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.

Multi-dimensional crop improvement: Experiences from collaborative ILRI-ICRISAT-NARES work on sorghum in India

284 views

Published on

Presented by Michael Blümmel, V. Vadez, N. Seetharama D. V. A. Tonapi, V Bhat, B. V. S. Reddy and C. S. Jones at the Sorghum in the 21st Century Workshop, Cape Town, South Africa, 9 - 12 April 2018

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Multi-dimensional crop improvement: Experiences from collaborative ILRI-ICRISAT-NARES work on sorghum in India

  1. 1. Multi-dimensional crop improvement: experiences from collaborative ILRI-ICRISAT-NARES work on sorghum in India Michael Blümmela, V. Vadez b, N. Seetharamac D. V. A. Tonapic, V Bhatc , B. V. S. Reddy b and C. S. Jonesa a ILRI, Feed and Forage Program; B ICRISAT c National Research Center for Sorghum now Indian Institute for Millet Research Sorghum in the 21st Century, Cape Town, South Africa 9-12 April 2018 2018 Global Nutrition Symposium, January 2018, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
  2. 2. Why pay attention to stover or more generally crop residues: feed supply-demand scenarios, crop residue fodder markets  Impact of stover fodder quality on livestock productivity: what degree of differences matter  Exploit existing cultivar variations and targeted genetic enhancement, trade-offs  Where to go from here Topics
  3. 3. Feed resource supply - demand scenarios in India Feed resource Contribution to overall feed resources (%) Greens from CRP, forests, grazing 8.0 Planted forages 15.1 Crop residues 70.6 Concentrates 6.3 Deficit: feed availability versus feed requirement (%) Dry matter (i.e. crop residue quantity) -6 Digestible crude protein -61 Total digestible nutrients -50 (NIANP 2012; Blümmel at al. 2014)
  4. 4. 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 5 0 0 A ll C o w s L o c a l C o w s C ro s s b re d C o w s 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 9 0 % 9 0 % 9 0 % G A P : 2 8 1 7 k g G A P : 8 6 9 k g G A P : 2 3 0 9 k g AverageMilkYield(kg/cow/year) Yield differences in milk production between the 10% most productive farmers and the remaining 90% in India using comparable dairy genetics (Derived from VDSA-India 2013 and Blümmel et al. 2016b)
  5. 5. 5 Commercial Sorghum stover trading in Hyderabad, India
  6. 6. Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Ju Jul Aug Sep Oc Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Sorghum grain Sorghum stover 3.4 6.5 Month of trading IndianRupeeperkg Yearly mean 2004 to 2005 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Ju Jul Aug Sep Oc Nov 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Sorghum stover Sorghum grain 6.2 10.2 Yearly mean 2008 to 2009 Month of trading Comparisions of average cost of dry sorghum stover traded in Hyderabad and average of cost of sorghum grain in Andhra Pradesh 2005 to 2005 and 2008 to 2009 Grain: stover value in sorghum traded in Hyderabad from 2004-5 and from 2008-9 Sharma et al. 2010
  7. 7. Relation between average digestibility and price of sorghum stover traded from 2004 to 2005 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 y = -4.9 + 0.17x; R2 = 0.75; P = 0.03 Stover in vitro digestibility (%) Stoverprice(IR/kgDM) Premium Stover “Raichur” Low Cost Stover “Local Yellow” Blümmel and Parthasarathy, 2006
  8. 8.  Feed supply – demand scenarios underline key role of crop residues as feed sources (in most LMC)  Fodder market surveys show high monetary value, narrowing crop residue-grain price ratios and price premiums  Continued driving factor: more quality fodder required with shrinking natural resource basis Why pay attention to crop residues fodder improvement at source
  9. 9. 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 Impact of variations in sorghum stover fodder quality on livestock productivity
  10. 10. Comparisons of feed blocks based on lower (47%) and higher (52%) digestible sorghum stover and tested with commercial dairy buffalo farmer in India Block Premium Block Low 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 3.8 % 3.6 % Milk Potential* 15.5 kg/d 9.9 kg/d Modified from Anandan et al. (2009a) * 21 and 14 kg/d in crossbred cattle
  11. 11.  “Intuitively” small difference in fodder quality of stover do matter: additive effect of higher diet quality and higher intake  Informed choice of cultivar can have very substantial effect on livestock productivity Impact of variations in stover fodder quality on livestock productivity
  12. 12.  Phenotyping new cultivars submitted for release testing for fodder traits  Phenotyping during crop improvement for fodder traits Exploit existing cultivar variations and targeted genetic enhancement  Conventional breeding, recurrent selection, hybridization  Molecular breeding, QTLs, genetic selection Exploit variation Targeted enhancement
  13. 13. (Blümmel et al. 2010) Stover fodder trait analysis in new sorghum cultivar release testing in India 2002 to 2008
  14. 14. Staygreen QTL associated sorghum stover digestibility across 2 years and 2 treatments B a c k g ro u n d S -3 5s tg 4 s tg 1 s tg 2 s tg A ll s tg 3 s tg A s tg B s tg F S -3 5 4 0 .0 4 2 .5 4 5 .0 4 7 .5 5 0 .0 5 2 .5 Stoverinvitrodigestibility(%) L S D = 1 .1 8 (Blümmel et al., 2015)
  15. 15. Staygreen QTL associated stover digestibility across 2 years and 2 treatments B a c k g ro u n d R -1 6 s tg B + 3 :5 B s tg 1 :3 A s tg B + 3 :5 A s tg B : 1 A s tg 1 + 4 :9 A s tg 4 :4 A s tg 4 :4 C s tg 1 :3 C s tg b :1 C s tg 4 : 4 B s tg B + 3 :5 B s tg 3 : 2 C s tg 3 + 4 :8 A s tg 3 : 2 A s tg B + 4 :6 A s tg B :1 B s tg 1 + 4 :9 B s tg 3 + 4 :8 B s tg 1 :3 B s tg A lls tg F R -1 6 3 0 .0 3 2 .5 3 5 .0 3 7 .5 4 0 .0 4 2 .5 4 5 .0 4 7 .5 5 0 .0 5 2 .5 5 5 .0 Stoverinvitrodigestibility(%) L S D = 1 .1 2 (Blümmel et al., 2015)
  16. 16. (Blümmel et al., 2015)
  17. 17. (Blümmel et al., 2015)
  18. 18. 18
  19. 19. Conclusions • Proof of concept for multi-dimensional crop improvement provided for key cereal and legume crops • Significant livestock nutritional cultivar variations in most crops (not wheat though) without detriment to primary traits • Quick and inexpensive impact from exploiting variations • Targeted genetic enhancement more longer term, more investment intensive, likely higher impact
  20. 20. Outlook • Translate proof-of-concept/piloting into scaling • Modify cultivar release criteria, add crop residue traits • Private sector engagement for example seed bag branding with stover information (Syngenta) • Mainstream multi-dimensional crop improvement, embedding in CRP Phase 2 crop improvement • Hub-spoke structure with phenotyping capabilities in South Asia and East and West Africa
  21. 21. better lives through livestock ilri.org This presentation is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. ILRI thanks all donors and organizations who globally supported its work through their contributions to the CGIAR system

×