Interspace Utilization in Fruit Orchards for Fodder Security

SUHEEL AHMAD
Officer In charge
Indian Grassland and Fodder Research
Institute, Regional Research Station,
Srinagar-190007, J & K, INDIA
Interspace Utilization in Fruit Orchards
for Fodder Security

Outline
About IGFRI Regional Station
Introduction Agroforestry
Agroforestry and Diversification
Agroforestry and Forage Production
Hortipasture sytem
Orchard Floor Management
Grasses/legumes and OFM
Grasses/legumes as cover crops/living
mulches
Constraints Future Prospects
Conclusions

Historical Perspective
 1972: Regional Research Station, Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute established at Manasbal, Bandipora (then
Distt. Baramulla), Jammu & Kashmir. The Directorate of Animal Husbandry, Jammu and Kashmir, Government provided 20
acres of land in their farm. Subsequently, the entire Manasbal Farm was handed over to SKUAST, Kashmir.
 1988: Under MOU between SKUAST-Kashmir and ICAR, research activities of the station were shifted from Manasbal to K
D Farm, Old Air Field, Rangreth, Srinagar on an area of 20 acres provided by the university. On July 9, 1988, foundation
stone of the regional centre of IGFRI at K D Farm was laid by Dr N S Randhawa, Secretary DARE & Director General,
ICAR in presence of Dr Punjab Singh, Director, IGFRI and Dr Bimal Misri, OIC, IGFRI, Regional Centre (Jammu and
Kashmir).
 1996: IGFRI Regional Centre temporarily shifted to Palampur, Himachal Pradesh on account of unfavourable conditions in
the valley of Kashmir.
 2011: IGFRI, RRS Srinagar reopened. Mr. Suheel Ahmad, Scientist (Agroforestry) transferred to RRS Srinagar for
commencing research activities at the station.

1. Collection, Evaluation, Introduction and Documentation
of temperate and sub-temperate forage germplasm.
2. Evaluation of high yielding and nutritive forage crop
varieties.
3. Developing technologies for improving the grassland
agro-resource management practices to sustain livelihood
and Himalayan environment.
Mandate

1. Pasture Improvement in Himalayan region
2. Enhance fodder resource availability through
alternate land use systems
3. Amelioration of grazing lands and alpine
pasturelands for livelihood support to pastoral
communities
Thrust Areas

Diversification
Agricultural diversification refers to the development of greater variety of
agricultural crops within space and time. It takes place with an increase in
population and a decrease in per capita cropland.
A sustained economic growth, rising per capita income and growing urbanization
are ostensibly causing a shift in the consumption patterns in favour of high-value
food commodities like fruits, vegetables, dairy, poultry, products from staple food
such as rice, wheat and coarse cereals.
The demand for and supply of these commodities have grown much faster than
those of food-grains. Such a shift in consumption patterns in favour of high-value
food commodities even among the poorest strata of the Indian society depicts an on-
going process of transformation that is leading towards a ‘silent revolution’ of
agricultural diversification.

Diversification motives
Diversification is widely implicit as a form of self-insurance in which people
exchange some foregone expected earnings for reduced income variability achieved
by selecting a portfolio of assets and activities that have a low or negative correlation
of incomes.
The diversification motives are classified into two; these are pushing and pulling
factors.
Pushing factors include risk reduction, response to diminishing factor returns in any
given use, such as family labour supply in the presence of land constraints goaded by
population pressure and fragmented land holdings, reaction to a crisis or liquidity
constraints, high transaction costs that influence households to self-provision in
several goods and services.
Quite the opposite, pulling motive factors comprise the realisation of strategic
complementarities between activities, such as crop-livestock integration.

AGROFORESTRY: Definition
“Agroforestry is a collective name for land-use systems and technologies where woody perennials (trees, shrubs, palms, bamboos,
etc.) are deliberately used on the same land-management units as agricultural crops and/or animals, in some form of spatial
arrangement or temporal sequence. In agroforestry systems, there are both ecological and economical interactions between the
different components”
(Lundgren and Raintree, 1982)
“Agroforestry is a dynamic, ecological based, natural resource management system that through the integration of tress on farms and
in agricultural (landscape) diversifies and sustains produce for increased social, economic, and environmental benefits for all land
users at all levels’’
(Leaky, 1997)
An international terminology for grazing lands and grazing animals defines agroforestry as, “Land-use system in which trees are used
for forest products (e.g. timber, pulp, fruits, rubber, syrup and browse) combined with agricultural crops including forage crops and/or
animal production.”
(Allen et al., 2011)
Several other definitions are also available. In essence, they all refer to the practice of the purposeful growing of trees
and crops, and/or animals, in interacting combinations, for a variety of benefits and services (Nair et al.,2008).

