Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Animal nutrition approaches for profitable livestock operations and sustainable rural livelihoods

127 views

Published on

Presented by Blümmel, M.1, Garg, M.R.,2 Jones, C.1, Baltenweck, I.1 and Staal, S. at the Indian Animal Nutrition Association XI Biennial Conference, Patna, India, 19-21 November 2018

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

Animal nutrition approaches for profitable livestock operations and sustainable rural livelihoods

  1. 1. Animal nutrition approaches for profitable livestock operations and sustainable rural livelihoods Blümmel, M.1, Garg, M.R.,2 Jones, C.1, Baltenweck, I.1 and Staal, S.1 International Livestock Research Institute National Dairy Development Board-2, India Indian Animal Nutrition Association XI Biennial Conference, Patna, India, 19-21 November 2018
  2. 2. Structure of Presentation • Feed costs as challenge to livestock producers and therefore animal nutritionist • Improving economics of feeding through animal nutrition approaches • Feed resourcing and feeding at the interface where positive and negative effects from livestock are negotiated • Feed interventions and wider livelihood implication
  3. 3. Share of feed costs in total costs of dairy production (Hemme et al. 2013)
  4. 4. Global and Indian Feed Price Development (IFCN, 2018)
  5. 5. Feed Price and Milk Farm Gate Price Developments in India (GAIN Report IN7123, 2018)
  6. 6. Feed Costs as Challenge • Feed costs already the major input cost into livestock production • Global and India feed prices diverge to the detriment of the latter • Feed prices in India rise faster than farm gate prices of produce, producing a scissor effect
  7. 7. Improving economics of feeding through animal nutrition approaches • Importance of feed quality –price relations, develop a culture to combine both information • Improve feed biomass quality: support plant breeding, upgrading ligno-cellulosic biomass • Improving on-farm feeding, matching and balancing nutrients and animal performance
  8. 8. Feed quality –price relations Variations in prices in 65 compound and concentrate feeds collected in Bihar in 2015 accounted for by CP, NDF, ADF, ADL, IVOMD,ME and Fat using stepwise multiple regression (Singh et al. 2016) Feed quality traits Partial R2 Total R2 P < F Metabolizable Energy 0.155 0.155 0.001 Crude Protein 0.076 0.231 0.02 Feed dependent estimates to produce on additional kg of milk ranged from 10.3 to 24.5 IRs
  9. 9. Forages and (in)attention to their quality: a study of Co FS 29 Trait Mean Range Forage fresh yield (kg/ha/cut) 34 126 15 157 - 61 282 Forage dry yield (kg/ha/cut) 5 951 2 242 - 9 500 Forage N (%) 2.00 1.55 - 2.22 Forage IVOMD (%) 49.1 42.3 - 53.4 Highly successful for example in Mulkanoor Woman Dairy Co-operative! But do we need to settle for a mean IVOMD of below 50% in a green forage ? Ramachandra et al, unpublished
  10. 10. Variations in forage quality in 84 forage gene bank accessions of Napier from a single cut Trait Mean Range Leaf Stem Crude protein (%) 16.5 5.9 to 23.6 6.4 to 20. 9 IVOMD (%) 62.1 53.7 to 68.0 54.1 to 73.0 ME (MJ/kg DM) 8.6 7.8 to 9.7 7.8 to 10.4 (Jones et al., 2018)
  11. 11. Breeding advance in dual purpose maize stover fodder quality relative to different sorghum stover traded in rainfed India 4 5 .0 4 7 .5 5 0 .0 5 2 .5 5 5 .0 5 7 .5 6 0 .0 2 .8 3 .0 3 .2 3 .4 3 .6 3 .8 4 .0 4 .2 S to v e r in v itro digestibility (% ) Stoverprice(IR/kgDM) L o w q u a lity s o rg h u m sto ve r H ig h q u a lity s o rg h u m sto ve r M e a n IV O M D (ra n g e 5 5 .2 to 5 7 .9 % ) o f 1 1 a d v a n c e d d u a l p u rp o s e m a ize b re e d in g lin e s g e n e ra te d d u rin g th e p ro je c ts M e a n IV O M D (ra n g e 5 3 .6 to 5 6 .0 % ) o f 1 1 e xp e rim e n ta l h e a t to le ra n t d u a l p u rp o s e m a iz e h y b rid s g e n e ra te d d u rin g th e p ro je c ts B lü m m e l e t a l. (2 0 1 4 a )
