Content uploaded by Mohamed Anwar Osman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohamed Anwar Osman on Nov 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor ISSN 1110-0419
Vol. 60(1) (2022), 9 – 24 https://assjm.journals.ekb.eg
Potentiality Assessment of Annual Forage Crops and Fertilization in Allway Pattern.
M. A. Osman, A. M. S. Ibrahim, H. M. M. El-Naggar and S. A. Seif
Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agric., Benha Uni.
Abstract
This study was conducted at the Agricultural Research and Experiments Farm , Faculty of Agriculture, Benha
University during two seasons (2018/2019 & 2019/2020).This is to investigate the effect of combined fertilization
rates which were (low, medium and high) yield and chemical content of some summer and winter forage crops.
The experimental designed was conducted to evaluate the yield and chemical content of [some summer forage
grasses guar (Cyamopsis tetragonolobe), cowpea ( Vigna sinensis ), pearl millet (Pennisetum typhoides) and
summer sudan grass (Sorghum bicolor) and winter forage grasses berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum) and barley
(Hordeum vulgare)], under three complete combined rates fertilizer of high (90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.), medium
(60:40:20 kg NPK/fed.) and low (30:20:10 kg NPK/fed.), in addition to the control (without fertilization). Their
interactions and its effect on yield and their chemical content, where the split plot design was used once , where
the forage grasses were placed in the main plots, while the combined fertilization rates were placed in the sub-
main plots, where three cuts were taken during the two study seasons. The results showed:A clear superiority of
the treatment with a high rate of the combined fertilizer (90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.) for all summer and winter forage
grasses in the characteristics of the contents of fresh and dry forage yield (ton/fed) during each of the two growing
seasons with slight differences. The increase which was significant with successive leguminous forage grasses
after forage grasses compared to cultivation of forage grasses after leguminous forage crops with the use of a high
rate of complete fertilizer of (N:P:K), the results also showed the superiority of the same treatment in the
parameters of the chemical content of the forage (the percentage of protein and carbohydrate content).
The results concluded that it was recommended to plant leguminous forage crops after grasses forage crops
with the use of a high complete fertilizer rate (90:60:30 kg NPK/fed) in order to obtain the highest productivity
and chemical content of forage grasses and maximize their utilization as animal feed to reduce the forage gap.
Key words: Summer forage crops, winter forage crops, complete fertilizer and crop rotation.
Introduction
Egypt suffers from an annual shortage of 6 million
tons of fodder to fulfil this gap by growing some
successive summer and winter fodder grasses and
knowing the extent to which these fodder grasses
contribute to their direct consumption or after
preparing and processing them to mix with some
manufactured feeds in animal feed.
Summer forage crops as traditional fodder sources,
as cowpea is a warm season legume which is primarily
grown and serve as a major source of protein and
calories in sub-Saharan Africa, due to its high
adaptability to both heat and drought and its
association for nitrogen fixing bacteria which cowpea
is a versatile crop, according to the study of Zaghloul
et.al., 2017.
Sudan grass is a summer annual drought tolerant
during warm temperatures, such plant stands of 4 to 6
feet tall, with stems of about 1⁄4 inch in diameter and
posses soft leaves. The plant develops only fibrous
roots and does not have rhizomes, but a single seed
can produce many tillers, depending on spacing.
Sudan grass plants tillers extensively of rapid
regrowth potentials, According to the study, pearl
millet has the required characteristics for dry land
production which pearl millet has the potential as a
new grain crop for the southeastern united states.
Furthermore, results demonstrated that pearl millet
can be grown with limited, as n-fertilization is the
major cost of producing any crop, pearl millet offers
special opportunity for large number of limited
resource in the region, according to the study of
(Obeng et.al., 2012). Guar also known as cluster bean,
is a crop plant grown in semi-arid regions worldwide
and as a forage, vegetable and green manure,
following models of other warm-season, according to
the study (Adams et.al., 2020).
Winter forage crops as traditional fodder sources,
such as leguminous plants are also of crucial
importance as an animal feed. Clovers are grown over
extensive areas as forage crops for grazing or as dry
hay, and they furnish not only high quality protein but
also a variety of biologically active molecules such as
vitamins, minerals and other nutrients according to the
study. Barley is an economically important cereal crop
ranking the fourth after wheat, rice and maize in the
world both in terms of quantity and it is area of
cultivation. Among the important traits that could
exist in the landraces are earliness, high nutritional
quality, disease and pest tolerance of drought and
other forms of abiotic stress and characters which are
useful for low input agriculture according to the study
according to the study of (Mansoor and Jeber, 2020)
and (Dwivedi et.al., 2021).
This study objective to use some successive
summer and winter forage grasses with complete
10 M. A. Osman et al .
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, Vol. 60 (1) 2022
fertilizer levels of (N:P:K) to enhance increasing
productivity and reduce forage gap.
Materials and Methods
Field study was conducted at the Agricultural
Research Experiments Farm, Faculty of Agriculture,
Moshtohor, Benha University, Qalyubia Governorate,
Egypt, during each of the two successive cultivation
seasons (2018/2019 and 2019/2020).
Potentiality assessment of subsequent rotational
annual cultivated forage crops in allway pattern:
The objective of this investigation was to study the
potentiality response of some common summer and
winter forage crops of four combined fertilization
levels NPK. Each experiment included 16 treatment
which were combination of 4 summer forage crops x
4 rates of compound fertilization rates NPK in 3
replications in growing seasons (2018 & 2019). The
treatments were as follows:
1- Summer season experiment:
The experiment included 16 treatment which were:
a- Forage crops: guar (Cyamopsis tetragonolobe),
cowpea (Vigna sinensis), pearl millet (Pennisetum
typhoides) and sudan grass (Sorghum bicolor).
b- four treatments of complete fertilizer rates: high
(90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.), medium (60:40:20 kg
NPK/fed.) and Low (30:20:10 kg NPK/fed.) and the
control (without fertilization) whereas the sources of
complete fertilizer rates were nitrogen (ammonium
sulfate 20.6%N), phosphorus (monocalcium
superphosphate 15.5%P2O5) and potassium
(potassium sulfate 48% K2O), complete fertilizer rates
were applied into 6 doses before irrigation two before
each cut, first cut (1/6), second cut (25/7) and third cut
(20/9) in growing seasons of (2018 and 2019).
Experimental practices and design:
Treatments were arranged in a split-plot
design in three replicates and forage crops assigned in
main plots and rates of complete fertilizer arranged in
a split – plot.
Forage crops seeds, gained from field crops
Research Institute - Agricultural Research Center
(ARC).
Planting procedures of summer and winter forage:
The experimental design was laid out in a spilt -
plot design with three replicates in each of two
seasons, four common summer forage and two
common winter forage previously mentioned were
distributed randomly in the main plots, whereas the
compound fertilization rates (NPK) were assigned
randomly in the sub plots, the area of each experiment
unit was 4 m² (2x2 m) of about 1050/fed. an area
which contained 4 ridges of 2 m length and 50 cm
width, the other recommended agronomic practices of
growing forage summer and winter were applied
regularly as practices in the region.
The studied parameters:
Fresh and dry forage yield for the common
summer and winter yield:
Fresh forage yield of some common summer and
winter under study was determined for each plant of
the subsequent cuts, in each experimental unit for each
of the two studied seasons and recorded in ton/fed. an
using field scale of 0.5 gm sensitivity then forage yield
of some common summer and winter were estimated
and recorded in ton/fed., dry forage yield productivity
of some common summer and winter were estimated
as follows, samples of about 200 gm of fresh forage
Some common summer and winter were selected
randomly from each experimental unit, accurately
weighted using an electric balance of 0.01 gm
sensitivity, such obtained fresh samples were dried in
an air forced drying oven at 70° C for 3 days till
constant weight to determine the dry matter content,
then dry yield of some common summer and winter
forage were estimated accordingly.
2- Winter season experiment:
The experiment included 16 treatment which were:
a- Forage crops: berseem (Trifolium
alexandrinum) and barley (Hordeum
vulgare).
b- four treatments of complete fertilizer rates: high
(90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.), medium (60:40:20 kg
NPK/fed.) and Low (30:20:10 kg NPK/fed.) in
addition to the control (without fertilization) whereas
the sources of complete fertilizer rates were nitrogen
(ammonium sulfate 20.6%N), phosphorus
(monocalcium superphosphate 15.5%P2O5) and
potassium (potassium sulfate 48% K2O), complete
fertilizer rates were applied into 6 doses before
irrigation two before each cut, first cut (1/12), second
cut (15/1) and third cut (1/3) in growing seasons
(2018/2019 and 2019/2020).
