Article - Economic viability of food-forage based cropping systems under irrigation

(1)

ECO NOMIC VI A BIL ITY OF FOOD-FOR AGE BASED CROP PING SYS TEMS UN DER

IRRIGATION

V. Divya, V. Chandrika and G. Prabhakara Reddy

De part ment of Agron omy, S.V. Ag ri cul tural Col lege, Tirupati, Acharya N. G Ranga Ag ri cul tural Uni ver sity, Guntur (A.P.) E-mail : [email protected]

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted during the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 on Dryland farm of S.V. Agricultural College, Tirupati campus of Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Andhra Pradesh to find out economical viable food-forage cropping system. Groundnut based food-forage systems like groundnut – sweet corn – greengram/cowpea was proved its superiority in recording higher gross returns, net returns, benefit-cost ratio, monetary returns use efficiency and system profitability over other cropping systems evaluated. Complete food system viz., groundnut – maize – greengram was generating higher employment than other cropping systems tested. From the above results it could be concluded that groundnut – sweet corn – greengram/cowpea was proved to be the most efficient food-forage system under irrigation in recording higher monetary returns over other cropping systems.

Key words : Food-for age crop ping sys tems, sys tem prof it abil ity, mon e tary re turns use ef fi ciency, gross re turns, net re turns and ben e fit-cost ra tio.

Green and dry fodder availability is very important for livestock health and productivity. This is particularly true in case of dairy enterprises where consistent supply of green and dry fodder is imperative for sustained milk production. At present, India faces a net deficit of 63.5 percentage green fodder, 23.56 percentage dry fodder and 44 percentage of concentrated feed ingredients. The demand will reach to 1170 million tonnes of green fodder and 650 million tonnes of dry fodder by the year 2025 (1). The two obvious approaches to bridge this wide gap between fodder requirements and availability are either to increase area under fodder production or to increase the productivity per unit area of existing cropping systems. On the other hand food production to the level of 450 million tonnes is needed to satisfy the projected population of1660 million by 2050 in India. Under the concept of integrated farming system, development of suitable food-forage cropping system which supports both food and fodder requirement of our country is necessary to solve the above problem. Inclusion of fodder crops in existing food cropping system in any of the seasons will increase the fodder production without any reduction in food grain production. An integral approach of food-forage production aims at obtaining food as well as fodder concurrently from the same piece of land. Food-forage based cropping systems provide a support to small and marginal farmers by adjusting a substantial part of their land exclusively for forage production in grain crop based rotations (2). Food-fodder based cropping systems have potential for realization of higher monetary returns over complete food based cropping systems in majority of the Agro-Climatic Zones in India (3). In view of this it is felt necessary to develop a economically viable and sustainable food-forage based cropping system to

enhance fodder availability without compromising the yield of food crops.

MATERIALS AND MATHODS

A field experiment was conducted during the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 on Dryland farm of S.V. Agricultural College, Tirupati campus of Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Andhra Pradesh. The soil was sandy clay loam in texture with medium in available nitrogen (129.6 kg/ha), available phosphorus (44.8 kg/ ha) and available potassium (227.1 kg/ha) with soil pH (7.54) and low organic carbon (0.35%) and EC (0.42 dS/m). The experiment consisted of ten food-forage based cropping systems viz., T1 - Napier bajra hybrid–Napier bajra hybrid – Napier bajra hybrid, T2 - Jowar (F)–Baby corn – Cowpea (F), T3 - Groundnut – Maize – Greengram, T4 - Maize – Lucerne – Lucerne, T5 - Groundnut – Maize (F) – Cowpea, T6 Groundnut – Sweet corn – Greengram, T7 -Groundnut – Sweet corn – Cowpea , T8 - Groundnut – Baby corn – Greengram, T9 – Groundnut – Baby corn – Cowpea and T10 - Groundnut – Oat (F) – Greengram were evaluated in Randomized Block Design with three replications. The economics were computed by using prevailing market rates during 2015-16 of different inputs and outputs. Cost of cultivation, gross returns, net returns and benefit – cost ratio of component crops and cropping systems were calculated. Monetary returns use efficiency (MRUE) of component crops and cropping systems was worked out by using the formula given by (4).

MRUE (`/ha/day) =

(2)

The profitability of the cropping systems (`/ha/day) was calculated by dividing the net returns (`/ha) of the respective cropping system by 365 days. The data was statistically analysed as per the standard procedures.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Gross Returns (`/ha) : Gross returns of different food-forage based cropping systems varied significantly during both the years of study.

