WELCOME

Agroforestry Based Forage Production Systems for Hills

Speaker : Sunil Kumar(A-2012-40-004)

INTRODUCTION

The hilly region of India is presently under heavy stress on account of a

large scale exploitation for fuel wood, timber and fodder,

mismanagement of forest resources and frequent fires.

There is acute shortage of fodder especially green nutritious fodder,

which is the major cause of low productivity of the livestock, especially

in hilly area.

The main reasons for low productivity is insufficient and low quality

fodder and feed including grazing facilities.

Present status of fodder resources

Low yield of cultivated fodders – (rainfed cultivation; low priority crops

of farmers).

Pastures and grazing lands

– Over grazing and continuous grazing

– Short growing season of grasses

– Absence of legumes

– Low production potential of native species

– Dominance of weeds and unproductive grasses

Weak seed production programme.

Wide gap between demand and supply of fodder.

States Forests Pastures & grazing lands

Net area sown

Arunachal Pradesh 5154 18 212

Assam 1853 160 2811

Himachal Pradesh 1103 1500 542

Jammu & Kashmir 2023 120 735

Manipur 1742 1 233

Meghalaya 946 .. 283

Mizoram 1585 5 123

Sikkim 584 .. 77

Uttarakhand 3485 198 741

GOI 2013

Major land use pattern in the hills (‘000 ha)

Livestock population

Species India (million) HP (million)

Cattle 199.07 2.23

Buffalo 105.34 0.76

Sheep 71.56 0.90

Goat 140.54 1.24

Horses, Camels, Pigs, Mules and Donkeys

18.14 0.04

Total 530 5.17

Livestock Census 2007

Demand and Availability of Fodder in India and HP (million tonnes)

Feed Demand Supply GAP % GAP

India

Dry Fodder 416 253 163 40 %

Green Fodder 222 143 79 36 %

Himachal Pradesh

Dry Fodder 4.60 2.30 2.30 50 %

Green Fodder 2.45 1.98 0.47 20 %

Anonymous 2011

YearSupply Demand

Deficit as % of demand

Green Dry Green Dry Green Dry

1995 379 421 947 526 60 20

2000 384 428 988 549 61 22

2005 389 443 1025 569 62 22

2010 395 451 1061 589 63 23

2015 400 466 1097 609 63 23

2020 405 473 1134 630 64 25

2025 411 488 1170 650 65 25

IGFRI 2011

Supply and demand scenario of forage and roughage till 2030 in India (million tonnes)

SilvopastureAlley cropping

Windbreaks

Forest farming

Agroforestry

Agroforestry is indeed the best land management system, which brings

harmony between forestry and agriculture for meeting the rural requirements

of timber, food, fuel, fodder etc. without disturbing the ecosystem.

Landscape

Environmental

Climate change mitigation

Increased production

Economic

Social

Animal Welfare

Protect soil and water resources

Conserve energy

Sustainability

Benefits of Agroforestry Systems

Characteristics of tree species for agroforestry

Sparse branching

Tolerance to side shading

Nutrient addition to soil

Ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen

Nutritive and palatable fodder

Optimum light penetration to ground

Absence of competition at root zone level

Self pruning or capacity to withstand heavy pruning

Production of fodder/timber/firewood/green manure on sustained basis

Agroforestry key traits

Intentional: Combinations of trees, crops or animals are intentionally

designed and managed as a whole unit, rather than as individual

elements that may occur in close proximity but are controlled separately.

Intensive: Agroforestry practices are intensively managed to maintain

their productive and protective functions; these practices often involve

annual operations such as cultivation and fertilization.

Interactive: Agroforestry management seeks to actively manipulate the biological

and physical interactions between the tree, crop and animal components. The

goal is to enhance the production of more than one harvestable component at a

time, while also providing conservation benefits such as non-point source water

pollution control or wildlife habitat.

Integrated: The tree, crop or animal components are structurally and functionally

combined into a single, integrated management unit. Such integration utilizes

more of the productive capacity of the land and helps balance economic

production with resource conservation.

conti…

Objectives of Agroforestry

Biomass production

Soil improvement

Moderation of microclimates

Conservation of production base

Promotion of agro-based cottage industry

Agro-climatic zone

Agroforestry system

Tree component Crop/grass

Western Himalayas

Silvipasture Grewia optiva,Morus alba

Setaria spp.