The successive cultivation of summer and
winter forage grasses were carried out as follows:
- Barley (Hordeum vulgare) after guar (Cyamopsis
tetragonolobe).
- Barley (Hordeum vulgare) after cowpea (Vigna
sinensis).
- Berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum) after pearl millet
(Pennisetum typhoides).
- Berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum) after sudan grass
(Sorghum bicolor).
Experimental practices and design:
Treatments were arranged in a split-plot
design in three replicates and forage crops assigned in
main plots and rates of complete fertilizer arranged in
a split – plot.
Forage crops seeds, gained from field crops
Research Institute - Agricultural Research Center
(ARC).
Chemical constituents:
The chemically analyzed samples of the
proposed treatments were analyzed for the first and
second cuts in dry samples of each treatment of the
three replicates in the two growing seasons in both
Potentiality Assessment of Annual Forage Crops and Fertilization in Allway Pattern. 11
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, Vol. 60 (1) 2022
studies under investigation. This is to represent the
general effect of the imposed treatments as an average
of the whole seasonal environmental variation. In
other words such first and second cuts were taken for
each of the two seasons for each of the two studied
subjects under study. The dried samples were mixed
thoroughly for the obtained three replicates of the
same treatment to from a composite sample out of
each of three samples, three analysis were done for
each treatment. The average results of each analysis in
study was recorded. Chemical analysis was conducted
and presented on dry matter basis. Fresh forage of
summer and winter samples were randomly taken
from each experimental unit, an accurately weighted
samples of the fresh forage of summer and winter
about 200 gm were dried using an air forced drying
oven at 70° C till a constant weight. Samples were
dried in a labeled Kraft paper bags which laid in the
drying oven all over the drying period. Dried samples
were then cooled at room temperature, then ground
finely and screened through screen of 40 michs. The
fine grounded samples were stored in sealed labeled
plastic bags and stored in the refrigerator at 5° C till
needed for the chemical analysis. The conducted
chemical analysis of dry forage of summer and winter
quality components included the following:
Crude protein content (%):
Total nitrogen percentage was determined
according to the modified micro kjeldahl method.
Crude protein content was estimated by multiplying
nitrogen percentage by 6.25 (A.O.A.C. 1990).
Total carbohydrates content (%):
It was estimated by subtracting the sum of the
percentages of crude protein, crude fiber, ash and
ether extract out of 100, {TCC % = 100- (CP %+CF
%+ EE % +Ash %)} by (A.O.A.C. 1990).
Physical and chemical characters of the used
soil are shown in Table (a), physical analysis was
estimated according to Jackson (1973) whereas,
chemical analysis was determined according to Black,
et. al. (1982).
Table 1. Physical and chemical properties of the experimental soil units at Moshtohor Agric. EXP. Station during
each of the two growing seasons.
Properties
Seasons
2018
2019
Physical analysis:
Coarse sand (%)
2.09
2.03
Fine sand (%)
23.94
24.61
Silt (%)
21.74
21.23
Clay (%)
52.23
52.13
Textural class
Clay
Clay
Chemical analysis:
CaCo3 (%)
1.05
1.08
Organic matter (%)
2.09
2.13
N available (mg/kg)
0.88
0.92
P available (mg/kg)
0.31
0.35
K available (mg/kg)
0.71
0.77
E.C (ds. m-1)
0.93
0.98
pH
7.68
7.75
Statistical analysis:
Each of three experiments previously
presented was statistically analyzed individually
according to the presented design for each of the two
growing seasons (2018/2019 and 2019/2020). The
analysis of variance was carried out according to the
procedure described by Snedecor and Corchran
(1982), L.S.D. test at 5% level was used to compare
between means.
Results and discussion
Potentiality assessment of subsequent rotational
annual forage crops in allway pattern:
Summer forage crops (Cyamopsis tetragonolobe,
Vigna sinensis, Pennisetum typhoides and Sorghum
bicolor):
Fresh yield (ton/fed):
Results in table (2) showed that, the highest
increase in the fresh yield of Sorghum bicolor in the
first cut (10.58&11.00 ton/fed.), the second cut
(11.15&10.53 ton/fed.) and the third cut
(11.18&10.09 ton/fed.), followed by Pennisetum
typhoides and Vigna sinensis, and the lowest of them
was in the fresh weight of grass Cyamopsis
tetragonolobe, which was given in the first cut
(9.67&9.93 ton/fed.), the second cut (9.15&9.72
ton/fed.) and the third cut (8.17&9.52 ton/fed.) for the
first and second seasons (2018 & 2019) respectively.
The data in table (2) showed that, rates of
NPK fertilization were high compound fertilization
rates (90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.), medium compound
fertilization rates (60:40:20 kg NPK/fed.) and low
compound fertilization rates (30:20:10 kg NPK/fed.) a
significant increase in the fresh weight of grass
(Cyamopsis tetragonolobe, Vigna sinensis, Sorghum
bicolor and Pennisetum typhoides) for the first and
12 M. A. Osman et al .
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, Vol. 60 (1) 2022
second seasons, where the high rate of fertilization
gave a significant increase in the fresh weight of grass
for the first cut (10.27&10.90 ton/fed.), the second cut
(10.65&10.30 ton/fed.) and the third cut (10.41&9.97
ton/fed.) compared to the medium rate of fertilization
in the first cut (10.19&10.67 ton/fed.), the second cut
(10.49&10.17 ton/fed.) and the third cut (10.00&9.87
ton/fed.), the least significant increase was the low
rate of fertilization in the first cut (10.09&10.39
ton/fed.), the second cut (10.19&9.99 ton/fed.) and the
third cut (9.91&9.73 ton/fed.) compared to the control
(without fertilization) in the first cut (9.85&10.07
ton/fed.) the second cut (9.81&9.82 ton/fed.) and the
third cut (9.49&9.59 ton/fed.) in both seasons of
study.
Table 2. Potentiality assessment of fertilization rates on fresh yield (ton/fed) of summer forage grasses plants
during the two seasons (2018 & 2019).
Seasons
Treatments
First season (2018)
Second season (2019)
C. t.
V. s.
P. t.
S. b.
Mean
C. t.
V. s.
P. t.
S. b.
Mea
n
First cut
F.0 (0.0)
9.52
9.81
9.87
10.19
9.85
9.63
10.05
10.19
10.43
10.07
F.1 (L.)
9.63
9.94
9.95
10.51
10.09
9.89
10.29
10.56
10.83
10.39
F.2 (M.)
9.73
10.11
10.13
10.77
10.19
10.05
10.51
10.93
11.17
10.67
F.3 (H.)
9.81
10.19
10.24
10.85
10.27
10.16
10.77
11.09
11.57
10.90
Mean
9.67
10.10
10.05
10.58
===
9.93
10.41
10.69
11.00
===
LSD. at 5%
for
A=0.16 ,
B=0.13 ,
AxB=0.25
A=0.05 ,
B=0.05 ,
AxB=0.11
Second cut
F.0. (0.0)
8.67
9.81
10.16
10.59
9.81
9.49
9.71
9.87
10.21
9.82
F.1 (L.)
8.93
10.03
10.67
11.15
10.19
9.68
9.81
10.08
10.37
9.99
F.2 (M.)
9.41
10.19
11.09
11.28
10.49
9.81
9.92
10.29
10.67
10.17
F.3 (H.)
9.57
10.29
11.15
11.60
10.65
9.89
10.05
10.40
10.85
10.30
Mean
9.15
10.08
10.77
11.15
===
9.72
9.87
10.16
10.53
===
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.17 ,
B=0.10 ,
AxB=0.19
A=0.06 ,
B=0.05 ,
AxB=0.11
Third cut
F.0 (0.0)
7.57
9.55
10.19
10.67
9.49
9.23
9.57
9.65
9.89
9.59
F.1 (L.)
7.95
9.81
10.69
11.17
9.91
9.47
9.63
9.81
10.03
9.73
F.2 (M.)
8.37
9.97
11.09
11.30
10.00
9.65
9.73
9.95
10.16
9.87
F.3 (H.)