 A principal aim of agroforestry is to create interactions between woody perennials, herbaceous crops
or pastures, and their biotic and abiotic environments which increase the overall productivity and
efficiency of the land use system and its sustainability.
(Schroth, 1995)
A sustainable system is:
One that, over the long term, enhances environmental quality and the resource base on which agriculture
depends: provides for basic human food and fiber needs, is economically viable; and enhances the
quality of life for farmers and society as a whole
(American Society of Agronomy, 1989).
General strategies for designing sustainable agricultural systems include:
Introduction

Agroforestry, livestock-keeping and the interactions between these practices
are crucial for the livelihoods of rural communities.
(Garrity 2004, McDermott et al. 2010) Agroforestry practices are increasingly
important as access to tree resources from natural forests and woodlands is
lost through deforestation due to agricultural expansion.
(FAO, 2010)
Forage-based agroforestry systems have been shown to be more compatible than
grain crop-based alley-cropping systems, due to the shading from mature tree species
having a greater impact on grain crops compared to forages.
(Garrett and Kurtz 1983; Gillespie 1996).
AGROFORESTRY FOR FORAGE PRODUCTION

Hortipasture system
Scope exists in introduction of fodder crops as
inter-crop in orchards (Wani et al., 2014) which
has by and large remained untapped for fodder
development.
The utilisation of these orchards can give a big
boost to livestock development.
Hortipastoral system involving integration of fruit
trees with pasture (grass and/or legume) could
be adopted with suitable techniques to augment
forage resource availability (Sharma, 2004;
Kumar and Chaubey, 2008; Khan and Kumar,
2009).
Under the programmeit is
envisaged to
introduce high yielding temperate perennial
grasses and legumes in phased manner to
cover the available orchard land.

Scope and potential of Horti-pastoral systems
 The area under different fruit plants in the state of J&K in 2016-
17 was about 338528 ha (219723 ha in Kashmir and 118805 ha
in Jammu)
 Scope exists in introduction of fodder crops as inter-crop in
orchards (Wani et al., 2014) which has by and large remained
untapped for fodder development.
 Sustainable land use option (Shukla et al 2014).
 Utilization of orchards as a niche area
for forage resource
augmentation (Ahmad, 2017)
 Food and nutritional security (Shukla and Kumar, 2007)

 Adequate availability of quality fodder is essential for enhancing livestock productivity.
(GOI 2007)
 Livestock wealth is more equitably distributed than that of land.
(Kumar and Singh, 2008)
 Being an important source of income and employment for weaker section of society, the livestock
helps in alleviating poverty and smoothening of income distribution.
(Birthal et al., 2002)
 Livestock is important both as savings and investments for the poor household and provides security
or insurance through multiple ways in different production systems.
(Kitalyi et al., 2005)
 In view of the rich interaction between crop and livestock, it is being increasingly realized that
integrating livestock in a system approach would arrest the sustainability concerns, which are the keys
to country’s food security.
(Sere and Steinfeld, 1996; Hann et al., 1997; Patel, 1993; Singh et al., 2005)
Livestock as drivers of socio-economicupliftment

The livestock sector (including intensive production) already represents around a third of agricultural GDP in
most countries.
World Bank 2008
In the past three decades, production and consumption of livestock products in developing countries has
grown at 3-5% p.a..
FAO 2009
By 2050, total meat and milk consumption in developing countries is expected to at least double.
FAO 2006
These trends present both opportunities and challenges for livestock production in grassland regions.

 Horticulture based production systems are now considered to be the most ideal strategy to provide food,
nutrition and income security to the people (Chundawat 1993; Chadha 2002).
 Managing fruit orchards involves both the management of the orchard trees, and the orchard floor.
 Orchard floor management is vital to tree health, yield and fruit quality.
 Current standard management practices include maintaining a vegetation free tree row and a grass-covered alleyway.
This system effectively controls weeds and creates a favorable environment for the fruit trees.
(Dabney et al., 2001;Merwin, 2004)
 Orchard floor management practices involving grasses and legumes (hortipastoral systems) are important in fruit
production to maintain soil tilth and fertility, reduce weed competition, moderate soil temperature and moisture
extremes, provide a habitat for beneficial arthropods and minimize soil erosion.
 Perennial crops maintain a continuous soil cover, increase water infiltration, reduce soil erosion, and improve overall
soil quality. (Gold and Garrett 2009).
 Therefore, planting perennial forage species in the alleys may not only protect the soil resource by improving soil
quality but also provide a source of income during orchard establishment (Ares et al. 2006).
 Grass-legume intercropping besides increasing the biomass production provides better quality forage, rich in protein
and carbohydrates which would be helpful to improve the milk production and animal health.