  12. 12. Leveraging spin-off technologies from 2nd generation for deconstructing ligno-cellulosic biomass • 10 – 50 Billion tons biomass annually and about 4 Billion tons are from crop residues • Billions of $ investment to leverage for different steps along the value chain starting from collection of high bulk low density feed stocks to bio- manufacturing and de novo synthesis of enzymes • Dissolve boundaries between food- feed-fodder, livestock species and even animal and human nutrition • Potential game changer technologies
  13. 13.  Efficient harvest and collection of high volume-low density biomass  Balance central versus decentralized approach  Optimize physical form-transport-susceptibility to pre- treatment- voluntary feed intake  Swell and disrupt hemicellulose-cellulose-lignin matrix  Partially hydrolyze xylan structure  Increase surface and porocity of fiber structure  Unclear benefit for ruminant nutrition, more research with new enzymes/enzyme cocktails needed  Demand/potential for monogastric nutrition  “One pot” complete enzymatic conversions Biomass: Straws and Stovers Ethanol Fermentation Distillation Pre-treatment Pre- treated Biomass Pentoses Rumen microbial digestion External Enzymes GLUCOSE LivestockNutrition Sucrose Juice or Molasses Yeast Ethanol Stillage Ruminants Monogastrics EthanolPathway Figure 1: Process steps in second generation bio-fuel technology of interest to livestock nutrition(Blümmel et al.,2014)
  14. 14. Leveraging 2nd generation biofuel technologies Steam Explosion Treatment [Nagarjuna Fertilizer] Ammonia Fiber Expansion (AFEX) [Michigan Biotechnology Institute] 2-Chemical Combination Treatment [Indian Institute for Chemical Technology, joint patent application with ILRI under consideration]
  15. 15. Spin-off technology n In vitro GP after 48 h (ml/200 mg) True IVOMD after 48 h (%) U T U T Steam Treatment 4 48.6 53.6 62.9 71.8 AFEX Treatment 10 42.9 51.5 65.1 84.4 2CC Treatment 11 39.7 66.7 55.9 94.1 Summary of effects of steam, ammonia fiber expansion and 2CC treatment on in vitro gas production (GP) and true in vitro digestibility-1 (IVOMD) after 48 h of incubation. U = untreated; T = Treated -1The average difference between true and apparent IVOMD is about 12.9 percentage units (van Soest, 94). Increments in digestibility were similar independent of expression as apparent or true digestibility. Blümmel et al. (2018)
  16. 16. Intake and weight gain in sheep fed complete diets consisting of 70% untreated and steam and 2CCT treated rice straw - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 8 2 0 2 2 2 4 2 6 2 8 3 0 3 2 3 4 3 6 3 8 4 0 4 2 4 4 4 6 W e e k s o f e x p e rim e n ta tio n OMI(g/kgLW) T M R w ith 2 C C tre a te d rice s tra w T M R w ith ste a m tre a te d rice s tra w T M R w ith u n tre a te d rice stra w l x = 3 4 .1 x = 3 9 .9 x = 28.3 + 3 .9 2 k g L W G + 6 .1 2 k g L W G + 1 .6 6 k g L W G R e s p o n s e o f s h e e p fe d to ta l m ix e d ra tio n s c o n ta in in g 7 0 % o f u n tre a te d , 2 C C T tre a te d a n d s te a m tre a te d ric e s tra w ( Unpublished ILRI-IICT data)
  17. 17. Would rice straw with a digestibility of more than 80% still burn?
  18. 18. Improve feed biomass quality: support plant breeding, upgrading ligno-cellulosic biomass Improving economics of feeding through animal nutrition approaches• Co-operation of animal nutrition and plant improvement can contribute significantly to more feed biomass with higher fodder quality • Potential game changer technologies to be harvested from 2nd generation biofuel - animal nutritionists need to be the driver!
  19. 19. Improving on-farm feeding, matching and balancing nutrients and animal performance performance nimal nutrition approaches Ration Balancing: a comprehensive approach of NDDB to apply animal nutrition principles to improve on-farm feeding: • Increase in production • Increase in economics of dairy and its components • Positive associated effects
