Intercropping of maize and climbing bean: fodder yield, quality and nutrient composition of silages
2 likes498 views
This study examined the fodder yield, quality, and nutrient composition of silages from maize cultivated alone or intercropped with climbing bean in different spatial arrangements. Maize was grown alone or intercropped in arrangements of 1 row maize to 1 row bean, 1 row maize to 2 rows bean, or 2 rows maize to 1 row bean. The maize-bean intercrops had higher crude protein yields than maize alone due to contributions from the legume. After ensiling for 45 days, all intercropped silages had higher crude protein than maize silage alone. The 1 row maize to 2 rows bean intercrop silage had the highest levels of organic acids and ammonia-N among
Intercropping of maize and climbing bean: fodder yield, quality and nutrient composition of silages
- 1. Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. Htet et al. Page 25 RESEARCH PAPER OPEN ACCESS Intercropping of maize and climbing bean: fodder yield, quality and nutrient composition of silages Maw Ni Soe Htet1 , Rab Nawaz Soomro2 , Hai Jiang bo*1 1 College of Agronomy, Northwest A & F University, Yangling Shaanxi, P.R China 2 College of Animal Science and Technology, Northwest A & F University, Yangling Shaanxi, P.R. China Article published on July 22, 2016 Key words: Intercropping, Maize, Climbing bean, Fodder, Silage quality. Abstract A study was conducted to examine fodder yield and silage quality of maize (Zea mays L.) and climbing bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) intercropping with different planting structure. Maize was cultivated alone and intercropped with climbing bean as follows;1 row maize to 1 row climbing bean (1M1K), 1 row maize to 2 rows climbing bean (1M2K) and 2 rows maize to 1 row climbing bean (2M1K). The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design with four treatments and three replications. The crops were harvested when the maize reached at milk stage and climbing bean at R7 stage. The results indicated significant increase in fresh biomass and dry matter production of maize fodder alone as compared to maize intercropped with climbing bean fodder. However, no difference (p>0.05) was observed in ether extract (EE), and ash (%) of nutrient composition of fodder among the four treatments After 45 days of ensiling period, silage samples were analysed for pH, organic acids (lactic, acetic, and butyric), ammonia-N(NH3-N), dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF), water soluble carbohydrate (WSC), calcium (Ca), sodium (Na) and potassium (K). All intercropped silages had higher CP values (1M1K, 12.0%; 1M2K, 12.3%; 2M1K, 11.1%) than the monocrop maize (SM, 8.9%) silage. Higher organic acids and ammonia-N (p<0.05) were produced in the 1M2K silages as compared to others silages. The study showed that among all intercropped silages the 1M2K (1 row maize to 2 rows climbing bean) was preferable according to nutrient composition than other intercropped silages. * Corresponding Author: Hai Jiang Bo haijiangbo@126.com International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research (IJAAR) ISSN: 2223-7054 (Print) 2225-3610 (Online) http://www.innspub.net Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 25-31, 2016
- 2. Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. Htet et al. Page 26 Introduction Maize silage is a major forage source in the livestock production of many countries. It has relatively consistent nutritive value and high energy density, but relatively low crude protein content. The intercropping of maize (Zea mays L.) with climbing bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) may serve as a way to increase crude protein and improve the overall nutritive value of silage (Grobelnik et al., 2005). Intercropping, the simultaneous cultivation of more than one species or cultivar on the same area of land, is being advocated as a new and improved approach to farming (INTERCROP, 2006). Intercropping involves competition for light, water and nutrients. However, intercropping usually benefits from increased light interception, root contact with more soil, increased microbial activity and can act as a deterrent to pests and weeds of the other crop. There is also evidence that suggests intercropping may benefit a non-legume which needs nitrogen if the other crop is a legume, since legumes will fix nitrogen in the soil (Avcioglu et al., 2003). Dawo et al. (2007), ensiled corn and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) intercropped at different densities. They did not find differences in Ph with the addition of the bean compared with monoculture corn; however, CP, DM, and lactic acid concentrations did increase. Armstrong et al. (2008), reported that intercropping climbing beans with corn increased CP and neutral detergent fiber concentration in the mixture. Proper spatial arrangements, planting rates and the maturity dates of components in maize-grain legume intercropping enhance biodiversity and have many advantages over pure maize cropping. The intercropping advantage, its improved stability on environmental resources, recycling nutrients and enhance nitrogen fixation (Rao et al., 1984; Vandermeer , 1989). It’s also better for weed, pest and diseases control as well as increased CP of silage (Anil et al., 2000; Anil et al., 1998). The hypothesis of present study it would provide valuable information about the contribution of intercropping maize with climbing bean for better silage; (1) the making of silage under China climate condition with both crops simultaneously sown and harvested; (2) improves