Agronomy Science, przyrodniczy lublin, czasopisma up, czasopisma uniwersytet przyrodniczy lublin
Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Agronomy Science Baner text

Vol. 78 No. 3 (2023)

Articles

The proportion of components in field pea and spring triticale mixtures and harvest stage affect crude fiber content and forage digestibility

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24326/as.2023.5132
Submitted: April 3, 2023
Published: 2024-01-22

Abstract

The work presents results of a study conducted in 2016–2018 to determine the effect of component share in the mixture and harvest stage on concentration of crude fibre and its fractions as well as digestibility of field pea/spring triticale mixtures. The following two factors were examined in a field experiment: factor I – component share in a mixture: field pea in pure stand 100%, spring triticale in pure stand 100%, field pea 75% + spring triticale 25%, field pea 50% + spring triticale 50%, field pea 25% + spring triticale 75%; factor II – harvest stage: field pea flowering stage (BBCH 65), field pea flat green pod stage (BBCH 79). The concentration of crude fibre and its fractions (NDF, ADF, ADL) were determined in the dry matter in addition to dry matter digestibility and organic matter digestibility. The lowest content of crude fiber and its fractions, among the mixtures, was revealed in the mixture with the share of components of pea and spring triticale 75% + 25% and 50% + 50%, respectively. Harvesting mixtures at a later stage caused an increase in crude fiber content and its fraction in dry matter. The superior dry matter digestibility and organic matter digestibility were found for field pea and field pea/spring triticale mixtures containing 75% + 25% and 50% + 50% of the respective components and harvested at the stage of field pea flowering.

