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