PERFORMANCE OF FODDER CROPS IN DOUBLE CROPPED RICE SUMMER FALLOWS UNDER VARYING NITROGEN REGIMES

B.N. BINDHYA¹*, J. JOHN^2
1Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, Kerala, India
²Professor, Department of Agronomy and Head, IFSRS, Karamana, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, India
* Corresponding Author : bindhyabn123@gmail.com

Received : 30-08-2019     Accepted : 26-11-2020     Published : 30-12-2020
Volume : 12     Issue : 24       Pages : 10468 - 10470
Int J Agr Sci 12.24 (2020):10468-10470

Keywords : Fodder crops, Nitrogen, Summer rice fallows, Fodder cowpea, Rice bean, Fodder maize, Fodder sorghum
Academic Editor : N M Thesiya, Argha Ghosh
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are grateful to the Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, Kerala, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The study was undertaken during summer 2017-2018 at IFSRS, Karamana with the objective of evaluating performance of different fodder crops in summer fallow of double cropped lowland rice fields under varying N regimes. The fodder crops selected for the study were fodder cowpea (CO 9), rice bean (Bidhan 2), fodder maize (African tall) and fodder sorghum (CO (FS) 31). The investigation revealed that among the different fodder crops tested, fodder maize performed better in the summer rice fallows with higher green fodder yield. However, with respect to net income it was comparable with fodder cowpea at 100 percent and 75 percent RDN. Fodder cowpea (100 and 75% RDN) recorded higher B: C ratio. Considering the shorter duration, better quality fodder and higher B: C ratio, fodder cowpea was assessed as the best fodder crop for the summer rice fallows. Yield, net income and B: C ratio of rice bean, fodder maize and fodder sorghum under varying doses of N were comparable, indicating the adequacy of 50 percent RDN

1. Meena M.S. and Singh K.M. (2014) MPRA Paper, 56367.
2. GOI [Government of India] (2017) Available: http://www.dahd.nic.in/ [5 Dec. 2018].
3. John J., Rajasekharan P., Rajasree G. and Bindu P. (2014) State Planning Board, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, 4.
4. Simpson J.E., Adair C.H., Kohler G.O., Dawson E.N., Debald H.A., Kester E.B. and Klick J.T. (1965) Tech. Bull. No.1331, Services, U.S.D.A., 1-86.
5. AOAC [Association of Official Agricultural Chemists] (1975) Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Washington, D. C., 350.
6. Bhavya M.R., Palled Y.B., Pushpalatha, Ullasa M.Y. and Nagaraj R. (2014) Trends Biosci., 7, 1516-1521.
7. Balai R.C., Meena L.R. and Sharma S.C. (2017) J. Agri. Ecology, 3, 19-24.
8. Baran M. (1987) Plant Nohespodarstov, 37, 613-624.
9. Hasan M.R., Akbar M. A. and Khan Z.A. (2020) Bangladesh J of Animal Science, 39(1&2), 83-88p.
10. Chaudhary D.P., Jat S.L., Kumar R., Kumar A. and Kumar B. (2018) Maize: Nutrition Dynamics and Novel Uses, 153-160.