The effect on voluntary feed intake, in vivo digestibility and nitrogen balance in sheep of feeding grass silage or pea–wheat intercrops differing in pea to wheat ratio and maturity

Adesogan, A.T.; Salawu, M.B.; Deaville, E. R.

doi:10.1016/s0377-8401(01)00336-4

Cited by 44 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Farmers typically use chemically intensive practices to maintain soil productivity combined with other management practices that decrease soil organic matter (SOM), while increasing soil erosion, acidification and salinization (Dumanski et al, 1986). Intercropping, which is defined as growing two or more species simultaneously in the same field during a growing season, is considered one important strategy in developing sustainable production systems, particularly systems that aim to limit external inputs (Adesogan et al, 2002;Jahansooz et al, 2007;Zhang et al, 2008). The range of benefits identified from intercropping two or more species include higher productivity and profitability per unit area, improved soil fertility through nitrogen fixation, increased efficiency of resources, reduced damage caused by pests, diseases and weeds, improved forage quality and improvements in carbon and nitrogen dynamics (Oelbermann and Echarte, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Intercropping and Nitroxin Biofertilizer on Yield Components and Relative Yield Total of Purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) and Dragon’s Head (Lallemantia iberica Fisch. & C.A. Mey)

Ghamari

Kolvanagh

Sabaghpour³

et al. 2016

Not Sci Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A field study was conducted in order to evaluate the effects of intercropping and biofertilizers on yield and yield components of purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) and dragon's head (Lallemantia iberica Fisch. and C.A. Mey). The experiment was factorial on the basis of a randomized complete block design with three replications. The first factor was an additive intercropping system including monocultured purslane, monocultured dragon's head, intercropping of 100% purslane + 25% dragon's head, intercropping of 100% purslane + 50% dragon's head, intercropping of 100% purslane + 75% dragon's head; the second factor was nutrient treatments including application of 50% inorganic N fertilizer (urea) + nitroxin, inorganic N fertilizer (urea), nitroxin and no fertilizer. Results showed that as the density of dragon's head increased, the number of branches in purslane decreased. In purslane, the number of capsules was significantly affected by intercropping and application of biofertilizers. In both crops, the effects of treatments on yield were significant. Results clearly showed that Relative Yield Total (RYT) was always higher in intercropping than monocultured systems. The highest RYT was observed in intercropping of 100% purslane + 50% dragon's head with the application of 50% inorganic N fertilizer (urea) + nitroxin. Therefore, combination usage of biofertilizers and inorganic N fertilizers can improve yields in purslane/dragon's head intercropping.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Intercropping and Nitroxin Biofertilizer on Yield Components and Relative Yield Total of Purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) and Dragon’s Head (Lallemantia iberica Fisch. & C.A. Mey)

Ghamari

Kolvanagh

Sabaghpour³

et al. 2016

Not Sci Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, farmers have become increasingly interested in cereal-legume intercrops for winter-feeding in order to improve the efficiency of production systems. In this respect, Adesogan et al (2002) have shown pea-wheat bi-crop silages to be both high yielding and environmentally benign forages that promote higher dry matter intake (DMI) and greater nitrogen contents than grass silages. Our research group has tested several legumes in association with winter cereals, including pea-wheat bi-crops, obtaining the best results when combining triticale-fava bean (x Triticosecale Wittm.-Vicia faba L.) in rotation with maize (Pedrol andMartínez 2003, Martínez-Fernández et al 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wilting and inoculation of Lactobacillus buchneri on intercropped triticale-fava silage: effects on nutritive, fermentative and aerobic stability characteristics

Martínez-Fernández¹,

Soldado²,

Vicente³

2008

AFSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the effects of wilting and Lactobacillus buchneri inoculation on fermentation end products, DM recovery, nutritive characteristics and aerobic stability in organically grown triticale-fava bean intercrop silages. For this purpose, a bi-crop of triticale (× Triticosecale Wittm.) and fava bean (Vicia faba L.) was established on an old low-input mixed sward (Lolium perenne-Trifolium repens). The association of triticale and fava bean in winter crops and wilting forages before ensiling improved ensilability characteristics. Wilting for 24 hours before ensiling avoided effluent losses during the fermentation process and reduced ammonia nitrogen production. Inoculation with Lactobacillus buchneri 40788, for a final application rate of 1×10 5 cfu g -1 of fresh forage ensiled in laboratory silos during 80 days, promoted a higher CP concentration. Furthermore, it promoted changes in the concentration of fermentation end products, decreasing lactic acid and increasing acetic and propionic acids. The effects of Lactobacillus buchneri on aerobic stability were not confirmed in this study. Wilting depressed, but did not inhibit the activity of Lactobacillus buchneri in the fermentation process.

