Tree Fodder in Subtropical Regions of Bhutan
Sangey Dorji and Tsering Gyaltsen
Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Govt; of Bhutan, Thimpu, Bhutan
Introduction
In many parts of Bhutan tree fodders are an important resource for feeding ruminant
livestock. It has been estimated that tree fodder contributes about 20% of fodder
requirements of existing livestock.
A survey carried out in 1982 revealed that a large variety of different tree species are used
for fodder. Species, their relative importance, and management practices vary with altitude,
availability of other fodder resources, land resources and prevalent land use practices. Tree
fodders are particularly important during dry winter months (December to March). The
importance of fodder trees declines at elevation above 2500 m.
Tree fodder extension activities were launched in 1982, when farmers were advised to plant
these fodder trees: Artocarpus lakoocha, Bauhinia variegata, Bauhinia purpurea, Litsea
polyantha, Ficus roxburghii, Ficus nemoralis, Brassaiopsis hainla, Saurauia nepaulensis,
Prunus cerasoides and Willow. As an incentive farmers were paid a modest amount of Nu.
2.0 for each tree planted. From 1982 onwards fodder trees have been an important
component of the fodder development program of the extension services under the Ministry
of Agriculture.
A survey was carried out in 1996 with the objective to:

Document the importance of tree fodders, species used, and the place of trees in the
cropping system.

Document farmers assessment on the quality and yield of individual tree species

Evaluate the impact of past extension activities on the extent of tree fodders used by
the farmers.

