Upload
ilri
View
1.682
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Invited lead paper presented by M. Blümmel, S.A. Tarawali, N. Teufel and I.A. Wright at the International Dairy Conference 2010 held at Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh, April 3-4, 2010
Citation preview
1
Dual-purpose crop developments, fodder trading and feed processing options for improving feeding in small holder dairy
systemsM. Blümmel1, S. A. Tarawali2 , N. Teufel and I. A. Wright3
1International Livestock Research Institute, c/o ICRISAT, Patancheru 502324, AP, India2International Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
3International Livestock Research Institute, National Agricultural Science Centre, New Delhi 110012, India
Invited lead paper presented at the International Dairy Conference 2010 Bangladesh Agricultural University
Mymensingh, Bangladesh 3-4 April, 2010
22
Topics
Importance of crop residues as feed resource
• feed data base, crop residue trading, grain to crop residue value
Higher crop reside value through crop improvement
• available genetic variability, grain: residue relations, targeted further enhancement
Densification/fortification of by-product rations
• total mixed rations, feed blocks, pellets, mash, supplementation
3
Key feed sources in India: 2003 and 2020
Feed Resource %
Crop Residues
Planted fodder crops
2003 2020
44.2 69.0
34.1 ?
Greens (F/F/CPR/WL) 17.8 ?
Concentrates 3.9 7.3
(summarized from NIANP, 2005 and Ramachandra et al., 2007)
4
Sorghum stover trading in Hyderabad
5
Type and cost of sorghum stover
traded 2004-2005 Stover type Price IR / kg DM
Andhra 3.52b
Andhra Hybrid 3.15cd
Ballary Hybrid 3.54b
Raichur 3.89a
Rayalaseema 3.23c
Telangana (Local Y) 3.06d
Blümmel and Parthasarathy, 2006
66
Relation between price of sorghum stover and in vitro digestibility
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 552.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4.0
4.2y = -4.9 + 0.17x; R2 = 0.75; P = 0.03
Stover in vitro digestibility (%)
Sto
ver
pri
ce (
IR/k
g D
M)
Premium Stover
Low Cost Stover
Blümmel and Parthasarathy, 2006
7
Changes in grain: stover value in sorghum from 2004 to 2009
Blümmel et al 2010
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Ju Jul Aug Sep Oc Nov0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Sorghum grain
Sorghum stover
3.4
6.5
Month of trading
Ind
ian
Ru
pee
per
kg
Yearly mean
2004 to 2005
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Ju Jul Aug Sep Oc Nov0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Sorghum stoverSorghum grain
6.2
10.2
Yearly mean
2008 to 2009
Month of trading
Comparisions of average cost of dry sorghum stover traded in Hyderabad and average of cost ofsorghum grain in Andhra Pradesh 2005 to 2005 and 2008 to 2009
88
Stover digestibility and grain yield in sorghum cultivars release-tested between
2002 and 2007
35 38 41 44 47 50 53 56 59 620
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Kharif: y = 321 + 70x; r = 0.2; P = 0.04Rabi: y = 8176 - 115x; r = -0.55; P < 0.0001
Stover in vitro organic digestibility (%)
Gra
in y
ield
(kg
/ha)
Blümmel et al. (2009)
9
Stover digestibility and grain yield in sorghum cultivars release-tested between 2002
and 2007 and mean quality of traded stover
35 38 41 44 47 50 53 56 59 620
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000 Traded Kharifsorghum stovermean digestibility
Traded Rabisorghum stovermean digestibility
Stover in vitro digestibility (% )
