الفهرس | Only 14 pages are availabe for public view |
Abstract SUMMARY Experiments were designed to find out the appropriate forage crops and their mixtures for high quality hay production. Also, accelerating natural field drying of the cut forage materials as well as monitoring tAe hay-storage loss and quality were of great concern in these studies. Research was conducted at El-Serw Research Station, Damiatta Governoratefor two growing winter seasons (1986/87 - 1987/88). The grown forage crops and their mixtures were: 1) Meskawi (multicut). 2) Fahl (mono cut) . 3) Ryegrass. 4) Barley. S) Fahl + Ryegrass. 6) Meskawi + Ryegrass. 7) Fahl + Barley. 8) Meskawi + Barley 9) Fahl + Barley + Ryegrass. 10) Meskawi +”Bar1ey + Ryegrass. 11) Fahl + Meskawi + Barley. 12) Fah1 + Meskawi + Ryegrass. Mixture experiments were laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) in four replications. The dimentions of each experimental unit was 21 x 10 m of about 1/20 feddan area and the replicates were three meters distance apart. This was done to allow the necessary mechanical operationsfor hay making. Results could be summarized under the following topics: I. Studying the behaviour of the grown forage crops and their mixtures, for hay makin&: (A) Total fresh yield: 1- The highest total fresh forage yield was obtained for meskawi (5.55 ton/feddan) then fahl (4.72), followed by ryegrass (3.25) then barley (0.98) with significant differences. 2- Total forage yield of meskawi + barley mixture was slightly and significantly higher than that of meskawi + ryegrass mixture. Also, either of these mixtures was significantly higher in total yield than purley grown meskawi. 3_ Pure meskawi yield was higher than that:of fahl.and,’rjegrass was extremely higher in yield than when mixed with barley. Also,a mixture of fahl + meskawi + ryegrass generally produced the highest total forage yield (8.17 ton/f~) as compared with fahl + meskawi + barley mixture (7.35) with significant difference. Meanwhile, meskawi +barley + ryegrass mixture was higher in the total forage production (7.74 ton/feddan) than fahl + barley_ + ryegrass (6.11). Almost a similar trend was noticed for the two seasons. (B) Total dry yield: 1- The highest dry yield was obtained for meskawi (56.88 Kg/plot) followed by ryegrass (42.46) then fahl berseem (24.80) followed by barley (7.58) in the first season. The corresponding dry yield for the second growing season was 77.5, 49.24, 24,67, and 7.58 Kg/plot. respectively. 2- Results showed the dry yield superiority of meskawi + ryegrass mixture in the two seasons compared to the other mixtures. Such higher yield was followed by the yield of meskawi + barley, then fahl + ryegrass followed by fahl + barley mixtures. 3- The highest productivity of the outstanding mixture (meskawi + ryegrass)was due to the multicut nature of mixture components. 4- The total dry yield production was higher in the second season compared to the first one. 5 _ It is generallynoticed that the obtained dry yield was always higher for the simple two component mixtures than their relevant monoculture components in the two growing seasons. 6- The highest dry yield of the mixture in the first season was obtained for fabl + meskawi + ryegrass in the first season. However, in the second season, the later mixture was insignificantly lower in dry yield than meskawi + barley + ryegrass mixture. 7- The dry yield of the three component mixtures was not always higher than that of the simple two component mixtures but always higher than the relevant monocrops. 8- Meskawi dry yield was the best compared with the other monocrops. Meskawi + ryegrass mixture was also the highest in dry yield compared to the other proposed two component mixture. 11- Chemical constituents of the grown forage crops and their mixtures: (C) Dry matter content: 1- It could be concluded that dry matter content of the pur ley grown forage crops was naturally reflected on the dry matter content of the relevant mixtures. Also, the dry matter content of cereal fodders was higher than leguminous forages. Moreover, dry matter content of the second cut of the first season was relatively higher than that of the second growing season. This result may be due to the delay in harvesting or mowing the second cut of the first season as compared with the second one. (D) Crude protein content (CP): i- The first cut: 1- Meskawi was the highest in crude protein content than fah1 berseem. followed by ryegrass. then barley. The respective crude protein content was 22.10. 