  20. 20. Summary of key dairy productivity variables after implementing ration balancing (RB) feeding, matching and balancing nutrients and animal performance nimal nutrition approaches Impact on Cows (n=1.74 million) Buffalo (n=1.05 million) Mean Range Mean Range Milk production before RB kg/d) 9.1 7.9 to 15.6 7.8 5.6 to 11.4 Milk production after RB (kg/d) + 0.85 0.40-3.10 + 0.42 0.15-2.20 Milk fat (% units) + 0.3 0.1-1.5 + 0.3 0.1-1.8 Feed costs (IRs / kg Milk) - 1.8 0.5-3.5 - 1.1 0.4-3.2 Milk efficiency (kg FCM/kg DMI) + 0.2 0.58 to 0.78 + 0.13 0.53 to 0.66 Reduction in CH4 (% / kg Milk) -18 11-24 -16 10-20 Daily benefit per animal* (IRs /d) + 25 15-40 + 25 10-35 * In animals yielding about 8 to 10 kg/d
  21. 21. Improving on-farm feeding, matching and balancing nutrients and animal performance nimal nutrition approaches • Ration Balancing applied to millions of dairy animals had significant positive effect on key dairy productivity variables • The comprehensive approach of NDDB to apply animal nutrition principles to improve on-farm feeding has general appeal to LMC countries – South to South collaborative opportunities • A serious study is warranted (and facilitated) to understand if current findings describe ceiling values for what is achievable through on-farm targeted feed interventions
  22. 22. Feed resourcing and feeding and environmental foot prints Structure of Presentation • Feed production and water requirements for feed production • Feed characteristics and greenhouse gas emissions • Intensification and reduction of feed requirements and environmental foot prints
  23. 23. Life cycle analysis of irrigation water use in dairy production in Gujarat in India S. Gujarat W. Gujarat N. Gujarat B CB B CB LC B CB LC Milk kg/d 1.87 2.90 4.72 6.39 4.08 3.82 5.14 4.0 Liter H2O drinking water 39 32 41 34 28 52 49 38 Liter H2O feed 5970 5510 7730 8790 6680 11760 11630 7060 Liter H2O per kg of milk 3226 1887 2041 1724 1667 4546 2941 2941 Data adapted from Singh et al., 2004 B = Buffalo; CB = cross breed; LC = Local cow H2O requirement for production of 1 kg of Milk Gujarat: 3 400 l Global: 1 000 l
  24. 24. Climatic and water data •Min and Max- Temperature ( oC) •Humidity (%) •Rain fall •Wind speed ( km day-1) •Sunshine (hrs day-1) •Radiation (Mj m-2 day-1) •Volume of water per irrigation and number of irrigation Crops and soil parameters •Soil type and structure •Crop types and management practices ( food and fodder crops) •Length of growing period for different stages of development •Soil types Examples of tools and procedures •Budget (Raes et al., 2006) •CropWat (FAO 1998; Allen et al., 1998) Total evapotranspired water by feed sources type (m3 ha-1) Conversion factors, HI, feed use factor (as structured in Table 4) Feed Dry Matter (kg m- 3) Land use land cover (ha) as structured in Table 4 Feed resources by types (Kg ha-1) A simplified framework to combine feed resources data base and water input requirement estimates NIANP FeedBase ConceptNIANP FEEDBASE (Blummel et al, 2014b)
  25. 25. 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5 47.5 52.5 57.5 62.5 67.5 high propionate high acetate Microbial biomass produced per kg feed digested (g/kg) CH4(l)producedperkgfeeddigested Methane production from 1 kg of feed truly digested in the rumen in dependence of SCFA proportion and Efficiency of Microbial Production (modified from Blümmel and Krishna 2003)
  26. 26. Feed requirement in dependency of per dairy animal productivity: c. 70 M dairy, 82 Mt milk 3.6 6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 0 2 5 5 0 7 5 1 0 0 A ve ra g e d a ily m ilk y ie ld (kg ) Relativefeedrequirement(MJME)withincreasing productivityandcorrespondingreductionin numbersofdairyanimals:2005equals100 R e la tiv e fe e d re q u ire m e n ts (M E M J) P ro p o rtio n o f fe e d (M E M J ) u s e d fo r m a in te n a n c e (Blummel et al, 2013 calculated from data of Anandan et al. 2009)
