DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Different Legumes on Dry Matter Yield and Quality in Mixtures

혼파초지의 두과초종 차이가 건물수량 및 품질에 미치는 영향

  • Lee, I.D. (Division of Animal Science and Resources, College of Agriculture and Life Science, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Lee, Hyung-Suk (Woosong Information College)
  • Published : 2005.12.31

Abstract

The objective of this experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of various legumes in mixtures: AA mixtures(orchardgrass 40%+tall fescue 25%+Kentucky bluegrass 15%+alfalfa 20%), RC mixtures (orchardgrass 40% + tall fescue 25% + Kentucky bluegrass 15% + red clover 20%) and WC mixtures (orchardgrass 50% + tall fescue 25% + Kentucky bluegrass 15% + white clover 10%). The field trials were conducted from 2000 to 2003 at Chungnam National University in order to evaluate the dry matter yield and forage quality on different legumes in mixtures. The dry matter yield was significantly higher in WC mixtures than in other mixtures(p<0.05). In the chemical composition, the content of crude protein and dry matter digestibility were higher in WC mixtures than in other mixtures. However, the content of fibrous constituents of WC mixtures was lower than in other mixtures. The yields of crude protein dry matter and digestible dry matter were significantly higher in WC mixtures than in other mixtures. In botanical composition of alfalfa, red clover and white clover in each mixture were maintained 21%, 36% and 48% respectively, at the last cutting time in 2003. The results of this experiment indicated that WC mixtures were more effective in enhancing the DM yield and forage quality, but it needs to control the optimum botanical composition of WC.

Keywords

Legume;Mixtures;DM yields;Dry matter digestibility;Botanical composition

References

  1. AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis(15th ed.) Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC
  2. Cordova, F. L. and Wallace, J. D. 1975. Nutritive value of some browse and forb species. In: Factors affecting forage intake by range ruminants. J. Range Managt. 38(4):305-312
  3. Crampton, F. W. and Maynard, L. A. 1938. The relation of cellulose and lignin content to the nutritive value of animal feeds. J. Nut. 15:383-395
  4. Frame, J. and Harkess, R. D. 1987. The productivity of farm forage legumes sown alone and with each of five companion grasses. Grass and Forage Sci. 42:213-223 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1987.tb02109.x
  5. Goring, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analysis. Agr. Handbook. No. 379. ARS. USDA. Washington, DC
  6. Handricksen, R. E., Poppi, D. P. and Minson, D. J. 1981. The voluntary intake, digestibility and retention time by cattle and sheep of stem and leaf fraction of a tropical legume. Aust. J. Agr. Res. 32:389-398 https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9810389
  7. Kiso, S., Kouji, K., Masso, N. and Katayama, M. 1992. Changes of dry matter yield and botanical composition in timothy lates variety Hokushu-legumes mixtures. J. Japan. Grassl. Sci. 38:71-79
  8. Kothmann, M. M. 1966. Nutrient content of forage ingested in the morning compared to evening. J. Rnage Managt. 19:95-96 https://doi.org/10.2307/3895700
  9. Maurice, E. H., Barness, R. F. and Metcalfe, D. S. 1985. Forages. 4th ed. Iowa State University Press. Iowa. USA. p. 432
  10. Minson, D. J., Harris, C. E., Raymond, W. F. and Milford, R. 1954. The digestibility and voluntary intake of S-22 and H. I. ryegrass, S-170 tall fescue, S-48 timothy, S-215 meadow fescue and germinal cocksfoot. J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 19:298-305 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1964.tb01177.x
  11. Peel, S. and Green, J. O. 1984. Sward composition and output on grassland farms. Grass and Forage Sci. 39: 107-110 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1984.tb01671.x
  12. Tilley, J. A. M. and Terry, R. A. 1963. A two stage technique for in vitro digestibility of forage crops. J. Brit. Grassl. Sci. 18: 104-111 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x
  13. Ulyatt, M. J. 1981. The feeding value of temperate pasture factors affecting forage intake by range ruminants. J. Range Managt. 38:305-312
  14. Van Dyne, G. H. and Heady, H. F. 1965. Dietary chemical composition of cattle and sheep grazing in common on a dry annual range. J. Range Managt. 18:78-85 https://doi.org/10.2307/3895472
  15. 김내수, 김정우, 박홍양, 상병찬, 여정수, 전광주, 최광수, 홍기창. 1995. 응용통계학. 유한문화사. 서울
  16. 김충수, 이인덕, 박종수, 임동찬, 1989. 초지유형별 목초의 생산성 및 이용성분석에 관한 연구. 한축지. 31(11):730-750
  17. 이중해, 이인덕, 이형석. 2004. 하번초형 혼파조합간의 건물수량, 사료가치 및 식생비율 비교연구. 동물자원지. 46(3):443-450
  18. 이인덕, 이형석. 1993. 혼파유형이 목초의 수량과 품질에 미치는 영향. 한초지. 13(1):38-42
  19. 이형석, 이인덕. 1995. Orchardgrass단파, red clover, 단파 및 orchardgrass-red clover단순혼파 목초의 경쟁구조 해석. 한초지. 15(4):279-284
  20. 한인규. 맹원재. 1991. 반추영양학. 향문사. 서울. 355