Agrihorticulture Malus pumila,Prunus persica

Millets, wheat Maize, Soybean

Eastern Himalayas

Agrisilviculture Anthocephalus Cadamba Paddy

Agrihorticulture Alnus nepalensis Large Cardamom/Coffee

Silviculture Bamboos, Morus alba

Silvipasture Bauhinia variegata, Ficus, Morus alba

Napier grass

Eastern Plateau & Hills

Agrisilviculture Gmelina arborea,Acacia nilotica

Paddy, linseed

Silviculture Acacia mangium,Acacia nilotica

Silvipasture Leucaena leucocephala Chrysopogon, Pennisetum, Dicanthium

Improved agroforestry systems for various Agro-climatic zone

Agro-climatic zone

Agroforestry system

Tree component Crop/grass

Central Plateau & Hills

Agrihorticulture Psidium gujava,Emblica officinalis

Bengalgram/Groundnut, Blackgram/Greengram

Agrisilviculture Acacia niloticaLeucaena leucocephala

Soyabean, Blackgram-Mustard/Wheat

Silvipasture Albizia amara,Leucaena leucocephala

Chrysopogon, Stylosanthes hamata, S. scabra

Western Plateau & Hills

Agrihortisilvi Tectona grandis Paddy, Maize

Agrihorti Areca catechu Black pepper, Cardamom

Silviculture Prosopis julifora

Silvipasture Acacia mangium Cenchrus

Southern Plateau & Hills

Agrisilviculture Eucalyptus Cotton

Silviculture Leucaena leucocephala

Agrihorti Tamarindus Chilli

Improved agroforestry systems for various Agro-climatic zone

Agroforestry Systems

Silvipasture

Alley Cropping

Hortipasture

Forage production on terrace risers/bunds

Silvipasture system

Silvipasture system

It combines trees with forage (pasture or hay) and livestock

production.

Established by adding trees to existing pasture, or by thinning an

existing forest stand and adding (or improving) a forage component.

Trees are managed for high-value sawlogs, provide shelter for

livestock, protecting against temperature stresses.

Forage and livestock provide short-term income while sawlogs are

being grown, providing diversified economic returns.

Silvipasture system benefits

Improved plant vigor

Lower animal stress

Reduced wildfire risk

Improved wildlife habitat

Soil improvement

Productivity in fodder tree plantation

Increased income opportunities

Treatment

Grasses Albizia lebbek

Average dry forage yield (t ha-1 yr-1)

Coppicing height (cm)

Leaf fodder yield

(t ha-1 yr-1)

Fuel wood yield

(t ha-1 yr-1)

Hybrid napier + A. lebbek 35.28 5.0 1.49 1.72

Cenchrus setigerus + A. lebbek

10.44 15.0 1.19 3.97

C. ciliaris + A. lebbek 7.83 30.0 2.81 9.29

C. hybrid + A. lebbek 7.4 45.0 1.76 8.26

Forage and fuel wood production in Albizia lebbek based silvi-pastoral system

Gupta et al. 2007Jammu

Effect of tree management practices on productivity (q ha-1) of mixed tree species based silvopastoral system

TreatmentsLeaf

biomassBranch

biomassGrass

biomassTotal

biomass

Grewia optiva 4m + Grass 11.40 17.54 97.00 125.94

Leucaena 1m + Grass 7.99 33.76 47.83 89.58

G. optiva 4m + Leucaena 1 m + Grass

8.53 23.90 71.69 104.13

Leucaena 2m + Grass 10.72 40.64 48.28 99.64

G. optiva 4m + Leucaena 2 m + Grass

8.31 19.65 54.11 82.06

Morus alba 4 m + Grass 7.85 28.90 84.45 121.21

Morus alba 4m + Leucaena 1m + Grass

4.09 14.38 75.21 93.67

CD (5%) 3.05 8.27 21.46 20.71

Yadava et al. 1997Solan

Dry matter production and carrying capacity of improved grassland and a silvi-pastoral system

TreatmentsDry matter

(t ha-1)

Carrying capacity Animal unit ha-1

annum -1

Crude protein (%)

Control 06.90 2.70 3.05

Setaria 15.10 6.60 6.27

Setaria + Siratro 15.50 6.10 6.39

Setaria + Siratro + Leucaena

17.10 7.20 6.59

Setaria + Siratro + Robinia

18.40 7.40 7.04

Palampur Anonymous 1995

Yield of improved and local grasses under Pine and Deodar trees

Grass speciesGreen forage yield (t ha-1)