METHODS OF SOIL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Clean culture
This type of cultivation is extensively followed in India. This involves regular ploughing and
removal of weeds. The clean culture has many disadvantages. They are:
i.Humus will be completely depleted rapidly due to frequent cultivation.
ii.Frequent cultivation causes injury to the feeding roots, the trees may be short lived or
stunted in growth.
iii.Clean cultivation aids in more aeration leading to the depletion of nitrogen.
iv.Hard pan is created in the soil.
v.Frequent cultivation causes more soil erosion.
The above mentioned defects in clean cultivation can be minimized by avoiding deep and
frequent
cultivation and also cultivation when the soil is too wet.
Clean culture with cover crops
This type of soil management involves raising of a cover crop or green manure after
removing the weeds.
It is probably best to plant a green manure crop between the trees early in the rains and
plough it into the soil towards the end of monsoon season. In India, green manure crops
like Sunhemp, Cowpea, Daincha, Lupins etc. are more commonly used.
Legume cover cropping in grape, mango, guava and other fruit crops is becoming a
common practice in the management of orchards. Cowpea and French beans grow well
under apple trees. In some places to prevent soil erosion, certain permanent cover crops
like red clover, white clover, alfalfa are raised in the alley spaces. They are leguminous
crops, establish in a short period and fix atmospheric nitrogen and conserve soil moisture.

Treatments GFY (t/ha)
DFY
(t/ha)
CPY
(t/ha)
Apple
leaf
yield
(t/ha)
Pruned
wood
Biomass
Yield
(t/ha)
Fruit
Yield
(kg/tre
e)
T1: White clover+Apple 14.77 5.28 1.27 2.40 2.84 33.65
T2: Red clover+ Apple
19.47 6.33 1.37 2.42 2.90 34.33
T3: Tall fescue+ Apple
24.42 8.02 0.84 1.96 2.84 27.45
T4: Orchard grass+ Apple 22.32 7.39 0.77 1.94 2.90 28.27
T5: Tall fescue + white clover+ Apple
24.35 9.38 1.60 1.99 2.84 30.96
T6: Tall fescue + red clover+ Apple
29.47 10.72 1.63 2.06 2.81 30.63
T7: Orchard grass + white clover+
Apple 23.93 8.03 1.27 2.05 2.78 30.56
T8: Orchard grass + red clover+ Apple
26.72 9.13 1.31 2.03 2.84 30.65
T9: Control (Clean cultivation) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.97 2.72 26.93
CD0.05 0.91 0.24 0.02 0.01 NS 0.16
Effect of various forage intercrops on diversification of outputs

STEPS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF HORTIPASTURE SYSTEM
1 Pit digging 2. In-situ moisture conservation
3. Fruit tree transplanting 4. Stone mulching in basin

Cont.
10. Grass transportation9. Manual grass harvesting8. Life saving irrigation
7. Grass transplanting6. Rooted slips5. Line sowing of legume

SWISSSANDWITCHSYSTEM
The ‘‘sandwich’’ system has been developed in Switzerland as a new
method of living mulch combined with modified tillage.
Annual or perennial crops are sown in a nar-row strip (40 to 50 cm wide)
within the
tree row, whereas the soil to each side of this strip is tilled.
Weed control around the tree trunks can be avoided by having a low-
growing vegetated strip and the narrow cultivated strip at each side of the
tree row can provide a competition-free zone for tree roots. This method is
reported to show the lowest costs for practical weed control without any
negative effect on tree performance and yield.
The sandwich system can also de-crease pests and diseases and increase
bio-
diversity, improve soil conditions, and enhance nutrient cycling.
However, several challenges to sand-wich systems must be resolved such
as choosing living mulch mixtures that have minimal competition, avoiding
rodent problems, and adjusting vegetation growth with-out any negative

Tallfescue (Festucaarundinacea (Schreb.) Hack Orchard grass/Cock’s foot (Dactylis glomerata L)
White clover (Trifolium repensL) Redclover (Trifolium pratenseL)

