Register      Login
The Rangeland Journal The Rangeland Journal Society
Journal of the Australian Rangeland Society
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > RJ > RJ09005
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 31(2)

Opportunities and limitations of food–feed crops for livestock feeding and implications for livestock–water productivity

M. Blümmel A E , M. Samad B , O. P. Singh C and T. Amede B D
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A International Livestock Research Institute, Patancheru, AP 502 234, India.

B International Water Management Institute, Patancheru, AP 502 234, India.

C Department of Agricultural Economics, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005, U.P., India.

D International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

E Corresponding author. Email: m.blummel@cgiar.org

The Rangeland Journal 31(2) 207-212 https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ09005
Submitted: 14 January 2009  Accepted: 28 April 2009   Published: 19 June 2009

Abstract

The paper discusses the contribution of crop residues (CR) to feed resources in the context of the water productivity of CR in livestock feeding, using India as an example. It is argued that crop residues are already the single most important feed resource in many livestock production systems in developing countries and that increasing their contribution to livestock feeding needs to be linked to improving their fodder quality. Using examples from multi-dimensional crop improvement, it is shown that CR fodder quality of key crops such as sorghum, rice and groundnut can be improved by genetic enhancement without detriment to grain and pod yields. Improving crop residue quality through genetic enhancement, agronomic and management interventions and strategic supplementation could improve water productivity of farms and systems considerably. The draw-backs of CR based feeding regimes are also pointed out, namely that they result in only moderate levels of livestock productivity and produce higher greenhouse gas emissions than are observed under feeding regimes that are based on high quality forages and concentrates. It is argued that feed metabolisable energy (ME) content should be used as an important determinant of livestock productivity; water requirement for feed and fodder production should be related to a unit of feed ME rather than feed bulk. The paper also revisits data from the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) work on livestock–water productivity in the Indian state of Gujarat, showing that water input per unit ME can vary several-fold in the same feed depending on where the feed is produced. Thus, the production of one mega joule of ME from alfalfa required 12.9 L of irrigation-derived water in south Gujarat but 50.7 L of irrigation-derived water in north Gujarat. Wheat straw in south Gujarat required 20.9 L of irrigation-derived water for 1 MJ ME and was in this instance less water use efficient than alfalfa. We conclude that water use efficiency across feed and fodder classes (for example crop residue v. planted forages) and within a feed is highly variable. Feeding recommendations should be made according to specific water use requirement per unit ME in a defined production system.

Additional keywords: crop residues, feed efficiency, feed intake, feed resources, water requirements.


References


Ayantunde A. A. , Fernández-Rivera S. , and McCrabb G. (2005). ‘Coping with Feed Scarcity in Smallholder Livestock Systems in Developing Countries.’ (Animal Sciences Group, UR: Wageningen, University of Reading: Reading, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology: Zurich, and International Livestock Research Institute: Nairobi.)

Blümmel M. , Krishna N. , and Ørskov E. R. (2001). Supplementation strategies for optimizing ruminal carbon and nitrogen utilization: concepts and approaches. In: ‘Proceedings of the 10th Animal Nutrition Conference: Review Papers’. Karnal, India. pp. 10–23.

Blümmel M., Rao O. P. P. (2006) Economic value of sorghum stover traded as fodder for urban and peri-urban dairy production in Hyderabad, India. International Sorghum and Millets Newsletter 47, 97–101. open url image1

Blümmel M., Reddy Ch R., Ravi D., Nigam S. N., Upadhyaya H. D. (2005) Summary of food–fodder traits in groundnut. International Arachis Newsletter 25, 54–57. open url image1

Blümmel M. , Virk P. , and Xianglin L. (2007). Opportunities for improving the fodder value of rice straw by multidimensional crop improvement. In: ‘Proceedings of the International Symposium on Production and Utilization of Paddy Rice as Feed, Japan, China, Korea’. pp. 17–22.

Delgado C. , Rosegrant M. , Steinfeld H. , Ehui S. , and Courbois C. (1999). Livestock to 2020: The next food revolution. In: ‘International Food Policy Research Institute, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and International Livestock Research Institute’. Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 28. (IFPRI Food: Washington, DC.)

Kelley T. G., Parthasarathy R. P., Weltzien R., Purohit M. L. (1996) Adoption of pearl millet cultivars in an arid environment: straw yield and quality considerations in western Rajasthan. Experimental Agriculture 32, 161–172.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Khan A. A. , Gupta M. D. , Shah L. , and Blümmel M. (2007 a). Potential of maize stover from a new dual-purpose hybrid in substituting for sorghum stover in a commercially produced feed block. In: ‘International Tropical Animal Nutrition Conference. Vol. 2’. (Eds P. P. S. Bakshi and M. Wadhwa.) pp. 41–42. (Animal Nutrition Society of India and Indian Council of Agricultural Research: New Delhi.)

Khan A. A. , Palaniswami S. , Shah L. , Reddy B. , and Blümmel M. (2007 b). Potential for feed block production in a food–ethanol–fodder value chain of sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench). In: ‘International Tropical Animal Nutrition Conference. Vol 2’. (Eds P. P. S. Bakshi and M. Wadhwa.) p. 41. (Animal Nutrition Society of India and Indian Council of Agricultural Research: New Delhi.)

Kristjianson P. M. , and Zerbini E. (1999). ’Genetic Enhancement of Sorghum and Millet Residues Fed to Ruminants.’ ILRI Impact Assessment Series 3. (ILRI: Nairobi.)

McDonald P. , Edwards R. A. , and Greenhalgh J. F. D. (1988). ‘Animal Nutrition.’ 4th edn. (Longman Scientific and Technical: New York.)

National Institute for Animal Nutrition and Physiology (NIANP) (2003). ‘FeedBase.’ (NIANP: Bangalore.)

Peden D. , Tadesse D. , and Misra A. K. (2007). Water and livestock for human development. In: ‘Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture 2007. Water for Food, Water for life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture’. (Ed. D. Molden.) pp. 485–515. (Earthscan: London, and International Water Management Institute: Colombo.)

Singh O. P., Sharma A., Singh R., Shah T. (2004) Virtual water trade in dairy economy. Economic and Political Weekly 39, 3492–3497. open url image1

Tolera A. (2007). Livestock feeding strategies for improved water productivity in crop–livestock production systems. In: ‘Proceedings of the Livestock–Water Productivity Workshop’. (ILRI: Addis Ababa.)

Van Soest P. J. (1994). ‘The Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant.’ 2nd edn. (Cornell University Press: Ithaca.)

Venkatesh Bhat B., Umkanth A. V., Madhusudhana R., Vishala A. D., Ravi D., Blümmel M., Seetharama N. (2006) Genetic enhancement of sorghum stover quality: collaborative research between NRCS and ILRI. Jowar Samachar 2(1), 6–8. open url image1

Vogel K. P. , and Sleper D. A. (1994). Alteration of plants via genetics and plant breeding. In: ‘Forage Quality Evaluation, and Utilization’. (Eds J. George and C. Fahey.) pp. 891–921. (American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI.)