Date post: | 18-Dec-2014 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | ilri |
View: | 1,833 times |
Download: | 2 times |
1
Dual-Purpose Crop Development, Fodder Trading and Processing
Options for Improved FeedValue Chains
Blümmel M1., S.A.T Tarawali2, N. Teufel1 and I. A. Wright1
International Livestock Research Institute, India1 and Ethiopia2
Fifth All African Conference on Animal Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia October 25 – 28, 2010
2
Topics
Framework for collaborations in crop residuebased feed value chains
Fodder trading as feed back mechanism and entry
point for feed value chain improvement
Improving basal diets through multidimensional crop improvement on station and on farm
Optimizing diets, feed form, transport, trading and storage
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)
CR becoming more importantKahsay Berhe (2004) study in Yarer Mountain area
Cultivated land has doubled at the expense of pasture in 30 years
Switch in source of nutrition for livestock from grazing to CR
5
6
Sorghum stover trading in Hyderabad
7
Type and cost of sorghum stover traded monthly 2004-2005 in
Hyderabad, India 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
8
Relation between digestibility and price of sorghum stover
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“Raichur”
Low Cost Stover“Local Yellow”
Blümmel and Parthasarathy, 2006
9
Price variations in different sorghum stover traded concomitantly in
Mieso, Ethiopia, April 2007
StoverETB/kg
Trader
ETB/kg
Farm
Sweet Sorghum (SS) 0.65 0.20
“Grain” Sorghum (GS) 0.50 0.13
Price premium 30% 54%
Source: calculated from Gebremedhin et al. 2009
Note: In India SS stover have about 3-4 units higher digestibility than GS stover
10
Price: quality relation estimates in rice straw traded monthly in Kolkata from
2008 to 2009
Teufel et al. 2010 (less successful in establishing price: quality relations in wheat straw trading)
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
Key findings from crop residue fodder trading
High monetary value of crop residues, ratio grain: crop residue monetary value getting narrower
Quality difference between residues from different crops and from residues within different cultivars reflected in costs
Apparently “small” differences in fodder quality can command surprisingly high price premiums
12
Dual-purpose crop development - exploiting
existing variation, targeted further improvement
13
Stover digestibility and grain yield in new sorghum cultivars release-tested in
India between 2002 and 2008
34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 640
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Kharif: y = 1473 + 44.2x; r = 0.17; P=0.05Rabi: y = 9208 -132x; r = -0.47; P < 0.0001
Stover in vitro organic digestibility (%)
Gra
in y
ield
(kg
/ha)
Blümmel et al. 2010
14
Stover digestibility and stover yield in new sorghum cultivars release-tested in India
between 2002 and 2008
34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 640
3000
6000
9000
12000
15000
18000
21000
24000
27000
30000Kharif: y = -5466 + 373x; P < 0.0001; r=0.39
Rabi: y = -2775 + 165x; P < 0.0001; r=0.28
Stover in vitro organic digestibility (%)
Sto
ver
yiel
d (
kg/h
a)
Blümmel et al. 2010
15
Stover yields and grain yields in new sorghum cultivars release-tested in India between 2002 and 2007
0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 200000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Kharif: P=0.63Rabi: P=0.41
Fodder yield (kg/ha)
Gra
in y
ield
(kg
/ha)
16
Germplasm screening for dual-purpose traits of key crops
Cowpea: Substantial variations in food-feed traits, no apparent trade-offs (Grings et al 2010)
Lablab: Substantial variations in forage and fodder traits (Hanson et al 2010)
Groundnut: Substantial variations in food-feed traits, no apparent trade-offs (Nigam and Blümmel et al 2010).
Maize: Substantial variations in food-feed traits, variable trade-offs, yes when highly water stressed (Tadesse 2008, Zaidi et al 2010).
Rice straw: Substantial variations in food-feed traits, no apparent trade-offs (Blümmel et al 2007).
17
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
18
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
19
On farm advantage of improved food-feed sorghum cultivars over local cultivars in drought prone districts of Mahbubnagar
and Rangareddy, India
Cultivars Grain yield Stover yield Digestibility
Local 0.28 t/ha 1.58 t/ha 40%
Improved 0.78 t/ha 1.93 t/ha 45%
280 % 37% 12 %
Source: Gurava Reddy et al. 2005
20
Live weight gains in sheep fed exclusively on groundnut haulms
Groundnut cultivars Gain (g/d)ICGV 89104 137
ICGV 9114 123
TMV 2 111
ICGS 76 76
ICGS 11 76
DRG 12 66
ICGS 44 65
ICGV 86325 83
ICGV 92020 95
ICGV 92093 109
Prob > F 0.02
Prasad et al. 2010
21
Comparisons of on farms advantage of improved dual purpose groundnut
and traditional cultivar in 3
villages of Anantapur Cultivars Pod yield Haulm yield Milk yield
TMV2 2.24 t/ha 2.64 t/ha 3.92 kg/d
ICGV 91114 2.57 t/ha 3.08 t/ha 4.36 kg/d
15 % 17 % 10 %
High adoption incentive through moderate but accumulating advantages
22
Key findings from multidimensional crop
improvement Significant genotypic livestock nutritionally important
variation available among existing cultivars
Less trade offs between grain and crop residue quantity and quality than intuition suggests
Short and medium term impact through phenotyping for exploitable variations in existing cultivars for example in new cultivars release procedures
Promising potential longer term impact through targeted genetic enhancement (conventional and MAS) towards dual-purpose traits
23
Importance of basal diet quality, processing,
densification, fortification
24
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
25
Comparisons of high and low quality sorghum stover based feed blocks
in commercial dairy buffalo
Block High Block Low
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 Potential 16.6 kg/d 11.8 kg/d
Anandan et al. (2009a)
26
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
Anandan et al. (2009b)
27
Key findings from fortification and densification work
Quite respectable levels of livestock productivity possible on almost completely by-product based rations
No processing solution feeds fit all feeding situations
Economy driving, optimizing strategies required
More emphasis needed on decentralized processing options
28
Conclusions Scarcity of natural resources, particularly
land and water will likely further increase the importance of crop residues in the coming decade
Collaborations between livestock and crop scientists within a wider “actor” value chain framework can improve utilization of crop residues for feeding (and beyond)
29
Thank you for your attention
Acknowledgement: The inputs and suggestions of Alan Duncan,Bruno Gerard and Andre Van Rooyen for this presentation areappreciated