Pine trees Deodar trees

Pangola 14.0 13.6

Rhodes 4.78 3.06

Para 0.48 2.06

Guinea 0.41 2.04

Local 0.25 0.22

Koranne and Singh 1989Almora

Treatments

Green Dry

2000 2004 2001-04 2000 2004 2001-04

Local system 38 115.9 102.8 14.3 43.9 38.2

Improved Grasses 109 240.8 203.6 43.2 87.2 74.8

Improved legumes 91.7 214.6 184.8 29.7 77.3 64.1

Improved grasses + legumes 126.3 250.4 230.9 40.7 91.5 82.4

Improved grasses + legumes + salix 123.7 288.2 235.7 40.6 97.2 82.1

Improved grasses + legumes + salix + Robinia

121.3 279.0 234.3 41.7 87.3 79.7

CD (5%) 13.7 15.7 11.9 5 8.4 4.1

Green and dry forage yield (q ha-1) of local pasture, improved grasses, legumes and trees in the cold arid region of Himachal Pradesh

Improved Grasses : Fescue grass + Orchard GrassImproved legumes : Red Clover + LucerneShrub : SalixFodder tree : Robinia

Alley Cropping

Alley cropping involves growing crops (grains, forages, vegetables, etc.)

between trees planted in rows. The spacing between the rows is

designed to accommodate the mature size of the trees while leaving

room for the planned alley crops.

Advantages of alley cropping over sole cropping

Green fodder during lean period, when no green fodder is available from crops.

Higher total biomass per unit of land in comparison to sole cropping.

Additional employment during off season .

More effective in soil and water conservation than sole cropping.

Efficient use of off season precipitation if any in comparison to sole cropping

which is confined to rainy season alone.

Types of alley cropping systems

Forage alley cropping system

Forage-cum-mulch alley cropping system

Forage-cum-pole alley cropping system

Average yield of crops, fodder and fuel wood under different alleys

Alley Width

Crop yield (kg ha-1)Fodder yield kg tree-1 ya-1

Fuel wood tonnes ha-1

Rabi Kharif

2 m 950 1164 5.31 10.30

1.5 m 845 1080 5.40 14.42

1 m 820 798 8.43 13.09

Mughal et al. 2003Srinagar

Green fodder yield of sorghum and oats in agrisilviculture system (t ha-1)

Treatment Sorghum Oat

Populus deltoides + Fodder crop

12.31 13.09

Catalpa bignoniodes + Fodder crop

12.83 12.97

Fodder crop (Pure)14.03 14.45

CD (5%) 1.01 1.01

Quisar et al. 2007Srinagar

Biomass (Fodder + Fuel wood) productivity of Populus and Catalpa in association with fodder (Sorghum and Oats)

Treatment

Dry fodder (t ha-1) Fuel wood (t ha-1)Total biomass (t ha-1)2003 2004 Pooled 2003 2004 Pooled

Populus deltoides + Fodder crop

0.41 0.57 0.50 0.87 0.22 0.51 1.01

Catalpa bignoniodes + Fodder crop

0.54 1.42 0.98 1.19 1.78 1.48 2.46

P. deltoides 0.28 0.34 0.31 0.39 0.07 0.23 0.54

C. bignoniodes 0.34 0.78 0.56 0.69 0.83 0.76 1.32

CD (5%) 0.29 0.27 0.46

Quisar et al. 2007Srinagar

Overall productivity (t ha-1 yr-1) in agrisilviculture system compared to sole agriculture system in different sites

Ranichauri Bijalwan et al. 2008

Study site

Components of agrisilviculture system

TotalSole Ag.

CropTrees Shrubs Herbs Ag Crop

N1 3.7 0.8 1.0 3.5 9.2 5.5

N2 1.7 1.0 1.3 4.5 8.7 6.7

N3 3.6 1.1 1.3 3.8 10.0 5.4

Mean 3.0 1.0 1.2 3.9 9.3 5.9

S1 3.1 0.8 1.2 3.6 8.8 5.3

S2 2.9 1.0 1.1 4.1 9.2 6.0

S3 2.1 1.0 1.4 3.5 8.1 5.6

Mean 2.7 0.9 1.2 3.7 8.7 5.6

Overall Mean

2.8 0.9 1.2 3.8 9.0 5.7

Average yield of Oats and M.P. Chari (q ha-1) during 5 year period in different treatments

Treatments Oat M.P Chari

Control 199.6 251.4

Around tree 146.0 163.9

0.5 m away from tree 153.8 181.9

1.5 m away from tree 157.8 184.2

2.0 m away from tree 161.7 195.3

CD (5%) 7.85 23.33

Mughal et al. 2003Srinagar

Hortipasture system

Horticulture is common pursuit of farmers in temperate areas. The

interspaces of orchards remain barren during summer and these can be

utilized as perennial pastures.