8.77
10.05
11.20
11.63
10.41
9.73
9.81
10.03
10.29
9.97
Mean
8.17
9.85
10.63
11.18
===
9.52
9.69
9.86
10.09
===
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.16 ,
B=0.16 ,
AxB=0.32
A=0.05 ,
B=0.05 ,
AxB=0.09
In addition to the results in table (2) showed that,
the (Cyamopsis tetragonolobe, Vigna sinensis,
Sorghum bicolor and Pennisetum typhoides) fertilized
at a high compound fertilization rates (90:60:30 kg
NPK/fed.) had a significant increase in the fresh
weight of grass as the Pennisetum typhoides fertilized
at the rate was given the high compound fertilization
rates (90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.) significantly increased
in the first cut (10.85&11.57 ton/fed.), the second cut
(11.60&10.85 ton/fed.) and the third cut
(11.63&10.29 ton/fed.) in both seasons, while the low
compound fertilization rates (30:20:10 kg NPK/fed.)
with Cyamopsis tetragonolobe gave the least
significant increase in the fresh weight of the grass for
the first cut (9.63&9.89 ton/fed.), the second cut
(8.93&9.68 ton/fed.), and the third cut (7.95&9.47
ton/fed.) in comparison with control (without
fertilization) in the first and second seasons
respectively, this trend was true in the three cuts in the
two seasons, the other treatments occupied on
intermediate position between the abovementioned
treatments in the two seasons.
These results were in agreement with Lal and
Shaik (2000) on sudan grass, Abd El-Aziz (2002) on
millet, Ammaji and Suryamarayoma (2003) on
sudan grass, Ronald and Robert (2005) on sudan
F.0=Control
C.t.=Cyamopsis tetragonolobe
A= Forage grasses
F.1=Fertilization low
V.s.=Vigna sinensis
B= Fertilization levels
F.2=Fertilization medium
P.t.=Pennisetum typhoides
A×B = Forage grasses × Fertilization
levels
F.3=Fertilization high
S.b.=Sorghum bicolor
Potentiality Assessment of Annual Forage Crops and Fertilization in Allway Pattern. 13
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, Vol. 60 (1) 2022
grass, Ayub et.al., (2009) on millet, Sajid et.al.,
(2009) on guar, Obeng et.al., (2012) on millet,
Hamdan and Fezaa (2017) on sudan grass and
Zaghloul et.al., (2017) on cowpea.
Dry yield (ton/fed):
Data in table (3) showed that, the highest increase
in the dry yield of grass Sorghum bicolor in the first
cut (1.26&1.16 ton/fed.), the second cut (1.33&1.11
ton/fed.) and the third cut (1.34&1.06 ton/fed.),
followed by Pennisetum typhoides and Vigna sinensis,
and the lowest of them was in the dry weight of grass
Cyamopsis tetragonolobe, which was given in the first
cut (0.96&1.04 ton/fed.), the second cut (0.91&1.02
ton/fed.) and the third cut (0.76&1.00 ton/fed.) for the
first and second seasons (2018 & 2019) respectively.
Table (3): Potentiality assessment of fertilization rates on dry yield (ton/fed) of summer forage grasses plants
during the two seasons (2018 & 2019).
Seasons
Treatments
First season (2018)
Second season (2019)
C. t.
V. s.
P. t.
S. b.
Mean
C. t.
V. s.
P. t.
S. b.
Mean
First cut
F.0. (0.0)
0.95
0.98
1.08
1.22
1.06
1.01
1.05
1.07
1.10
1.06
F.1 (L.)
0.96
0.99
1.09
1.25
1.08
1.04
1.05
1.11
1.14
1.08
F.2 (M.)
0.97
1.01
1.09
1.29
1.09
1.06
1.10
1.15
1.17
1.12
F.3 (H.)
0.98
1.01
1.12
1.30
1.10
1.07
1.13
1.16
1.22
1.14
Mean
0.96
1.00
1.10
1.26
===
1.04
1.08
1.12
1.16
===
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.01 ,
B=0.01 ,
AxB= 0.01
A=0.01 ,
B=0.01 ,
AxB= 0.01
Second cut
F.0. (0.0)
0.87
0.98
1.11
1.26
1.05
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.07
1.03
F.1 (L.)
0.90
1.00
1.17
1.33
1.10
1.02
1.03
1.06
1.09
1.05
F.2 (M.)
0.94
1.01
1.22
1.35
1.13
1.03
1.04
1.08
1.12
1.07
F.3 (H.)
0.96
1.03
1.22
1.39
1.15
1.04
1.06
1.09
1.14
1.08
Mean
0.91
1.00
1.18
1.33
===
1.02
1.04
1.07
1.11
===
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.01 ,
B=0.01 ,
AxB= 0.01
A=0.01 ,
B=0.01 ,
AxB= 0.01
Third cut
F.0. (0.0)
0.76
0.95
1.11
1.27
1.02
0.97
1.01
1.01
1.04
1.01
F.1 (L.)
0.79
0.98
1.17
1.34
1.07
0.99
1.01
1.03
1.05
1.02
F.2 (M.)
0.83
0.99
1.22
1.35
1.10
1.01
1.02
1.04
1.07
1.04
F.3 (H.)
0.88
1.00
1.23
1.39
1.13
1.02
1.03
1.05
1.08
1.05
Mean
0.76
0.98
1.18
1.34
===
1.00
1.02
1.04
1.06
===
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.01 ,
B=0.01 ,
AxB= 0.01
A=0.01 ,
B=0.01 ,
AxB= 0.01
The data in table (3) showed that, rates of NPK
fertilization were high compound fertilization rates
(90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.), medium compound
fertilization rates (60:40:20 kg NPK/fed.) and low
compound fertilization rates (30:20:10 kg NPK/fed.) a
significant increase in the dry weight of grass
(Cyamopsis tetragonolobe, Vigna sinensis, Sorghum
bicolor and Pennisetum typhoides) for the first and
second seasons, where the high rate of fertilization
gave a significant increase in the dry weight of grass
for the first cut (1.10&1.14 ton/fed.), the second cut
(1.15&1.08 ton/fed.) and the third cut (1.13&1.05
ton/fed.) compared to the medium rate of fertilization
in the first cut (1.09&1.12 ton/fed.), the second cut
(1.13&1.07 ton/fed.) and the third cut (1.10&1.04
ton/fed.), the least significant increase was the low
rate of fertilization in the first cut (1.08&1.08
ton/fed.), the second cut (1.10&1.05 ton/fed.) and the
third cut (1.07&1.02 ton/fed.) compared to the control
(without fertilization) in the first cut (1.06&1.06
ton/fed.), the second cut (1.05&1.03 ton/fed.) and the
F.0=Control
C.t.=Cyamopsis tetragonolobe
A= Forage grasses
F.1=Fertilization low
V.s.=Vigna sinensis
B= Fertilization levels
F.2=Fertilization medium
P.t.=Pennisetum typhoides
A×B = Forage grasses × Fertilization
levels
F.3=Fertilization high
S.b.=Sorghum bicolor
14 M. A. Osman et al .
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, Vol. 60 (1) 2022
third cut (1.02&1.01 ton/fed.) in both seasons of
study.
In addition to the results in table (3)
showed that, the (Cyamopsis tetragonolobe, Vigna
sinensis, Sorghum bicolor and Pennisetum typhoides)
fertilized at a high compound fertilization rates
(90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.) had a significant increase in
the dry weight of grass as the Pennisetum typhoides
fertilized at the rate was given the high compound
fertilization rates (90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.)
significantly increased in the first cut (1.30&1.22
ton/fed.), the second cut (1.39&1.14 ton/fed.) and the
third cut (1.39&1.08 ton/fed.) in both seasons, while
the low compound fertilization rates (30:20:10 kg
NPK/fed.) with Cyamopsis tetragonolobe gave the
least significant increase in the dry weight of the grass
for the first cut (0.96&1.04 ton/fed.), the second cut
(0.90&1.02 ton/fed.), and the third cut (0.79&0.99
ton/fed.) in comparison with control (without
fertilization) in the first and second seasons,
respective this trend was true in the three cuts in the
two seasons, the other treatments occupied on
intermediate position between the abovementioned
treatments in the two seasons.
These results were in agreement with Lal
and Shaik (2000) on sudan grass, Abd El-Aziz
(2002) on millet, Ammaji and Suryamarayoma
(2003) on sudan grass, Ronald and Robert (2005) on
sudan grass, Ayub et.al., (2009) on millet, Sajid et.al.,
(2009) on guar, Obeng et.al., (2012) on millet,
Hamdan and Fezaa (2017) on sudan grass and
Zaghloul et.al., (2017) on cowpea.
