Optimizing fodder cropping systems for green fodder production and Lamb performance in scarce rainfall zone of Andhra Pradesh

B S  REDDY; G S MANJULA  REDDY; D B V  RAMANA; J M  UPENDRA; A M  REDDY; D V  SRINIVASULU; K  LAKSHMAN

doi:10.56093/ijans.v95i8.157709

Authors

B S REDDY Agricultural Research Station, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Ananthapuramu, 515 001, Andhra Pradesh
G S MANJULA REDDY Agricultural Research Station, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Ananthapuramu, 515 001, Andhra Pradesh
D B V RAMANA Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, 500 059, Telangana
J M UPENDRA Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, 500 059, Telangana
A M REDDY Agricultural Research Station, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Ananthapuramu, 515 001, Andhra Pradesh
D V SRINIVASULU Agricultural Research Station, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Ananthapuramu, 515 001, Andhra Pradesh
K LAKSHMAN Agricultural Research Station, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Ananthapuramu, 515 001, Andhra Pradesh

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v95i8.157709

Keywords:

Average daily gain, Crude Protein, Fodder yield, Fodder cropping system, Lambs, Metabolizable energy

Abstract

An experiment was conducted over three consecutive years (2021 to 23) at Agricultural Research Station, Anantapuramu, using a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The study evaluated the performance of five fodder-based cropping systems Stylo + Rhodes grass (T₁), Lucerne + Anjan grass (T₂), Stylo + Sewan grass (T₃), Cowpea + Jowar (T₄), and Cowpea + Bajra (T₅) in alfisols, as well as the growth performance of lambs maintained with the fodder produced from these systems. The results demonstrated that the choice of crops in different cropping systems significantly influenced green and dry fodder yield, as well as their crude protein content. Among the systems, the highest green and dry fodder, and crude protein yield were recorded in the Cowpea + Bajra system (T₅), while the lowest yields were observed in the Stylo + Sewan grass system (T₃). Daily average fresh feed intake was also highest in T₅ (1.48 kg/lamb), followed by T₂ (1.25 kg/lamb) and T₃ (1.22 kg/lamb). The average daily gain (ADG) of lambs fed fodder from the T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 systems was 82, 82.5, 75.0, 80.5, and 88.0 g/ day, respectively. Lambs in the T₅ system showed highest ADG, while the lowest values was observed in T₃ system. Although ADG was comparable among T1, T2, T4, and T5 systems, lambs in T5 system exhibited a significantly higher live weight gain (p<0.05) compared to those in the T₃ system. These findings underscore the importance of incorporating diversified fodder crops into cropping systems to meet the nutritional requirements of livestock effectively. The enhanced average daily gain observed in lambs fed fodder from the T₅ system highlighted the critical role of nutrient-rich, diversified fodder in supporting optimal livestock growth and productivity.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aamir Iqbal M, Siddiqui M H, Afzal S, Ahmad Z, Maqsood Q and Dildar Khan R. 2018. Forage productivity of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp] cultivars improves by optimization of spatial arrangements. Revista mexicana de ciencias pecuarias 9 (2): 203–19. https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v9i2.4335 DOI: https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v9i2.4335

ANKOM Technology, 2005. In vitro true digestibility using the DAISYII incubator. http://www.ankom.com/media/documents/IVDMD_0805_D200.pdf

ANKOM Technology, 2012. ANKOM RF gas production system. Operator’s manual. Rev F. http://www.ankom.com/media/documents/RF_Manual_RevF_71712.pdf

AOAC. 1995. Official Methods of Analysis. 16th edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC, USA.

BAHFS. 2023. Basic Animal Husbandry & Fisheries Statistics, Animal Husbandry Statistics Division, DADF, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, GoI.

Brons E and Plaizier J C. 2005. Comparisons of methods for in vitro dry matter digestibility of ruminant feeds. Canadian Journal of Animal Sciences 85: 243–45. https://doi.org/10.4141/A04-072 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4141/A04-072

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). 2007. Nutrient requirements of domesticated ruminants. CSIRO publishing, Collingwood, Australia.

DAHD. 2022. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India, Annual Report 2022-23, pp 1–182.

Gursoy E, Adem K and Gul M. 2021. Determining the nutrient content, energy, and in vitro true digestibility of some grass forage plants. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture 33 DOI: https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.2021.v33.i5.2696

(5): 417-422. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.2021.v33.i5.2696 Harris T, Walker G and Brown J. 2023. Palatability and quality

of fodder: implications for growth. Journal of Agricultural Science 121 (7): 561–72.

Hassan H H M, Sayed M R I and Mousa W M E. 2017. Effect of intercropping patterns on forage yield and land use efficiency of some summer fodder crops. Zagazig Journal of Agricultural Research 44 (6): 2007–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/zjar.2017.51226

Hedayetullah M, Bhattacharya B and Zaman P. 2018. Anjan Grass (African Foxtail Grass). In Forage Crops of the World, Volume II: Minor Forage Crops, pp. 75–84. Apple Academic Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351167284-13

Jha S K and Tiwari N. 2018. Evaluation of intensive fodder cropping systems for round the year green fodder production in Chhattisgarh. Forage Research 44 (2): 115–18.