LEGUMEGRASS MIXTURES
ACTASCOVER
CROPS/LIVING MULCHES

Terminology
 Confusion about the terms:
 cover crop, green manure, and catch crop.
 Frequently used interchangeably, but refer to different
primary functions:
 Cover crop = used to prevent soil erosion by covering soil with
living plants
 Green manure = turned under for soil improvement
 Catch crop = used to “catch” nutrients left after harvest of a
cash
crop and prevent leaching
 Living mulch

Why use grasses/legumes as
cover crops?
 Cover crops are an important fertility management tool
available to farmers
 Grown primarily for soil or ecosystem improvement
rather than cash
 Perennial in nature

Goal: Increase nutrient availability
 Cover crops can increase nutrient availability by:
 residue breakdown - releases nutrients into soil solution or incorporated
in
soil microbes.
 As a source of readily available C cover crops stimulate microbial activity
and increase the breakdown of soil OM.
 If cover crop is deeper rooted than preceding crops it can recycle
nutrients from deeper in the soil and return them to the upper soil when
residue is incorporated
 Cover crops rather than bare fallow reduce nutrient loss by capturing
nutrients vulnerable to leaching and preventing soil erosion.

Goal: Increase SOM and improve nutrient
availability
Tobuild SOM look for a high biomass cover crop.
 Possible options for fall planting include non-legumes such as:
 annual rye grass, cereal rye, triticale, legume/cereal mix,
 Highbiomass legumes provide Nand buildSOM:
 sub-clover or woollypod vetch
 For summer planting options include:
 sorghum/sudan grass, buckwheat
 tropical legumes:
 cowpea, crotolaria, pigeon pea, lablab bean,sesbania

Table: Effect of grass/legume combinations on soil physicochemical properties
Treatments
Bulk density (g/cm3) Organic carbon (%)
2016 2017 Pooled 2016 2017 Pooled
T1: White clover 1.26 1.23 1.25 0.71 0.83 0.77
T2: Red clover 1.27 1.24 1.26 0.70 0.83 0.77
T3: Tall fescue 1.24 1.23 1.24 0.64 0.68 0.66
T4: Orchard grass
1.25 1.24 1.25 0.65 0.68 0.66
T5: Tall fescue + white clover
1.28 1.25 1.27 0.68 0.74 0.71
T6: Tall fescue + red clover
1.26 1.24 1.25 0.69 0.75 0.72
T7: Orchard grass + white clover
1.27 1.25 1.26 0.68 0.74 0.71
T8: Orchard grass + red clover
1.26 1.25 1.26 0.68 0.75 0.71
T9: White clover+Apple
1.26 1.23 1.25 0.75 0.89 0.82
T10: Red clover+ Apple
1.25 1.22 1.24 0.76 0.92 0.84
T11: Tall fescue+ Apple
1.24 1.23 1.24 0.70 0.71 0.71
T12: Orchard grass+ Apple 1.26 1.24 1.25 0.69 0.72 0.71
T13: Tall fescue + white clover+
Apple 1.25 1.23 1.24 0.71 0.80 0.76
T14: Tall fescue + red clover+
Apple 1.24 1.23 1.24 0.72 0.80 0.76
T15: Orchard grass + white
clover+
Apple
1.26 1.23 1.25 0.72 0.79 0.76
T16: Orchard grass + red clover+
Apple 1.25 1.23 1.24 0.73 0.80 0.77
T17: Control (Clean cultivation)
1.24 1.24 1.24 0.69 0.66 0.68
Sed 0.0002 0.005 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.01
CD0.05 NS 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03