Crude protein content (%):
The results in table (4) showed that, the highest
significant increase in the crude protein content of the
forage Vigna sinensis in the first cut (19.08 & 19.48
%), the second cut (19.28 & 19.95 %) and the third cut
(12.54 & 20.83 %) in the first and second seasons
(2018 & 2019) respectively, followed by Cyamopsis
tetragonolobe in the first cut (13.73 & 14.63 %) the
second cut (13.93 & 14.20 %) and the third cut (11.29
& 14.32 %) in both seasons cultivation respectively,
then Sorghum bicolor in the first cut (11.41 & 13.81
%), the second cut (11.49 & 13.86 %) and the third cut
(9.63 & 14.38 %) in the first and second seasons
respectively. While Pennisetum typhoides had the
lowest significant increase in the first cut (11.21 &
13.67 %), the second cut (11.27 & 13.69 %) and the
third cut (8.13 & 13.75 %) in the first and second
seasons respectively.
Data in table (4) showed that, all levels of NPK
fertilization were high compound fertilization rates
(90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.), medium compound
fertilization rates (60:40:20 kg NPK/fed.) and low
compound fertilization rates (30:20:10 kg NPK/fed.)
had a significant increase in the crude protein content
of the summer forage under study in both seasons.
Where the high rate of fertilization recorded the
highest significant increase in the first cut (14.06 &
15.89 %), the second cut (14.17 & 15.67 %) and the
third cut (10.78 & 15.99 %) in the first and second
seasons (2018 & 2019) respectively, then the medium
rate of fertilization in the first cut (13.98 & 15.33 %),
the second cut (14.09 & 15.52 %) and the third cut
(10.48 & 15.83 %) in the first and second seasons
respectively, and the lowest rate of fertilization in the
first cut (13.83 & 15.31 %), the second cut (14.09 &
15.33 %) and the third cut (10.18 & 15.72 %) in the
first and second seasons (2018 & 2019) respectively
compared to the unfertilized control plants in the first
cut (13.56 & 15.05 %), the second cut (13.69 & 15.18
%) and the third cut (9.63 & 15.51 %) in the first and
second seasons (2018 & 2019).
Results in table (4) showed that, plants
(Cyamopsis tetragonolobe, Vigna sinensis,
Pennisetum typhoides and Sorghum bicolor) fertilized
with high, medium and low rates of fertilization had a
significant increase in the percentage of crude protein
content in the first cut (19.37 & 19.79 %), the second
cut (19.60 & 20.21 %) and the third cut (13.47 & 21.25
%) in the first and second seasons respectively,
compared to other treatments under study in both
seasons (2018 & 2019), this trend was true in the three
cuts in the two seasons, the other treatments occupied
on intermediate position between the abovementioned
treatments in the two seasons.
These results were in agreement with Lal
and Shaik (2000) on sudan grass, Abd El-Aziz
(2002) on millet, Ammaji and Suryamarayoma
(2003) on sudan grass, Ronald and Robert (2005) on
sudan grass, Ayub et.al., (2009) on millet, Sajid et.al.,
(2009) on guar, Obeng et.al., (2012) on millet,
Hamdan and Fezaa (2017) on sudan grass and
Zaghloul et.al., (2017) on cowpea.
Potentiality Assessment of Annual Forage Crops and Fertilization in Allway Pattern. 15
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, Vol. 60 (1) 2022
Table (4): Potentiality assessment of fertilization rates on crude protein content (%) of summer forage grasses
plants during the first and second seasons (2018 & 2019).
Seasons
Treatments
First season (2018)
Second season (2019)
C. t.
V. s.
P. t.
S. b.
Mean
C. t.
V. s.
P. t.
S. b.
Mean
First cut
F.0. (0.0)
13.50
18.77
10.93
11.03
13.56
13.73
19.17
13.60
13.71
15.05
F.1 (L.)
13.70
18.97
11.23
11.43
13.83
14.48
19.38
13.67
13.73
15.31
F.2 (M.)
13.83
19.23
11.30
11.53
13.98
14.27
19.58
13.69
13.77
15.33
F.3 (H.)
13.87
19.37
11.37
11.63
14.06
14.38
19.79
13.71
14.00
15.89
Mean
13.73
19.08
11.21
11.41
-----
14.63
19.48
13.67
13.81
-----
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.11 ,
B=0.10 ,
AxB=0.20
A=0.31 ,
B=0.62 ,
AxB=1.24
Second cut
F.0. (0.0)
13.80
18.87
10.97
11.11
13.69
13.77
19.58
13.65
13.73
15.18
F.1 (L.)
13.93
19.23
11.30
11.57
14.02
14.08
19.79
13.67
13.78
15.33
F.2 (M.)
13.97
19.40
11.37
11.63
14.09
14.38
20.21
13.71
13.79
15.52
F.3 (H.)
14.00
19.60
11.40
11.67
14.17
14.58
20.21
13.73
14.15
15.67
Mean
13.93
19.28
11.27
11.49
-----
14.20
19.95
13.69
13.86
-----
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.25 ,
B=0.14 ,
AxB=0.29
A=0.36 ,
B=0.17 ,
AxB=0.35
Third cut
F.0. (0.0)
10.33
11.57
7.67
8.97
9.63
14.17
20.21
13.69
13.96
15.51
F.1 (L.)
11.23
12.40
7.87
9.23
10.18
14.17
20.83
13.71
14.17
15.72
F.2 (M.)
11.73
12.73
8.00
9.43
10.48
14.38
21.04
13.73
14.17
15.83
F.3 (H.)
11.87
13.47
8.13
9.63
10.78
14.58
21.25
13.75
14.38
15.99
Mean
11.29
12.54
7.92
9.32
-----
14.32
20.83
13.72
14.17
-----
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.25 ,
B=0.14 ,
AxB=0.28
A=0.13 ,
B=0.25 ,
AxB=0.51
F.0=Control
C.t.=Cyamopsis tetragonolobe
A= Forage grasses
F.1=Fertilization low
V.s.=Vigna sinensis
B= Fertilization levels
F.2=Fertilization medium
P.t.=Pennisetum typhoides
A×B = Forage grasses × Fertilization
levels
F.3=Fertilization high
S.b.=Sorghum bicolor
Total carbohydrates content (%):
Results in table (5) showed that, the highest
significant increase in the percentage of total
carbohydrates content of the forage Vigna sinensis in
the first cut (55.45 & 55.96 %), the second cut (55.17
& 52.74 %) and the third cut (60.83 & 50.98 %) in the
first and second seasons (2018 & 2019) respectively,
followed by Cyamopsis tetragonolobe in the first cut
(50.29 & 51.75 %), the second cut (50.01 & 49.80 %)
and the third cut (51.12 & 48.05 %) in the both
growing seasons respectively, followed by
Pennisetum typhoides in the first cut (48.78 & 47.43
%), the second cut (48.56 & 45.72 %) and the third cut
(49.32 & 45.15 %) in the first and second seasons,
respectively, while Sorghum bicolor had the lowest
significant increase in the first cut (48.75 & 45.55 %),
the second cut (47.52 & 43.87 %) and the third cut
(47.71 & 41.14 %) in the first and second seasons
(2018 & 2019) respectively. The data in table (5)
showed that, all rates of NPK fertilization were high
compound fertilization rates (90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.),
medium compound fertilization rates (60:40:20 kg
NPK/fed.) and low compound fertilization rates
(30:20:10 kg NPK/fed.), there were no significant
differences in the percentage of total carbohydrate
content in the summer forage under study compared
to the control plants that were not fertilized in both
seasons (2018 & 2019).
Results in table (5) showed that, all plants
(Cyamopsis tetragonolobe, Vigna sinensis,
Pennisetum typhoides and Sorghum bicolor) fertilized
with high, medium and low rates of fertilization, there
were no significant differences in the percentage of
total carbohydrate content in the first and second
seasons respectively, compared to control plants in
both seasons of the study (2018 & 2019), this trend
was true in the three cuts in the two seasons, the other
treatments occupied on intermediate position between
the abovementioned treatments in the two seasons.
These results were in agreement with Lal
and Shaik (2000) on sudan grass, Abd El-Aziz
(2002) on millet, Ammaji and Suryamarayoma
(2003) on sudan grass, Ronald and Robert (2005) on
sudan grass, Ayub et.al., (2009) on millet, Sajid et.al.,
(2009) on guar, Obeng et.al., (2012) on millet,
16 M. A. Osman et al .
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, Vol. 60 (1) 2022
Hamdan and Fezaa (2017) on sudan grass and
Zaghloul et.al., (2017) on cowpea
Table (5): Potentiality assessment of fertilization rates on total carbohydrates content (%) of summer forage
grasses plants during the first and second seasons (2018&2019).
