Legume Integration Augments the Forage Productivity and Quality in Maize-Based System in the Loess Plateau Region (original) (raw)
Related papers
Plants
One of the main problems in the animal industries currently is the constant provision of forage in sufficient amounts with acceptable nutritional content for large and small ruminants, as livestock is a significant source of income for rural people in the Loess Plateau region. Cereals and legumes are essential forage crops because of their nutritional significance, particularly the protein concentration in legumes and the fiber content in cereals. Therefore, combining cereal and legume crops may be a practical solution to the problems of inadequate forage nutrition, an insufficient amount of forage, unsustainable agricultural methods, and declining soil fertility. The current study predicts that mixed cropping of cereals and legumes at the harvesting stage of the soft dough stage and maturity stage based on the cereal growth stage will have different effects on forage biomass output, forage quality index, and nutritional value of the forage. In this study, wheat (Triticum aestivum) ...
2010
INTRODUCTION 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE *** MIXED CROPPING 2.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF MIXED CROPPING 2.1.1 Soil fertility 2.1.2 Lack of risk 2.1.3 Tolerance against adverse climatic conditions 2.1.4 Better use of labor 2.1.5 Weed control 2.1.6 Complementary effects 2.1.7 Soil conservation 2.1.8 Prevention of lodging 2.1.9 Financial stabilization 2.1.10 Control on diseases and insect pest 2.1.11 Transfer of nitrogen from legume to non-legume 2.1.12 Yield and yield components 2.1.13 Quality of product 2.2 EFFECT OF COMPONENT SEED RATIO / PLANT DENSITY 2.2.1 Growth, yield and yield attributes of the component crops 2.2.2 Mixed yield, land equivalent ratio and quality traits 2.3 NITROGEN MANAGEMENT 2.3.1 Effect of nitrogen application on cereal/non legumes 2.3.2 Effect of nitrogen application on legumes 2.3.3 Effect of nitrogen application on mixtures 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS **** EXPERIMENTAL SITE 3.1 Soil characteristics 3.2 Meteorological data 3.3 EXPERIMENTS 3.3.1 Experiment No 1 3.3.2 Experiment No 2 VII 3.4 Layout 3.5 Crop husbandry 3.5.1 Seed bed preparation 3.5.2 Crops and their seed rates 3.5.3 Time and method of sowing 3.5.4 Fertilizer application 3.5.5 Irrigation 3.5.6 Harvesting 3.6 Data collection 3.6.1 Observations recorded 3.6.2 Procedures for recording data A. AGRONOMIC PARAMETERS B. PHYSIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS C. QUALITY PARAMETERS D. COMPETITIVE FUNCTION E. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 3.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 EXPERIMENT NO. I 4.1.1 AGRONOMIC TRAITS OF FORAGE MAIZE 4.1.1.1 Emergence count (m-2) 4.1.1.2 Number of leaves per plant 4.1.1.3 Plant height of forage maize (cm) 4.1.1.4 Stem diameter of forage maize (cm) 4.1.1.5 Green forage yield of maize (t ha-1) 4.1.1.6 Dry matter yield of maize (t ha-1) 4.1.2. PHYSIOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR OF FORAGE MAIZE 4.1.2.1 Leaf area index of forage maize 4.1.2.2 Final leaf area duration of forage maize (days) 4.1.2.3 Mean crop growth rate of forage maize (g m-2 d-1) 4.1.3. QUALITY TRAITS OF FORAGE MAIZE 4.1.3.1 Crude protein percentage of forage maize 4.1.3.2 Crude fibre percentage of forage maize 4.1.3.3 Ether extractable fat percentage of forage maize 4.1.3.4 Total ash percentage of forage maize 4.1.4. AGRONOMIC TRAITS OF FORAGE LEGUMES 4.1.4.1 Emergence count (m-2) 4.1.4.2 Plant height of forage legumes (cm) 4.1.4.3 Green forage yield of legumes (t ha-1) Green fresh weight of legumes (kg m-2) 4.1.4.4 Dry matter yield of legumes (t ha-1) Dry weight of legumes (g m-2) 4.1.5. QUALITY TRAITS OF FORAGE LEGUMES 4.1.5.1 Crude protein percentage of forage legumes 4.1.5.2 Crude fibre percentage of forage legumes 4.1.5.3 Ether extractable fat percentage of forage legumes 4.1.5.4 Total ash percentage of forage legumes VIII 4.1.6. MIXED YIELD AND QUALITY 4.1.6.1 Mixed (maize+legume) green forage yield (t ha-1) 4.1.6.2 Mixed (maize+legume) dry matter yield (t ha-1) 4.1.6.3 Crude protein percentage of mixed (maize+legume) forage 4.1.6.4 Crude fibre percentage of mixed (maize+legume) forage 4.1.6.5 Ether extractable fat percentage of mixed (maize+legume) forage 4.1.6.6 Total ash percentage of mixed (maize+legume) forage 4.1.7. COMPETITIVE FUNCTION 4.1.7.1 Land equivalent ratio (LER) 4.2. EXPERIMENT NO. II 4.2.1. AGRONOMIC TRAITS OF FORAGE MAIZE 4.2.1.1 Emergence count (m-2) 4.2.1.2 Number of leaves per plant 4.2.1.3 Plant height of forage maize (cm) 4.2.1.4 Stem diameter of forage maize (cm) 4.2.1.5 Green forage yield of maize (t ha-1) 4.2.1.6 Dry matter yield of maize (t ha-1) 4.2.2. PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FORAGE MAIZE 4.2.2.1 Leaf area index of forage maize 4.2.2.2 Final leaf area duration of forage maize (days) 4.2.2.3 Mean crop growth rate of forage