Gross returns of kharif crops : Groundnut as kharif component crop of T5, T3, T10, T8, T9 and T7 cropping systems were satistically comparable in realizing higher gross returns (Table-1) over rest of the crops tried in kharif during both the years of study. Higher gross returns with groundnut might be due to higher pod yield coupled with high market price both for groundnut pods and haulms than other component crops tried during kharif. Lower gross returns were obtained with napier bajra hybrid of T1, fodder jowar of T2 and maize of T4 during kharif, which

were statistically on par with each other (Table-1) during both the years of experiment. Lower price for green fodder of napier bajra hybrid and fodder jowar and lower grain yield coupled with lower price for maize grains and stover might be the reason for realizing lower gross returns. Similar results were well documented by earlier workers (2).

Gross returns of rabi crops : Sweet corn as rabi component crop of T7 cropping system realized maximum gross returns (Table-1), which was statistically on par with sweet corn in T6 cropping system during both the years of study. Higher market price for cobs and green stover of sweet corn might be attributed to realizing higher gross returns. These results are similar with the findings of (4). Fodder oat during rabi in T10 cropping system and napier bajra hydrid of T1 cropping system were on par with each other in recording lower gross returns (Table-1) during both the years of investigation. Production of minimum green fodder yield during rabi and fetching lower market

Table-1 : Gross returns (`/ha) of different food-forage based cropping systems.

S.No. Treatments Kharif Rabi Summer Total cropping

system Kharif Rabi Summer 2014-15 2015-16 2014-15 2015-16 2014-15 2015-16 2014-15 2015-16 T1 Napier bajra

hybrid

Napier bajra hybrid

54,880 75,020 31,120 32,032 43,080 48,520 1,29,080 1,55,572

T2 Jowar (F) Baby corn Cowpea (F) 66,720 70,950 1,47,150 1,52,000 64,340 67,600 2,78,210 2,90,550

T3 Groundnut Maize Greengram 1,25,230 1,36,380 68,897 71,697 47,273 49,362 2,41,400 2,57,438

T4 Maize Lucerne Lucerne 67,667 70,100 76,710 80,100 65,500 70,790 2,09,877 2,20,990

T5 Groundnut Maize (F) Cowpea 1,26,217 1,34,197 1,03,313 1,05,493 29,641 31,972 2,59,171 2,71,662

T6 Groundnut Sweet corn Greengram 1,18,223 1,39,450 4,19,900 4,26,920 47,784 47,937 5,85,907 6,14,307

T7 Groundnut Sweet corn Cowpea 1,16,807 1,37,433 4,20,814 4,28,464 29,721 32,013 5,67,341 5,97,911

T8 Groundnut Baby corn Greengram 1,22,600 1,35,740 1,49,700 1,54,750 46,391 46,540 3,18,691 3,37,030

T9 Groundnut Baby corn Cowpea 1,19,697 1,37,567 1,52,800 1,56,350 29,509 31,540 3,02,006 3,25,457

T10 Groundnut Oat (F) Greengram 1,23,193 1,38,467 23,800 27,603 47,438 47,557 1,94,432 2,13,627

S.Em.± 4550 3566 4761 6124 1375 1444 11395 10758

CD (P=0.05) 13520 10597 14146 18195 4084 4291 33857 31964

Table-2 : Net returns (`/ha) of different food-forage based cropping systems.

S. No.

Treatments Kharif Rabi Summer Total cropping

hybrid

Napier bajra hybrid

25,100 60,623 20,310 19,606 28,683 33,719 74,093 1,13,948

T2 Jowar (F) Baby corn Cowpea (F) 45,598 48,616 1,03,031 1,08,689 42,899 45,755 1,91,528 2,03,060

T3 Groundnut Maize Greengram 88,663 98,197 30,764 33,160 20,059 23,764 1,39,486 1,55,120

T4 Maize Lucerne Lucerne 32,362 32,371 48,545 51,127 53,698 60,200 1,34,605 1,43,698

T5 Groundnut Maize (F) Cowpea 89,650 96,014 69,766 71,946 4,857 8,804 1,64,273 1,76,764

T6 Groundnut Sweet corn Greengram 81,656 1,01,267 3,68,482 3,75,502 20,570 22,339 4,70,708 4,99,108