Table: Effect of grass/legume combinations on soil physicochemical properties
Treatments
T1:Whiteclover
T2:Redclover
T3:Tall fescue
T4:Orchardgrass
T5:Tall fescue+white clover
T6:Tall fescue+red clover
Available N (kg/ha) Available P (kg/ha)
2016 2017 Pooled 2016 2017 Pooled 2016
434.63 480.64 457.64 14.28 14.98 14.63 428.99
442.33 492.34 467.34 15.65 15.94 15.80 431.56
385.24 387.24 386.24 11.94 12.12 12.03 402.51
386.64 388.65 387.65 12.24 12.56 12.40 404.18
427.84
408.18 419.22 13.56 14.24 13.90 420.40
411.74 430.26 423.79 13.94 14.94 14.44 419.42
T7:Orchard grass+white clover 420.65
T8:Orchard grass+red clover
T9:Whiteclover+Apple
T10: Redclover+ Apple
T11: Tall fescue+Apple
T12: Orchard grass+Apple
409.71 428.64 13.92 14.96 14.44 418.38
433.56
412.65 421.63 14.10 15.25 14.68 422.21
438.08 492.18 469.63 15.68 16.94 16.31 441.90
446.67 505.45 475.06 16.84 17.92 17.38 446.56
390.15 393.65 384.40 12.94 13.24 13.09 405.32
392.64 394.20 393.42 12.92 14.10 13.51 408.34
Available K (kg/ha) 2017
Pooled
436.49 432.74
439.06 435.31
410.01 406.26
411.68 407.93
427.90 424.15
426.92 423.17
425.88 422.13
429.71 425.96
449.40 445.65
454.06 450.31
412.82 409.07
415.84 412.09
T13: Tall fescue + white
clover+ Apple
412.66 428.32 420.88 14.24 16.32 15.28 433.90 441.40 437.65
T14: Tall fescue+red clover+
Apple
413.44
432.35 422.51
14.94 16.94 15.94 437.48 444.98 441.23
T15: Orchard grass +
white clover+ Apple
410.80 428.65 422.03 14.32 16.36 15.34 431.56 439.06 435.31
T16: Orchard grass + red
clover+ Apple
415.41
424.38 417.59
14.92 16.40 15.66 432.69 440.19 436.44
T17: Control (Cleancultivation)
378.52 379.79 379.16 11.89 11.74 11.82 413.11 420.61 416.86
Sed 3.41 3.08 3.28 0.42 0.52 0.47 3.45 3.42 3.44
CD0.05 6.84 6.28 6.50 0.86 1.05 0.94 6.92 6.86 6.90

Goal: improve soil physical properties
 Generally improve soil physical properties by:
 increased SOM
 increased microbial activity and production of extracellular “glues”
that
enhance aggregate stability
 increased water infiltration due to increased porosity - both macro and
micropores
 It may be beneficial to include a non-legume to provide organic material
that breaks down more slowly than a legume alone
 Some deep-rooted species can help to break through compacted layers
in the soil and improve drainage.
 E.g. Sorghum-sudan grass
 In a recent study cover crop use in moderately saline soils
impaired soil physical properties

Goal: Weed suppression
 Achieved by either:
outcompeting weeds by rapid canopy development and more vigorous
growth
production of allelopathic compounds
provision of dense mulch
 Examples:
good options include triticales, sorghum/sudan and other cereals, brassicas
such as rapeseed and oilseed radish and high biomass or allelopathic
legumes. Also a well-balanced mix can also work providing the canopy
closes quickly
cereal rye is also effective due to combination of a dense canopy and
allelopathy, but can become a problematic weed itself in small grain
systems.
For effective mulches use species/mixes that produce lots of slowly
decomposing biomass (have a relatively high C:N ratio)

Major weed flora found inthe experimental field
Weed species Common name Family Characteristics
Anthemis cotula Stinking chamomile Asteraceae Annual, glandular plant with strong stinking odor, leaves without stalk
Sinapis arvensis Wild mustard Brassicaceae Annual or winter annual, yellow flowers, contains glucosinolates, grows
inthe plains and mountains but mainly incultivated fields
Papaver rhoeas Common/red poppy Papaveraceae Erect, annual, Red flowers, forms long-lived soil seed bank
Amaranthus spp. Amaranth/Pigweeds Amaranthaceae Annual or short lived perennial, some species cultivated as vegetables,
pseudo-cereals and ornamentals.
Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion Asteraceae Flowering herbaceous perennial, used as a medical herb and in food
preparations, forms flower heads as blow balls
Conium maculatum Poison hemlock Apiaceae Highly poisonous biennial, herbaceous, flowering, very hardy plant
Poa spp. Meadow grass Poaceae Native to temperate regions, annual/perennial, Mostly Monoecious
Chenopodium album CommonLamb’squarters Amaranthaceae Annual, fast growing, Bathua inHindi also cultivated and consumed in
North India
Hordeum murinum False/wall barley Poaceae Monocot, Tetraploid, Ligules blunt, Annual winterspecies
Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Asteraceae Herbacious Perennial, Dicot,C3, ruderal, spiny species
Convolvulus arvensis Field bind weed Convolvulaceae Climbing or creeping herbacious perennial plant, 0.5 to 2 mhigh
Rumex dentatus Toothed/Aegean dock Polygonaceae Annual or biennial herb, common inmoist areas and edges of cultivated
fields, has allelopathic activity
Erigeron canadensis Horseweed Asteraceae Annual, first weed to develop glyphosate resistance, sparsely hairy
stems, leaves have coarsely toothed margins
Carthamus lanatus Downy safflower/Saffron
thistle
Asteraceae Annual, spiny, glandular, woolly plant closely related to safflower
Capsella bursa- pastoris Shepherd’s purse Brassicaceae Heart shaped siliques or Triangular flat purse like fruits, small, annual,
ruderal, flowering plant, common weed incolder climates
Plantago lanceolata Ribwort plantain Plantaginaceae Commonweed of cultivated lands, also called lamb’s tongue, rosette-
forming perennial herb
Setaria viridis Green foxtail Poaceae Monocot, annual grass, Closely related to Setaria faberi, a noxious
weed. Wild antecedent of foxtail millet