Seasons
Treatments
First season (2018)
Second season (2019)
C. t.
V. s.
P. t.
S. b.
Mean
C. t.
V. s.
P. t.
S. b.
Mean
First cut
F.0. (0.0)
51.38
56.46
48.85
48.19
51.22
51.50
58.43
47.02
44.25
50.30
F.1 (L.)
49.83
55.40
48.60
46.76
50.15
51.17
55.18
48.97
48.15
50.87
F.2 (M.)
49.89
55.49
48.73
47.85
50.49
52.20
55.28
46.82
44.78
49.77
F.3 (H.)
50.07
54.45
48.95
48.20
50.42
52.12
54.94
46.91
44.97
49.75
Mean
50.29
55.45
48.78
48.75
-----
51.75
55.96
47.43
45.55
-----
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.30 ,
B=0.02 ,
AxB=0.52
A=2.22 ,
B=2.08 ,
AxB=4.16
Second cut
F.0. (0.0)
51.04
56.33
48.56
47.98
50.98
49.96
52.83
45.70
43.55
48.01
F.1 (L.)
49.55
55.08
48.36
46.49
49.87
49.77
52.83
45.60
43.86
48.01
F.2 (M.)
49.71
55.16
48.49
47.45
50.20
50.06
52.38
45.73
44.16
48.08
F.3 (H.)
49.78
54.12
48.82
48.16
50.21
49.40
52.93
45.85
43.91
48.02
Mean
50.01
55.17
48.56
47.52
-----
49.80
52.74
45.72
43.87
-----
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.19 ,
B=0.24 ,
AxB=0.47
A=1.03 ,
B=0.63 ,
AxB=0.26
Third cut
F.0. (0.0)
52.64
62.27
49.90
48.91
53.43
48.28
51.53
44.64
40.56
46.25
F.1 (L.)
51.18
61.17
49.15
47.42
52.23
48.07
50.83
44.71
41.35
46.24
F.2 (M.)
50.45
60.83
49.12
47.45
51.96
47.79
50.69
45.60
41.45
46.38
F.3 (H.)
50.20
59.05
49.12
47.06
48.39
48.06
50.85
45.67
41.19
46.44
Mean
51.12
60.83
49.32
47.71
-----
48.05
50.98
45.15
41.14
-----
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.31 ,
B=0.30 ,
AxB=0.61
A=0.59 ,
B=0.77 ,
AxB=1.55
F.0=Control
C.t.=Cyamopsis tetragonolobe
A= Forage grasses
F.1=Fertilization low
V.s.=Vigna sinensis
B= Fertilization levels
F.2=Fertilization medium
P.t.=Pennisetum typhoides
A×B = Forage grasses ×
Fertilization levels
F.3=Fertilization high
S.b.=Sorghum bicolor
Winter forage crops (Trifolium alexandrinum and
Hordeum vulgare):
Fresh yield (ton/fed):
Results in table (6) showed that, the cultivation
of Hordeum vulgare after Vigna sinensis gave a
significant increase in the fresh weight of grass in the
first cut (4.50&4.53 ton/fed.), the second cut
(4.63&4.79 ton/fed.) and the third cut (4.09&4.59
ton/fed.) during the two seasons of the study
compared to the cultivation of Hordeum vulgare after
the Cyamopsis tetragonolobe where it was given in
the first cut (4.17&4.23 ton/fed.), the second cut
(4.25&4.43 ton/fed.) and the third cut (3.95&4.27
ton/fed.), followed by the fresh weight of Trifolium
alexandrinum grown after Sorghum bicolor in the first
cut (3.67&3.71 ton/fed.),
Potentiality Assessment of Annual Forage Crops and Fertilization in Allway Pattern. 17
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, Vol. 60 (1) 2022
Table 6. Potentiality assessment of fertilization rates on fresh yield (ton/fed) of winter forage grasses plants during
the two seasons (2018/2019 & 2019/2020).
Seasons
Treatments
First season (2018/2019)
Second season (2019/2020)
H.v
After
C.t
H.v
After
V.s
T.a
After
P.t
T.a
After
S.b
Mean
H.v
After
C.t
H.v
After
V.s
T.a
After
P.t
T.a
After
S.b
Mean
First cut
F.0 (0.0)
3.65
3.95
2.83
3.15
3.39
3.73
4.00
3.07
3.20
3.50
F.1 (L.)
3.97
4.35
3.17
3.33
3.71
4.05
4.37
3.25
3.39
3.77
F.2 (M.)
4.29
4.69
3.81
4.00
4.20
4.37
4.75
3.89
4.05
4.27
F.3 (H.)
4.77
5.01
4.11
4.21
4.53
4.77
5.01
4.11
4.19
4.52
Mean
4.17
4.50
3.48
3.67
===
4.23
4.53
3.58
3.71
===
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.06 ,
B=0.06 ,
AxB=0.12
A=0.03 ,
B=0.04 ,
AxB=0.08
Second cut
F.0 (0.0)
3.81
4.05
2.91
3.25
3.51
3.97
4.11
3.12
3.49
3.67
F.1 (L.)
4.03
4.59
3.25
3.41
3.82
4.24
4.75
3.55
3.63
4.04
F.2 (M.)
4.37
4.77
3.81
4.05
4.25
4.53
5.04
3.92
4.21
4.43
F.3 (H.)
4.80
5.09
4.16
4.21
4.57
4.96
5.25
4.13
4.37
4.68
Mean
4.25
4.63
3.53
3.73
===
4.43
4.79
3.68
3.93
===
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.06 ,
B=0.05 ,
AxB=0.11
A=0.07 ,
B=0.08 ,
AxB=0.16
Third cut
F.0 (0.0)
3.47
3.60
2.77
2.99
3.21
3.81
4.03
3.07
3.33
3.56
F.1 (L.)
3.76
3.87
3.07
3.25
3.49
4.05
4.43
3.39
3.47
3.83
F.2 (M.)
4.08
4.21
3.57
3.75
3.88
4.37
4.80
3.89
4.08
4.29
F.3 (H.)
4.51
4.67
3.89
4.05
4.28
4.83
5.09
4.13
4.27
4.58
Mean
3.95
4.09
3.33
3.49
===
4.27
4.59
3.62
3.79
===
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.16 ,
B=0.12 ,
AxB=0.23
A=0.06 ,
B=0.05 ,
AxB=0.09
F.0=Control
C.t. =Cyamopsis tetragonolobe
A= Winter forage grasses
F.1=Fertilization low
V.s. =Vigna sinensis
B= Fertilization
levels
F.2=Fertilization medium
P.t. =Pennisetum typhoides
A×B = Winter forage ×
Fertilization levels
F.3=Fertilization high
S.b. =Sorghum bicolor
H.v. =Hordeum vulgare
T.a. =Trifolium alexandrinum
the second cut (3.73&3.93 ton/fed.) and third cut
(3.49&3.79 ton/fed.) in both seasons respectively.
While Trifolium alexandrinum grown after
Pennisetum typhoides had the least significant
increase in the fresh weight of grass in the first cut
(3.48&3.58 ton/fed.), the second cut (3.53&3.68
ton/fed.) and the third cut (3.33&3.62 ton/fed.) in the
first and second seasons (2018/2019 & 2019/2020).
The data in table (6) also showed that, rates of
NPK fertilization were high compound fertilization
rates (90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.), medium compound
fertilization rates (60:40:20 kg NPK/fed.) and low
compound fertilization rates (30:20:10 kg NPK/fed.) a
significant increase in the fresh weight of grass plants
(Hordeum vulgare grown after Cyamopsis
tetragonolobe and Vigna sinensis as well as Trifolium
alexandrinum grown after Pennisetum typhoides and
Sorghum bicolor) for the first and second seasons.
Where the high rate of fertilization gave a significant
increase in the fresh weight of the grass for the first
cut (4.53 & 4.52 ton/fed.), the second cut (4.57 & 4.68
ton/fed.) and the third cut (4.28 & 4.58 ton/fed.) in
18 M. A. Osman et al .
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, Vol. 60 (1) 2022
comparison to the medium rates of fertilization in the
first cut (4.20 & 4.27 ton/fed.), the second cut (4.25 &
4.43 ton/fed.) and the third cut (3.88 & 4.29 ton/fed.)
had the least significant increase in the low rate in the
first cut (3.71 & 3.77 ton/fed.), the second cut (3.82 &
4.04 ton/fed.) and the third cut (3.49 & 3.83 ton/fed.)
compared to the control plants in the first cut (3.39 &
3.50 ton/fed.), the second cut (3.51 & 3.67 ton/fed.)
and the third cut (3.21 & 3.56 ton/fed.) in the first and
second seasons (2018/2019 & 2019/2020)
respectively.
