AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightThe se results show thatincreasing the HV ratio in the mixture has positive effects on the yield and quality, whereas ra ising the rowspacing has adverse effects on the forage values .
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
This study was conducted at the Middle Kizilirmak basin of Turkey (40°20 ′N, 33°58 ′E, elevation 550 m),during the 2011 2012 and 2012 2013 growing seasons, to determine the effects of different mixture ratios (soleHungarian vetch (HV), annual ryegrass (AR); 80%HV+20%AR, 60%HV+40%AR, 40%HV+60%AR, and20%HV+80%AR) and row spacing s (20, 30 , and 40 cm) on the forage yield and quality of the HV and ARintercropping system . The experiment was planned in a randomized complete block design, where a split- plotarrangement of mixture ratios was considered as the main plot with the row spacing s considered as subplots.According to the mean of 2 years, the different mixture ratios and row spacing s had a statistically significanteffect on all of the properties. At the end of the research, among the different mixture ratios and row spacinginteractions , the highest green herbag e yield (33.4 t ha 1), hay yield (7.5 t ha 1), lowest neutral detergent fiber(52.2%), and crude ash (7.8%) rates w ere obtained from the 60%HV+40%AR mixture and 30 -cm row spacinginteraction. The highest crude protein (CP) rate (17%), CP yield (1156 kg ha 1) and ADF (39.5%) ratios wereobtained from the 80%HV+20%AR mixture and 30 -cm row spacing interaction. The highest RFV value (107)was obtained from the 80%HV+20%AR mixture and 20 -cm row spacing interaction. The se results show thatincreasing the HV ratio in the mixture has positive effects on the yield and quality, whereas ra ising the rowspacing has adverse effects on the forage values . Therefore, 80%HV+20%AR or 60%HV+4 0%AR with a 30 -cm row spacing interaction can be suggested for forage production in an HV and AR intercropping system.