Gra
in y
ield
(kg
/h
a)
10
Price: quality relation estimates in rice straw traded in Kolkata 2008 to 2009
Teufel et al. unpublished
37.0 37.5 38.0 38.5 39.0 39.5 40.0 40.5 41.0 41.5 42.02.75
3.00
3.25
3.50
3.75
4.00
4.25
Best (n=81)
Good (n=260)
Medium/low (n=273)
In vitro digestibility of rice straw (%)
Pri
ce o
f ri
ce s
traw
at
Ko
lkat
a tr
ader
sfr
om
200
8-20
09 (
Ind
ian
Ru
pee
s/kg
)
11
Ranges in rice straw in vitro digestibility in
437 cultivars from IRRI Type of Cultivars In vitro digestibility in %
Mean Range SEM
Aromatics (n=59) 41.4 34.8 - 45.2 0.03
Hybrids (n=53) 43.5 40.2 - 49.8 0.2
Indica (n=172) 41.3 36.6 - 45.8 0.11
NPT (92) 41.4 38.6 - 45.5 0.2
Varieties (n=61) 42.5 37.9 - 49.9 0.23
12
Straw in vitro organic matter digestibility and grain yield in 437 cultivars from IRRI
32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.50
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000AROMATICSHYBRIDSINDICANPTReleased varieties
y = 10 650 - 103.7x; r= - 0.19 P=<0.0001
Straw in vitro organic matter digestibility (%)
Gra
in y
ield
(kg
/ha)
13
Mean in vitro digestibility in rice straw traded in Kolkata relative to available variation in digestibility
32.5 35.0 37.5 40.0 42.5 45.0 47.5 50.0 52.50
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000AROMATICSHYBRIDSINDICANPTReleasedvarieties
Weighted mean digestibility inrice straw traded in Kolkata(Teufel et al, unpublished)
In vitro organic matter digestibility (%)
Gra
in y
ield
(k
g/h
a)
14
VariableMean
Range
Grain yield (kg/ha)
Stover yield (kg/ha)
Stover digestibility (%)
3561
3617
43.6
2719 to 4154 **
2783 to 5005 **
40.7 to 46.1 **
Variation in food-feed crop traits within 256 full-sib progenies of pearl millet
cultivar ICMV 221
Bidinger et al. (2006)
Experimental varieties :”dual purpose” and “grain” generated
Bidinger et al. 2006
15
Selection criterion Digestible Intake Grain yield
Original ICMV 221 29.2 g/kg LW.75 /d 3 110 kg/ha
Exp: Dual Purpose 221 31.5 “ 3 250 “
Exp: Grain 221 27.5 “ 3 110 “
Significance (P <) 0.0001 ns
Original and experimental pearl millet stover ICMV 221 tested with sheep
(2 selection cycles)
Bidinger et al. 2009
1616
Feed block manufacturing: supplementation, densification
Ingredients %
Sorghum stover 50
Bran/husks/hulls 18
Oilcakes 18
Molasses 8
Grains 4
Minerals, vitamins, urea 2
Courtesy: Miracle Fodder and Feeds PVT LTD
1717
Comparisons of premium and low cost sorghum stover based complete feed blocks in dairy buffalo
Block Premium Block Low Cost
CP 17.2 % 17.1%
ME (MJ/kg) 8.46 MJ/kg 7.37 MJ/kg
DMI 19.7 kg/d 18.0 kg/d
DMI per kg LW 3.6 % 3.3 %
Milk 7.9 kg/d 7.0 kg/d
Milk Potential 16.6 kg/d 11.8 kg/d
Anandan et al. (2009a)
1818
Supplementation and processing of sweet sorghum bagasse and
response in sheep
Mash Pellets Block
Control
Chaffed SSBRL
Concentrate
DMI (g/kg LW) 52.5 a 55.6 a 42.1 b 41.5 b
ADG (g / d) 132.7 a 130.4 a 89.5 b 81.3 b
Processing ($/t) 5.9 7.0 5.2 1.7
Transport ($/t/100km) 6.6 5.8 5.2 13.5
Feed cost ($/kg LW gain) 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.6
Anandan et al. (2009b)
19
Conclusions
Substantial genetic variability exist among cultivar for crop residue fodder traits
Collaborations between crop and livestock scientists and economists required for exploiting these variations
Fodder market promising entry points for fodder value chains
Well-designed supplementation strategies and feed processing allow acceptable production levels from almost entirely by-product based diets