20·33.14.0 and 11.90% for the first season. being 22.64. 19.30 • 15.82 • and 11.70% in the second season. 2- Regarding simple mixtures of two forages (legumes + grasses), meskawi + barley forage yield contained the highest crude protein content of 20.73 and 19.19%in the first and second season, respectively. 3- Significantly higher crude protein content was obtained for fah1 + barley + ryegrass and fah1 + meskawi + ryegrass mixtures in the two growing seasons with significant difference for the first season. However. the other two component mixtures contained lower crude protein content. ii- The second cut: 1- Meskawi was signif;cant1y and much higher in crude protein content than ryegrass in the two seasons for the second cut. Crude protein content was 15.65 and 5.44% for meskawi and ryegreas in the first season. being 17.48 and 9.13% in the second season. 2- For the simple mixtures, crude protein content was the highest in meskawi that was mixed with barley followed by meskawi + ryegrass mixture, then ryegrass that was mixed with fahl with a significant difference in the two seasons. The corresponding crude protein contents were 14.88, 13.55, and 5.32% in the first season,being 17.52, 15.40, and 9.25% in the second season. 3- The three components mixtures, meskawi + ryegrass that was mixed with barley significantly produced the highest crude protein content (13.60%) in the first season compared with the other grown mixtures. While, meskawi + ryegrass that was mixed with fahl significantly contained the highest crude protein content (15.87%) compared with the other grown mixtures in the second season. (E) Crude fiber content (CF): i- The first cut: 1- Significantly higher crude fiber content was found in barley as compared to the other grown forages. Its crude fiber content was 25.35 and 25.97% in the first and second growing seasons, respectively. Also, crude fiber content of barley was significantly higher than that of ryegrass with a difference of 25% and 28% in the first and second seasons, respectively. 2- Fahl berseem contained significantly higher crude fiber content as compared with meskawi. The respective crude fiber content for fahl and meskawi was 23.35 and 19.92% in the first season, and 23.87 and 20.26% in the second season. 3- Fahl + ryegrass mixture was the highest in crude fiber content than fahl + barley, then meskawi + barley, then ryegrass + meskawi mixtures. These results were true in the two growing seasons with different magnitudes. 4- The three components mixtures, fahl + barley + ryegrass mixture and fahl + meskawi + ryegrass mixture were the highest in crude fiber contents. However, the differences in their crude fibe~ contents were not significant in the two seasons. (ii) The second cut: 1- Results showed that ryegrass was significantly higher in crude fiber content than meskawi in their pure stands for the two seasons. 2- Ryegrass that was mixed with fahl had the highest crude fiber content. This was followed by meskawi + ryegrass mixture. The obtained difference in crude fiber was significant in the first season only. 3- Meskawi that was mixed with barley contained significantly lower crude fiber content than either meskawi + ryegrass or ryegrass that was mixed with fah1. These results were true in the two seasons. 4- For the three component mixtures, meskawi that was mixed with fah1 + barley had the lowest crude fiber content as compared with the other mixtures with significant differences. This result was true in the two seasons. 5- Ryegrass that was mixed with fah1 + barley had the highest crude fiber content as compared with the other three component mixtures in the two seasons. (F) Ash Content: i- The first cut: 1- Leguminous fodder crops (either fahl or meskawi) was significantly higher in ash content than the grown cereal fodder grasses (either barley or ryegrass). 2- Results also showed that fahl contained significantly higher ash content than meskawi. Meanwhile, ryegrass was significantly higher in ash content than barley in the two seasons. 3- The obtained ash content was 15.45, 14.89, 11.71 and 10.02% for fah1, meskawi, ryegrass, and bar1ey,respectively in the first season, corresponding to 14.69, 14.04, 12.36 and 9.91% in the second growing season. In conclusion fahl was the highest in ash content. followed by meskawi then ryegrass followed by barley. 4- Regarding the simple two component forage mixtures, ash contents was slightly but significantly higher for fahl + ryegrass and meskawi + ryegrass than for fahl + barley and meskawi + barley. 