Quality characteristics and nutrient yields of maize and legume forages under changing intercropping row ratios

DEVENDRA SINGH GINWAL; RAKESH KUMAR; HARDEV RAM; R K MEENA; UTTAM KUMAR

doi:10.56093/ijans.v89i3.88079

Authors

DEVENDRA SINGH GINWAL Research Scholar, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
RAKESH KUMAR Principal Scientist, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
HARDEV RAM Scientist, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
R K MEENA Scientist, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India
UTTAM KUMAR Chief Technical Officer, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, Haryana 132 001 India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v89i3.88079

Keywords:

Cluster bean, Cowpea, Forage quality, Intercropping, Maize

Abstract

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 Detergent Lignin, NDICP and ADICP were influenced significantly and favourably with inclusion of both legumes. Among intercropping combinations Maize: legume (1:1) was better over Maize: legume (2:1) and sole maize. The CP, EE and Ash yield were influenced significantly and maximum value were observed 10.74, 1.99 and 9.4 q/ha, respectively in forage maize+ cowpea (2:1) ratio. Among the different forage crops, the fiber fractions were observed minimum in (1:1) intercropping ratio of maize with legume components as compares to their sole component as well as (2:1) intercropping combinations. The insoluble crude protein content was found minimum in (1:1) intercropping combination and influenced significantly with their respective (2:1) or sole crop.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AOAC. 2005. Official Methods of Analysis. 18th edn. 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 matteryield 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

Chouhan G S and Dungarwal H S. 1980. Companion cropping of maize with legumes for forage. Madras Agricultural Journal 67(4): 233–38.

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.

Javanmard A, Nasab A D M, Javanshir A, Moghaddam M and 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): 163–66.

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 Agricultural Research 44(1): 15–21.

Olsen S R. 1954. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soil by Extraction with Sodium Hydrogen Carbonate. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington.

Subbiah B V and Asija C L. 1956. A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soil. Current Science 25: 258–60.

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

Surve V H, Patil P R and Arvadia M K. 2011. Forage production potential of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), maize (Zea mays L.) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) under sole and intercropping Systems. Madras Agricultural 98(10–12): 372–74.

Van Soest P J, Robertson J B and Lewis B A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of dairy sciences 74(10): 3583–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2

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