1

Potential and limitations of by-product based feeding systems to mitigategreen house gases for improved

livestock productivityBlümmel M., Anandan S. Prasad C. S.

1 International Livestock Research Institute, c/o ICRISAT, Patancheru 502324, AP, India 2 National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology, Bangalore 560030 India

3 Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Animal Science Division New Delhi-110 114. India

13th Biennial Animal Nutrition Conference of the Animal Nutrition Society of India: Diversification of Animal Nutrition Research in the Changing Scenario

Bangalore, India, 17-19 December 2009

2

Part 1: By-products and feeding

Importance of by-products (basal diet) as

feed resource

Improvement of by-products at source (example:sorghum value chain)

Impact from improved by-products

Improvement of by-product based feeding throughprocessing

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)

4

Stover digestibility and grain yield in sorghum cultivars release-tested between

2002 and 2007

35 38 41 44 47 50 53 56 59 620

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Kharif: y = 321 + 70x; r = 0.2; P = 0.04Rabi: y = 8176 - 115x; r = -0.55; P < 0.0001

Stover in vitro organic digestibility (%)

Gra

in y

ield

(kg

/ha)

Blümmel et al. (2009)

5

Sorghum stover trading in Hyderabad

6

Relation between price of sorghum stover and in vitro digestibility

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

Low Cost Stover

Blümmel and Parthasarathy, 2006

7

Premium and lost cost sorghum digestibility (OMD), digestible intake (DOMI) and

nitrogen balance (N-Balance)in sheep

g/dg/kg LW/d

-0.5b10.2b51.5bLow Cost

1.2a12.5a58.1aPremium

N-Balance.DOMIOMD

Rao and Blümmel (2009)

8

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

9

Comparisons of premium and low cost sorghum stover based complete feed blocks in dairy buffalo

Block Premium Block Low Cost

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 7.9 kg/d 7.0 kg/d

Milk Potential 16.6 kg/d 11.8 kg/d

Anandan et al. (2009a)

10

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

Feed cost ($/kg LW gain) 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.6

Anandan et al. (2009b)

11

By-products and feedingConclusions

Improving by-products at source of considerablestrategic importance for livestock feeding

Integrated breeding, supplementation, processing, transport strategies required

Respectable level of livestock productivity achievable in by-product based feeding systems

12

Part 2: Interaction of livestock numbers, productivity level, feed requirements and CH4 emissions

Livestock numbers, milk production and feed requirements for maintenance

and production of milch animals

Opportunities from increasing per animal milk production and its constraints

Livestock revolution and implications

14

Milch Animal, Livestock Population and their average Milk Production(2005-06)

Milch animals Total animals Milk yield

x 103 kg/d

Cross Bred 8 216 28 391 6.44

Local 28 370 155 805 1.97

Buffalo 33 137 101 253 4.40

15

Milch Animals and their Energy Needs for Maintenance and Production

Metabolizable energy required MJ x 109

Maintenance Production

Cross Bred 148.0 122.6

Local 423.3 136.4

Buffalo 601.2 370.8

Total 1 172.5 629.8

16

Feed energy needs of milch animals in dependence of average daily milk

yields

ME required (MJ x 109)

Milk (kg/d) Maintenance Production Total

3.61 (05/06) 1247.6 573.9 1821.5

6 (Scenario 1) 749.9 573.9 1323.8

9 (Scenario 2) 499.9 573.9 1073.8

12 (Scenario 3) 374.9 573.9 948.8

15 (Scenario 4) 299.9 573.9 873.9

17

Relations between average daily milk productionand livestock numbers

0 3 6 9 12 15 180

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

Daily milk production per animal (liter)

Nu

mb

er o

f m

ilch

an

imal

s (x

10

6 )

18

Relations between average daily milk productionand methane emissions

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.50.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Daily milk production per animal (liter)

Met

han

e p

rod

uce

d (

Tg

)

19

Relations between average daily milk production,diet quality and required dry matter intake

0 3 6 9 12 150

1

2

3

4

5

ME content of diet: 7.4 MJME content of diet: 8.5 MJ

3.6%

3.3%

Daily milk production per animal (liter)

Req

uir

ed d

ry m

atte

r in

take

as

per

cen

tag

e o

f b

od

y w

eig

ht

364.57

2683.22

1075.00

1608.22

89920 *

5.24

172

2020(2005-06) 2020 (fixed LP

Milk (million tons) 91.8 172

yield/day (kg) 3.6 6.76

Numbers (000) 69759 69759

Metabolizable energy requirements (MJ x 109)

Maintenance 1247.64 1247.6

Production 573.94 1075.00

total 1821.58 23266.6

Feed Req.( m tons) 247.50 315.6

20

* Calculated based on Component Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)

Livestock revolution: Impact on energy and feed requirements

21

Interaction of livestock numbers, productivity level, feed requirements

and CH4 emissions

Conclusions

Strategies for increasing per animal milk productivity highest effects on resource use, feed requirements and

greenhouse emissions

At available feed qualities of 7.4 to 8.5 MJ ME/kg and intakes of 3.2 to 3.6% of LW daily milk yields of

about 9 to 12 l are achievable.

Higher levels questionable because of lack of concentrates

22

Thank you for your attention!

23

Storage

Balanced

Nutrition

Transportation

Local Resource Utilization

ECONOMICAL

Courtesy of Lakshmi Shah

Fortification and Densification