  27. 27. Effect of producing the same amount of milk with fewer dairy animals on methane production 0 .0 2 .5 5 .0 7 .5 1 0 .0 1 2 .5 1 5 .0 1 7 .5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 D a ily m ilk p ro d u c tio n p e r a n im a l (k g ) Methaneannuallyproduced(Tg) (Blummel et al., 2013 calculated from data of Anandan et al. 2009)
  28. 28. Feed resourcing and feeding and environmental foot prints Structure of Presentation • Feed sourcing is the driving factor for livestock water productivity • With awareness, animal nutritionist can estimate water requirement and design water use efficient rations • Ration choice and design effect SCFA proportion and EMP and both effect enteric CH4 production • Intensification has potentially an overriding effect on feed requirement and total and proportional CH4 production
  29. 29. Feed interventions and wider livelihood implications • Feed interventions, feeding and labor • Limitations to improvement of feed resources on-farm • Need to increase affordable off-farm produced feed • Win-win situation through production of affordable off- farm produced feed
  30. 30. Labor implication of feed interventions
  31. 31. Cost of Milk Production in India 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 IN-2AS IN-6AS IN-2GU IN-8GU IN-2KA IN-6KA IN-2OD IN-5OD IN-2UP IN-4UP IN-2HA IN-20HA IN-60CF IN-300CF USD/100kgmilk(ECM) Quota costs Opportunity costs Cost P&L - non milk returns Milk price IFCN, 2018
  32. 32. Labor input per dairy animal on 4 farms in India with differing numbers of animals and land sizes (modified from 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 Hours/head/year F 1 [2 /0 ] F 2 [4 /3 .7 ] F 3 [2 2 /4 .8 ] F 4 [3 7 /0 ] (m o d ifie d fro m H e m m e e t a l., 2 0 0 3 )
  33. 33. Gender Role in Dairy Production Activities Men Women Livestock/ Dairy Animal treatment Fodder collection Breeding Feeding Feed purchase Watering Delivery of milk/marketing Cleaning shed Sweet manufacturing Milking Delivery of milk/marketing Care of sick animals Total labor hours for dairy 0.5-1 hours 4-5 hours 2-3 hrs. for feeding tasks (Source: Kumaraswamy et al., 2014. A gendered assessment of the Mulukanoor Women’s Cooperative Dairy value chain, Telangana, India; Ravichandran et al., 2018. Determinants of women’s participation and control over dairy income from dairy cooperatives: Evidence from Bihar and Telangana villages, India)
  34. 34. More off-farm produced feed and its implication for wider rural livelihood implicationsForages as a cash crop • Simple, low biophysical and socio economic investment • Highly competitive for example with vegetables Fodder marketing, service provision • Fodder collection and transactions • Chopping, grinding • Silage, hay making Feed processing • Mineral and other supplements • Total mixed rations
  35. 35. Conclusions • Increase the economic benefit from ASF production by decreasing feed costs and/or increasing ASF production, • Decrease the environmental footprint of ASF production • Reduce labour requirements and drudgery involved in feed resourcing and feeding • Provide opportunities for micro, small and medium enterprises (MSME) in feed production, marketing and processing
  36. 36. Conclusions However to achieve this we need to work within a wide disciplinary and institutional framework: • Economists and socio-economists • Natural resource management • Plant improvement • Key life science actors • Development actors, NGOs • Private sector • Policy makers
  37. 37. This presentation is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. better lives through livestock ilri.org ILRI thanks all donors and organizations who globally supported its work through their contributions to the CGIAR system Thank you very much for your attention! and

×