Effect of various treatments on weed density and WCE
Treatments Weed density (no/m2) Weed control efficiency (%)
T1 320.13 (17.90) 39.48
T2 335.62 (18.33) 36.60
T3 264.39 (16.27) 42.49
T4 540.83 (25.40) 28.80
T5 500.11 (26.16) 25.12
T6 130.62 (11.45) 47.68
T7 132.28 (11.52) 46.45
T8 128.26 (11.34) 56.35
T9 246.84 (15.72) 38.13
T10 800.63 (27.18) 0.00
SEd 0.43 0.97
CD 0.05 0.92 2.05
CV 3.55 3.28
Treatments: T1=Festuca arundinacea, T2= Dactylis glomerata, T3= Phalaris stenoptera, T4=
Phleum pratense, T5= Trifolium pratense, T6= Festuca arundinacea + Trifolium pratense, T7=
Dactylis glomerata + Trifolium pratense, T8= Phalaris stenoptera + Trifolium pratense, T9=
Phleum pratense + Trifolium pratense, T10= Control (Natural vegetation)

Goal :Provide mulchto conserve soil moisture
 As for weed suppressive mulches look for a
combination of high above ground biomass and
moderate or high C:N ratio residues.
 Most legume residues with their high nitrogen
content will decompose too rapidly to be effective.

Goal: Scavenge nutrients &prevent leaching
 To maximize nutrient scavenging the cover crop
should have an extensive root system that develops
quickly after planting.
 Non-legumes such as small grains, cereal rye,
triticale, rapeseed, annual rye grass oilseed radish
and mustards work well, but some legumes are also
suitable.

Goal: Prevent soil erosion
 Here the key is to choose a species that rapidly
covers the soil surface.
 Many of the species that are good nutrient
scavengers also provide excellent ground cover.
 But... while annual rye grass is a good nutrient
scavenger, it has fine leaves and is slow to cover
the soil surface, and not a good selection for
reducing erosion.

Goal: Protect water quality.
 This is achieved by selecting species that both
prevent soil erosion and scavenge nutrients during
periods of high rainfall.
 It is also important to avoid turning in high N
cover crops when the soils will be vulnerable to
leaching

Goal: reduce disease and pest severity
 Effects of cover crops depend on the species used and
timing of incorporation and planting of the subsequent crop.
 Some species such as cereal rye, triticale, forage
rapeseeds, mustards and oil seed radish are known to
suppress certain plant parasitic nematodes and soil borne
diseases, whereas most legumes are highly susceptible and
can increase nematode populations.
 Need to have information on pests and diseases prevalent
in an area to identify which cover crops should be avoided,
or only used in mixtures.

Goal: Provide habitat for beneficial insects
and spiders
 From work in orchards and vineyards it is clear that cover
crops
provide habitat for beneficials, due to:
vegetative cover
by providing food sources such as extrafloral nectaries (e.g. vetch) or
flowers
 This aspect of cover crop ecology has not been well studied for
annual systems, and there may be more potential than has been
recognized.
 The key in annual systems is to make sure that when the cover
crop is turned in there are alternative habitats for the
beneficials to move to:
Field margin vegetation, strips of undisturbed cover crops or insectary

Step 1. Identify what you want the cover crop to
do?
 Address the most important factors limiting the
productivity and sustainability of your
production system.
 Possible goals include:
 Improve nutrient availability and provide nitrogen
 Improve soil physical properties
 Reduce erosion, leaching and protect water quality
 Suppress weeds, pests and diseases
 provide beneficial habitat
 provide surface mulch

Step 2: Identify where the cover crop
fits in your crop rotation
Most cover crops are planted in the fall to provide cover over the winter
months
 In summer when temperatures are high, fast growing species
such as sorghum/sudan, cowpeas, and buckwheat and other can provide
a good biomass return in a short growth period.
 It is critical to minimize conflicts in timing of field operations for cover
crops and cash crops.
 Once the window is identified then the species selection will depend on
the climatic and soil conditions during the window. e.g.- frost patterns,
soil and air temperatures for germination and growth, soil pH..