the silage quality by increasing protein contents. Therefore it was conducted to evaluate the fodder biomass yield and silage nutrient quality of maize and climbing bean intercropping treatments, differing in planting and spatial arrangements, as an alternative to pure maize cropping. Materials and methods Plant cultivation and Fodder Production The crops were produced during the crop growing season in summer 2015 at the North campus experimental area (34º 18' 00" N, 108º 5' 42" E) in Northwest Agriculture and Forestry University, Shaanxi, Yangling, China. The crop production was carried out with a randomized complete block design with three replicates. The experiment was established on a sandy clay loam soil with 8.3 pH (Table 1). Summer maize (Zea mays L. Zheng Dan 958) was seeded as monocrop (SM) and intercropped with climbing bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. Jin Jia Dou) as follows: 1 row maize to 1 row climbing bean (1M1K), 1 row maize to 2 rows climbing bean (1M2K), and 2 rows maize to 1 row climbing bean (2M1K). The site of experiment was ploughed to 0.2 to 0.3 m depth after the removal of winter wheat straw, followed by harrowing prior to trial. All plots were fertilized with the same amount of fertilizer before sowing, containing 70 kg N ha-1, 70 kg P2O5 ha-1 and 70 kg of K2O ha-1. Maize and climbing bean were simultaneously seeded in 14 June 2015 in a field which had previously been cropped with winter wheat. The maize and climbing bean were spaced at 70cm x 25cm and 30cm x 15cm with population of about 114,285 and 444,444 plants per hectare, respectively. None of the climbing bean seeds were inoculated with Rhizobium. Neither herbicides nor were insecticides used. Hand weeding by hoe was done once when the maize was approximately 30cm in height. During the experimental period, the field was irrigated 3 times with 30 days interval.
- 3. Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. Htet et al. Page 27 Table 1. Soil characteristics of the experiment area. Depth (cm) Sand (%) Clay (%) Silt (%) Lime (%) Salt (%) OM (%) N (%) P ppm K ppm pH 20-40 36.7 30.6 30.4 18.5 0.07 1.5 0.2 0.3 400 8.3 OM - organic matter; N – nitrogen; P (ppm) - phosphorus (parts per million); K (ppm) - Potassium (parts per million). Maize and climbing bean fodders were manually harvested simultaneously in three sampling areas in a total area of a 1m2 of each plot at milk stage for maize and R7 stage for climbing bean in 20 September 2015. The maximum and minimum daily air temperatures were 31˚C and 20˚C respectively, and precipitation was 640 mm during the crop production. Silage Preparation Fodder was manually harvested and chopped into 3 to 4 cm in length with chaff cutter (JB 400, Power chaff cutter, Gujarat, India) and ensiled without additives into the plastic bags. The plastic bags were used for each type of silage and packing was done by manual trampling on the fodder. The plastic bags were sealed airtight and kept at room temperatures to allow for anaerobic fermentation for 45 days. Before fermentation, samples of 500g were taken for nutrient composition analysis. After the ensiling period, the mature samples were taken from the centre of ensiled mass of each plastic bags for chemical analysis. The fodder and silage samples were air-dried and ground by Blender and then flour samples were stored into a refrigerator for chemical analysis. Determination of Nutrient Composition The pH of silages was determined on the aqueous extract of silage by pH meter. Silages samples were dried at 80˚C for 48hr and ground to pass through a 2 mm screen. The ground samples were ashed at 550˚C (AOAC, 2000; Matsoukis et al., 2014) for 2 hr in a muffle furnace (Nabertherm, Lilienthal, Germany). The Crude Protein (CP) content was determined as N x 6.25 using the Kjeldahl Analyzer (RAY-K9840, Auto Kjeldahl Distiller, Shandong, China). Ether extract (EE) was analysed by a standard ether extraction method (AOAC, 2000).Neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and acid detergent fibre (ADF) were determined with procedures (Van Soest et al., 1991). Ash content was measured by ingestion of the dried material in muffle furnace at 600˚C for 4hrs. The water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) was determined by the anthrone method, using freeze dried samples, where the WSC was extracted with water (Thomas et al., 1997). Ca, Na, and K were analysed by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AOAC, 2000). Ammonia-N concentration was determined using the Tecator Kjeltec Auto Sampler System 1035 Analyser. Organic acids (lactic, acetic, and butyric) were analysed by high pressure liquid chromatography (Andersson et al., 1983). Statistical analysis Data of fodder production and chemical analysis of different silages was analysed by One-way-ANOVA using SPSS (version 19) and Duncan test (α=0.05) was used to compare the treatments means. Results and discussion Fodder yield Data regarding green fodder and nutrients production (tons/ha) of fodder cultivated as a maize alone and maize intercropped with climbing bean at different planting structure are presented in table 2. The fresh fodder and DM yields were ranged from 34.6 to 45.6 t/ha and 12.1 to 14.7 t/ha (Table 2). Monocrop maize had a higher fresh biomass yield (45.6 t/ha) than other intercropped fodder. Fresh forage and DM yields were higher in SM fodder, followed by three intercropped fodder. DM yield characteristic is a very dependable parameter in agronomical studies (Herbert et al., 1984; Martin et al., 1990). Several researchers have reported variable results of intercropping systems.