In addition to the results in table (6) showed
that, plants (Hordeum vulgare grown after Cyamopsis
tetragonolobe and Vigna sinensis,as well as Trifolium
alexandrinum grown after Pennisetum typhoides and
Sorghum bicolor) and fertilized at a high compound
fertilization rates (90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.)
significantly increased the fresh weight of the grass as
the Hordeum vulgare plant grown after Vigna
sinensis gave a significant increase in the first cut
(5.01 & 5.01 ton/fed.), the second cut (5.09 & 5.25
ton/fed.) and the third cut (4.67 & 5.09 ton/fed.) in
both seasons. While Trifolium alexandrinum was
given sowed after Pennisetum typhoides and fertilized
with low rate of fertilization in the first cut (3.17 &
3.25 ton/fed.), second cut (3.25 & 3.55 ton/fed.) and
third cut (3.07 & 3.39 ton/fed.) in the first and second
seasons respectively, compared to plants unfertilized
control in both seasons (2018/2019&2019/2020). This
trend was true in the three cuts in the two seasons, the
other treatments occupied on intermediate position
between the abovementioned treatments in the two
seasons. These results were in agreement with
Awasthi and Suraj (1983) on barley, Dwivedi et.al.,
(2021) on barley and Muhammad et.al., (2021) on
clover.
Dry yield (ton/fed):
Results in table (7) showed that, the cultivation
of Hordeum vulgare after Vigna sinensis gave a
significant increase in the dry weight of grass in the
first cut (0.68&0.73 ton/fed.), the second cut
(0.74&0.79 ton/fed.) and the third cut (0.57&0.78
ton/fed.) during the two seasons of the study
compared to the cultivation of Hordeum vulgare after
the Cyamopsis tetragonolobe where it was given in
the first cut (0.67&0.68 ton/fed.), the second cut
(0.72&0.73 ton/fed.) and the third cut (0.59&0.73
ton/fed.), followed by the dry weight of Trifolium
alexandrinum grown after Sorghum bicolor in the first
cut (0.44&0.48 ton/fed.),
the second cut (0.50&0.53 ton/fed.) and the third cut
(0.42&0.53 ton/fed.) in both seasons respectively.
While Trifolium alexandrinum grown after
Pennisetum typhoides had the least significant
increase in the dry weight of grass in the first cut
(0.42&0.47 ton/fed.), the second cut (0.46&0.50
ton/fed.) and the third cut (0.40&0.51 ton/fed.) in the
first and second seasons (2018/2019 & 2019/2020).
The data in table (7) also showed that, rates of NPK
fertilization were high compound fertilization rates
(90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.), medium compound
fertilization rates (60:40:20 kg NPK/fed.) and low
compound fertilization rates (30:20:10 kg NPK/fed.)
a significant increase in the dry weight of grass plants
(Hordeum vulgare grown after Cyamopsis
tetragonolobe and Vigna sinensis as well as Trifolium
alexandrinum grown after Pennisetum typhoides and
Sorghum bicolor) for the first and second seasons,
where the high rate of cut (0.57&0.61 ton/fed.) and the
third cut (0.47&0.60 ton/fed.) compared to the control
plants in the first cut (0.47 & 0.51 ton/fed.), the second
cut (0.54&0.65 ton/fed.) and the third cut (0.43&0.56
ton/fed.) in the first and second seasons
(2018/2019&2019/2020) respectively.
In addition to the results in table (7) showed
that, plants (Hordeum vulgare grown after Cyamopsis
tetragonolobe and Vigna sinensis,as well as Trifolium
alexandrinum grown after Pennisetum typhoides and
Sorghum bicolor) and fertilized at a high compound
fertilization rates (90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.)
significantly increased the dry weight of the grass as
the Hordeum vulgare plant grown after Vigna sinensis
gave a significant increase in the first cut (0.75 & 0.80
ton/fed.), the second cut (0.82&0.87 ton/fed.) and the
third cut (0.65&0.87 ton/fed.) in both seasons, while
Trifolium alexandrinum was given Sowed after
Pennisetum typhoides and fertilized with low rate of
fertilization in the first cut (0.38 & 0.42 ton/fed.),
second cut (0.42 & 0.48 ton/fed.) and third cut
(0.37&0.47 ton/fed.) in the first and second seasons
respectively, compared to plants unfertilized control
in both seasons (2018/2019&2019/2020), this trend
was true in the three cuts in the two seasons, the other
treatments occupied on intermediate position between
the abovementioned treatments in the two seasons.
These results were in agreement with Awasthi and
Suraj (1983) on barley, Dwivedi et.al., (2021) on
barley and Muhammad et.al., (2021) on clover.
Crude protein content (%):
Potentiality Assessment of Annual Forage Crops and Fertilization in Allway Pattern. 19
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, Vol. 60 (1) 2022
Table (7): Potentiality assessment of fertilization rates on dry yield (ton/fed) of winter forage grasses plants
during the two seasons (2018/2019 & 2019/2020).
Seasons
Treatments
First season (2018/2019)
Second season (2019/2020)
H.v
After
C.t
H.v
After
V.s
T.a
After
P.t
T.a
After
S.b
Mean
H.v
After
C.t
H.v
After
V.s
T.a
After
P.t
T.a
After
S.b
Mean
First cut
F.0 (0.0)
0.58
0.59
0.34
0.38
0.47
0.60
0.64
0.40
0.42
0.51
F.1 (L.)
0.64
0.65
0.38
0.40
0.52
0.65
0.70
0.42
0.44
0.55
F.2 (M.)
0.69
0.70
0.46
0.48
0.58
0.70
0.76
0.51
0.53
0.62
F.3 (H.)
0.76
0.75
0.49
0.51
0.63
0.76
0.80
0.53
0.54
0.66
Mean
0.67
0.68
0.42
0.44
===
0.68
0.73
0.47
0.48
===
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.01 ,
B=0.01 ,
AxB=0.01
A=0.01 ,
B=0.01 ,
AxB=0.01
Second cut
F.0 (0.0)
0.65
0.65
0.38
0.49
0.54
0.66
0.60
.42
0.47
0.56
F.1 (L.)
0.69
0.73
0.42
0.44
0.57
0.70
0.78
0.48
0.49
0.61
F.2 (M.)
0.74
0.76
0.50
0.53
0.63
0.75
0.83
0.53
0.57
0.67
F.3 (H.)
0.82
0.82
0.54
0.55
0.68
0.82
0.87
0.58
0.59
0.71
Mean
0.72
0.74
0.46
0.50
===
0.73
0.79
0.50
0.53
===
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.01 ,
B=0.01 ,
AxB=0.01
A=0.01 ,
B=0.01 ,
AxB=0.01
Third cut
F.0 (0.0)
0.52
0.50
0.33
0.36
0.43
0.65
0.69
0.43
0.47
0.56
F.1 (L.)
0.56
0.54
0.37
0.39
0.47
0.69
0.75
0.47
0.49
0.60
F.2 (M.)
0.61
0.59
0.43
0.44
0.52
0.74
0.82
0.55
0.57
0.67
F.3 (H.)
0.68
0.65
0.47
0.49
0.57
0.82
0.87
0.58
0.60
0.72
Mean
0.59
0.57
0.40
0.42
===
0.73
0.78
0.51
0.53
===
LS D. at 5%
for
A=0.01 ,
B=0.01 ,
AxB=0.01
A=0.01 ,
B=0.01 ,
AxB=0.01
F.0=Control
C.t. =Cyamopsis tetragonolobe
A= Winter forage grasses
F.1=Fertilization low
V.s. =Vigna sinensis
B= Fertilization
levels
F.2=Fertilization medium
P.t. =Pennisetum typhoides
A×B = Winter forage ×
Fertilization levels
F.3=Fertilization high
S.b. =Sorghum bicolor
H.v. =Hordeum vulgare
T.a. =Trifolium alexandrinum
Results in table (8) showed that, the cultivation
of Hordeum vulgare after Vigna sinensis gave a
significant increase in the percentage of crude protein
content, as it was given in the first cut (2.57 & 2.92
%), in the second cut (2.59 & 2.94 %) and the third cut
(2.41 & 2.98 %) compared to the Hordeum vulgare
grown after Cyamopsis tetragonolobe, which was
given in the first cut (2.48 & 2.69 %), in the second
cut (2.51 & 2.72 %) and in the third cut (2.25 & 2.78
%) during the two study seasons (2018/2019 &
2019/2020) respectively, while the Trifolium
alexandrinum grown after Sorghum bicolor recorded
the highest significant increase in the percentage of
crude protein content, as it was given in the first cut
(19.69 & 20.92 %), in the second cut ( 19.71&21.17
%) and in the third cut (19.04&21.42 %) compared to
Trifolium alexandrinum grown after Pennisetum
typhoides, which was given in the first cut
(19.53&20.29 %), in the second cut (19.58&20.75 %)
and in the third cut (18.79 & 20.83 %) during the two
study seasons (2018/2019 & 2019/2020) respectively.