maize (g m-2 d-1) 4.2.3. QAULITY TRAITS OF FORAGE MAIZE 4.2.3.1 Crude protein percentage of forage maize 4.2.3.2 Crude fibre percentage of forage maize 4.2.3.3 Ether extractable fat percentage of forage maize 4.2.3.4 Total ash percentage of forage maize ****** Relationship of dry matter yield with yield contributing parameters and quality traits of forage maize 4.2.4. AGRONOMIC TRAITS OF FORAGE LEGUMES 4.2.4.1 Emergence count of forage legumes (m-2) 4.2.4.2 Plant height of forage legumes (cm) 4.2.4.3 Green forage yield of legumes (t ha-1) 4.2.4.4 Dry matter yield of legumes (t ha-1) 4.2.5. QUALITY TRAITS OF FORAGE LEGUMES 4.2.5.1 Crude protein percentage of forage legumes 4.2.5.2 Crude fibre percentage of forage legumes 4.2.5.3 Ether extractable fat percentage of forage legumes 4.2.5.4 Total ash percentage of forage legumes 4.2.6. MIXED YIELD 4.2.6.1 Mixed (maize+legume) green forage yield (t ha-1) 4.2.6.2 Mixed (maize+legume) dry matter yield (t ha-1) 4.2.7 Economic analysis 5 SUMMARY 6 LITERATURE CITED ****** APPENDICES IX LIST OF TABLES Table No Description Page No. ***** MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 Physico-chemical soil analysis of the experimental site during the year 2005 and 3.2 Summary of climatic norms during the cropping season of 2005 and 2006 3.3 Cultivar and seed rate of the crops for sole cropping ***** EXPERIMENT NO. I 4.1 Effect of seed ratios of different maize-legume mixtures on emergence count (m-2) of forage maize LIST OF FIGURES Figur e No Description Page No. 4.1 Periodic number of leaves of forage maize as influenced by seed ratios of different maize-legume mixtures during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.2 Periodic plant height of forage maize as influenced by seed ratios of different maize-legume mixtures during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.3 Periodic stem diameter of forage maize as influenced by seed ratios of different maize-legume mixtures during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.4 Periodic leaf area index of forage maize as influenced by seed ratios of different maize-legume mixtures during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.5 Periodic fresh weight of forage legumes as influenced by seed ratios of different maize-legume mixtures during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.6 Periodic dry weight of forage legumes as influenced by seed ratios of different maize-legume mixtures during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.7 Periodic number of leaves of forage maize as influenced by different nitrogen levels during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.8 Periodic number of leaves of forage maize as influenced by different maize-legume mixtures during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.9 Periodic plant height of forage maize as influenced by different nitrogen levels during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.10 Periodic plant height of forage maize as influenced by different maize-legume mixtures during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.11 Periodic stem diameter of forage maize as influenced by different nitrogen levels during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.12 Periodic stem diameter of forage maize as influenced by different maize-legume mixtures during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.13 Periodic leaf area index of forage maize as influenced by different nitrogen levels during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.14 Periodic leaf area index of forage maize as influenced by different maize-legume mixtures during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.15 Periodic plant height of different forage legumes as influenced by different nitrogen levels during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 4.16 Periodic plant height of different forage legumes as influenced by maize-legume mixtures during (a) 2005 and (b) 2006 XIV
The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences
Availability of green fodder with improved quality to animals is the key to success for sustainable livestock production. It is difficult to maintain the health and milk production of the livestock without supply of the quality green fodder. Therefore, the study was carried out to evaluate the forage quality of maize and legumes as influenced by varying intercropping combinations. This experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with seven treatments consisting of three different forage crops, viz. maize, cowpea and guar sown in sole as well as in 1:1 and 2:1 intercropping combinations of forage cereal with legume crop components in three replications. Experimental results showed that the highest dry matter yield (94.89 q/ha) was obtained in maize+ cowpea (2:1) intercropping combinations. The quality parameters of different forage crops, viz. Organic Matter, Crude Protein, Ether Extract, Ash Content, Neutral Detergent Fiber, Acid Detergent Fiber, Acid Detergen...
