Environment, Development and Sustainability

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 723–741 | Cite as

Extractable soil nutrient effects on feed quality traits of crop residues in the semiarid rainfed mixed crop–livestock farming systems of Southern India

  • Amare Haileslassie
  • Michael Blümmel
  • S. P. Wani
  • K. L. Sahrawat
  • G. Pardhasaradhi
  • Anandan Samireddypalle
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

In the mixed crop–livestock systems, while general relation among feed quality, productivity and soil nutrient management have been reported, information on the effects of extractable soil nutrients on crop residue (CR) feed quality traits is scarce (e.g. in semiarid regions of Karnataka, India). In view of the increasingly important role of CR as feed components, in these farming systems, generating such information is a relevant research issue for sustainable development. Here, we report the occurrence and strength of relationships among extractable nutrients in soils and CR feed quality traits, and the effects of improved nutrients input on feed availability and feed quality of CR. Soil samples were collected from farmers’ fields in the semiarid zone of Karnataka and analyzed for available phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulphur (S), zinc (Zn) and boron (B) using standard laboratory methods. Soil test results were clustered as low, medium or high based on the level of nutrient concentration. Four major farming systems involving nine crops and 419 farms were selected for on-farm trials. Under every sample farm, a plot with farmer’s practice (control) and improved fertilizer inputs (combined application of nutrients found deficient by soil testing) were laid. Performance of crops was recorded. Samples were collected for CR feed quality trait analysis using Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy. The result showed that for cereal and oil crops, extractable soil S was significantly negatively associated with anti-feed quality traits such as neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF), acid detergent lignin (ADL) (P < 0.01), but significantly positively related to metabolizable energy (ME) and in vitro digestibility (P < 0.01). Extractable B and K levels were associated positively and significantly with NDF, ADF and ADL for oil crops and cereals. Crop level associations, for most crops, showed similar trend. Improved fertilizer inputs affected CR yield much more than it did the quality. It increased ME productivity (ME ha−1) and thereof the potential milk yield ha−1 by as high as 40 % over the control. Therefore, balanced nutrient inputs on crop land positively impact productivity of the livestock compartment of mixed crop–livestock farming system, and this knowledge can build on the currently perceived need and benefits of balanced nutrient replenishment in crop–livestock system.

Keywords

Improved soil nutrients input Sustainable development Feed quality factors Feed productivity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Reddy Ramakrishna, Ravi Devulapalli, Prasad KVSV, and Mohammed Irshad Ahmad for their invaluable support in data generation. We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and through review of the draft version of this paper.