- 4. Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. Htet et al. Page 28 The intercropped maize with cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) produced higher DM yield than SM (Geren et al., 2008). On the other hand, maize in row intercropping had a marked depressing effect on legume growth because of tall and leafy structure (Maasdorp et al., 1997). Competition and unequal use of environmental or underground resources, such as light and water, seem to account for problems experienced on intercropped communities. These imbalances may have negative effects (for example reduced leaves or leaf area index) on crop yield (Chui et al., 1984; Esmail et al., 1991). Maize mixed with climbing bean possessed better fodder CP yields (2.2-2.6 t/ha) than the SM. The results suggested that the contributions provided by legume components in the mixtures increased CP yields of fodder. Table 2. Fresh biomass, dry matter and crude protein yield of maize and maize-climbing bean intercropped fodder. Fodder Yields ( tons/ha) Fresh biomass Dry matter Crude protein* SM 45.6a 14.7a 1.9d 1M1K 34.6d 12.1d 2.4b 1M2K 36.5c 12.4c 2.6a 2M1K 40.3b 13.2b 2.2c Note: Different letters in the column mean significant difference (p<0.05). SM, monocrop maize; 1M1K, 1 row maize to 1 row climbing bean; 1M2K, 1 row maize to 2 rows climbing bean; 2M1K, 2 rows maize to 1 row climbing bean. *On dry matter basis. Nutrient composition of fodder Results of nutrient composition of maize and intercropped maize and climbing bean fodder are given in table 3. Crude protein contents of maize intercropped with climbing bean at different planting structure was (p<0.05) higher as compared to maize fodder alone. The DM content increased (p<0.05) with the intercropping of maize with climbing bean at different planting structure compared to maize fodder alone. No difference (p>0.05) was observed in ether extract and ash contents among fodders. The NDF and ADF contents were decreased (p<0.05) with the intercropping of maize with climbing bean at different planting structure compared to maize fodder alone. The values of water soluble carbohydrate were 9.4, 8.9, 9.0 and 9.2% for SM, 1M1K, 1M2K and 2M1K, respectively. The value of WSC of fodder tended to be sufficient for good fermentation required for the preservation of fodder in the form of silage (Wilkinson et al., 1983). Table 3. Nutrient composition of maize and maize climbing bean intercropped fodder (%DM). Nutrient composition Fodder SM 1M1K 1M2K 2M1K DM, % 30.1d 31.4c 33.8b 35.2a CP, % 8.2d 11.2b 11.5a 10.1c EE, % 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.1 Ash, % 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.1 NDF, % 43.1a 32.1d 32.9c 40.2b ADF, % 24.2a 20.1d 21.4c 22.2b WSC, % 9.4a 8.9d 9.0c 9.2b Note: Different letters in the column mean significant difference (p<0.05). SM, monocrop maize; 1M1K, 1 row maize to 1 row climbing bean; 1M2K, 1 row maize to 2 rows climbing bean; 2M1K, 2 rows maize to 1 row climbing bean. Fermentation quality of silages Results of fermentation quality of different silages are depicted in table 4.Desirable pH values were found in all the silages. The intercropped silages were highly effective on pH compared to monocropped maize. There were significant differences between monocrop silages (SM) and intercrop silages in pH (p<0.05), SM having the lowest pH (3.9). Higher organic acids (lactic, acetic, and butyric) and ammonia-N (p<0.05) were produced in the 1M2K silages as compared to others silages. Nutrient composition of silages Results of nutrient composition of different silages are depicted in table 5.The DM contents of the silages were between 29.0%to 32.3%. The 1M2K silage had the highest DM value (32.3%) than the other silages. The optimum DM range of ideal corn silage is between 28% and 32% (McDonald et al., 1987). The DM level was related to the fermentation conditions of the material (Costa et al., 2012).
