Page 153 - Agroforestry system - book inner (final corrected) - 9.-3-21_Neat

National level e-symposium on “Agroforestry system for augmenting livestock
productivity and empowering resource poor rural farmers”

and income from mulberry was higher in open than from the partially shaded coconut garden (Meerabai,
1997). More shady situations might have caused yield reduction in mulberry.

Table 1. Annual green fodder yields of tree fodder banks and PAR transmittance in the understorey of
the selected homegarden

Fractional and total fresh fodder
Treatments biomass (Mg ha ) PAR Transmittance
-1
(%)
Leaf Stem Total
Mulberry (T1) 5.02 c 1.77 e 6.89 c 45.50

Agathi (T2) 8.98 b 8.08 a 16.89 a 49.67
Moringa (T3) 3.73 c 2.35 d 6.09 c 58.57

Gliricidia (T4) 13.17 a 4.59 b 18.28 a 54.58
Calliandra (T5) 8.84 b 3.59 c 12.45 b 50.83

P value 0.000 *** 0.000 ** 0.000 *** 0.065 ns
Table 2. Annual dry fodder yield of tree fodder banks in homegardens of varying size classes

Annual dry fodder yield & leaf stem ratio (Mg ha )
-1
Treatments
Leaf Stem Total
Mulberry (T1) 1.76 c 0.57 c 2.33 c

Agathi (T2) 2.19 b 1.79 a 3.98 b

Moringa (T3) 1.01 d 1.01 b 2.02 c
Gliricidia (T4) 2.96 a 2.17 a 5.12 a

Calliandra (T5) 2.81 a 2.04 a 4.85 a

P value 0.000*** 0.001*** 0.000***
Table 3. Crude protein conent of fodder biomass of different trees species in the homegarden

Treatments CP content (%)

Mulberry (T1) 12.29 c
Agathi (T2) 17.00 b
Moringa (T3) 18.86 b

Gliricidia (T4) 24.68 a
Calliandra (T5) 24.65 a
P value 0.000***

134 Institute of Animal Nutrition, Centre for Animal Production Studies, TANUVAS
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development