Periodic assessment of forage yield, nutritional quality and economics in multi-cut forage pearl millet

Maninder Kaur

doi:10.56093/ijas.v96i10.163928

Authors

Maninder Kaur Forages, Millets and Nutrition Section Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v96i10.163928

Keywords:

cultivars, fodder yield, pearl millet, nitrogen, cutting management

Abstract

The evaluation of new forage genotypes under arid conditions would contribute to solving the feed scarcity in arid and semi arid areas and identify potential cultivars for general cultivation. The present study evaluated the yield and quality of four multi-cut pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum [L.] R. Br.) cultivars (TSFB-15-4, TSFB-15-8, Moti Bajra and BAIF Bajra-1) affected by two nitrogen levels (80 and 120 kg N/ha) and two cutting management practices (two-cuts and three-cuts) during the 2020, 2021 and 2022 rainy seasons in Punjab, India. Among the new cultivars, TSFB15-8 maintained the desirable balance between both productivity and quality. In addition to its high green forage yield (646.4 q/ha) and dry matter yield (120.3 q/ha), it was characterized by the highest crude protein content (8.6%) and crude protein yield (10.45 q/ha) owing to its taller plants with high tillering. This was reflected on its highest gross returns (R96.9 x 10³/ha), net returns (R73.1 x 10³/ha) and benefit: cost ratio (4.11) values among all the cultivars. Increasing the nitrogen level to 120 kg N/ha recorded significant increase in green fodder (589.2 q/ha) and dry matter yield (116.1 q/ha) with 10.1% improvement in crude protein content and registering high returns as well as benefit cost ratio. The effect of cutting management practices showed superiority of two-cuts system over the three-cuts treatment due to improvement in all the studied variables. The superiority of the two-cuts treatment in forage production highlights the success of pearl millet as a multi-cut crop in similar environments.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Maninder Kaur, Forages, Millets and Nutrition Section Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana

Crop production, nutrient mamnagement, weed management, Forage production
Agronomist
Forages, Millets and Nutrition Section
Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana

References

Babiker S A, Khair M A, Tahir I S and Elhag F M. 2015. Forage quality variations among some Sudan pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br] collection. Annual Research and Review in Biology 5(4):293.

Bukhari M A. 2009. Effect of different harvesting intervals on growth, forage yield and quality of pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum L.) cultivars. M. Sc., Thesis, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Britz E, Cyster Lilburne, Samuels Igshaan, Cupido Clement, Masemola Letty, Ngcobo Nothando, Manganyi Fortune, Müller Francuois. 2023. Nitrogen fertilization increases the growth and nutritional quality of the forage legume, Calobota seiricea – A preliminary investigation. Heliyon 9(2):13535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13535

Brück H, Sattelmacher B and Payne W A. 2003. Varietal differences in shoot and rooting parameters of pearl millet on sandy soils in Niger. Plant and Soil 251(1):175–185. doi: 10.1023/A:1022932815486

CFC and ICRISAT. 2004. Alternative Uses of Sorghum and Pearl Millet in Asia: proceedings of the Expert Meeting, ICRISAT, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, 1-4 July 2003. CFC Technical Paper No. 34. P.O. Box 74656, 1070 BR Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Common Fund for Commodities; and Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 364 pp. ISBN 92-9066-471-1. Order code CPE 151.

Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. 2002. World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030 (Summary Report). Available online at: http://www.fao.org/globalperspectives-studies/resources/detail/en/c/411230/ (accessed September 15,2021).

Hassan M U, Zamir S I, Haq I, Khalid F, Rasool T and Hussain A. 2014. Growth, yield and quality performance of pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum L.) varieties under Faisalabad conditions, Pakistan. American Journal of Plant Sciences 5(15):2215.

Jukanti A K, Gowda C L, Rai K N, Manga V K and Bhatt R K. 2016. Crops that feed the world 11. Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.): an important source of food security, nutrition and health in the arid and semi-arid tropics. Food Security 8:307-329.

Kumawat S M, Mohd Arif, Shekhawat S S and Kantwa S R. 2016. Effect of nitrogen and cutting management on growth, yield and quality of fodder pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) cultivars. Range Management and Agroforestry 37(2):207-213.

Malai, Banerjee S A and Bagchi D. 1980. Effect of nitrogen on fodder and extracted protein yield of bajra in gangetic alluvial soil. Indian Journal of Agriculture 81: 85-87

Rai K N, Blümmel M, Singh A K and Rao A S. 2012. Variability and relationships among forage yield and quality traits in pearl millet. European Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 6:118-124.

Ramesh S, Santhi P and Ponnuswamy K. 2006. Photosynthetic attributes and grain yield of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) as influenced by the application of composted coir pith under rainfed conditions. Acta Agronomica Hungarica 54: 83-92.

Sharma K C and Verma R S. 2005. Effect of N and P and biofertilizers on the yield, marginal rate of return, energy relationship, economics and residual effect on soil in fodder oats (Avena sativa L.). Forage Research 31: 118-122.

Sheoran R S and Rana D S. 2006. Relative efficiency of Azotobacter and nitrogen fertilizer in forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) under semi-arid conditions. Forage Research 32: 65-68.

Snedecor G W and Cochran W G. 1994. Statistical Methods. 8th edn. East-West Press Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.

Yadav O P and Singh Manjit. 2012. Pearl millet stover productivity in crop-livestock farming system of arid zone: current status and opportunities for enhancement. Range Management and Agroforestry 33: 102-111.