T7 Groundnut Sweet corn Cowpea 80,240 99,250 3,69,396 3,77,046 4,937 8,845 4,54,572 4,85,142

T8 Groundnut Baby corn Greengram 86,033 97,557 1,04,773 1,09,823 19,177 20,942 2,09,983 2,28,322

T9 Groundnut Baby corn Cowpea 83,130 99,384 1,07,873 1,11,423 4,725 8,372 1,95,728 2,19,179

T10 Groundnut Oat (F) Greengram 86,626 1,00,284 3,950 7,753 20,224 21,959 1,10,801 1,29,996

S.Em± 2533 2701 3829 4240 802 857 6882 7360

(3)

price for fodder might be ascribed to realization of lower gross returns of both fodder oat and napier bajra hybrid.

Gross returns of summer crops : Lucerne as summer component crop in T4 cropping system recorded higher gross returns (Table-1) was significantly on par with fodder cowpea of T2 during both the years of investigation. Higher green fodder yield was recorded with lucerne and fodder cowpea might have been the reason for realization of higher gross returns, though their produce price was lower than remaining component crops tried during summer. Cowpea grown as summer crop in T5, T7 and T9 cropping sequences were comparable in realizing lower gross returns (Table-1) during both the years of study. Lower seed yield of cowpea resulted in recording minimum gross returns than rest of the component crops tried during summer, though its grains fetching higher market price.

Gross returns of the cropping system : The groundnut based food-forage cropping system T6 (groundnut– sweet corn–greengram) realized higher gross returns (Table-1) which was statistically on par with groundnut – sweet

corn–cowpea (T7) over other forage based and food based cropping systems during both the years of experiment. Higher price for pods of groundnut, sweet corn cobs and seeds of greengram and cowpea might have resulted in realizing higher gross returns by groundnut – sweet corn – greengram and groundnut – sweet corn – cowpea. Higher monetary returns realized by sweet corn was included in the cropping sequence during rabi might be the reason for recording maximum gross returns of groundnut – sweet corn – greengram/cowpea over other groundnut based food-forage cropping systems. The groundnut based food-forage cropping systems, where baby corn was included during rabi instead of sweet corn viz., groundnut – baby corn – greengram and groundnut – baby corn – cowpea were next best to groundnut – sweet corn – greengram/cowpea cropping system in recording higher gross returns. These results are in agreement with (5). Significantly lower gross returns (Table-1) were realized with the forage based cropping system i.e. napier bajra hybrid – napier bajra hybrid - napier bajra hybrid (T1) during both the years of investigation. The productivity (green forage yield) of Table-3 : Benefit-cost ratio of different food-forage based cropping systems.

S. No.

hybrid

Napier bajra hybrid

1.84 2.54 2.88 2.58 2.99 3.28 2.35 3.74

T2 Jowar (F) Baby corn Cowpea (F) 3.16 3.87 3.34 3.51 3.00 3.09 3.21 3.32

T3 Groundnut Maize Greengram 3.42 4.41 1.81 1.86 1.74 1.93 2.37 2.52

T4 Maize Lucerne Lucerne 1.92 2.28 2.72 2.76 5.55 6.68 2.79 2.86

T5 Groundnut Maize (F) Cowpea 3.45 4.34 3.08 3.14 1.20 1.38 2.73 2.86

T6 Groundnut Sweet corn Greengram 3.23 4.51 8.17 8.30 1.76 1.87 5.09 5.33

T7 Groundnut Sweet corn Cowpea 3.19 4.44 8.18 8.33 1.20 1.38 5.03 5.30

T8 Groundnut Baby corn Greengram 3.35 4.39 3.33 3.44 1.70 1.82 2.93 3.10

T9 Groundnut Baby corn Cowpea 3.27 4.45 3.40 3.48 1.19 1.36 2.84 3.06

T10 Groundnut Oat (F) Greengram 3.37 4.48 1.20 1.39 1.74 1.86 2.32 2.55

S.Em.± 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.12

CD (P=0.05) 0.37 0.35 0.35 0.38 0.25 0.22 0.30 0.34

Table-4 : Monetary returns use efficiency (`/ha/day) of different food-forage based cropping systems.