20 M. A. Osman et al .
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, Vol. 60 (1) 2022
Table 8. Potentiality assessment of fertilization rates on crude protein content (%) of winter forage grasses plants
during the first and second seasons (2018/2019 & 2019/2020).
Seasons
Treatments
First season (2018/2019)
Second season (2019/2020)
H.v
After
C.t
H.v
After
V.s
T.a
After
P.t
T.a
After
S.b
Mean
H.v
After
C.t
H.v
After
V.s
T.a
After
P.t
T.a
After
S.b
Mean
First cut
F.0 (0.0)
2.37
2.43
19.33
19.50
10.91
2.43
2.57
19.67
20.00
11.17
F.1 (L.)
2.47
2.57
19.50
19.70
11.06
2.60
2.77
20.00
20.67
11.51
F.2 (M.)
2.53
2.60
19.57
19.73
11.11
2.83
2.90
20.50
21.33
11.89
F.3 (H.)
2.57
2.67
19.73
19.83
11.20
2.90
3.43
21.00
21.67
12.25
Mean
2.48
2.57
19.53
19.69
-----
2.69
2.92
20.29
20.92
-----
LS D. at 5% for
A=0.06
B=0.05
AxB=0.1
A=0.33
B=0.28
AxB=0.55
Second cut
F.0 (0.0)
2.39
2.45
19.38
19.52
10.94
2.47
2.57
20.00
20.33
11.34
F.1 (L.)
2.47
2.60
19.59
19.72
11.09
2.63
2.77
20.67
21.00
11.77
F.2 (M.)
2.55
2.63
19.62
19.75
11.14
2.87
2.97
21.00
21.67
12.13
F.3 (H.)
2.61
2.69
19.72
19.85
11.22
2.90
3.47
21.33
21.67
12.34
Mean
2.51
2.59
19.58
19.71
-----
2.72
2.94
20.75
21.17
-----
LS D. at 5% for
A=0.01
B=0.01
AxB=0.01
A=0.27
B=0.37
AxB=0.74
Third cut
F.0 (0.0)
2.12
2.34
18.23
18.67
10.34
2.50
2.63
20.33
20.67
11.53
F.1 (L.)
2.23
2.39
18.23
18.93
10.56
2.67
2.77
20.67
21.33
11.86
F.2 (M.)
2.30
2.41
18.97
19.13
10.70
2.93
3.00
21.00
21.67
12.15
F.3 (H.)
2.37
2.48
19.27
19.43
10.89
3.00
3.50
21.33
22.00
12.46
Mean
2.25
2.41
18.79
19.04
-----
2.78
2.98
20.83
21.42
-----
LS D. at 5% for
A=0.09
B=0.10
AxB=0.21
A=0.79
B=0.41
AxB=0.82
F.0=Control
C.t. =Cyamopsis tetragonolobe
A= Winter forage grasses
F.1=Fertilization low
V.s. =Vigna sinensis
B= Fertilization
levels
F.2=Fertilization medium
P.t. =Pennisetum typhoides
A×B = Winter forage ×
Fertilization levels
F.3=Fertilization high
S.b. =Sorghum bicolor
H.v. =Hordeum vulgare
T.a. =Trifolium alexandrinum
Data in table (8) showed that, all rates of
NPK fertilization were high compound fertilization
rates (90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.), medium compound
fertilization rates (60:40:20 kg NPK/fed.) and low
compound fertilization rates (30:20:10 kg NPK/fed.)
a significant increase in the percentage of crude
protein content, as the high rate of fertilization gave a
significant increase in the percentage of crude protein
content, as it was given in the first cut (11.20 & 12.25
%), in the second cut ( 11.25 & 12.34 %) and in the
third cut (10.89 & 12.46 %) followed by the medium
rate of fertilization, which was given in the
first cut (11.11 & 11.89 %), in the second cut (11.14
& 12.13 %) and in the third cut (10.70 & 12.15 %)
then the low rate of fertilization in the first cut (11.06
& 11.51 %), in the second cut (11.09 & 11.77 %) and
in the third cut (10.56 & 11.86 %) compared to the
unfertilized control plants, which gave in the first cut
(10.91 & 11.17 %), in the second cut (10.94 & 11.34
%) and in the third cut (10.34 & 11.53 %) in both
seasons study (2018/2019 & 2019/2020) respectively.
In addition to the results in table (8) showed
that, the plants (Trifolium alexandrinum grown after
Sorghum bicolor) and fertilized at a high compound
fertilization rates (90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.) had a
significant increase in the percentage of crude protein
content as it was given in the first cut (19.83 & 21.67
%), in the second cut (19.85 & 21.67 %) and in the
third cut (19.43 & 22.00 %). The least significant
increase in the percentage of crude protein content
was the cultivation of Hordeum vulgare after
Cyamopsis tetragonolobe, which was given in the first
Potentiality Assessment of Annual Forage Crops and Fertilization in Allway Pattern. 21
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, Vol. 60 (1) 2022
cut (2.47 &2.60 %), in the second cut (2.47&2.63 %)
and in the third cut (2.23&2.67 %) compared to the
unfertilized control plants in both seasons (2018/2019
& 2019/2020), this trend was true in the three cuts in
the two seasons, the other treatments occupied on
intermediate position between the abovementioned
treatments in the two seasons. These results were in
agreement with Awasthi and Suraj (1983) on barley,
Dwivedi et.al., (2021) on barley and Muhammad
et.al., (2021) on clover.
Carbohydrates content (%):
The results in table (9) showed that, the
cultivation of Hordeum vulgare after Vigna sinensis
gave the highest significant increase in the percentage
of total carbohydrate content as it was given in the first
cut (13.25 & 13.91 %), the second cut (13.25 & 13.91
%) and the third cut ( 13.25 & 13.91 %) followed by
the Hordeum vulgare grown after Cyamopsis
tetragonolobe, which was given in the first cut (13.25
& 13.91 %), the second cut (13.25 & 13.91 %) and the
third cut (13.25&13.91 %). The least significant of
them was the significant increase of Trifolium
alexandrinum grown after Sorghum bicolor as it was
given in the first cut (13.25 & 13.91 %), the second
cut (13.25 & 13.91 %) and the third cut (13.25 & 13.91
%) during the two growing seasons (2018/2019 &
2019/2020) respectively.
Data in table (9) showed that, all levels of NPK
fertilization were high compound fertilization rates
(90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.), medium compound
fertilization rates (60:40:20 kg NPK/fed.) and low
compound fertilization levels (30:20:10 kg NPK/fed.),
there was no significant increase in the percentage of
total carbohydrate content compared to the control
plants that were not fertilized in both seasons
(2018/2019 & 2019/2020).
Table 9. Potentiality assessment of fertilization rates on carbohydrates content (%) of winter forage grasses plants
during the first and second seasons (2018/2019&2019/2020).
Seasons
Treatments
First season (2018/2019)
Second season (2019/2020)
H.v
After
C.t
H.v
After
V.s
T.a
After
P.t
T.a
After
S.b
Mean
H.v
After
C.t
H.v
After
V.s
T.a
After
P.t
T.a
After
S.b
Mean
First cut
F.0 (0.0)
62.17
64.39
48.11
46.98
55.41
60.47
60.80
44.14
43.42
52.21
F.1 (L.)
58.78
61.95
43.79
42.58
51.80
60.66
60.60
44.00
42.93
52.05
F.2 (M.)
58.40
60.09
43.36
42.19
51.01
60.87
61.00
43.50
42.00
51.82
F.3 (H.)