Assess the need for additional supply of tree saplings and species preferred
88
Materials and method
The survey was carried out jointly by the RNR-RCs (all four centres) and the district
extension staff in their respective districts. The districts included in the survey were
Punakha, Wangdue, Chukha, Trongsa, Zhemgang, Lhuntshi and Mongar. Information was
collected at the household level using a formal questionnaire. Information recorded included
livestock numbers; land use, tree fodder species, and issues related to planting and use of
tree fodder species. In each district the survey was carried out in 8-10 villages located in 1-3
blocks. Past activities in fodder tree extension were used as the main criteria for selecting
the particular village. All households in the selected villages were included in the survey.
Result and Discussion
Importance of tree fodder
Tree fodders are very important in all the districts covered by the interview (Table 1). They
are the most important source of winter-feed. The house holds reporting fodder tree use
were 100% for Chukha, Trongsa, and Mongar districts and 76,79,94 and 95% for Punakha,
Wangdue, Zhemgang and Lhuntshi districts respectively. Chukha is clearly outstanding
with higher number of trees per household. The number of trees owned by individual
households ranged from 1-1015. The households with the highest tree numbers are located
in Bich Saureni, Toribari, Bich Tala and Gurung Goan at an elevation ranging from 450 to
1400 m and reported 1015, 857,728, 430 and 386 tree per household respectively.
The species with large numbers are Thysanoleana maxima, Brassiopsis hainla, Ficus
roxburghii, Saurauja nepaulensis, and Ficus nemoralis. In general the importance of tree
fodder increases as elevation decreases.
Species used
The number of species reported was 28 in Chukha district and only 2 in Lhuntshi and
Mongar districts. Similarly the average number of species owned by individual
households was 5 for Chukha and <2 for all the other districts. The most important
species in all districts was Ficus roxburhgii followed by F. Cunia (Table 3). Ficus species
are the most preferred species because of quality, yield and availability of feed in dry
season.
Where are the Trees planted?
In all Districts the existing trees are mainly found near the houses, along fences or along the
boarder of crop land (Table 4). It is very common to see a few Ficus and other tree fodder
species planted near to the farmhouse. The expected new plantations are more likely to be
along cropland border and in separate fields.
89
Table 1: Sample size, livestock numbers, trees reported and households expecting
additional planting
District
Altitude
Range
Sample
(Noose
of hh)
Cattle
hh*with
(Nos/hh) trees
(nos)
Trees owned
(nos/hh)
Average
New planting
(hh)
Range
Punakha
1700-2400
254
5.3
194
5.3
1-94
242
Wangdue
1220-2000
248
10.3
196
6
1-56
238
Trongsa
800-4400
48
10
48
12
2-35
42
Chukha
320-1780
263
6.4
263
53
1-1015
212
Zhemgang
160-2000
54
6
51
17
1-70
54
Lhuntshi
2000-5000
21
18.1
20
8.1
2-22
21
Mongar
650-3700
18
12
18
11.8
2-40
18
* hh = Household
Source of planting material
There are two sources of planting material 1) collected from the forest, 2) the then Animal
Husbandry Department (RGOB) and some species are already existing. Most of the existing
trees were raised from planting materials collected by the farmers from the forest. In all the
districts, the planting material was 76% from forest, 23% AHD and 12% already existing. The
dependency on material supplied by AHD was highest in Wangdue and Punakha district that
corresponds with a high extension concentration in these districts.
Table 2: Tree species reported
District
Species per household (nos)
Average
Species per
district(nos)
Range
Punakha
1
1-3
14
Wangdue
2
1-6
5
Trongsa
2
1-4
4
Chukha
5
1-13
28
Zhemgang
2
1-5
10
90
Lhuntshi
2
1-3
2
Mongar
1
1-1
2
Table 3: Response to the question “Where are the trees planted”
Where planted?
Percent of respondents
Punakha
Wangdu Trongsa
e
Zhemgang
Chukha
Lhuntshi
Monga
r
Existing tree
Near the house
47.2
62
35.4
42.6
41.4
33.3
50
Along the fence
11.4
2.4
0
22.2
3.4
28.6
22.2
Border of cropland
6.7
8.5
56.3
20.4
43
52.4
27.8
Inside cropland
1.2
6
4.2
11
26.6
0
0
2
2
4.2
7.4
13
0
0
Near the house
37
38.3
16.7
7.4
13
42.9
11
Along the fence
18.5
21
0
35.2
2.7
4.8
27.8
Border of cropland
23.2
19.4
56.3
22.2
40.3
19
44.4
8
6
2
0
15.2
4.8
16.7
3.5
8.5
10.4
29.6
16
28.6
0
Separate field
New planting
Inside cropland
Separate field
Table 4: Source of planting material
District
Source of planting material
(% of households) *
Impact of AHD extension
Nos of trees per hh
Not
Planted
Present in
1997
Survival
(%)
Wild**
AHD
Distributed
from 82-96
From
AHD
Punakha
39
38
27
5.3
18
1.9
11
Wangdue
37
69
24
6
29
3.2
11
Trongsa
100
0
0
12
12
<0.5
<5
91
Chukha
89
24
27
53
9
9.0
100
Zhemgang
91
1
9
17
22
<0.5
<5
Lhuntshi
95
10
0
8.1
5
0.8
16
Mongar
83
17
0
11.8
12
2
17


The total is <100 because some households had planting Material from two
AHD and self)
** Mostly collected in the forest
sources (
Table 5: Yield estimate (in loads per tree)
Species
Household
Yield
(nos. Of
loads)*
Range
Standard
deviation
Ficus roxburghii
138
5
0.5-20
4.7
Ficus cunia
83
3
1-8
1.4
Saurauja nepalensis
37
2
0.5-5
1.2
Brassiopsis hainla
29
2
0.5-5
0.8
Ficus nemoralis
26
2
0.5-4
1
Artocarpus lakoocha
18
3
0.5-7
1.6
Khamari(local)
52
3
1-10
1.6
Litsea polyantha
27
3
0.5-7
1.6
Bauhinia purpurea
63
2
0.5-8
1.2
Stereospermum suaveotens
56
2
0.5-6
1.4
* one load is approximately 25 - 30 kgs.
Reference
2nd Annual National Livestock Co-ordination Workshop (Proceedings
1997) RNRRC, Jakar.
92