S. No.

hybrid

Napier bajra hybrid

192 427 226 213 212 244 208 306

T2 Jowar (F) Baby corn Cowpea (F) 800 853 1411 1489 572 594 934 981

T3 Groundnut Maize Greengram 821 893 290 304 271 297 484 519

T4 Maize Lucerne Lucerne 300 292 462 496 716 772 467 492

T5 Groundnut Maize (F) Cowpea 830 873 997 999 55 98 618 650

T6 Groundnut Sweet corn Greengram 756 921 4235 4366 278 279 1750 1808

T7 Groundnut Sweet corn Cowpea 743 902 4246 4384 56 98 1606 1696

T8 Groundnut Baby corn Greengram 797 887 1361 1464 259 262 811 862

T9 Groundnut Baby corn Cowpea 770 903 1401 1486 54 93 717 797

T10 Groundnut Oat (F) Greengram 802 912 56 121 273 274 456 512

S.Em. ± 21 26 54 45 9 11 29 30

(4)

napier bajra hybrid was higher but, realization of lower gross returns might be due to fetching lower price for its green fodder.

Net Returns (`/ha) : Net returns worked out for different component crops of respective food-forage based cropping sequences were influenced significantly during both the years of study.

Net returns of kharif crops : Groundnut as kharif component crop in T5 cropping system recorded higher net returns during the first year, while in second year higher net returns (Table-2) were associated with groundnut in T6. Groundnut as kharif component crop in T7, T8, T9 and T10 cropping systems were on par with each other and with groundnut of T5 and T6 in realizing higher net returns during both the years of study. Even though cost of cultivation of groundnut crop was higher during both the years, realization of higher net returns might be due to recording of maximum gross returns over other component crops tested during kharif. Lower net returns were obtained with napier bajra hybrid in T1 (Table-2) during the first year while, maize of T4 during second year of experiment. Lower green forage yield of napier bajra hybrid during the first year (seven cuttings/year) might have resulted in obtaining lower gross returns owing to realizing lesser net returns whereas, increased gross returns due to higher green forage yield and lower cost of cultivation (eight cuttings/year) might have attributed to realizing higher net returns of napier bajra during second year. Lower gross returns and higher cost of cultivation might be the reasons for realization of lower net returns by maize during both the years.

Net returns of rabi crops : Significantly higher gross returns were realized with sweet corn as rabi component crop in T7 cropping system, which was on par with sweet corn of T6 (Table-2) during both the years of study. In spite of higher cost of sweet corn production, realization of higher gross returns (higher yield and market price for cobs) by sweet corn might be only the reason for obtaining higher net returns over other component crops tested

during rabi. Similar findings were also made by author (5). The lowest net returns were obtained with fodder oat in T10 (Table-2) during both the years of investigation. Though the cost of cultivation of fodder oat was lower than rest of the component crops tried during rabi, realization of lower net returns might be due to fetching minimum prices for its green fodder.

Net returns of summer crops : Higher net returns were realized with lucerne of T4 cropping system followed by fodder cowpea in T2 (Table-2) over other component crops of summer during both the years of experiment. Realization of higher net returns by lucerne crop might be owing to recording higher gross returns and lower cost of cultivation. Cowpea as summer component crop of T5, T7 and T9 cropping systems were having no significant disparity in recording lower net returns (Table-2) during both the years of investigation. This might be due to higher cost of cultivation and realizing lower gross returns owing to lower seed yield.

Net returns of the cropping system : Among the cropping systems evaluated during both the years of investigation, groundnut – sweet corn – greengram (T6) cropping system recorded higher net returns (Table-2). This was statistically not significant with groundnut – sweet corn – cowpea (T7) cropping system in realizing higher net returns during both the years of experiment. Higher net returns of groundnut crop over other component crops tried during kharif, sweet corn crop in rabi in addition to net returns of greengram and cowpea might be the reason for getting higher net returns of respective cropping systems (T6 and T7). The lowest net returns were realized with perennial cropping system i.e. napier bajra hybrid – napier bajra hybrid – napier bajra hybrid (T1) (Table-2) during both the years of experiment. Minimum gross returns were recorded by napier bajra hybrid (lower price for its green fodder) might have resulted in realization of lower net returns, in spite of its lower cost of production over rest of the cropping systems tested. These results are in close agreement with (6).

Table-5 : System profitability (`/ha/day) of different food-forage based cropping systems.

