Abstract
Abstract Maize and amaranth forages, produced during the wet season, have the potential to bridge the gap in forage supply to ruminants during the dry season in Nigeria. In two growing seasons (2006 and 2007), effects of intercropping and fertilizer application on dry matter (DM) yield and chemical composition of forages, and land use efficiency, were studied in two experiments. The digestibility of sun‐dried or ensiled maize, amaranth or maize–amaranth mixtures was measured using West African dwarf sheep in a third experiment. Maize showed a higher response to fertilizer application than amaranth or maize–amaranth mixtures. With fertilizer application, DM yield varied significantly ( P < 0·05) between species and intercropped mixtures. Dry matter yield ranged from 7·1 (amaranth) to 12·6 t ha −1 (maize) in 2006 and 6·9 (amaranth) to 11·3 t ha −1 (70:30 maize–amaranth population mixture) in 2007. Crude protein (CP) concentration of whole plants ranged from 99·0 (maize) to 227·0 g kg −1 DM (amaranth). Dry matter digestibility values of sun‐dried maize, sun‐dried maize:amaranth 50:50 mixture, sun‐dried amaranth, ensiled maize, ensiled maize:amaranth 50:50 mixture and ensiled amaranth were 0·718, 0·607, 0·573, 0·737, 0·553 and 0·526 respectively. Intercropping increased forage yield and land use efficiency compared to amaranth but had no yield advantage over maize. Although DM digestibility of maize was higher than that of amaranth or the maize:amaranth mixture, digestible CP yield ha −1 was higher with amaranth in the cropping mixture, showing that amaranth could complement maize in systems where CP is the limiting factor to livestock production.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 12
Claim · model-written summary
Maize responded more to fertilizer than amaranth or mixtures.
- Treatment
- fertilizer applicatione0
- Outcome
- responsee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- amaranth or maize–amaranth mixturese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize showed a higher response to fertilizer application than amaranth or maize–amaranth mixtures”
Claim · model-written summary
With fertilizer, dry matter yield differed among species and mixtures.
- Taxon
- maize and amaranth
.JPG?width=60)
Amaranthus caudatus
Zea mayst0 - Treatment
- fertilizer applicatione0
- Outcome
- DM yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.JPG?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“With fertilizer application, DM yield varied significantly ( P < 0·05) between species and intercropped mixtures”
t0“maize and amaranth”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2006, amaranth dry matter yield was 7·1 t ha −1.
- Taxon
- amaranthAmaranthus caudatuse0
- Outcome
- Dry matter yielde0
- Value
- 7·1e0
- Qualifier
- 2006e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dry matter yield ranged from 7·1 (amaranth) to 12·6 t ha −1 (maize) in 2006”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2006, maize dry matter yield was 12·6 t ha −1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dry matter yield ranged from 7·1 (amaranth) to 12·6 t ha −1 (maize) in 2006”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2007, amaranth dry matter yield was 6·9 t ha −1.
- Taxon
- amaranthAmaranthus caudatuse0
- Outcome
- Dry matter yielde1
- Value
- 6·9e0
- Qualifier
- 2007e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“6·9 (amaranth) to 11·3 t ha −1 (70:30 maize–amaranth population mixture) in 2007”
e1“Dry matter yield ranged”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2007, the 70:30 maize–amaranth mixture yielded 11·3 t ha −1.
- Taxon
- maize–amaranthAmaranthus caudatusZea mayse0
- Material
- 70:30 maize–amaranth population mixturee0
- Outcome
- Dry matter yielde1
- Value
- 11·3 t ha −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“6·9 (amaranth) to 11·3 t ha −1 (70:30 maize–amaranth population mixture) in 2007”
e1“Dry matter yield ranged”
Claim · model-written summary
Whole maize plants had crude protein concentration of 99·0 g kg −1 DM.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crude protein (CP) concentration of whole plants ranged from 99·0 (maize) to 227·0 g kg −1 DM (amaranth)”
Claim · model-written summary
Whole amaranth plants had crude protein concentration of 227·0 g kg −1 DM.
- Taxon
- amaranthAmaranthus caudatuse0
- Organ / stage
- whole plantse0
- Outcome
- Crude protein (CP) concentratione0
- Value
- 227·0 g kg −1 DMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crude protein (CP) concentration of whole plants ranged from 99·0 (maize) to 227·0 g kg −1 DM (amaranth)”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased forage yield and land use efficiency versus amaranth.
- Taxon
- amaranthAmaranthus caudatuse0
- Treatment
- Intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- forage yield and land use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- amaranthe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping increased forage yield and land use efficiency compared to amaranth”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping had no yield advantage over maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“had no yield advantage over maize”
e1“Intercropping increased forage yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize dry matter digestibility exceeded amaranth and mixture digestibility.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DM digestibility of maize was higher than that of amaranth or the maize:amaranth mixture”
Claim · model-written summary
Amaranth in the mixture gave higher digestible crude protein yield per hectare.
- Taxon
- amaranthAmaranthus caudatuse0
- Outcome
- digestible CP yield ha −1e0
- Direction
- highere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“digestible CP yield ha −1 was higher with amaranth in the cropping mixture”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
220 papers in the same direction as this paper · 613 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 papers →intercropping · yield · Amaranthus caudatus (amaranth)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.