Johnson R, Lee C and Taylor M. 2024. The Influence of fodder intake on livestock growth metrics. Agricultural Research Review 112 (1): 88–99.

Kasi E. 2015. Marginal communities in drought-prone regions: The role of NGOs in watershed development in South India. Journal of Developing Societies 31 (1): 98–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X14562937 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0169796X14562937

Kumar R, Yadav M R, Arif M, Mahala D M, Kumar D, Ghasal P C, Yadav K C and Verma R K. 2020. Multiple agroecosystem services of forage legumes towards agriculture sustainability: An overview. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 90 (8): 1367–77. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas. v90i8.105882 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v90i8.105882

Kumari V V, Balloli S S, Ramana D B V, Kumar M, Maruthi V, Prabhakar M, Osman M, Indoria A K, Manjunath M, Chary G R and Gopinath K A, 2023. Crop and livestock productivity, soil health improvement and insect dynamics: impact of different fodder-based cropping systems in a rainfed region of India. Agricultural Systems, 208: 103646. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103646 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103646

Kumari V V, Gopinath K A, Venkatesh G, Sarathchandran M A and Srinvasa Rao Ch. 2017. Fodder constraints in rainfed areas of India: constraints and strategies. Forage Research 43 (2): 81–88.

Lee C, Harris T and Smith A. 2023. Nutritional strategies for enhanced fodder utilization. Veterinary Nutrition Journal 44

(3): 234–45.

Linn J and Martin N. 1989. Forage quality tests and interpretation. Minnesota Ext. Service, AG-FO-2637, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul.

Mahanta S K, Garcia S C and Islam M R. 2020. Forage based feeding systems of dairy animals: issues, limitations and strategies. Range Management and Agroforestry 41 (2): 188–99. https://publications.rmsi.in/index.php/rma/article/view/64

Manoj K N, Shekara B G, Agrawal R K and Chikkarugi. N M. 2022. Productivity and quality of fodder as influenced by different bajra napier hybrid and legume fodder cropping systems. Range Management and Agroforestry 43 (1): 88–93.

https://publications.rmsi.in/index.php/rma/article/view/637

Meena R K, Hindoriya P S, Kumar R, Ram H, Singh M and Kumar D. 2023. Quality, productivity and profitability of diversified fodder-based cropping systems for year-round fodder production in Indo-gangetic plains of India. Range Management and Agroforestry 44 (1): 152–59. https:// publications.rmsi.in/index.php/rma/article/view/947 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59515/rma.2023.v44.i1.18

Mertens D R. 1997. Creating a system for meeting the fiber requirements of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 1463–1481. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76075-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76075-2

Ramya S, Ramesh V, Muralidharan J and Purushothaman M R. 2017. Fodder yield and chemical composition of hybrid Napier and multi-cut Sorghum fodder at different stages of cutting. Indian Journal of Small Ruminants 23 (2): 181–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/0973-9718.2017.00046.0

Reddy A M, Kumari C R, Reddy B S and Reddy B R. 2022. Productivity and quality of fodder crops under late-sown conditions in semi-arid tropics of India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 56 (6): 660–65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/IJARe.A-6005

Shekara B G, Mahadevu P, Chikkarugi N M and Manasa N. 2020. Response of multi-cut fodder pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum l.) genotypes to varied nitrogen levels in southern dry zone of karnataka. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 9 (5):2665–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22271/phyto.2020.v9.i5ak.12749

Smith A, Williams J and Nguyen P. 2023. Recent advances in fodder quality and animal growth. Journal of Livestock Science 56 (4): 334–45.

Sunayana B L, Devi K U, Rani S U and Murthy B R. 2024. Analysis of socio-economic factors on dry farming households of Ananthapuramu district of Andhra Pradesh, India. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International 46 (5): 810–24. https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2024/v46i52436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2024/v46i52436

Taylor M, Johnson R and Lee C. 2022. Enhancing weight gain through improved fodder practices. Journal of Animal Nutrition 68 (2): 101-115.

Van Soest P V, Robertson J B and Lewis B A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74: 3583–597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(91)78551-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2

Walker G, Harris T and Brown J. 2022. Comparative analysis of fodder types and growth performance. Feed and Animal Nutrition 75 (8): 657–70.

Wilkinson L, Hill M, Welna J P and Birkenbevel B K. 1996. Systat for windows, 6th Edition. SPSS Inc., Evanston, IL, USA.

Yao X, Li C, Ahmad A A, Tariq A, Degen A A and Bai Y. 2022. An increase in livestock density increases forage nutritional value but decreases net primary production and annual forage nutritional yield in the alpine grassland of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Frontiers in Plant Science. 13, 1020033. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1020033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1020033