References

  1. Ahmad, M. R., Allen, V. G., Fontenot, J. P., & Hawkins, G. W. (1995). Effect of sulfur fertilization on chemical composition, ensiling characteristics and utilization by lambs of sorghum silage. Journal of Animal Science, 73, 1803–1810.Google Scholar
  2. Bidinger, F. R., & Blümmel, M. (2007). Effects of ruminant nutritional quality of pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L) R. Br.] stover. 1. Effects of management alternatives on stover quality and productivity. Fields Crops Research, 103(2), 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blümmel, M., Bidinger, F. R., & Hash, C. T. (2007). Management and cultivar effect on ruminant nutritional quality of pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L) R. Br.] stover. Effects of cultivar choice on stover quality and productivity. Fields Crops Research, 103(2), 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blümmel, M., Anandan, S., & Prasad, C. S. (2009a). Potential and limitations of by-product based feeding systems to mitigate green house gases for improved livestock productivity, pp. 68–74. In N. K. S. Gowda, S. Senani, R. Bhatta, & D. T. Pal (Eds.) Diversification of anima nutrition research in the changing scenario, volume 1 (lead papers). 13th Biennial conference of animal nutrition society of India, 17–19 December 2009, Bangalore, India, p. 168.Google Scholar
  5. Blümmel, M., Samad, M., Singh, O. P., & Amede, T. (2009b). Opportunities and limitations of food–feed crops for livestock feeding and implications for livestock–water productivity. Rangeland Journal, 31, 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brady, N. C., & Weil, R. R. (2002). The nature and properties of soils. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Cakmak, I., Marshner, H., & Bangerth, F. (1989). Effect of zinc nutritional status on growth, protein metabolism and levels of indole-3-acetic acid and other phytohormones in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Experimental Botany, 40, 405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gowda, N. K. S., Ramana, J. V., Parasad, S. C., & Sing, K. (2004). Micro nutrient content of some tropical conventional and unconventional feed resources of Southern India. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 36, 77–94Google Scholar
  9. Haileslassie, A., Blümmel, M., Murthy, M. V. R., Samad, M., Clement, F., Anandan, S., et al. (2011a). Assessment of livestock feed and water nexus across mixed crop livestock system’s intensification gradient: An example from the Indo-Ganaga Basin. Experimental Agriculture, 47, 113–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haileslassie, A., Blümmel, M., Clement, F., Ishaq, S., & Khan, M. A. (2011b). Adapting livestock water productivity to climate change. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 3, 156–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jarrell, W. M., & Beverly, R. B. (1981). The dilution effect in plant nutrition studies. In N. C. Brady (Ed.), Advance in agronomy (Vol. 34). New York: Academic press.Google Scholar
  12. Jemal, A., Moon, Y. S., & Abdin, M. Z. (2010). Sulfur a general over view and interactions with Nitrogen. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 4, 523–529.Google Scholar
  13. Kern, R. (1996). Boron. In D. L. Sparks et al. (Eds.), Methods for soil analysis, part 3: chemical methods. Book series no. 5. Madison, WI: ASA and SSA.Google Scholar
  14. Mathew, B. W., Sollenberger, L. E., & Staples, C. R. (1994). Sulfur fertilization of bermuda grass and effects on digestion of nitrogen, sulfur and fiber by non-lactating cows. Jornal of Hawaiian Pacific Agriculture, 5, 21–30.Google Scholar
  15. McDonald, P., Edwards, R. A., & Greenhalgh, J. F. D. (1988). Animal nutrition (4th ed.). New York: Longman scientific and technical.Google Scholar
  16. Ministry of Agriculture Government of India (MoAGI). (2010). 18th livestock census 2007. Department of animal husbandry dairying and fishery, Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  17. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of Karnataka, Central Ground Water Board (CGWB). (2008). Ground water information booklet. Banglore: South Western Region.Google Scholar
  18. Nelson, D. W., & Sommers, L. E. (1996). Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In D. L. Sparks et al. (Eds.), Methods of soil analysis, part 3: Chemical methods. Madison, WI: ASA and SSA.Google Scholar
  19. Olsen, S. R., & Sommer, L. E. (1982). Phosphorus. In A. L. Page et al. ( Eds.), Methods of soil analysis, part 2, Agro. Mong 9, (2nd ed.). Madison, WI: ASA and SSA.Google Scholar
  20. Parthasarathy Rao, P., & Hall, A. J. (2003). Importance of crop residues in crop—livestock systems in India and farmers perceptions of fodder quality in coarse cereals. Field Crops Research, 84, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pholsen, K., & Suksri, A. (2007). Effects of phosphorus and potassium on growth, yield and fodder quality of IS23585 forage sorghum cultivars (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). Pakistan Journal of Biological Science, 10, 1604–1610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Priess, J. A., Haileselassie, A., & Heistermann, M. (2005). Nutrient cycle. In H. Geist (Ed.), Our earth’s changing land: An encyclopedia of land use and land cover change (Vol. 2, pp. 446–450). Westport: Greenwood Press Group.Google Scholar
  23. Purushothaman, S., & Kashyap, S. (2010). Trends in land use and crop acreages in Karnataka and their repercussions. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 23, 330–333.Google Scholar
