A.P.), India: ICRISAT.

Wijnberg C. 1983. Grain yield and goat production from a grazed pigeonpea crop

(Cajanus cajan (L.). Millsp.). Master's thesis. University of Queensland, Australia.

Willey, R.W., M.R. Rao and M. Natarajan. 1981. Traditional cropping systems with

pigeonpea and their improvement. In Proceedings of the International Workshop (1980) on Pigeonpea l:l 1-25. Patancheru, (A.P.) India: ICRISAT.

ISBN 979-8059-11-5

Potential for Pigeonpea in Thailand Indonesia and Burma E.S ...

Documents

Transcript of Potential for Pigeonpea in Thailand Indonesia and Burma E.S ...