- 5. Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. Htet et al. Page 29 Table 4. Fermentation quality of maize and maize- climbing bean intercropped silage (%DM). Parameter Silage SM 1M1K 1M2K 2M1K pH 3.9c 4.1b 4.4a 4.1b Lactic acid 9.0c 11.1b 13.2a 11.2b Acetic acid 9.3d 10.4b 13.2a 10.0c Butyric acid 2.0c 2.1c 3.2a 2.3b NH3-N/TN 8.1d 10.1b 10.6a 9.0c Note: Different letters in the column mean significant difference (p<0.05). SM, monocrop maize; 1M1K, 1 row maize to 1 row climbing bean; 1M2K, 1 row maize to 2 rows climbing bean; 2M1K, 2 rows maize to 1 row climbing bean. One of the main objectives of intercropped silage is to obtain a complementary effect of the desirable nutrient of two or more crops. In the present study it was determined that the crude protein value of intercropped silages 1M1K, 1M2K and 2M1K were (p<0.05) higher as compared to SM. Legumes are rich in protein. The intercropping of maize with a variety of protein rich forages could increase silage CP level by 3% - 5% and improve N digestibility, indicating a potential to reduce the requirement for purchased protein supplements (Anil et al., 2000). Table 5. Nutrient composition of maize and maize- climbing bean intercropped silage (%DM). Nutrient composition Fodder SM 1M1K 1M2K 2M1K DM, % 29.0d 30.0c 32.3a 31.3b CP, % 8.9d 12.0b 12.3a 11.1c Ash, % 7.6a 7.1c 7.4b 7.1c NDF, % 40.2a 29.8d 30.9c 39.2b ADF, % 22.2a 18.2d 18.9c 21.8b Ca, % 0.25d 0.33b 0.36a 0.31c Na, % 0.15c 0.16b 0.18a 0.16b K, % 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 Note: Different letters in the column mean significant difference (p<0.05). SM, monocrop maize; 1M1K, 1 row maize to 1 row climbing bean; 1M2K, 1 row maize to 2 rows climbing bean; 2M1K, 2 rows maize to 1 row climbing bean. The NDF contents of the silages varied from 29.8% to 40.2%. The presence of leguminous plants in the ensiled mass affected NDF and ADF levels in the present study. There is usually lower concentration of fibres in the DM of legumes in relation to grasses (Costa et al., 2012). In addition, NDF level is related to the maturity stage of the forage sources, because of levels of cell wall components, chiefly the cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin (Mugweni et al., 2000). However, such an effect had not been observed in other experiments as no effect of intercropping was found on the NDF and ADF levels (Costa et al., 2012). When compared to SM, the maize intercropped silages increased pH, and CP contents (p<0.05), whereas decreased NDF, ADF, and ash (p<0.05) contents. No difference (p>0.05) was found in K contents of nutrient composition of silage among the four treatments. Also Ca and Na contents in the intercrop silages were higher (p<0.05) than SM. The intercropped silage 1M2K had higher nutrient composition than the others intercropped silages. Conclusion The findings of this study, it may be concluded that intercropping of maize with climbing bean at different planting structure proved to be an effective way to increase fresh fodder production and to enhancing nutrient quality of silage ensuring the supply of nutritionally rich silage for livestock feeding. Intercropped maize with legumes increased CP, and decreased NDF and ADF concentrations in silages. However, for high yield of fresh biomass and DM yields, SM silage is recommended. Finally, among all intercropped silages the 1M2K (1 row maize to 2 rows climbing bean) was preferable according to nutrient composition than other intercropped silages. Acknowledgment We would like to thank our honorable professor for his constructive comments, invaluable suggestions, close supervision from the beginning of this study to the final stage of the manuscript and preparation.
