Evaluation of productivity and quality of forage sorghum and legumes crops under varying intercropping combinations

DEVENDRA SINGH GINWAL; RAKESH KUMAR; HARDEV RAM; R K MEENA; M R YADAV; GOVIND MAKARANA; AVINASH CHAUHAN; MANJUNATH S K; UTTAM KUMAR

doi:10.56093/ijans.v91i9.116467

Authors

DEVENDRA SINGH GINWAL ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
RAKESH KUMAR ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
HARDEV RAM ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
R K MEENA ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
M R YADAV ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
GOVIND MAKARANA ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
AVINASH CHAUHAN ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
MANJUNATH S K ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
UTTAM KUMAR ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v91i9.116467

Keywords:

Fodder, Intercropping combinations, Legumes, Quality, Sorghum

Abstract

The present study was conducted during kharif season of 2017 with objective to study the influence of different intercropping combinations of forage sorghum and legumes (cowpea and guar) on forage productivity and quality. The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 7 treatments consisting of three different forage crops, viz. sorghum, cowpea and guar sown in sole treatment as well as in 1:1 and 2:1 intercropping combinations of forage sorghum with legume crop components. Results revealed that the highest total green fodder yield (434.61 q/ha) and total dry matter yield (90.65 q/ha) were obtained with sorghum+cowpea (2:1) and sorghum+guar (2:1) intercropping combinations, respectively. Forage sorghum recorded significantly higher CP content (8.92%) in sorghum+guar (1:1) intercropping combination. Significantly higher ether extract of sorghum (2.03%), cowpea (2.60%) and guar (2.61%) were found in their (1:1) intercropping row proportion. The maximum total CP yield and total EE yield (10.35 and 1.93 q/ha), respectively were reported in sorghum+guar (1:1) ratio, while total ash yield (9.18 q/ha) was recorded in sorghum+guar (2:1) intercropping ratio. The sorghum planted under 1:1 intercropping row ratios of sorghum with cowpea/ guar crops recorded significantly lowest value of NDF (61.12-61.14%) and ADF (30.12-30.15%) and ADL (4.24-4.26%) over 2:1 row ratio intercropping of sorghum with cowpea/ guar and its sole stand. The minimum value of NDICP on DM% and ADICP DM% basis and NDICP on CP% and ADICP CP% basis were reported in 1:1 intercropping proportion. Therefore, considering overall results of our study, it can be concluded that to realize higher production and quality of forage sorghum its cultivation in 1:1 and 2:1 row ratio with legumes (Guar/cowpea) can be recommended.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AOAC. 2005. Official Methods of Analysis. Eighteenth revised. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Baghdadi A, Halim R A, Ghasemzadeh A, Ebrahimi M, Othman R and Yusof M M. 2016. Effect of intercropping of corn and soybean on dry matter yield and nutritive value of forage corn. Legume Research-An International Journal 39(6): 976–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/lr.v39i6.6643

Barik P, Midhya A, Sarkar B K and Ghose S S. 2006. Wheat chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment, advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy 24: 325–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2005.10.010

Ginwal D S, Kumar R, Ram H, Dutta S, Arjun M and Hindoriya P S. 2019a. Fodder productivity and profitability of different maize and legume intercropping systems. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 89(9): 1451–55.

Ginwal D S, Kumar R, Ram H, Meena R K and Kumar U. 2019b. Quality characteristics and nutrient yields of maize and legume forages under changing intercropping row ratios. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 89: 281–86.

Gomez K A and Gomez A A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, p 680. John Willey and Sons,

Singapore. Jackson M L. 1967. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice – Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi, India.

Kumar K T and Venkateswarlu B. 2013. Babycorn (Zea mays L.) performance as vegetable-cum-fodder in intercropping with legume fodders under different planting patterns. Range Management and Agroforestry 34(1): 137–41.

Licitra G, Hernandez T M and Van Soest P J. 1996. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57(4): 347–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00837-3

Ibrahim M, Rafiq M, Sultan A, Akram M and Goheer M A. 2006. Green fodder yield and quality evaluation of maize and cowpea sown alone and in combination. Journal of Agriculture Research 44(1): 15–21.

Olsen S R. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in soil by extraction with sodium hydrogen carbonate, USDA Circular 939: 19.

Subbiah B V and Asija C L. 1956. A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soil. Current Science 25:

–60.

Surve V H, Patil P R and Arvadia M K. 2007. Effect of row ratio in cereal-legume fodder under intercropping system on

biomass production and economics. Recent trend in Agriculture. Water and Environment Research 2(1): 32–34.

Van Soest P J, Robertson J B and Lewis B A. 1991. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre, and non-starch

polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Sciences 74(10): 3583–97.

Walkley A and Black C A. 1934. Estimation of organic carbon by chronic acid titration method. Soil Science. 37: 29–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003