A Comparative Study of Dry Matter Yield and Quality of Pasture Sown Different Species Seed Combination

초종구성을 달리한 혼파 초지의 건물수량 및 품질 비교 연구

  • 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


This study was conducted to investigate the effect of mixture types which consist of different species on the dry matter(DM) yield, botanical composition and forage quality. The experimental design includes three mixture types: Conventional mixtures(orchardgrass 50% + tall fescue 20% + perennial ryegrass 10% + Kentucky bluegrass 10% + white clover 10%), complex mixtures(orchardgrass 40% + tall fescue 20% + perennial ryegrass 10% + Kentucky bluegrass 10% + redtop 10% + alfalfa 5% + red clover 5%) and simple mixtures(orchardgrass 80% + red clover 20%). The DM yield was higher in conventional mixtures(13,070kg/ha) than in other mixtures(p<0.05). In the chemical composition and dry matter digestibility, there was significant difference among mixtures. Crude protein content and dry matter digestibility were higher in complex mixtures than in other mixtures(p<0.05). But, the content of fibrous constituents was higher in conventional mixtures than in other mixtures. The yield of crude protein dry matter(CPDM) and digestible dry matter(DDM) were higher in complex mixtures than in other mixtures. In this experiment, DM yields and quality of mixture types were observed significant difference. therefore, the complex mixtures which combined various species were more effective in enhancing the dry matter digestibility(DMD) and digestible dry matter(DDM) yield.


Conventional mixtures;Simple mixtures;Complex mixtures;Chemical composition


  1. AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis(15th ed.) Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Goring, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage tiber analysis. Agr. Handbook. No. 379. ARS. USDA. Washington, D, C
  5. 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
  6. 김내수, 김정우, 박홍양, 상병찬, 여정수, 천광주, 최광수, 홍기창. 1995 응용통계학. 유한문화사. 서울
  7. 김동암. 1983. 산지초지개발의 기술적 과제. 한국농촌경제연구원. 서울. 140-196
  8. 김충수, 이인덕, 박종수, 임동찬. 1989. 초지유형별 목초의 생산성 및 이용성분석에 관한 연구. 한축지. 31(11):730-750
  9. 이인덕, 이형석. 1993. 혼파유형이 목초의 수량과 품질에 미치는 영향. 한초지. 13(1):38-42
  10. 이인덕, 이형석. 2003. 상번초 및 상 . 하번초형 혼파초지의 건물수량 및 사료가치 비교연구. 한초지 23(2):121-128
  11. 이중해, 이인덕, 이형석. 2004. 하번초형 혼파조합간의 건물수량, 사료가치 및 식생비율 비교연구. 동물자원지 46(3): 443-450
  12. 이형석, 이인덕. 1995. Orchardgrass단파, red clover, 단파 및 orchardgrass-red clover 단순혼파 목초의 경쟁구조 해석. 한초지. 15(4):279-284
  13. Peel, S. and Green, J. O. 1984. Sward composition and output on grassland farms. Grass and Forage Sci. 39:107-110