- 6. Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. Htet et al. Page 30 We also would like to thank our colleagues and staff of the College of Agronomy, Northwest A & F University, Yangling Shaanxi, P.R. China for their help and encouragements as moral support. References Andersson NR, Hedlund B. 1983. HPLC analysis of organic acids in lactic-acid fermented vegetables. Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 176, 440-443. Anil L, Park J, Phipps RH. 2000. The potential of forage-corn intercrops in ruminant nutrition. Animal Feed Science and Technology 86, 157-164. Anil L, Phipps RH. 1998. Temperature intercropping of cereals for forage: a review of the potential for growth and utilization with particular reference to the UK. Grass and Forage Science 53, 301-164. AOAC. 2000. Official method of analysis. Animal feeds. 17th Edition Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, 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. Avcioglu R, Boberfeld WO, Soya H, Geren H, Beckmann E. 2003. Investigations on some yield and quality characteristics of second crops of Vicia sativa and Trifolium resupinatum and their mixtures with Lolium multiflorum, 7th Symposium Ergebnisse Deutsch-Tϋrkischer Agrarfors-chung 24-30 March 2003, Ankara, pp. 109-112. Chui JAN, Shibles R. 1984. Influence of spatial arrangements of corn on performance of an associated soybean intercrops. Field Crop Research 8, 187-198. Costa PM, Villela SDJ, Leonel FDP, Araújo KG, Ruas JRM, Coelho FS, Andrade VR. 2012. Intercropping of corn, brachiaria grass and leguminous plants: productivity, quality and composition of silages. Revista Brasileira De Zootecnia-Brazilian 41, 2144-2149. Dawo MI, Wilkinson JM, Sanders FET, Pilbeam DJ. 2007. The yield and quality of fresh and ensiled plant material from intercropping maize (Zea mays L.) and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 87, 1391-1399. Esmail SHM. 1991. Benefits of intercrops as feed sources for livestock. Rangelands 13, 193-195. Geren H, Avcioglu R, Soya H, Kir B. 2008. Intercropping of corn with cowpea and bean biomass yield and silage quality. African Journals of Biotechnology 22, 4100-4104. Grobelnik M, Zdravko K, Martin B. 2005. Silage quality of maize –climbing bean intercropping, Faculty of Agriculture and life sciences, Pivola 10, 2311 Hoce, Slovenia, Proceedings. 46th, Croatian and 6th International Symposium on Agriculture. Opatijia. Croatia 741-744. Herbert SJ, Putnam DH, Poos-Floyd MI, Vargas A, Creighton JF. 1984. Forage yield of intercropped corn and soybean in various planting patterns. Agronomy Journal 76(4), 507-510. INTERCROP. 2006. Intercropping of cereals and grain legumes for increased production, weed control, improved product quality and prevention of N-losses in European organic farming systems (EU project, final report).Available: http;//www.intercrop.dk/ Results.htm. Maasdorp BV, Titterton M. 1997. Nutritional improvement of corn silage for dairying: mixed-crop silages from sole and intercropped legumes and a long-season variety of corn Biomass yield and nutritive value. Animal Feed Science Technology 69, 241-261. Martin RC, Voldeng HC, Smith DL. 1990. Intercropping corn and soybean in a cool temperate region: yield, protein and economic benefits. Field Crops Research 23, 295-310.
- 7. Int. J. Agri. Agri. R. Htet et al. Page 31 Matsoukis AD, Gasparatos, Chronopoulou- Sereli. 2014. Environmental conditions and drenched-applied paclobutrazol effects on lantana specific leaf area and N, P, K and Mg content. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 74, 117-122. McDonald P, Edward RA, Greenhalgh JFD. 1987. Animal nutrition. Longman, Hong Kong. Mugweni BZ, Titterton M, Maasdorp BV, Gandiya AF. 2000. Effect of mixed cereal legume silages on milk production from lactating Holstein dairy cows (R7010). Pp 82-89 in Proceedings of Third Workshop on Livestock Production Programme Projects, Matobo, Zimbabwe. Rao MR, Morgado LB. 1984. A review of maize- beans and maize-cowpea intercrop systems in the semi arid northeast Brazil. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileria 19, 179-192. Thomas TA. 1977. An automated procedure for the determination of soluble carbohydrate in herbage. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture 28, 639- 642 . Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. 1991. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583-3597. Vandermeer J. 1989. The ecology of intercropping. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press 237 pp. Wilkinson JMPF, Chapman RJ, Wilkins and Wilson RF. 1983. Interrelationships between pattern of fermentation during ensilage and initial crop composition. Proceedings, XIV Int. Grassland Congrass.63/64.Westview Press. Boulder.