S. No. Treatments System profitability (`/ha/day)

2014-15 2015-16

T1 Napier bajra hybrid (NBH) - NBH - NBH 203 312

T2 Jowar (F)- Baby corn- Cowpea (F) 525 556

T3 Groundnut- Maize- Greengram 382 425

T4 Maize- Lucerne- Lucerne 369 394

T5 Groundnut- Maize (F)- Cowpea 450 484

T6 Groundnut- Sweet corn- Greengram 1290 1367

T7 Groundnut- Sweet corn- Cowpea 1245 1329

T8 Groundnut- Baby corn- Greengram 575 626

T9 Groundnut- Baby corn- Cowpea 536 600

T10 Groundnut- Oat (F)- Greengram 304 356

S.Em.± 18 20

(5)

Benefit-Cost Ratio

Benefit-cost ratio of kharif crops : During Kharif, groundnut as component crop in T3, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9 and T10 cropping systems and fodder jowar of T2 cropping system were statistically comparable in realizing higher benefit-cost ratio (Table-3) during the both the years of study. Besides higher cost of cultivation, realization of higher gross returns might be the reason for higher benefit-cost ratio of groundnut whereas, lower cost of cultivation of fodder jowar might have resulted in recording higher benefit-cost ratio, though it realized lower gross returns. Napier bajra hybrid in T1 and maize of T4 cropping system were on par with each other in recording lower benefit-cost ratio (Table-3) during the both years of experiment. Realization of lower gross returns coupled with higher cost of cultivation and recording of lower gross returns might be the reason for obtaining lesser benefit-cost ratio of maize and napier bajra hybrid, respectively.

Benefit-cost ratio of rabi crops : Sweet corn of T7 and T6 cropping systems were on par with each other in recording higher benefit-cost ratio (Table-3) during both the years of investigation. Though the cost of sweet corn production was higher, recording higher gross returns might have attributed to its higher benefit-cost ratio. The lowest benefit-cost ratio was obtained with fodder oat in T10 cropping system (Table 3) during both the years of study. Fetching lesser price for green fodder of oat might have resulted in realization of lower gross returns might be ascribed to getting minimum benefit-cost ratio besides, its lower cost of cultivation.

Benefit-cost ratio of summer crops : Higher benefit-cost ratio was recorded with lucerne as summer crop in T4 cropping system (Table-3) over rest of the component crops tried during both the years of experiment. Realizing higher gross returns and lower cost of production of lucerne during summer might have attributed in recording of higher benefit-cost ratio. Fodder cowpea in T2 and napier bajra hybrid of T1 cropping system during summer had no distinct disparity with each other in recording higher benefit cost ratio next to lucerne. Cowpea as summer component crop in T9, T7 and T5 cropping systems were on par in recording lower benefit-cost ratio (Table-3) during both the years of scrutiny. This might be due to lower seed yield of cowpea which might have resulted in realizing lower gross returns coupled with its higher cost of cultivation.

Benefit-cost ratio of the cropping system : The groundnut based food-forage cropping system T6 (groundnut – sweet corn – greengram) recorded higher benefit-cost ratio which was statistically comparable with T7 (groundnut – sweet corn – cowpea) (Table-3) during both the years of scrutiny. Though the cost of cultivation of

total system was higher with T6 and T7 than other systems tried under the study, realization of higher gross returns of T6 and T7 might have resulted in recording higher benefit-cost ratio. Similar findings were also made by (7). Lower benefit-cost ratio obtained with T10 (groundnut – oat (F) – greengram) was statistically on par with T1 (napier bajra hybrid – napier bajra hybrid - napier bajra hybrid) and T3 (groundnut – maize – greengram) systems during the first year whereas, in second year T3 (groundnut – maize – greengram) recorded lower benefit -cost ratio, which was statistically on par with T10 (groundnut – oat (F) – greengram) (Table-3). Realization of lower total gross returns coupled with higher total cost of cultivation might have attributed to obtaining lower benefit-cost ratio. Increased green forage yield (more number of cuttings/ year) might have resulted in increasing total gross returns and lower cost of cultivation of napier bajra hybrid during second year might have attributed to recording higher benefit-cost ratio over the first year of investigation.

The above results reveal that inclusion of fodder crops more than one season in the cropping system might have reduced the realization of higher monetary returns and benefit-cost ratio. Inclusion of sweet corn during rabi in groundnut based cropping sequences registered higher monetary returns with benefit-cost ratio over other component crops grown during rabi. Groundnut based food-forage cropping systems were realized higher economic returns over complete forage based and food based cropping systems.

Monetary Returns Use Efficiency (`/ha/day)

Monetary returns use efficiency of kharif crops :

(6)

of crop might be the reason for registering lower monetary returns use efficiency of maize.