  24. Rajashekhara Rao, B. K., Sahrawat, K. L., Wani, S. P., & Pardhasaradhy, G. (2010). Integrated nutrient management to enhance on farm productivity of rainfed maize in India. International Journal of Soil Science, 5, 216–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ramachandra, K. S., Taneja, V. K., Sampath, K. T., Anandan, S., & Angadi, U. B. (2000). Livestock feed resources in different agroecosystems of India: Availability requirement and their management (p. 100). Bangalore, India: National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology.Google Scholar
  26. Ramachandra, T. V., Kamakshi, G., & Scruthi, B. V. (2004). Bio-resources status in Karnataka. Renewable and sustainable energy review, 8, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reed, J. D., Capper, B. S., & Neate, P. J. H. (1988). Plant breeding and nutritive value of crop residues. In Proceeding of a workshop held at ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 1987. Addis Ababa: ILCA.Google Scholar
  28. Rees, M. C., & Minson, D. J. (1978). Fertilizer sulfur as a factor affecting voluntary intake, digestibility and retention time of pangola grass (Digitarai decumbens) by sheep. The British Journal of Nutrition, 39, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rego, T. J., Sahrawat, K. L., Wani, S. P., & Pardhasaradhi, G. (2007). Widespread deficiency of sulfur, boron and zinc in India semiarid tropical soils: On farm crop responses. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 30, 1569–1583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rockström, J., & Barron, J. (2007). Water productivity in rainfed systems: Overview of challenges and analysis of opportunities in water scarcity prone savannahs. Irrigation Science, 25, 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sahrawat, K. L., Ravi Kumar, G., & Murthy, K. V. S. (2002). Sulfuric acid selenium digestion for multi-element analysis in a single plant digest. Communication in soil science and plant analysis, 33, 3757–3765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sahrawat, K. L., Bhattacharyya, T., Wani, S. P., Ray, S. K., Pal, D. K., & Padmaja, K. V. (2005). Long-term lowland rice and arable cropping effects on carbon and nitrogen status of some semiarid tropical soils. Current Science, 89, 2159–2163.Google Scholar
  33. Sahrawat, K. L., Wani, S. P., Rego, T. J., Pardhasaradhi, G., & Murthy, K. V. S. (2007). Widespread deficiencies of sulphur, boron and zinc in dryland soils of the Indian semiarid tropics. Current Science, 93, 1–6.Google Scholar
  34. Sahrawat, K. L., Rego, T. J., Wani, S. P., & Pardhasaradhi, G. (2008). Stretching soil sampling to watershed: evaluation of soil test parameters in semi arid tropical watersheds. Communication in soil science and plant analysis, 39, 2950–2960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sahrawat, K. L., Wani, S. P., Pardhasaradhi, G., & Murthy, K. V. S. (2010). Diagnosis of secondary and micronutrient deficiencies and their management in rainfed agroecosystem: case study from Indian semiarid tropics. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 41, 346–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sahrawat, K. L, Wani, S. P, Subba Rao, A., & Pardhasaradhi, G. (2011). Management of emerging multinutrient deficiencies: A prerequisite for sustainable enhancement of rainfed agricultural productivity. In P. Wani, J. Rockstrom and KL Sahrawat (Ed.), Integrated watershed management in rainfed agriculture suhas.The Netherlands: CRC Press, pp. 281–313.Google Scholar
  37. Schmidt, A., Heider, B., & Schultze, R. K. (2000). Preliminary studies on the influences of Boron on forage quality of pasture legumes Desmondium ovalifolium. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomía, 17, 288–294.Google Scholar
  38. Singh, S., & Shukla, G. P. (2010). Genetic diversity in the nutritive value of dual purpose sorghum hybrids. Animal nutrition and feed technology, 10S, 93–100.Google Scholar
  39. Singh, H. P., Venkateswarlu, B., Vittal, K. P. R., & Ramachandran, K. (2000). Natural resources management for agricultural production in India. In Proceeding of the international conference on managing natural resources for sustainable agricultural production in the 21st century, February 14–18, New Delhi, India, p. 669.Google Scholar
  40. Singh, P., Wani, S. P., Pathak, P., Sahrawat, K. L., & Singh, A. K. (2011). Increasing crop productivity and water use efficiency in rainfed agriculture. In Suhas, P. Wani, J. Rockstrom, & K. L. Sahrawat (Ed.), Integrated watershed management in rainfed agriculture. The Netherlands: CRC Press, pp. 315–347.Google Scholar
  41. Steinfeld, H., Gerbe, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & De Kann, C. (2006). Livestock’s long shadows: Environmental issues and options. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
  42. Zehirov, G., & Georgiev, G. (2005). Effects of boron starvation on lignin content and mineral composition of N2 fixing soybean plants (Glycine Max L. Merr). In Proceedings of the Balkan scientific conference of biology in Plovdiv (Bulgaria), May 19–21, 2005, pp. 373–380.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amare Haileslassie
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michael Blümmel
    • 1
  • S. P. Wani
    • 2
  • K. L. Sahrawat
    • 2
  • G. Pardhasaradhi
    • 2
  • Anandan Samireddypalle
    • 3
  1. 1.International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)PatancheruIndia
  2. 2.International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)PatancheruIndia
  3. 3.National Institute of Animal Nutrition and PhysiologyBangaloreIndia

Personalised recommendations