Step 3: Select species/mix to meet the goals and
requirements from steps 1 & 2.
 the final step is to match the potential candidates identified in step 1
with the required characteristics identified in step 2.
 Remember - it is as important to consider the characteristics you
don’t
want as well as those you are looking for.
 It is rare that the “perfect” cover crop will exist and trade-offs will
need
to be made between different goals.
 A final consideration will be the cost and availability of seed, and the
number and types of field operations required for the different options
to make a sound economic assessment of the alternatives.

Cover Crop Selections
 Legumes
Hairy Vetch
 (Vicia villosa)
Egyptian clover
 (Trifolium alexandrinum)
Crown vetch
 (Coronilla varia)
Alfalfa
 (Medicago sativa)
 Red clover (Trifolium pratense)
 White clover (Trifolium repens)
Cowpea
 (Vigna unguiculata)
Sainfoin
 (Onobrychis viciifolia)
 Grasses
Orchard grass
 (Dactylis glomerata)
Tall fescue
 (Festuca arundinaceae)
Foxtail millet
 (Setaria italica)
Phalaris hybrid
 (Phalaris stenoptera)
Perennial rye grass
• (Lolium perenne)
Brome grass
• (Bromus unioloides)

Strains identified: 19 [IGFRI-
Festuca-1 to 19]
Study was made for yield and yield
attributing traits
Highest green fodder yield: IGFRI-
Festuca-14
Propagation: Rooted slips available
Tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea

Phalaris-1 to 32]
attributing traits
Phalaris-29
Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica L)

Dactylis-1 to 19]
attributing traits
Dactylis-11
Orchard grass/Cock’s foot (Dactylis

Bromus-1 to 28]
attributing traits
Bromus-27
Prairie grass (Bromus unioloides

Phleum-1 to 26]
attributing traits
Phleum-23
Timothy grass (Phleum pratense L)

Lolium-1 to 38]
attributing traits
Lolium-38
Makhan malai grass (Lolium

Strains identified: 28 [IGFRI-Tr-1 to
23]
attributing traits
Tr-23
Propagation: Seeds are available

Strains identified: 28 [IGFRI-Tp-1
to 27]
attributing traits
Tp-13
Propagation: Seeds are available

Why grass/legume mixtures:
Mixtures of legumes can reduce seed costs by allowing substitution of high-cost
legume seeds with lower cost grasses. Legume seeding rates can often be reduced
by about 50 percent in mixtures with grasses.
Mixtures are often better at suppressing weeds than monocultures of legumes alone.
Legumes tend to be slower growing and less capable of smothering weeds than non-
legume counterparts. Complementary grass cover crops can serve as nurse crops for
legume establishment and take up space and resources that might otherwise be
occupied by weeds.
Mixtures reduce risks associated with pure stands of either cover crop; if pests or
environmental stresses restrict growth of one species, the other can often fill the gap.
Similarly, variation in soil moisture or soil nutrients across fields will result in less
variation in cover crop growth when two or more complementary species are
included in the mix.

Legumes in mixture can be more efficient at fixing nitrogen, since the non-legume
draws down soil nitrogen, resulting in stimulation of legume nodulation and nitrogen
fixation.
Grass and legume mixtures provide a residue with a balanced C:N ratio for which the
timing of nitrogen release is better matched to crop demand. In contrast, nitrogen
from residues of pure stands of legumes like hairy vetch is often quickly mineralized
and lost before crops can use it, while high C non-legume residues like rye can tie-up
nitrogen and suppress early crop growth.

Intercropping-white clover and tall fescue

Apple based Hortipasture at CITH
Layout of Apple based hortipasture Dactylis glomerata in the interspaces of apple orchard
Orchard grass + white clover intercropping
Green fodder yield: 23.65 t/ha
Red clover intercropping
Green fodder yield: 16.50 t/ha

Plate 1. Photographs showing different apple based agroforestry systems at ICAR-CITH experimental farm, India.
White clover + Apple (A), Tall fescue + Apple (B), Orchard grass + Apple (C), Harvesting of forages under cut and
carry system (D), Tall fescue + red clover + Apple (E) and Control plot without grasses/legumes (F).
A B
C D
E F

China’s current agriculture system has been defined as “grain farming”, with the grain
the staple crop and pigs the major livestock, while forage crops are a relatively minor
feed source.
Nowadays, the concept of food security is evolving into one of nutrition security, which
means that not only plant food, but also animal food should be taken into consideration
to analyze food security problems.
But the high expend of animal husbandry in China is inconsistent with the huge increase
of animal food consumption, and exert great pressure on the grain production. To solve
this new problem, some researchers put forward an idea that developing grassland
agriculture in China