This study was conducted at Dore Befano and Meskan district of Sidma regional state and Gurage zone of south nation, nationalities, and peoples of southern Ethiopia's (SNNPR), where maize dominated. The trial was conducted to evaluate the outcome of under sowing lablab on the grain yield, Stover, and appropriate time and seeding rate of forage crop under sowing. The trial was implemented using a 3 by 3 factorial combination with two sole treatments in an RCBD with three replications. The treatments were sole Maize (T 1). Sole forage (T 2) and Maize & Forage Simultaneous with maize sowing date full Simultaneous with maize sowing date 75%, Simultaneous with maize sowing date at 50%, Maize & Forage After 15 days of maize sowing full, after 15 days of maize sowing 75%, After 15 days of maize sowing 50%, Maize & Forage After 30 days of maize sowing full, Maize & Forage After 30 days of maize sowing 75% and Maize & Forage After 30 days of maize sowing 50% T 3 to T 11 respectively. Under sowing of lablab with maize did not affect the grain yield of maize. Among experiments, T5 was a more appropriate seeding rate and sowing time for under sowing of lablab with maize.
International Journal of Research Studies in Agricultural Sciences
The experiment was undertaken at Agarfa and Gasera sites of the Bale highland with the objectives to evaluate forage yield performance of some forage legumes undersown with maize and to assess their effect on grain yield of maize. Accordingly, four types of forage legumes Vecia dacycarpa, Trifolium quartinanium, Melilotus alba and Hunter river were tested in randomized complete block design with four replications. The two sites combined analysis revealed that the dry matter yield recorded were significantly (p<0.05) differ among the tested treatments. The highest (3.0t/ha) forage dry matter yield was recorded from vetch-maize treatment whereas the least forage dry matter yield (0.71 t/ha) was harvested from trifolium-maize treatment. The two sites combined result also showed that there were a significant (p<0.05) differences in maize grain yield among the tested treatments. However, there was no significant (p> 0.05) differences among the tested treatments in grain yield at Agarfa site. The highest grain yield (39.2quintal/ha) was harvested from sole maize treatment followed by trifolium-maize treatment (33.6quintal/ha). The lowest (28.7 quintal/ha) yield was produced by alfalfa-maize treatment. However, there was no significant (p>0.05) grain yield differences among the control (sole maize) and trifolium-maize treatments. The two sites mean grain yield result indicated that 26.7%, 24.4%, 22.4%, and 14.2% of yield reduction were calculated due to Hunter river, Vecia dacycarpa, Melilotus alba and Trifolium quartinanium under sown with maize respectively. The reason for maize yield reduction could be due to the competition of the forage legumes for nutrient. The choice of the right time of sowing forage legume under the maize plant could be also the factors for the yield reduction recorded in this study. Hence, the right time of under sowing of forage legume to the cereal and the right choices of both food and forage crop is critical to have a good forage production without affecting the grain yield of the main crop. For this particular experiment, there is the possibility to minimize the grain yield reduction by adjusting the time of under sowing of forage legumes to the maize forage crops. Hence it needs further study on the time of under sown forage crops and selecting the best compatible forage legume that can produce higher forage production as the expense of minimum grain yield reduction.
Influence of Intercropping Maize with Climbing Bean on Forage Yield and Quality
AGROFOR
Maize forage is poor in protein content which shows its low quality and nutritive value. Regarding to high feed costs of protein supplementations, legumes can be used in livestock nutrition for their high protein content and, thus, providing cost savings. Since legumes have low dry matter yield, acceptable forage yield and quality can obtained from intercropping cereals and legumes compared with their sole crops. In this study, maize (Zea mays L.) and climbing bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) were intercropped in different sowing densities and their monocropping equivalents were tested to determine the best intercropping system on forage yield and quality. Maize was cultivated alone (75 000 plants ha-1) and intercropped with bean as follows: 75 000 plants ha-1 of maize and 37 500 plants ha-1 of bean (MB1), 75 000 plants ha-1 of maize and 50 000 plants ha-1 of bean (MB2) and 75 000 plants ha-1 of maize and 75 000 plants ha-1 of bean (MB3), in rows alternating with maize. The highest dry ...
