Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 38 issue 4 (december 2004) : 262 - 267

YIELD AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AT DIFFERENT CUTS OF PERENNIAL GRASSES INTERCROPPED WITH SOYBEAN

Sudesh R~dotra·, 8.5. Katoch
1Department of Animal Nutrition, COVAS, CSK HPKV, Palampur - 176 062, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- R~dotra· Sudesh, Katoch 8.5. (2024). YIELD AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AT DIFFERENT CUTS OF PERENNIAL GRASSES INTERCROPPED WITH SOYBEAN. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 38(4): 262 - 267. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Present paper describes biomass production, chemical composition and minerai status of perennial grassesviz., setaria and hybrid napier grown at humid sub-tropics of Himachal Pradesh. The experiment comprised of three treabnents viz., hybrid sorghum + soybean, setaria + soybean and hybrid napier + soybean was conducted during kharif season of 1999. The experiment was conducted in randomized block design with four replications under each treatment. The soybean was Intercropped between the rows of hybrid sorghum and perennial grasses. Hybrid sorghum and soybean were harvested once, while, setaria and hybrid napier gave three cuts. Setaria and hybrid napier produced higher green and dry biomass in their second cuts as compared to their first, and third cuts. Hybrid napier had Yielded significantly higher green and dry biomass production as sole crop as well as when it was intercropped with soybean. Intercropping. The perennial grasses with soybean resulted an increase in total biomass. The CF, NOF, ADF, lignin and silica were more in the first and third cuts of letaria and hybrid napier. Soluble carbohydrates (NFE %) in hybrid sorghum and setaria and ash content in soybean and hybrid napier were higher.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. A.OAC. (1990). Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1511 , edn. Arlington.
    2. Virginia.
    3. Anonymous (1993). Package of Practices for Kharif Crops. Directorate of Extension Education. HPKV, Palampur.
    4. Anonymous (1996). Final Progress Report (16.7.92 to 15.7.96) of adhoc. lCAR project. Studies on carrying capacity
    5. of the natural grasslands vis-a-vis improved silvipastures in subtropical regions of H.P. submitted to ICAR by
    6. the Deptt. of Animal Nutrition, COVAS. HPKV. Palampur (H.P.).
    7. Arora. S.P. (1988). Feeding of Dairy Cattle and Buffaloes. lCAR Low Priced Book series No.4. ICAR, New Delhi.
    8. Bagge (1932). Root Nodule Bacteria and Leguminous Plants. A monograph. Univ. Wisconsin, Medison.
    9. Bhargava, P.K. (1991).1" International Animal Nutrition Workers Conference for Asia and Pacific Sep. 23 -28,
    10. Bangalore (India) Compendium -1: 37-39.
    11. Bora. J. et al. (1987). Assam Agric. Univ., J. Res., 8: 50-53.
    12. Dogra, K.K. et al. (1986). Forage Res., 12: 27-32.
    13. Dougall, HW and Bogdan, A.V. (1958). E Aferican Agric. J., 24: 17.
    14. Falrbrather, T.E. and Brink, G.E. (1989). Crop Sci., 209-212.
    15. Vol. 38, No.4, 2004 267
    16. Garg, MK. and Sharma, VV (1988). Indian J. Anim. Nutr., 5: 48-51.
    17. Gordan, A.J. (1975). J. Sci. Food Agric., 26: 1551-1559.
    18. Gupta, V.K. (1975). Forage Res., 1: 54-60.
    19. Harika, A.S. et al. (1981). Indian Fmg., 31: 23-25.
    20. Humphries, E.C. (1973). In: Modern Methods of Plant Analysis. (peach, K. and Tracey. MV eds.), Berlin, Springer-
    21. Verlag, Vol.1 : 481-483.
    22. Kumbhar, MV et a/. (1994). Forage Res., 20: 81-83.
    23. Laredoc, M.A. (1981). Revista del Institute Colobiamo Agro Pecuaro., 16: 181-187. ...
    24. Minson, D.J. (1990). Forage in Ruminant Nutrition. Academic Press, New York, U.S.A.
    25. Narayanan, T. R. and Dabadghao, P. N. (1972). Forage Crops of India, ICAR, New Delhi: pp 226.
    26. Ramanzin, M. et al. (1986). Anim. Prod., 43: 271.
    27. Saha, R.C. (1994). Indian J. Dairy Sci., 47: 969-970.
    28. Sharma, K. and Ogra, J.L. (1990). Indian J. Anirn. Sci., 60: 861-865.
    29. Singh, B. (1990). Ph.D. Thesis. Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishavavidyalaya, Palampur (H.P).
    30. Singh, K. and Pradhan, I.P. (1995). Range Mgmt. and Agroforestry, 16: 123-128.
    31. Snedecor, G.w. and Cochran, w.G. (1967). Statistical Methods, 6111 ed. Lowa State University Press, Ames, Lowa, pp : 91.
    32. , Thakuria, K. and Sarma, C.K. (1998). Range Mgmt. and Agroforestry, 19: 146-148.
    33. Tripathi, S.N. et a/. (1984). Forage Res., 10: 45-47.
    34. Van Soest, P.J. and Wine, R.H. (1967). J. Assoc. Official Agric. Chemists, 50: 50-55.
    35. Wilkie, K.C.B. (1979). Advance Carbohydrate Chern. Biochem., 36: 215-260.
    36. Wilson, L.L. et al. (1981). Trop.,Agric., 58: 53-62.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)