Abstract
Maize forage is poor in protein content which shows its low quality and nutritive value. Regarding to high feed costs of protein supplementations, legumes can be used in livestock nutrition for their high protein content and, thus, providing cost savings. Since legumes have low dry matter yield, acceptable forage yield and quality can obtained from intercropping cereals and legumes compared with their sole crops. In this study, maize (Zea mays L.) and climbing bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) were intercropped in different sowing densities and their monocropping equivalents were tested to determine the best intercropping system on forage yield and quality. Maize was cultivated alone (75 000 plants ha-1) and intercropped with bean as follows: 75 000 plants ha-1 of maize and 37 500 plants ha-1 of bean (MB1), 75 000 plants ha-1 of maize and 50 000 plants ha-1 of bean (MB2) and 75 000 plants ha-1 of maize and 75 000 plants ha-1 of bean (MB3), in rows alternating with maize. The highest dry matter yield was produced by MB3 (20.9 t ha-1), and the lowest by maize (16.9 t ha-1). All intercropped systems had higher crude protein contents, MB1 (92 g kg-1 DM), MB2 (99 g kg-1 DM) and MB3 (110 g kg-1 DM), than the maize (77 g kg-1 DM). Intercropping of maize with bean reduced neutral and acid detergent fiber, resulting in increased forage digestibility. Therefore, maize intercropping with bean could substantially increase forage quantity and quality, and decrease requirements for protein supplements as compared with maize.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
MB3 intercropping gave the highest forage dry matter yield, compared with sole maize.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The highest dry matter yield was produced by MB3 (20.9 t ha-1), and the lowest by maize (16.9 t ha-1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole maize gave the lowest forage dry matter yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The highest dry matter yield was produced by MB3 (20.9 t ha-1), and the lowest by maize (16.9 t ha-1)”
Claim · model-written summary
MB1 intercropping had higher crude protein content than sole maize.
- Treatment
- MB1e2
- Outcome
- crude protein contentse2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 92 g kg-1 DMe2
- Qualifier
- 77 g kg-1 DMe2
- Comparator
- maizee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“All intercropped systems had higher crude protein contents, MB1 (92 g kg-1 DM), MB2 (99 g kg-1 DM) and MB3 (110 g kg-1 DM), than the maize (77 g kg-1 DM)”
Claim · model-written summary
MB2 intercropping had higher crude protein content than sole maize.
- Treatment
- MB2e2
- Outcome
- crude protein contentse2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 99 g kg-1 DMe2
- Qualifier
- 77 g kg-1 DMe2
- Comparator
- maizee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“All intercropped systems had higher crude protein contents, MB1 (92 g kg-1 DM), MB2 (99 g kg-1 DM) and MB3 (110 g kg-1 DM), than the maize (77 g kg-1 DM)”
Claim · model-written summary
MB3 intercropping had higher crude protein content than sole maize.
- Treatment
- MB3e2
- Outcome
- crude protein contentse2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 110 g kg-1 DMe2
- Qualifier
- 77 g kg-1 DMe2
- Comparator
- maizee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“All intercropped systems had higher crude protein contents, MB1 (92 g kg-1 DM), MB2 (99 g kg-1 DM) and MB3 (110 g kg-1 DM), than the maize (77 g kg-1 DM)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-bean intercropping reduced neutral and acid detergent fiber.
- Treatment
- Intercropping of maize with beane3
- Outcome
- neutral and acid detergent fibere3
- Direction
- reducede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Intercropping of maize with bean reduced neutral and acid detergent fiber, resulting in increased forage digestibility”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-bean intercropping increased forage digestibility.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Intercropping of maize with bean reduced neutral and acid detergent fiber, resulting in increased forage digestibility”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend maize-bean intercropping to decrease requirements for protein supplements.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“maize intercropping with bean could substantially increase forage quantity and quality, and decrease requirements for protein supplements as compared with maize”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 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.