Yield and silage quality of soybean-maize intercrop under different mixing ratios and harvest stages
Paper Details
Yield and silage quality of soybean-maize intercrop under different mixing ratios and harvest stages
Abstract
The research was carried out to determine the effects of mixing ratios and harvest stages on dry matter yield and silage quality of intercropped soybean (Glycine max) and maize (Zea mays). A split plot design with four replications was conducted in Eastern Mediterranean Agricultural Research Institute Experiment Area, Adana-Turkey. Five treatments (sole maize (M) and sole soybean (S), 100:100 MS; 50:100 Ms, 100:50 Ms %) and two harvest stages (milk stage and dough stage) were evaluated in 2011 growing second crop season. As a result of the research, dry matter (DM) yield, crude protein ratio (CPR), pH, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), ash, dry matter intake (DMI), relative feed value (RFV), and digestible dry matter ratio (DDMR) ranged from 7.6 to 19.6 t ha-1; 56.0 to 49.7 g kg-1; 3.81 to 4.95; 411.8 to 539.6 g kg-1; 272.8 to 366.7 g kg-1; 52.0 to 111.9 g kg-1; 22.4 to 30.0 g kg-1; 109.8 to 145.8; 603.3 to 676.5 g kg-1, respectively. Hence, intercrop of maize (100%) + soybean (100%) at dough stage can be suggested for high dry matter yield and forage quality in a crop rotation following winter wheat.
Albrecht KA, Beauchemin KA. 2003. Alfalfa and other perennial legume silage.
Albrecht KA, Muck RE. 1991. Proteolysis in ensiled forage legumes that vary in tannin concentration. Crop Science 31, 464-469.
Aman P. 1993. Composition and structure of cell wall polysaccharides in forages. In: Jung HG, Buxton DR, Hatfield RD, Ralph J. (Eds.), Forage Cell Wall Structure and Digestibility. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 183-199.
Anil L, Park J, Phipps RH, Müler FA. 1998. Temperate intercropping of cereals for forage: A review of the potential for growth and utilization with particular reference to the U.K. Grass and Forage Science 53, 301-317.
Anil L, Park J, Phipps RH. 2000. The potential of forage-maize intercrops in ruminant nutrition. Animal Feed Science and Technology 85, 157-164.
AOAC – Officials Methods of Analysis. 1984. Association of official Analytical chemists. Wshington. DC USA.
Armstrong KL, Albrecht KA, Lauer JG, Riday H. 2008. Intercropping corn with lablab bean, velvet bean, and scarlet runner bean for forage. Crop Science 48, 371-379.
Baghdadi A, Halim RA, Ghasemzadeh A, Ebrahimi M, Othman R, Yusof MM. 2016. Effect of intercropping of corn and soybean on dry matter yield and nutritive value of forage corn. Legume Research 39(6), 976-981.
Banik P, Midya A, Sarkar BK, Ghose, SS. 2006. Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: Advantages and weed smothering, European Journal of Agronomy 24, 325-332.
Chen J, Stokes MR, Wallace CR. 1994. Effects of enzyme-inoculant systems on preservation and nutritive value of hay crop and Maize silages. Journal Dairy Science 77, 501-512.
Coors JG, Albrecht KA, Bures EJ. 1997. Ear-fill effects on yield and quality of silage Maize. Crop Science 37, 243-247.
Cordier H, Mendes F, Vasconcelos I, Francois JM. 2007. A Metabolic and genomic study of engineered Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains for high glycerol production. Metabolic Engineering 9, 364-378.
Dahmardeh M, Ghanbari A, Syasar B.and Ramroudi M. 2009. Effect of intercropping maize with cowpea on green forage yield and quality evaluation. Asian Journal of Plant Science 8(3), 235-239.
Dawo MI, Wilkinson M, Sanders FE, Pilbeam DJ. 2007. The yield and quality of fresh and ensiled plant material from intercropping maize and bean. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture 87, 1391-1399.
Dhima KV, Lithourgidis AS, Vasilakoglou IB, Dordas CA. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research 100, 249-256.
Erdal S, Pamukcu M, Curek M, Kocaturk M, Dogu OY. 2016. Silage yield and quality of row intercropped maize and soybean in a crop rotation following winter wheat. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science www.tandfonline.com/loi/gags20
Erten H. 1998. Metabolism of fructose as an electron acceptor by Leuconostoc mesenteroides. Process Biochemistry 33(7), 735-739.
Eskandari H, Ghanbarı-Bonjar A, Galavı M, Saları M. 2009. Forage quality of cowpea (Vigna sinensis) intercropped with Maize (Zea mays) as affected by nutrient uptake and light interception. Notulae Botanicea Horti Agrobotanici Cluj 37(1), 171-174.
Eskandari H. 2012. Yield and quality of forage produced in intercropping of maize (Zea mays) with Cowpea (Vigna Sinensis) and Mungbean (Vigna radiate) as Double cropped. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research 2(1), 93-97.
Eslamizadeh A, Kashani A, Siyadat SAA, Modhej A, Lak S. 2015. Study of soybean forage at different planting dates intercropped with corn. WALIA journal 31(S4), 108-112, 2015 www.Waliaj.com ISSN 1026-3861
Geren H, Avcioglu R, Soya H, AndKir B. 2008. Intercropping of maize with cowpea and bean: Biomass yield and silage quality. African Journal of Biotechnology 7, 4100-4104.