Monetary returns use efficiency of rabi crops : During rabi, sweet corn as a component crop in T7 cropping system recorded higher monetary returns use efficiency (Table-4) and it was on par with sweet corn of T6 during both the years of experiment. This might be due to realization of higher net returns and lower duration of sweet corn crop. The lowest monetary returns use efficiency was noticed with fodder oat as rabi component crop of T10 cropping system (Table-4) during both the years of study. Besides lower duration of fodder oat, realization of lower net returns might be the reason for obtaining lower monetary returns use efficiency.

Monetary returns use efficiency of summer crops :

The highest monetary returns use efficiency was obtained with lucerne as summer component crop of T4 cropping system (Table-4), which was followed by fodder jowar in T2 during both the years of investigation. Higher monetary returns use efficiency of lucerne might be due to realization of higher net returns and lower duration of crop. Cowpea as a summer crop in T5, T7 and T9 cropping systems recorded lower monetary returns use efficiency (Table-4) during both the years of study. This might be due to realization of lower net returns and more duration of cowpea in the field.

Monetary returns use efficiency of the cropping systems : During both the years of study, groundnut based food-forage cropping system groundnut – sweet corn – greengram (T6) realized higher monetary returns use efficiency (Table 4), which was superior over other groundnut based food-forage cropping systems tested during both the years of scrutiny. This might be due to realization of higher total net returns and lower duration of groundnut – sweet corn – greengram cropping sequence. These results are corroborative with the findings of (2). This was followed by groundnut – sweet corn – cowpea (T7) cropping system. The lowest monetary returns use efficiency was obtained with year round cropping system napier bajra hybrid – napier bajra hybrid - napier bajra hybrid (T1) (Table-4) during both the years of investigation. This might be due to higher duration of total system and realizing lower total net returns.

System Profitability (`/ha/day) : Among the different food-forage based cropping systems tested during the two years of experiment, higher system profitability was realized with T6 (groundnut – sweet corn – greengram)

(Table-5) which was statistically on par with T7 (groundnut – sweet corn – cowpea). Higher system profitability of above cropping systems might be owing to inclusion of oilseeds like groundnut and dual purpose crops i.e. sweet corn, which fetched higher price for their produce than other component crops tried during kharif and rabi, respectively. The lowest system profitability was obtained with perennial forage cropping system i.e. T1 (napier bajra hybrid – napier bajra hybrid - napier bajra hybrid) (Table 5) during both the years of study. This might be due to realization of lower net returns due to lower produce price.

CONCLUSION

The broad conclusion could be drawn from the present investigation was groundnut – sweet corn – greengram/cowpea cropping system was found to be more remunerative, economically viable, profitable and sustainable food-forage based system under irrigation closely followed by groundnut – baby corn – greengram/ cowpea over other cropping systems.

REFERENCES

1. Datta, D. (2013). Indian Fodder Management towards 2030 : A Case of Vision or Myopia. International Journal of Management and Social Sciences Research (IJMSSR). 2(2): 33-41.

2. Kumar, S. and Faruqui, S.A. (2009). Production potential and economic viability of food forage based cropping systems under irrigated conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 54(1): 36-41.

3. Agrawal, R.K.; Kumar, S.; Tripathi, S.B.; Sharma, R.K. and Singh, K.A. (2008). Agro-economic analysis of fodder based cropping system. Indian Journal of Fertilizers, 4(4) : 125-131.

4. Chandrika, V.; Balaji Naik, R.; Suneetha Devi, K.B. and Shanti, M. (2013). Production potential and economic viability of food-forage based cropping systems in Southern Telangana Region of Andhra Pradesh. Journal of Research ANGRAU. 41(3) : 47-52.

5. Shekara, B.G.; Lohithaswa, H.C.; Chikkarugia, N.M and Manasa, N. (2015). Fodder production potential of maize grown for baby corn and green cob in different cropping systems. Forage Research. 41(2) : 92-94.

6. Devi, S.K.B.; Reddy, M.D. and Sultan, M.A. (2004). Comparison of food and fodder-based cropping systems for sustained productivity under irrigated condition. Forage Research. 30(1) : 49-53.

7. Naik, B.; Chandrika, V.; Shashikala, T.; Suneetha Devi, K.B. and Shanti, M. (2014). Evaluation of forage production potential of maize grown for baby corn and green cob. Progressive Agriculture, 14(1) : 192-196.