Compared to grain farming, grassland agriculture may be described as the art and
science of cultivating forage crops, pasture and rangelands for food and fiber
production.
The American Forage & Grassland Council defines grassland
agriculture as “the
proper use of
grasses in agriculture”, and both grasses and grass-legume mixtures can be used to
feed livestock, support biodiversity and to maintain land resources in good condition.
The grassland agriculture system will include the following main components: in the
traditional cropping areas, instead of cereal monoculture, about 20% of the total arable
land area should be used for cereal-forage rotation.
In the pastoral areas, high productivity sown pastures should be developed and the
area at least should reach 3% of the total rangeland areas in China.
To ensure China’s food security in the future under China’s current agriculture system
is really a great challenge not only for Chinese central government but for the whole
world.
So the current agriculture system was found to be outdated, and as is analyzed
above, grassland agriculture would be an alternative.

In facing up to the continuing increase of animal food demand, grassland agriculture
has some advantages.
Firstly, it can differentiate food consumed by human beings and by livestock.
That is because of the ruminants which are the main kind of animal in grassland
agriculture. Compared with grain-fed animals such as pig and poultry, ruminants can
increase the grain input-output ratio by lower inputs of grains and higher inputs of
grass (O’Mara, 2012), thereby saving feed grain and reducing the pressure on food
security.
Besides, grassland agriculture could provide a large number of high-quality animal
foods. A lot of practices have proved that use high-quality legume-grass meal to feed
chickens, pigs, cattle, sheep and other livestock can boost output of live stocks by 10%
to 17%.
(Li, 2009)
To develop grassland agriculture in different regions could take full advantage of the
nutrition efficiency in agriculture and can, optimize food structure, and solve different
problems of food security in different areas.

Constraints:
 Lack of awareness about the short and long term benefits of agroforestry among the farmers and other
stake holders.
 Quality planting materials (seeds, seedlings and/or saplings) are not generally available.
 Agroforestry technologies are highly location and region specific.
 Silvopastures and hortipastures can be highly productive but are complex to design and manage due to
the dynamics of the tree-forage-animal interface.
 Inadequate financial support from the Government.
 Insufficient research, extension and capacity building
 Lack of a National Agroforestry Mission or an Agroforestry Board to implement the National Policy by
bringing coordination, convergence and synergy among various elements of agroforestry scattered in
various existing, missions, programmes, schemes and agencies pertaining to agriculture, environment,
forestry, and rural development sectors of the Government.

FUTURE THRUST
 Designing suitable silvipasture and hortipasture systems for different land use types.
 Fodder tree improvement programmes for higher leaf fodder yield and quality has to
be initiated.
 Crop/pasture species (grasses and/or legumes) identification for forage resource
enhancement.
 Setting up a National Agroforestry Mission or an Agroforestry Board to implement the
National Policy by bringing coordination, convergence and synergy among various
elements of agroforestry scattered in various existing, missions, programmes,
schemes and agencies pertaining to agriculture, environment, forestry, and rural
development sectors of the Government.
 Setting up of Fodder Development board both at central level and state level on the
lines of NDDB, NMPB, NHB

 It is also recognized that agroforestry is perhaps the only alternative to meeting the target of increasing
forest or tree cover to 33 per cent from the present level of less than 25 per cent, as envisaged in the
National Forest Policy (1988).
 A major role for agroforestry is emerging in the domain of environmental services. Agroforestry is
known to have the potential to mitigate the climate change effects through microclimate moderation and
natural resources conservation in the short run and through carbon sequestration in the long run.
Agroforestry species are known to sequester as much carbon in below ground biomass as the primary
forests, and far greater than the crop and grass systems.
 Agroforestry systems offer means to address to a significant extent the present challenges of food,
nutrition, energy, employment and environmental security. However, appropriate research interventions,
adequate investment, suitable extension strategies and above all a forward looking central and state
fodder development boards are required to address these issues.
 The optimization of agroforestry systems by choosing the right density and spatial arrange-ment of trees
or species of trees/understory is a complex and long-term process requiring practi-cal and economic
feasibility studies before major investments are decided (Newman and Gordon 1997).

Interspace Utilization in Fruit Orchards for Fodder Security

Interspace Utilization in Fruit Orchards for Fodder Security

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Interspace Utilization in Fruit Orchards for Fodder Security

Similar to Interspace Utilization in Fruit Orchards for Fodder Security (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Interspace Utilization in Fruit Orchards for Fodder Security