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