Species Green forage yield (t ha-1)

Dactylis + Red clover 42

Ryegrass + Red clover 48

Brome grass + Red clover 39

Timothy + Sub-clover 35

Fodder production in Apple Orchard

Misri 1998Srinagar

Pasture species Forage yield (t ha-1)

Red clover 2.6

White clover 2.4

Lucerne 2.5

Rye grass 3.1

Orchard grass 2.7

Canary grass 2.1

Control 1.8

CD (5%) 0.6

Uttrakhand

Forage yield of different pasture species in apple orchard

Singh 1995

Green forage yield (t ha-1) of pastures and legumes in almond orchard

Name of Grass Green forage yield% increase over natural

vegetation

Natural Vegetation 14.6 -

Dactylis glomerata 22.0 56

Festuca pratense 28.0 91

Trifolium repens 24.9 70

Trifolium pratense 24.5 62

CD (5%) 7.2

Makaya and Gangoo 1995Srinagar

Treatment

Green forage yield (t ha-1) Dry Forage yield (t ha-1)

Pearlmillet

Cowpea TotalPearlmillet

Cowpea Total

Sole Aonla - - - - - -

Aonla + Pearl millet single cut + Cowpea

19.6 7.5 27.1 5.19 1.06 6.25

Aonla + Pearl millet multicut + Cowpea

22.1 8.3 30.4 5.14 1.19 6.33

Pearl millet single cut + Cowpea

19.1 7.9 27.0 4.22 1.14 5.36

Pearl millet multicut + Cowpea

21.6 6.8 28.4 4.92 0.95 5.87

CD (5%) 0.73 0.08 0.83 0.67 0.03 0.05

Anonymous 2011

Fodder production in 14 year old aonla orchard under agri-horti system

Jammu

Aboveground biomass and productivity of Eucalyptus tereticornis at different densities (7 years old)

Attribute

Density (trees ha-1)

D1 (27,778) D2 (12,346) D3 (6,944)

Biomass (t ha-1) 127.0 70.85 49.50

Productivity (t ha-1) 18.15 10.12 7.07

Verma et al. 2003Solan

A non-competitive land use system for the forage production in the hills

is to grow improved grasses on terrace bunds and risers.

There is added advantage to produce forge without any fertilizer or

manure since it is available from the cropped terrace.

The field experiments conducted in U.P. hills reveal that growing

grasses on terrace riser was found significantly beneficial for increasing

the grain yield of rice and wheat over control.

The performance of different improved grass species was statistically

similar but superior to local species.

Forage production on terrace risers/bunds

Terrace grassesGrain yield (t ha-1)

Forage yield of grasses

Rice Wheat (t ha-1)

Nandi grass 1.04 1.14 10.8

Guinea grass 1.01 1.16 10.4

Hybrid Napier 1.08 1.21 15.0

Rhode grass 0.98 1.04 9.9

Indian couch grass 0.91 1.02 8.6

Control 0.97 0.98 1.2

C.D. 5% NS NS 0.6

Performance of some grasses on terrace risers and their effect on main crops

Singh 1995 Almora

Biomass

SystemsAbove ground biomass Below ground biomass

Horti pastoral 15.26 5.37

Silvi pastoral 32.72 11.50

Agri siliviculture 34.05 11.97

Horti silvipastoral 18.20 6.40

Natural grassland 3.44 1.03

CD= 0.05 13.31 4.45

Khaki and Wani (2011)

Biomass production (t ha-1) under different land use systems

Paonta Sahib

FUTURE THRUST

Forage production must be taken up as a first management goal and 25 per cent of

the forest area should be put under trees with regulated accessibility to the farmers.

Fodder tree improvement programmes for higher leaf fodder have to be initiated.

Growing forage grasses and fodder trees on terrace risers/bunds- a non competitive

land use system.

Conservation of native biodiversity for future improvement.

Breeding biotic, abiotic, stress tolerant cultivars of forage species suitable for area

not used under arable agriculture.

Participatory techniques to be adopted to identify the problems and to carry out the

improvement programme.

Controlled grazing to maintain the productivity of pasture (grazing should be allowed

as per carrying capacity).

CONCLUSIONS

Forage production situation is very alarming and corrective measures have to be

taken to improve the same.

Both grazing and forage cultivation have to be considered complementary to each

other and simultaneous efforts are required to improve the both.

Agroforestry systems can be advantageous over conventional agricultural and forest

production methods through increased productivity, improved economic benefits and

social outcomes and the enhanced ecological goods and services provided.

THANKS

THANKS