References

  1. Andrzejewska J., Albrecht K.A., Jendrzejczak E., 2013. Wysokość roślin a wartość paszowa lucerny w różnych fazach rozwojowych i pokosach [Plant height and feed value of alfalfa in different development stages and cuts]. Fragm. Agron. 30(2), 14–22.
  2. Ashoori N., Abdi M., Golzardi F., Ajalli J., Ilkaee M.N., 2021. Forage potential of sorghum-clover intercropping systems in semi-arid conditions. Bragantia 80, e1421. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.202004237 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.20200423
  3. Aufrere J., Carrere P., Dudilieu M., Baumont R., 2008. Estimation of nutritive value of grasses from semi-natural grasslands by biological, chemical and enzymatic methods. Grass. Sci. Eur. 13, 426–428.
  4. Ayub M., Tanveer A., Nadeem M.A., Tahir M., Ibrahim M., 2008. Effect of seed proportion and nitrogen application on forage yield and nutritive value of barley-pea mixture harvested at different times. Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci. 6(2), 135–139.
  5. Bakhtiyari F., Zamanian M., Golzardi F., 2020. Effect of mixed intercropping of clover on forage yield and quality. South. West. J. Hortic. Biol. 11, 49–66.
  6. Bo P.T., Bai Y., Dong Y., Shi H., Soe Htet M.N., Samoon H.A., Zhang, R., Tanveer S.K., Hai J., 2022. Influence of different harvesting stages and cereals – legume mixture on forage biomass yield, nutritional compositions, and quality under Loess Plateau Region. Plants 11, 2801. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11202801 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11202801
  7. Burns G.A., Gilliland T.J., McGilloway D.A., O’donovan M., Lewis E., Blount N., O’kiely P., 2010. Using NIRS to predict composition characteristics of Lolium perenne L. cultivars. Adv. Anim. Biosci. 1(1), 321–321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2040470010004644
  8. Carmi A., Umiel N., Hagiladi A., Yosef E., Ben-Ghedalia D., Miron J., 2005. Field performance and nutritive value of a new forage sorghum variety ‘Pnina’ recently developed in Israel. J. Sci. Food Agric. 85, 2567–2573. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2299 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2299
  9. Çarpici E.B., 2017. Determination of forage yield and quality of mixtures of hairy vetch with some cereals (oat, barley and wheat) grown as catch crop. Legum. Res. 40(6), 1088–1092. https://doi.org/10.18805/lr.v0i0.8402 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/lr.v0i0.8402
  10. Eskandari H., Ghanbari A., Javanmard A., 2009. Intercropping of cereals and legumes for forage production. Not. Sci. Biol. 1(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.15835/nsb113479 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15835/nsb113479
  11. El-Karamany M.F., Bakry B.A., Elewa T.A., 2014. Integrated action of mixture rates and nitrogen levels on quantity and quality of forage mixture from Egyptian clover and barley in sandy soil. Agric. Sci. 5(14), 1539–1546. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2014.514165 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2014.514165
  12. Fernández-Núñez E., Pires J., Fernandes A., Pires J., Aguiar C., Galvão L., Moreira N., 2012. Grazing regimes and fertilisation rates: effects on dry matter yields, crude protein content and digestibility of meadows in the Northeast of Portugal. Grass. Sci. Eur. 17, 311–313.
  13. Flores Najera M.D.J., Sanchez Gutierrez R.A., Echavarria Chairez F.G., Gutierrez Luna R., Rosales Nieto C.A., Salinas Gonzalez H., 2016. Forage production and quality of common vetch mixtures with barley, oat and triticale in four phenological stages. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 7(3), 275–291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v7i3.4210
  14. Genc-Lermi A., 2018. Effects of mixture ratios on forage yield and quality of legume – triticale intercropping systems without fertilizer in oceanic climate zone. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 27(8), 5540–5547.
  15. Genet T., Bimrew A., Yeshambel M., 2017. Effects of harvesting age and spacing on plant characteristics, chemical composition and yield of desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin.) in the highlands of Ethiopia. Trop Grassl. 5(2), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.17138/tgft(5)77-84 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17138/TGFT(5)77-84
  16. Gill K.S., Omokanye A.T., 2018. Potential of spring barley, oat and triticale intercrops with field peas for forage production, nutrition quality and beef cattle diet. J. Agric. Sci. 10(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v10n4p1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v10n4p1
  17. Haghaninia M., Javanmard A., Nouraein M. and Mollaaliabasiyan S., 2020. Effect of arbuscular mycorrhiza fungus on forage quality in intercropping of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.). J. Crop Prod. Proc. 9(4), 47–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47176/jcpp.9.4.25227
  18. Ibrahim M., Ayub M., Tanveer A., Yaseen M., 2012. Forage quality of maize and legumes as monocultures and mixtures at different seed ratios. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 22(4), 987–992.
  19. Iqbal M.A., Hamid A., Ahmad T., Siddiqui M.H., Hussain I., Ali S., Ali A., Ahmad Z., 2018. Forage sorghum-legumes intercropping: effect on growth, yields, nutritional quality and economic returns. Bragantia 78(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.2017363 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.2017363