show abstract

“…Using sheep, Adesogan et al (2002) also measured higher CP digestibility values for pea-wheat (75:25) silage conserved at full pod stage compared to second-cut grass silage (Dvalue 584 g kg -1 DM), but found no difference in OM digestibility between the two forages.…”

Section: Diet Digestibility and Feed Intakementioning

confidence: 94%

“…Digestibility of DM (Mustafa and Seguin 2004) and OM (Adesogan et al 2002) of pea-cereal silage was suggested to be more dependent on the pea-to-cereal ratio than on the maturity of the sward at harvest, contrary to the digestibility of NDF (Adesogan et al 2002, Mustafa andSeguin 2004). In their experiment, Mustafa and Seguin (2004) observed by 11.4% reduced in vitro NDF digestibility of pea-barley silage when harvesting was delayed from the flowering stage of pea to the pod fill stage.…”

Section: Diet Digestibility and Feed Intakementioning

confidence: 95%

“…In addition, the higher NDF intake from concentrates for PBS100 cows (52.4% of diet NDF) compared to PBS0 cows (39% of diet NDF) partly accounted for the lower diet NDF digestibility for PBS100, since most of the concentrate NDF originated from barley and rapeseed whose fibre is poorly digested compared to silage fibre (MTT 2004). Similarly, Adesogan et al (2002) reported lower NDF digestibility for pea-wheat silage compared to grass silage. Adesogan et al (2004) on the contrary, found no significant difference in the in vivo NDF digestibility between pea-wheat silage and grass silage.…”

Section: Diet Digestibility and Feed Intakementioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Replacing grass silage with pea-barley intercrop silage in the feeding of the dairy cow

Pursiainen¹,

Tuori²

2008

AFSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of replacing wilted grass silage (GS) with pea-barley intercrop silage (PBS) on feed intake, diet digestibility and milk production was studied with 8 multiparous Ayrshire-cows in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin square experiment. Proportion of PBS was 0 (PBS0), 33 (PBS33), 67 (PBS67) or 100 (PBS100) % of silage dry matter (DM). The DM content was 559 and 255 g kg -1 for GS and PBS. Crude protein content was 131 and 170 g kg -1 DM, respectively. Pea-barley silage was more extensively fermented than GS with total fermentation acid content of 120 vs. 12 g kg -1 DM. Silage was fed for ad libitum intake and supplemented with on the average 13 kg concentrate per day. Silage DM intake was 9.2 (PBS0), 9.7 (PBS33), 9.0 (PBS67) and 7.1 (PBS100) kg per day (P quadr. < 0.05). The energy corrected milk yield [30.3 (PBS0), 29.8 (PBS33), 30.3 (PBS67), 31.3 (PBS100) kg per day] was not significantly affected by the treatment. Milk protein concentration decreased linearly (P < 0.05) in response to feeding PBS. It is concluded that PBS can replace up to two thirds of wilted, moderate quality GS in the feeding of dairy cows because in this experiment pure pea-barley silage reduced silage intake.

show abstract

The effect on voluntary feed intake, in vivo digestibility and nitrogen balance in sheep of feeding grass silage or pea–wheat intercrops differing in pea to wheat ratio and maturity

Cited by 44 publications

References 27 publications

The Effect of Intercropping and Nitroxin Biofertilizer on Yield Components and Relative Yield Total of Purslane (<i>Portulaca oleracea</i> L.) and Dragon’s Head (<i>Lallemantia iberica</i> Fisch. & C.A. Mey)

The Effect of Intercropping and Nitroxin Biofertilizer on Yield Components and Relative Yield Total of Purslane (<i>Portulaca oleracea</i> L.) and Dragon’s Head (<i>Lallemantia iberica</i> Fisch. & C.A. Mey)

Wilting and inoculation of Lactobacillus buchneri on intercropped triticale-fava silage: effects on nutritive, fermentative and aerobic stability characteristics

Replacing grass silage with pea-barley intercrop silage in the feeding of the dairy cow

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About