58.31
59.71
42.29
41.91
50.56
61.05
60.37
43.17
42.30
51.72
Mean
59.42
61.56
44.39
43.41
-----
60.79
60.69
43.70
42.64
-----
LS D. at 5% for
A=0.48 ,
B=0.59 ,
AxB=1.18
A=0.89 ,
B=0. 36 ,
AxB=0.72
Second cut
F.0 (0.0)
61.24
62.01
46.47
45.75
53.87
60.10
60.36
43.09
42.36
51.48
F.1 (L.)
57.93
60.55
42.44
41.15
50.52
60.17
60.13
42.30
42.08
51.17
F.2 (M.)
57.34
58.61
42.05
40.99
49.75
60.17
60.24
42.22
41.41
51.01
F.3 (H.)
56.83
58.95
41.09
40.71
49.42
60.39
60.09
41.98
41.57
51.01
Mean
58.34
60.06
43.01
42.15
-----
60.21
60.21
42.40
41.85
-----
LS D. at 5% for
A=0.16 ,
B=0.13 ,
AxB=0.27
A=0.43 ,
B=0.40 ,
AxB=0.80
Third cut
F.0 (0.0)
60.15
61.35
46.45
45.46
53.35
59.84
60.16
42.51
41.92
51.11
F.1 (L.)
56.87
59.84
41.99
40.70
49.85
59.68
60.07
42.05
41.92
50.77
F.2 (M.)
56.03
57.98
41.41
40.35
48.94
59.53
59.77
41.66
40.95
50.48
F.3 (H.)
55.60
57.66
40.24
39.91
48.36
59.52
59.39
41.58
40.60
50.27
Mean
57.16
59.21
42.53
41.60
-----
59.65
59.85
41.95
41.19
-----
LS D. at 5% for
A=0.19 ,
B=0.19 ,
AxB=0.37
A=0.53 ,
B=0.45 ,
AxB=0.90
F.0=Control
C.t. =Cyamopsis tetragonolobe
A= Winter forage grasses
F.1=Fertilization low
V.s. =Vigna sinensis
B= Fertilization
levels
F.2=Fertilization medium
P.t. =Pennisetum typhoides
A×B = Winter forage ×
Fertilization levels
F.3=Fertilization high
S.b. =Sorghum bicolor
H.v. =Hordeum vulgare
T.a. =Trifolium alexandrinum
22 M. A. Osman et al .
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, Vol. 60 (1) 2022
In addition to the results in table (9) showed
that, the plants (Hordeum vulgare grown after
Cyamopsis tetragonolobe and Vigna sinensis as well
as Trifolium alexandrinum grown after Pennisetum
typhoides and Sorghum bicolor) and fertilized at the
three rates under study. There was no increase in the
percentage of total carbohydrate content compared to
control during the two study seasons (2018/2019 &
2019/2020), this trend was true in the three cuts in the
two seasons, the other treatments occupied on
intermediate position between the abovementioned
treatments in the two seasons. These results were in
agreement with Awasthi and Suraj (1983) on barley,
Dwivedi et.al., (2021) on barley and Muhammad
et.al., (2021) on clover.
Conclusion
Results showed, a clear superiority of the applied
treatment with a high levels of combined fertilizer
(90:60:30 kg NPK/fed.) for all summer and winter
forage grasses in the characteristics of the contents of
fresh and dry forage crop ton/fed. during the two
growing seasons with some minor differences, the
increase was significant with successive leguminous
forage grasses after forage grasses compared to
cultivation of forage grasses after leguminous forage
crops with the use of a high rate of complete fertilizer
of (N:P:K).
Results also showed the superiority of the
same treatment in the parameters of the chemical
content of the forage (the percentage of protein and
carbohydrate content).
Results were in agreement with Awasthi and
Suraj (1983) on barley, Lal and Shaik (2000) on
sudan grass, Abd El-Aziz (2002) on pearl millet,
Ammaji and Suryamarayoma (2003) on sudan
grass, Ronald and Robert (2005) on sudan grass,
Ayub et.al., (2009) on pearl millet, Sajid et.al.,
(2009) on guar, Obeng et.al., (2012) on pearl millet
and Hamdan and Fezaa (2017) on sudan grass,
Zaghloul et.al., (2017) on cowpea, Dwivedi et.al.,
(2021) on barley and Muhammad et.al., (2021) on
berseem.
References
A.O.A.C. (1990): Official methods of analysis of
association of official agriculture chemists.
Washington, D. C., 10th ed.
Abd El-Aziz, T.K. (2002): Farmyard manure and
nitrogen application effect on forage yield and
quality of pearl millet grown in sand soil. Minia J.
of Agric. Res. Develop., 22(3): 199-220.
Adams C.B. , K.J. Boote, R.
Shrestha, J.MacMillan, P.O. Hinson
and C.Trostle (2020): Growth stages and
developmental patterns of guar. Agronomy
Journal, 17 (8): 325-351.
Ammaji, P. and K. Suryamarayoma (2003):
Response of fodder sorghum varieties to different
levels of nitrogen. J. of Res. ANGRAU,31(2):109-
112.
Awasthi, U.D. and Bhan, Suraj. (1983): Responce
of barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) to nitrogen under
moisture-scars conditions. Indian Journal of
Agronomy 38 (3):392-395.
Ayub, M.; M.A. Nadeem; M. Tahir; M. Ibrahim1
and M.N. Aslam (2009): Effect of nitrogen
application and harvesting intervals on forage
yield and quality of pearl millet (Pennisetum
americanum, L.). Pakistan Journal of Life and
Social Sciences, 7(2): 185-189.
Black, C.D., D.O. Evans, L.E. Ensminger, J.L.
White, F.E. Clark and R.C. Dinauer (1982):
Methods of soil analysis part 2. chemical and
microbiological properties 2nd ed. soil., Soc. of
am. Inc. publ., madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.
Dwivedi V.P., P. Tripathi, S. K. Chaubey and R.
Pyare (2021): Fodder-cum-feed potential of
barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) as influenced by
varieties, nitrogen and cutting managements. Agri
ways 9 (1) : 53-56.
Hamdan, M.I. and A.T. Fezaa (2017): The
contribution of each cutting in green and dry
matter influence by nitrogen and potassium in
sorghum. Iraq Journal of Agriculture, 22 (1): 1-
13.
Jackson, M.L. (1973): Soil Chemical Analysis.
Prentice-Hall of Indian Private, New Delhi.
Lal, B.S. and M. Shaik (2000): Nutrient enrichment
effect of parental lines on crop growth, yield
components and yield of seed parent AKMS-14 A
for CSH-14 sorghum hybrid seed production. Crop
Res. Hisar, 20 (1): 25-28.
Mansoor H.N. and B.A. Jeber (2020): Effect of
cutting dates and different levels of nitrogen on the
yield of green feed and grain yield for barley crop
(Hordeum vulgare L.). Plant Archives, 20 (1):
1417-1422
Muhammad R.G., S.A. Rizvi, W. Naseem, F.
Ahmad, G. Muhammad, A. Ali and I. Ahmad
(2021): Optimizing cutting intervals to exploit
forage and seed yield potency of clover cultivars.
Pak. Journal of Agricultural Science. 58 (3): 813-
819.
Obeng E., E.C. , B.P. Singh, R. Ward1, L.M.
Nyochembeng and D. A. Mays (2012): Growth
and grain yield of pearl millet (Pennisetum
glaucum) genotypes at different levels of nitrogen
fertilization in the southeastern United States.
Journal of Agricultural Science. 4 (12): 155-163.
Ronald P. B. and C. R. Robert (2005): Influence of
nitrogen fertilization on multi-cut forage
sorghum–Sudan grass yield and nitrogen use,
doi:10 (1): 2134.
Sajid, M.; I. Ahmed and A. Rab (2009): Effect of
nitrogen levels on the yield and yield component
of guar gum (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba).
Potentiality Assessment of Annual Forage Crops and Fertilization in Allway Pattern. 23
Annals of Agric. Sci., Moshtohor, Vol. 60 (1) 2022
American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture, 3 (1): 29-32.
Snedecor, G.W. and W.G., Corchran (1982).
Statistical methods The Iowa State Univ. Press.
Amers. Iowa, USA. 507 pp.
Zaghloul R.A., H.E. Abou-Aly, H.M. Abdel-
Rahman and M.A. Hassan (2017): Application
of biofertilization and biological control for
cowpea production. Annals of Agric. Sci.,
Moshtohor. 55 (2): 271 –286.
-
N:P:K
NPK
NPKNPK
NPK
N:P:K
NPK