  20. Jankowska J., 2012. Wpływ chemicznego i mechanicznego zwalczania Taraxacum officinale na zawartość NDF i ADF w runi łąkowej [Influence of chemical and mechanical of Taraxacum officinale control on the content of NDF and ADF in the meadow sward]. Folia Pomer. Univ. Technol. Stetin., Agric. Aliment. Pisc. Zoot. 296(23), 27–34.
  21. Jankowska-Huflejt H., Wróbel B., 2008. Evaluation of usefulness of forages from grasslands in livestock production in examined organic farms. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 53(3), 103–108.
  22. Kahraryan B., Farahvash F., Mohammadi S., Mirshekari B., 2021. Evaluation of yield, yield components and nutritive value in intercropping of Barley with Vetch. Plant Sci. Today 8(2), 373–379. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.2021.8.2.871 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.2021.8.2.871
  23. Karkanis A., Ntatsi G., Kontopoulou C.K., Pristeri A., Bilalis D., Savvas D., 2016. Field pea in European cropping systems: adaptability, biological nitrogen fixation and cultivation practices. Not. Bot. Horti. Agrobo. 44(2), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha44210618 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha44210618
  24. Kim W.H., Kim K.Y., Jung M.W., 2011. Dry matter yield and forage quality at mixture of annual legumes and Italian ryegrass on Paddy Field. J. Korean Soc. Grassl. Forage Sci. 31, 33–38. https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2011.31.1.33 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2011.31.1.33
  25. Kir H., 2021. Forage yield and quality of Hungarian vetch mixture with oat varieties under rainfed conditions. Turkish J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 45(3), 419–426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-2005-45
  26. Kocer A., Albayrak S., 2012. Determination of forage yield and quality of pea (Pisum sativum L.) mixtures with oat and barley. Turkish J. Field Crop. 17(1), 96–99.
  27. Krämer-Schmid M., Lund P., Weisbjerg M.R., 2016. Importance of NDF digestibility of whole crop maize silage for dry matter intake and milk production in dairy cows. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 219, 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.06.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.06.007
  28. Ma J., Sun G., Shah A.M., Fan X., Li S., Yu X., 2019. Effects of different growth stages of amaranth silage on the rumen degradation of dairy cows. Animals 9, 793. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100793 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100793
  29. Manoj K.N., Shekara B.G., 2020. Agronomic management practices for enhancing quality and productivity of fodder: A review. Ind. J. Pure App. Biosci. 8(5), 403–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.18782/2582-2845.8335 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18782/2582-2845.8335
  30. Mergoum M., Sapkota S., ElDoliefy A., Naraghi S.M., Pirseyedi S., Alamri M.S., AbuHammad W., 2019. Triticale (× Triticosecale Wittmack) breeding. In: J. Al-Khayri, S. Jain, D. Johnson (eds), Advances in plant breeding strategies cereals. Springer, Cham, 405–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23108-8_11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23108-8_11
  31. Molla E.A., Wondimagegn B.A., Chekol Y.M., 2018. Evaluation of biomass yield and nutritional quality of oats – vetch mixtures at different harvesting stage under residual moisture in Fogera District, Ethiopia. Agric. Food Secur. 7(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-018-0240-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-018-0240-y
  32. Muck R.E., Moser L.E., Pitt R.E., 2015. Postharvest factors affecting ensiling. In: D.R. Buxton, R.E. Muck, J.H. Harrison (eds), Silage science and technology. Madison, WI, USA, 251–304. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr42.c6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr42.c6
  33. Nakhzari Moghaddam A., Noora G.A., Rahemi Karizaki A., 2016. Effect of nitrogen application and planting pattern of faba bean (Vicia faba) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) on some quantity and quality traits of forage. Iran J. Field Crop Sci. 47(2), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.22059/IJFCS.2016.58863
  34. Nasar J., Alam A., Nasar A., Khan M.Z., 2019. Intercropping induce changes in above and below ground plant compartments in mixed cropping system. Biomed. J. Sci. Tech. Res. 17(5), 13043–13050. https://doi.org/10.26717/BJSTR.2019.17.003054 DOI: https://doi.org/10.26717/BJSTR.2019.17.003054
  35. National Research Council, 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle: Seventh revised edition, 2001. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/9825 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/9825
  36. Olszewska M., Kobylinski A., 2016. Względna wartość pokarmowa mieszanek Festulolium braunii (K. Richt.) A. Camus z Medicago media Pers. w zależności od zróżnicowanego udziału lucerny w zasiewie [The relative feed value of mixtures Festulolium braunii (K. Richt.) A. Camus with Medicago media pers. depending on the varying participation on alfalfa in sowing]. Acta Agroph. 23(3), 481–490.