Forage Legumes in Crop-Livestock Mixed Farming Systems: A Review
International Journal of Livestock Research, 2016
The future animal agriculture in the country suggests that the greatest opportunity for sustainable increases in agricultural productivity lie in agricultural intensification through the development of mixed crop-livestock farming systems. The linkage in mixed crop-livestock production systems through feed resources particularly legumes which fix N, and provide high quality feed, can enhance both the level and rate of nutrient cycling in the system, leading to increased soil fertility, improve animal nutrition, and increase the overall production and protect the environment, especially where land resource is limited. Forage legumes integration with cereals by intercropping generally results in higher fodder protein yield than that in cereals alone. Intercropped forage legumes have been reported to have significantly higher crude protein and lower fiber contents than their respective sole cereal residues and this could improve their voluntary intake and digestibility by livestock. There are various methods of integrating forage legumes into crop-livestock farming systems. The type of forage crops, food crops grown in the area, the soil type, the rainfall pattern and other social and economic factors determine the method of integration used for a specific farming system and locality. Forage legumes generally can be integrated into croplivestock production systems by growing the herbaceous species in natural pastures, on arable land, crop rotation with cereals, sequential cropping, intercropping/ under sowing and relay cropping. Generally, the role of forage legumes in the farming system requires studying economic importance as related to farmers benefit, animal performance and the management of natural resource in a multidisciplinary approach.
Forage and maize yields in mixed crop-livestock farming systems
NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 2019
In mixed crop-livestock farming systems, smallholder farmers face the challenge of insufficient dry season livestock feed whilst crop production is mainly constrained by poor soil fertility and erratic rains. Conservation agriculture (CA) which is premised on three main principles namely minimal soil disturbance, crop rotations and mulching is being promoted as a potential solution to declining soil productivity. However, farmers implementing CA in mixed crop-livestock systems are conflicted by the use of crop residues either as livestock feed or as mulch under crop production. A study was carried from 2012/13 to 2014/15 season in Murehwa, a subhumid region of Zimbabwe, to evaluate the effects of maize-legume cropping systems on forage, maize grain yield and gross margins. In this context, forage refers to the plant material/biomass harvested for livestock feeding. The cropping systems involved one conventional tillage practice with continuous sole maize (CT), four CA treatments consisting of continuous sole maize, maize-mucuna intercrop, maize-cowpea intercrop and maizegroundnut/soybean rotations. The experiment was replicated on eight farmers' fields with each farmer treated as a replicate. Maize-mucuna (4 134 kg ha-1) and maize-cowpea (3 999 kg ha-1) intercrop systems significantly increased forage yield compared to CA sole maize (3 646 kg ha-1) and CT sole maize (3 076 kg ha-1). Among the rotations, maize-soybean rotation system performed better than the maize-groundnut system with respect to forage yield and maize grain. Intercropping and sole cropping systems however showed no significant maize grain yield difference. The highest and lowest gross margins/ha were obtained from the maize-mucuna intercrop (US$1395) and maize-soybean rotation system (US$507), respectively. The study thus suggests that farmers can grow legumes as intercrops with maize without any loss in maize grain yield. Maize-mucuna intercropping was the best of the tested cropping systems with respect to forage yield and gross margins in mixed crop-livestock systems of Murehwa.
Agriculture, 2021
Maize and soybean intercropping is a cereal-legume intercropping pattern that not only increases grain yield but also improves the nutritional value of silage. Experiments were conducted in the summer season to compare the yield and nutritional composition of the forage and silage quality of mono-cropped maize and intercropped maize-soybean harvested at two stages of maturity. The main treatments were one sole crop maize (SM) and four maize-soybean intercropping patterns (one-row maize to one-row soybean (1M1S), one-row maize to two-row soybean (1M2S), one-row maize to three-row soybean (1M3S), and two-row maize to one-row soybean (2M1S). The crops were harvested when the maize reached the milk (R3) and maturity (R6) stages. Results indicated a significant increase in the fresh biomass and dry-matter production of maize fodder alone compared with those of maize intercropped with soybean fodder. After 60 days of ensiling period, silage samples were analyzed for pH, organic acids, dry...