1

Looking beyond grain for overall benefit

from wheat in mixed crop livestock

systems Michael Blϋmmel1, Arun K Joshi2, Nils Teufel1 and Iain A. Wright1

1International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), India and Ethiopia

2Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT), Nepal

Wheat for Food Security, Addis Ababa, 2012, October 8 to 12th

2

Topics

Wheat straw as commodity, contribution to overall

income from wheat production

Wheat straw trading as feed back mechanism and

entry point for wheat straw value chain

improvement

Opportunities and limitations of improving wheat

straw through multidimensional wheat

improvement

Wheat straw-grain price

ratios in South Asia

3

Straw price/grain price in %, as collected during

village survey 2009/10

% (n) Normal Peak

Punjab 35 (18) 48 (18)

Haryana 19 (18) 30 (18)

N Teufel et al. (2011)

In Ethiopia in 2006 and 2007 Gebremedhin estimated wheat

straw - grain price ratios of 10 and 27%

4

Peri-urban wheat straw

trader, New Delhi

Category Variety Price [Rs/kg straw] n

New Delhi wheat straw markets

best Not known 4.25 2

best WH-283 4.00 1

medium Not known 3.85 2

medium 1553 4.00 1

Village Kapriwas, dist. Rewari, Haryana

best C-306 3.50 1

best WH-283 3.40 1

good DBW-17 3.00 1

good PBW-502 3.00 1

good PBW-550 3.25 1

medium PBW-343 3.00 1

Wheat straw collected from

fodder traders and farmers

Note: All samples collected for feeding trials in 04/2009 to validate

laboratory straw quality traits. Acid Detergent Fiber– a cellulose estimate

- was the single important trait

6

Price: quality relations in wheat straw

traded monthly in New Delhi

from 2008 to 2009

7

Category ADF [%dm (SE)] Price [Rs/kg straw (SE)] n

New Delhi wheat straw markets

best 48.8 (0.21) 4.43 (0.11) 36

good 49.3 (0.21) 4.21 (0.07) 72

medium 49.1 (0.24) 4.00 (0.09) 42

Patna straw markets

best 50.7 (0.16) 3.26 (0.08) 48

good 50.9 (0.14) 3.07 (0.06) 72

medium 51.6 (0.21) 2.85 (0.08) 35

Wheat straw collected monthly

from fodder traders in Delhi and

Patna in 2008 - 2009

8

Price-quality relations in wheat straw

traded monthly in New Delhi and

Patna from 2008 to 2009

9

Summary wheat straw trading

Wheat straw can contribute significantly to overall

benefits from wheat cropping

Differences in straw quality still associated with

varieties on village level trading but less in urban

markets

Intuitively small differences in laboratory quality

traits associated with price premiums of about

10% on average

More work/clarity needed in understanding price:

quality relations

10

HTM = Heat Trial Early maturity: India (Indore, Ugar, Ludhiana, Karnal and Varansi)

Bangladesh and Pakistan

HTNM = Heat Trial Normal Maturity: India (Ugar, Ludhiana, Karnal)

Bangladesh and Pakistan (Islamabad, Bahawalpur and Faisalabad)

SAWYT = Semi Arid Wheat Trial: India (Indore, Ugar, Dharward and Varanasi)

Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan

ESWYT = Elite Spring Wheat Trial: Bangladesh and Pakistan

1st DRYT = 1st Drought Yield Trial: India (Indore, Ugar and Dharward) and Pakistan

2nd DRYT = 2st Drought Yield Trial: India (Ludhiana, Karnal and Varanasi), Nepal and Pakistan

Wheat straw trials investigated for

straw traits: opportunities from

selection and breeding

11

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 90000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1st DRYT2nd DRYT

ESWYT

HTEMHTNMSAWYT

Straw yield (kg/ha)

Gra

in y

ield

(kg

/ha)

Relations between straw yield and

grain yield in a range of

wheat cultivars

12

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 570

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1st DRYT

2st DRYT

ESWYT

HTEM

HTNMSAWYT

Acid detergent fiber content (%)

Gra

in y

ield

(k

g/h

a)

Wheat straw trading

Relations between acid detergent fiber

content of straw and grain yield in

a range of wheat cultivars

13

41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 570

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1st DRYT2nd DRYT

ESWYT

HTEMHTNMSAWYT

Acid detergent fiber content (%)

Str

aw

yie

ld (

kg

/ha)

Relations between acid detergent

fiber and straw yield in a range of

wheat cultivars

14

Relations between nitrogen content

of straw and grain yield in a range of

wheat cultivars

15

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

9000AROMATICS

HYBRIDS

INDICA

NPT

Released varieties

y = 10 650 - 103.7x; r= - 0.19 P=<0.0001

Straw in vitro organic matter digestibility (%)