  37. Papoa V.A., Rees R.M., Walker R.L., Baddeley J.A., Watson C.A., 2012. Legumes intercropped with spring barley contribute to increased biomass production and carry-over effects. J. Agric. Sci. 150(5), 584–594. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859611000918 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859611000918
  38. PN-EN ISO 12099:2017-10. Pasze, ziarna zbóż, produkty przemiału. Wytyczne stosowania spektrometrii bliskiej podczerwieni [Feed, cereal grains and milling products – Guidelines for the use of near-infrared spektrometry]. PKN, Warszawa.
  39. Piltz J.W., Rodham C.A., Wilkins J.F., Hackney B.F., 2021. A comparison of cereal and cereal/vetch crops for fodder conservation. Agriculture 11(5), 459. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11050459 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11050459
  40. Płaza A., Makarewicz A., Gąsiorowska B., Cybulska A., Rzążewska E., Górski R., 2018. Nutrient content in mixtures of pea with spring rye cultivated for green mass. Fragm. Agron. 35(2), 98–106.
  41. Pourali S., Aghayari F., Ardakani M.R., Golzardi F., 2023. Benefits from intercropped forage sorghum–red clover under drought stress conditions. Ges. Pflan. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10343-023-00833-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10343-023-00833-4
  42. Qu H., Liu X.B., Dong C.F., Lu X.Y., Shen Y.X., 2014. Field performance and nutritive value of sweet sorghum in eastern China. Field Crops Res. 157, 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.12.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.12.010
  43. Riaz M.Q., Südekum K.H., Clauss M., Jayanegara, A., 2014. Voluntary feed intake and digestibility of four domestic ruminant species as influenced by dietary constituents: A meta-analysis. Livestock Sci. 162, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.01.009 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.01.009
  44. Salama H.S.A., Badry H.H., 2015. Influence of variable mixing rates and nitrogen fertilization levels on the fodder quality of Egyptian clover (Trifolium alexandrinum L.) and annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.). Afr. J. Agric. Res. 10(53), 4858–4864. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2015.10514 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2015.10514
  45. Salama H.S.A., Zeid M.M K., 2016. Hay quality evaluation of summer grass and legume forage monocultures and mixtures grown under irrigated conditions. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 11(11), 1543–1550. https://doi.org/10.21475/ajcs.2016.10.11.PNE113 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21475/ajcs.2016.10.11.PNE113
  46. Salama H.S.A., 2020. Mixture cropping of berseem clover with cereals to improve forage yield and quality under irrigated conditions of the Mediterranean basin. Ann. Agric. Sci. 65(2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2020.09.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2020.09.001
  47. Seydosoglu S., Bengisu G., 2019. Effects of different mixture ratios and harvest periods on grass quality of triticale (× Triticosecale Wittmack) – forage pea (Pisum Sativum L.) intercrop. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 17(6), 13263–13271. http://dx.doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1706_1326313271 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1706_1326313271
  48. Seydoşoglu S., Turan N., Oluk A., 2020. Bazı baklagil yem bitkileri ile arpa karışım oranları belirlenerek yem verimi ve kalitesine etkisinin araştırılması [Evaluation of the influence on forage yield and quality through determination barley mixture rates with some legume forage]. Aka. Ziraat Derg. 9(2), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.29278/azd.737554 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29278/azd.737554
  49. Skórko-Sajko H., Lipiński K., Tywończuk J., Minakowski D., 2016. Amino acids profile of protein and nutritional value of fodder galega (Galega orientalis Lam.) depending on the phenological stage. Zesz. Nauk. UP Wroc., Biol. Hod. Zwierz. 81(618), 19–26.
  50. Sońta M., Rekiel A., 2020. Legumes – use for nutritional and feeding purposes. J. Elem. 25(3), 835–849. https://doi.org/10.5601/jelem.2020.25.1.1953 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5601/jelem.2020.25.1.1953
  51. Soufan W., Al-Suhaibani N.A., 2021. Optimizing yield and quality of silage and hay for pea – barley mixtures ratio under irrigated arid environments. Sustainability 13(24), 13621. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413621 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413621
  52. Šiaudinis G., Arlauskienė A., Repšienė R., Šarūnaitė L., Skuodienė R., 2017. The effect of bacterial application on the productivity of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) and its mixture with spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under two agroclimatic conditions in Lithuania. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 15(4), 2011–2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1504_20112021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1504_20112021
  53. Yılmaz Ş., Özel A., Atak M., Erayman M., 2015. Effects of seeding rates on competition indices of barley and vetch intercropping systems in the Eastern Mediterranean. Turk. J. Agric. For. 39(1), 135–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3906/tar-1406-155

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >> 

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.