5- Ash content of the three grown component mixtures is fluctuating with no specific trend and no appreciable differences especially in the second growing season. 11- The second cut~ 1- Meskawi was significantly higher in ash content as compared with ryegrass in their pure stands for the two growing seasons. Ash contents were 11.66 and 8.67% for meskawi and ryegrass in the first season corresponding to 12.10 and 10.12% in the second season. 2- The obtained ash content of the monocrops was reflected on the relevant two or the three component mixtures. (G) Ether Extract (EE): 1- Results did not show appreciable differences in etber extract content of the grown mixtures and their relevant pure crops. These results were true in the first and second cuts of the two seasons. This is because of the very low ether extract content of the grown forage crops and their mixtures compared to the other components. (H) Nitrogen Free Extract (NFE) i. The first cut: 1- Nitrogen free extract (NFE) content is the major constituent of the obtained forage material. It is obviously clear that all of the errors for the chemical analysis of the other components are accumulated in this parameter. So. the obtained results for the two growing seasons are not completely similar. Moreover, some of these results were fluctuating with no specific trend. 2- However, the purely grown fodder crops barley and ryegrass were significantly higher in their NFE contents as compared with fahl and meskawi. Cereal grasses were almost higher than leguminous forages with about 20% of their NFE content. 3 _ Also, differences in NEE content for the grown two legumes or the two grasses were almost ignorable. Such results were true in the two growing seasons. ii. The second cut: 1- Regarding the purely grown forage crops, ryegrass was significantly higher in NFE content than meskawi. Such results were true in the two seasons with a significant difference of 19.5% and 16.2% in the first and second seasons, respectively. So, it could be concluded that cereal fodder grasses were higher in NFE than the leguminous forage crops. 2- For the two component mixtures, ryegrass that was mixed with fahl (55.91%) was higher in NFE than meskawi that was mixed with barley (47.81%), then meskawi + ryegrass (47.18%) in the first season. The corresponding NFE contents in the second season were 50.08, 43.96 and 42.99%. 111- Total Di estable Nutrients Crops and their Mixtures: First Season: Total digestable nutrients (TDN) of the grown forage materials was calculated for better evaluation of the nutritive value. Results were as follows: of the Grown Fora e i. The first cut: - 1- Purely grown leguminous forage crops contained higher TDN values as compared with the grown fodder grasses. The highest TDN content was for meskawi (67.63) followed by fahl (65.50) then ryegrass (63.56) followed by barley (61.01) with significant differences. 2- Meskawi + ryegrass and meskawi + barley were the highest in TDN content being 65.53 and 65.60, respectively,Also, ryegrass + fahl mixture was higher in TDN content (64.30) as compared with fahl + barley (63.94) which had the lowest TDN value. 3- Regarding the three component forage mixtures, their TDN values were much closer but with significant differences. ii. The second cut: 1- Meskawi was significantly higher in TDN content (61.73) than ryegrass (54.03). 2- The digestibility of the grown crops for the second cut was relatively lower than the first cut. 3- Meskawi that was mixed with barley was slightly higher in TDN (61.55) than meskawi + ryegrass (61.00) which in turn was higher than ryegrass +fahl (53.97). 3- The three component mixtures meskawi + ryegrass that was mixed with fahl, meskawi + ryegrass that was mixed with barley, and meskawi that was mixed with fahl + barley were almost similar in their TDN contents being 62.04 , 61.92 and 60.99, respectively. 4- The obtained TDN content of the purely grown fodder crops and their relevant mixtures decreased slightly in the second cut as compared with the first one. iii. The third cut: 1- Meskawi was still significantly higher than ryegrass in TDN content which was 57.05 and 54.15,respectively. 2- The TDN of the two component mixtures were similar to the second cut, of the two growing seasons. Also the TDN of the three component mixtures were fluctuating with no specific trend. 3- Generally, the obtained TDN of the two or three component mixtures was the reflection of the TDN for the individual component of a particular mixture. |