Gra

in y

ield

(kg

/ha)

Source: Blümmel et al. 2007

16

Summary from variety

testing work Including straw traits in cultivar choice increases

probability of having premium straw quality

Of the variations in straw in quality available in the

cultivar types only a small segment appears

currently used in straw trading

Very strong clustering of cultivar types for grain

and straw yield and for straw quality

17

Thanks for your

attentions

Acknowledgment: Most of the work was funded by the

by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation under CSISA

18

Conclusions

19

Trials Location Grain Yields (kg/ha)

Mean Range h2 P

HTEM I (U, K), B 3 312 2 704 – 3 813 0.60 < 0.0001

HTNM I , B 3 442 2 881 – 4 009 - 0.02

SAWYT I (I, U, D), B 2 635 2 166 – 3 154 0.24 < 0.0001

ESWYT B 4 177 3 278 – 5 011 - 0.007

1 DRYT I (U, D) 1 516 1 032 – 1 880 0.55 < 0.0001

2 DRYT I 1 932 1 087 – 2 632 - 0.35

I = India, P = Pakistan, B = Bangladesh, N = Nepal

Number in brackets = research station in a country

Variations in Grain Yields content

in wheat trials

20

Trials Location Straw Yields (kg/ha)

Mean Range h2 P

HTEM I (U, K), B 7 029 6 108 – 7721 0.37 < 0.0001

HTNM I , B 6 286 5 140 – 7495 0.38 0.03

SAWYT I (I, U, D), B 4 620 3 726 – 5 894 0.11 0.02

ESWYT B 5 658 4 546 – 6 873 - 0.06

1 DRYT I (U, D) 5 190 3 790 – 6 849 0.2 < 0.0001

2 DRYT I 3 531 2 443 – 4 613 - 0.1

I = India, P = Pakistan, B = Bangladesh, N = Nepal

Number in brackets = research station in a country

Variations in Straw Yields in wheat

trials

21 21

Trials Location Nitrogen content (%)

Mean Range h2 P <

HTEM I (5), B, N 0.72 0.62 – 0.85 0.67 <0.0001

HTNM I (3), B, P (3) 0.75 0.69 – 0.82 0.21 0.04

SAWYT I (4), B, N, P 0.82 0.71 – 0.92 0.33 0.001

ESWYT B, P 0.58 0.48 – 0.76 0 0.20

1 DRYT I (3), P 0.76 0.69 – 0.83 0.58 0.002

2 DRYT I (3), N, P 0.63 0.55 – 0.75 0.35 0.02

I = India, P = Pakistan, B = Bangladesh, N = Nepal

Number in brackets = sites in a country

Variations in nitrogen content in

wheat straw trials

22

Trials Location Acid detergent fiber (%)

Mean Range h2 P

HTEM I (5), B, N 49.6 48.8 – 51.4 0.91 <0.0001

HTNM I (3), B, P (3) 49.5 48.4 – 50.7 0.53 0.0006

SAWYT I (4), B, N, P 47.6 46.3 – 49.2 0.45 0.0005

ESWYT B, P 50.8 47.3 – 52.2 0 0.11

1 DRYT I (3), P 46.7 45.6 – 47.7 0.5 <0.0001

2 DRYT I (3), N, P 50.1 48.8 – 51.3 0.19 0.024

I = India, P = Pakistan, B = Bangladesh, N = Nepal

Number in brackets = sites in a country

Variations in Acid Detergent Fiber

content in wheat straw trials

23

Wheat straw and sorghums stover

based feed blocks fed to sheep

Pellets Block

DMI (g/kg LW) 30.0a 42.1 b

ADG (g / d) 71.1a 89.5 b

Wheat straw composition: N = 0.49%, ADF = 50.9%, IVOMD = 46.0%

Wheat Sorghum

24

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

Trials Location In vitro digestibility (%)

Mean Range h2 P

HTEM I (5), B, N 48.5 47.9 – 49.6 0.66 <0.0001

HTNM I (3), B, P (3) 48.4 48.0 – 48.8 0 0.49

SAWYT I (4), B, N, P 48.5 47.7 – 49.4 0.01 0.14

ESWYT B, P 48.3 47.2 – 49.1 0 0.96

1 DRYT I (3), P 47.7 46.7 – 48.5 0.66 <0.0001

2 DRYT I (3), N, P 47.3 46.8 – 48.1 0.09 0.53

I = India, P = Pakistan, B = Bangladesh, N = Nepal

Number in brackets = sites in a country

Variations in in vitro digestibility in

wheat straw trials

27

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