Hatfield RD. 1993. Cell wall polysaccharide interactions and digestibility. In: Jung HG, Buxton DR, Hatfield RD, Ralph J. (Eds.), Forage Cell wall Structure and Digestibility. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 285-313.
Htet MN, Soomro NS, Jiang bo H. 2016. Effect of Intercropping of maize (Zea mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max L.) on green forage yield and quality evaluation. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science (IOSR-JAVS) Vol. 9, Issue 12 Ver I, p. 59-63.
Huhtanen P, Khalili H, Nousiainen JI, Rinne M, Jaakkola S, Heikkila T, Nousıaınen J. 2002. Prediction on the relative intake potential of grass silage by dairy cows. Livestock Production Science, Vol. 73, 2002, p. 111-130.
Jaranyama P, Garcia AD. 2004. Understanding Relative Feed Value (RFV) and Relative Forage Quality (RFQ). College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, South Dakota State University USDA.
Javanmard A, Dabbagh A, Nasab M, Javanshir A, Moghaddam M, Janmohammadi H. 2009. Forage yield and quality in intercropping of maize with different legumes as double-cropped. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment. 7(1), 163-166.
Joachim H, Jung G. 1997. Analysis of forage fiber and cell walls in ruminant nutrition. J. Nutr 127, 810-813.
Lithourgidis AS, Vasilakoglou IB, Dhima KV, Dordas CA, Yiakoulaki MD. 2006. Silage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding ratios. Field Crops Res 99, 106-113.
McDonald P, Henderson AR, Heron SJE. 1991. The Biochemistry of silage, 2nd Ed. ChalcombePubl, Bucks UK.
Muck RE, Moser LE, Pitt RE. 2003. Postharvest factors affecting ensiling. In: Buxton DR, Muck RE, Harrison JH. (Eds.), Silage Science and Technology. Agron. Monogr. 42. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 251-304.
Mustafa AF, Seguin P. 2003. Characteristics and in situ degradability of whole crop faba bean, pea, and soybean silage. Canadian Journal Animal Science 83, 793-799.
NRC-National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th Rev. Ed. Natl. Acad. Sci., Washington D.C.
Oba M, Allen MS. 1998. Evaluation of the importance the digestibility of neutral detergent fiber from forage: Effect on dry matter intake and milk yield of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci 82, 589:596.
Ofori F, Stern WR. 1987. “Cereal-legume intercropping systems”. Advances in Agronomy 40, 41-90.
Owens V. Nnrc Albrecht KA, Muck RE, Duke SH. 1999. Protein degradation and fermentation characteristics of red clover and alfalfa silage harvested with varying levels of total nonstructural carbohydrates. Crop Science 39, 1873-1880.
Peterson JA, Belyea RL, Bowman JP, Kerley MS, Williams JE. 1994. The impact of forage quality and supplementation regimen on ruminant animal intake and performance. In: Fahley Jr., G.C. (Ed), Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, Wl pp, 59-114.
Petterson K. 1988. Ensiling of Forages: factors affecting silage fermentation and quality, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, Uppsala p. 46.
Putnam DH, Herbert S, Vargas J. 1985. Intercropping Maize-soybean studies, yield composition and protein. Journal of Experimental Agriculture 22, 375-381.
Stoltz E, Nadeau E, Wallenhammar AC. 2013. Intercropping maize and fababean for silage under Swedish climate conditions. Agricultural Research (March) 2(1), 90-97.
Tansı V, Sağlamtimur T. 1992. The Increased productivity of land under mixed and intercrop system in Çukurova-Turkey. Deutsch-Türkische Agrarforschungen, Hohenheim.
Titterton M, Maasdorp BV. 1997. Nutritional improvement of maize silage for dairying mixed crop silages from sole and intercropped legumes and a long season variety of maize. 2. Ensilage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 69, 263-270.
Van Soest PJ. 1982. Analytical systems for evaluation of feeds. In: Van Soest, PJ (Ed.), Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Maizeell University, Ithaca, NY pp. 75-94.
Van Soest PJ. 1994. Nutritional eclogy of the ruminats. In Van Soet P. J. Fiber and phsiochemical properties of feeds. 2th Edn. Maizeell University Press. Ithaca and London pp 140-155.
Vasilakoglou I, Dhima K, Lithourgidis A, Eleftherohorinos I. 2008. Competitive ability of winter cereal-common vetch intercrops against sterile oat. Experimental Agriculture. 44, 509-520.
Yurtsever N. 1984. Deneysel İstatistik Metotları. Toprakve Gübre Araştırma Enstitüsü Müd. Yay, Genel Yayın No: 56, Ankara.
Celal Yücel, Mustafa Avcı, İlker Inal, Derya Yücel (2017), Yield and silage quality of soybean-maize intercrop under different mixing ratios and harvest stages; IJAAR, V10, N6, June, P95-105
https://innspub.net/yield-and-silage-quality-of-soybean-maize-intercrop-under-different-mixing-ratios-and-harvest-stages/
Copyright © 2017
By Authors and International
Network for Natural Sciences
(INNSPUB) https://innspub.net
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0