Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. 1 (2025)

Production technology and optimization of inputs for soil-less maize green fodder production

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.6406
Submitted
29 November 2024
Published
24-02-2025 — Updated on 28-02-2025
Versions

Abstract

The study on seed priming with nutrients in maize was conducted to produce soil-less maize green fodder. The experiment was conducted in a completely randomized design with nine treatments replicated thrice. The treatments included Control (no priming), soaking seeds in water for 12 or 24 h, soaking seeds in urea (0.1% solution), Mono ammonium Phosphate (MAP) (0.1% solution) and in 19:19:19 (0.1% solution) for 12 or 24 h. To optimise the seed rate and harvesting time for soil-less fodder production, the experiment was laid out in a completely randomized design with four treatments and five replications. The seed rate of 400, 500, 600, and 700 g per square foot (sq. ft.) was adopted with harvesting time treatments at 7, 8, 9, and 10 days after germination. Results showed that a seed rate of 400 g per sq. ft. produced the highest germination rate, taller plants, and higher fodder yield and dry matter production (DMP), comparable to the 500 g per sq. ft. treatment. For seed priming, seeds soaked in a nutrient solution of 0.1% 19:19:19 for 24 h had the highest fodder yield followed by 24 h of soaking in 0.1% MAP and 24 h in 0.1% urea. Harvesting at 9 days after sowing (DAS) resulted in a higher fodder yield, DMP, and crude protein. These findings underscore the significant role of research in advancing the field of soil-less green fodder production. Based on the conducted experimental studies, density rate of 400 g per sq. ft. (equivalent to 4.31 kg m-2 ) is optimal for achieving higher yields of maize green fodder in soil-less production and seed priming with 19:19:19 nutrient solution at a concentration of 0.1% for 24 h has increased the green fodder yield by 75 % over control. Harvesting green fodder at 9 DAS is recommended under a low-cost hydroponic system

References

  1. Birthal PS, Jha AK. Economic losses due to various constraints in dairy production in India. Indian J Anim Sci. 2005;75(12):1470–75.
  2. Dikshit AK, Birthal PS. India’s livestock feed demand: Estimates and projections. Agric Econ Res Rev. 2010;23(1):15–28. 10.22004/ag.econ.92091
  3. Ahamed MS, Sultan M, Shamshiri RR, Rahman MM, Aleem M, Balasundram SK. Present status and challenges of fodder production in controlled environments: A review. Smart Agric Technol. 2023;3:100080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2022.100080
  4. Gamit V, Odedra M, Ahlawat A, Prajapati V, Patel H, Gamit K. Constraint faced by dairy farmers in different state of India: An overview. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2021;9(2):1901–06.
  5. Naik PK. Hydroponics green fodder for dairy animals. Recent Adv Anim Nutr. 2014;403:191–210.
  6. Naik PK, Singh NP. Hydroponics fodder production: an alternative technology for sustainable livestock production against impeding climate change. Compendium of model training course. Management strategies for sustainable livestock production against impending climate changes. Adugodi Bengaluru, India. 2013:70–75.
  7. Naik PK, Swain BK, Singh NP. Production and utilisation of hydroponics fodder. Indian J Anim Nutr. 2015;32(1):19.
  8. Mooney J. Growing cattle feed hydroponically. Meat and livestock Australia. 2005;30.
  9. Dung DD, Godwin IR, Nolan JV. Nutrient content and in sacco degradation of hydroponic barley sprouts grown using nutrient solution or tap water. J Anim Vet Adv. 2010;9:2432–5.
  10. Bakshi MP, Wadhwa MA, Makkar HP. Hydroponic fodder production: A critical assessment. Broadening Horizons. 2017;48:1–10.
  11. Naik PK, Dhuri RB, Swain BK, Singh NP. Nutrient changes with the growth of hydroponics fodder maize. Indian J Anim Nutr. 2012;29(2):161–63.
  12. Tzortzakis N, Nicola S, Savvas D, Voogt W. Soilless cultivation through an intensive crop production scheme. Management strategies, challenges and future directions. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:363. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00363
  13. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. John Wiley and Sons; 1984 .
  14. Khaeim H, Kende Z, Jolánkai M, Kovács GP, Gyuricza C, Tarnawa Á. Impact of temperature and water on seed germination and seedling growth of maize (Zea mays L.). Agronomy. 2022;12(2):397. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020397
  15. Naik PK, Gaikwad SP, Gupta MJ, Dhuri RB, Dhumal GM, Singh NP. Low cost devices for hydroponics fodder production. Indian Dairyman. 2013;65:68–72.
  16. Paudel S, Baral BR, Bhusal K, Ghimere SH, Pandeya YR, Adhikari DP, et al. Study on effects of different seed rates in hydroponic fodder production and its composition in Chitwan. Int J Vet Sci Agric Res. 2021;3(1):1–7.
  17. El-Morsy AT, Abul-Soud M, Emam MS. Localized hydroponic green forage technology as a climate change adaptation under Egyptian conditions. Res J Agric Biol Sci. 2013;9(6):341–50.
  18. Naik PK, Swain BK, Chakurkar EB, Singh NP. Effect of seed rate on yield and proximate constituents of different parts of hydroponics maize fodder. Indian J Anim Sci. 2017;87(1):109–12. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v87i1.66923
  19. Khan AA. Preplant physiological seed conditioning. Hortic Rev. 2010;13:131–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470650509.ch4
  20. Farooq M, Wahid A, Ahmad N, Asad SA. Comparative efficacy of surface drying and re-drying seed priming in rice: changes in emergence, seedling growth and associated metabolic events. Paddy Water Environ. 2010;8:15–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-009-0170-1
  21. Rahman MM, Ahammad KU, Ahmed M. Effect of seed priming on maize (Zea mays L.) seedling emergence under different sowing dates. Bangladesh J Agric Res. 2014;39(4):693–707. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjar.v39i4.22549
  22. Stephen K, Khan FA, Bhat SA, Narayan S, Mir SA, Mir MS, et al. Optimizing priming concentration and duration of various priming agents for improved seed germination in chilli (Capsicum annum L.). J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;7(4):2689–93.
  23. Lizárraga-Paulín EG, Miranda-Castro SP, Moreno-Martínez E, Lara-Sagahón AV, Torres-Pacheco I. Maize seed coatings and seedling sprayings with chitosan and hydrogen peroxide: their influence on some phenological and biochemical behaviors. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2013;14:87–96. https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1200270
  24. Lamnganbi M, Surve US. Biomass yield and water productivity of different hydroponic fodder crops. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2017;6(5):1297–300.
  25. Ndaru PH, Huda AN, Prasetyo RD, Shofiatun U, Nuningtyas YF, Ndaru RK. Providing high quality forages with hydroponic fodder system. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2020;478:012054. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/478/1/012054
  26. Chrisdiana R. Quality and quantity of sorghum hydroponic fodder from different varieties and harvest time. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2018;119(1):012014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/119/1/012014
  27. Garuma Z, Gurmessa K. Evaluation of hydroponic fodder performance of different varieties of sorghum. Int J Res - Granthaalayah. 2021;9(2):1–10. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v9.i2.2021.2854
  28. Alemnew Y, Mekuriaw Y. Effects of harvesting age and barley varieties on morphological characteristics, biomass yield, chemical composition and economic benefits under hydroponic conditions in Fogera district, Ethiopia. Adv Agric. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9315556
  29. Fazaeli H, Golmohammadi HA, Tabatabayee SN, Asghari-Tabrizi M. Productivity and nutritive value of barley green fodder yield in hydroponic system. World Appl Sci J. 2012;16(4):531–39.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.