Abstract: A field experiment was conducted to determine the productivity of forage oat (Avena sativa L.) under different sowing methods and sources of nitrogen ...
American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 14 (10): 1035-1040, 2014 ISSN 1818-6769 © IDOSI Publications, 2014 DOI: 10.5829/idosi.aejaes.2014.14.10.12421
Economic and Sustainable Forage Oat (Avena sativa L.) Production as Influenced by Different Sowing Techniques and Sources of Nitrogen Asif Iqbal, Muhammad Aamir Iqbal, Faisal Nabeel, Haroon Zaman Khan, Nadeem Akbar and Rana Nadeem Abbas Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan Abstract: A field experiment was conducted to determine the productivity of forage oat (Avena sativa L.) under different sowing methods and sources of nitrogen at Agronomic Research Area, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad Pakistan, during 2011-12. The experiment was laid out in split plot design using three replications. The net plot size was 6 m x 1.8 m. Main plot treatments were comprised of sowing methods (S1=Broadcast: S2=Line sowing in 30 cm apart rows), whereas sub plots included different sources of nitrogen (T1=100% N from Urea; T2=100% N from Poultry Manure; T 3=100% N from Farmyard Manure; T 4=50% N from Urea + 50% N from Poultry Manure; T5=50% N from Urea + 50% N from Farmyard Manure; T6=50% N from Poultry Manure + 50% N from Farmyard Manure). The maximum green forage yield of 51.16 tons ha 1 was recorded in those plots where the crop was sown in 30 cm apart lines and where source of nitrogen was 100% urea (S2T 1). This treatment combination also lead to significantly higher plant height (140.33 cm), leaf area per plant (142.97 cm2) and dry matter yield (8.9 tons ha 1) as well as better quality forage was produced with the highest crude protein percentage (10.76 %). The net profit of Rs. 123262 ha 1 against the total expenditure of Rs. 68599 ha 1 was also given by S2T1 (100% N from urea in line sowing) and it was followed by application of 50 % nitrogen from urea and 50 % from poultry manure (S2T5). Key words: Forage oat
Inorganic urea
Organic sources
INTRODUCTION In agriculture the significance of fodder crops needs no emphasis due to the fact that the livestock needs nutritious and regular fodder availability to meet the demand of milk, meat, butter and other by- products as per human demands [1]. In Pakistan the total cropped area is approximately 21.85 million hectares and out of this 2.31 million hectares are under fodder crops, harvesting about 51.92 million tons of fodder [2] with an average forage yield of 22.5 t ha 1 [3]. This average forage yield is very low which results in under nutrition of livestock and ultimately they give unsatisfactory production [4]. One of the ways to fulfill the yield gap is to determine the nutritional requirements of fodder crops [5] in order to increase their yield and quality as plant nutrition affects the protein contents of forage crop [6]. Oat (Avena sativa L.) belongs to the Poaceae family and is an important Rabi fodder crop in Pakistan both under irrigated and rain-fed conditions. It has the
Sowing methods
Yield and quality
maximum potential in temperate and sub-tropical conditions [7]. There are many reasons which lead to the low yield of forage oat. One of the important reasons is the improper sowing method [8]. As the traditional method of sowing of crops is to broadcast the seed, which results in uneven distribution and low germination [9] due to this fact many seeds remain on the soil surface where there is inadequate supply of water to initiate the first step of germination i.e. water imbibition. Another reason of low forage oat yield is diminished fertility status of cultivated soils; especially nitrogen is deficient in the cultivated soils of the world [10]. In Pakistan inappropriate supplementation of fertilizers especially of nitrogen contributes to the low forage oat yield [11]. Another factor which contributes to low yield is low fertilizer use efficiency (FUE) [12] as no organic supplement is added to the soil. Increasing prices of inorganic fertilizers in Pakistan is making difficult for the farmers to fulfill the recommended nutrient dose of crops which lead to lower yields [13]. There is a need to advise a unique way that
Corresponding Author: Muhammad Aamir Iqbal, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
1035
Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 14 (10): 1035-1040, 2014
would neither alter yields in agriculture nor would create environmental hazards. An approach to overcome this problem is to apply manageable doses of organic fertilizers with inorganic fertilizers that may reduce leaching of excessive inorganic fertilizers [14] and may recondition the soil too and thus going for sustainable approaches in agriculture as applying organic manures such as farmyard manure and poultry manure not only increase organic matter in soil but also help in holding nutrients and water in the soil that would otherwise leach down and would be unavailable to the growing plants. This increased nitrogen level in water table causes diseases in mankind [15]. Therefore considering the above facts and actualities, the present experiment was planned with dual objectives of determining the better sowing method as well as source of nitrogen (organic, inorganic) to enhance the yield and quality of forage oat economically and on sustainable basis. MATERIALS AND METHODS The experiment was executed at Agronomic Research Area, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, during 201112. The experimental site was situated by 73° 06' E, 31° 26' N and at altitude of 184.4 m above sea level with semi-arid climate. Before sowing of crop, experimental soil was analyzed for physico-chemical properties as shown in Table 1. The experiment consisted of twelve treatments of sowing methods and organic and inorganic sources of nitrogen alone and in combinations, which were laid out in split plot design with three replications (Table 1). A net plot size of 1.8 × 6 m was sustained for each treatment. Different treatment combinations were S1T1 (100% N from urea in broadcast method); S1T2 (100% N from poultry manure in broadcast method); S1T3 (100% N from farmyard manure in broadcast method); S1T4 (50% N from urea + 50% N from poultry manure in broadcast method); S1T 5 (50% N from urea + 50% N from farmyard manure in broadcast method); S1T6 (50% N from poultry manure + 50% N from farmyard manure in broadcast method); S2T1 (100% N from urea in line sowing); S2T2 (100% N from poultry manure in line sowing); S2T3 (100% N from farmyard manure in line sowing); S2T4 (50% N from urea + 50% N from poultry manure in line sowing); S2T5 (50% N from urea + 50% N from farmyard manure in line sowing); S2T6 (50% N from poultry manure + 50% N from farmyard manure in line sowing). Forage oat was sown in 30 cm apart rows with single row hand drill and with broadcast method using the seed rate of 75 kg ha 1. Full dose of well-rotted farmyard
Table 1: Pre-sowing physico-chemical analysis of experimental soil from samples taken at 30 cm and 60 cm depth Characteristics
Values
Mechanical analysis Sand % Silt % Clay % Textural class
30 cm depth 60 18 22 Sandy clay loam
60 cm depth 58 19.2 22.8 Sandy clay loam
Chemical analysis pH EC (dSm 1) Organic matter (%) Total Nitrogen (%) Available Nitrogen (ppm) Available potassium (ppm)
7.9 1.51 0.69 0.047 6.8 115
8 1.53 0.65 0.053 6.3 121
manure and poultry manure were added fifteen days before sowing and thoroughly mixed in the soil of respective plots according to the layout. Similarly full dose of phosphorus and half dose of nitrogen were added in the soil as urea and single super phosphate in the respective plots before sowing and the remaining half nitrogen at the time of first irrigation. All other agronomic considerations were kept constant for all the treatments. Statistical Analysis: Data collected on all parameters were analyzed statistically by using MSTAT-C computer software package [16]. Least significance difference (LSD) test at 5% probability level was applied to compare the treatments means [17]. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The data presented in Table 2 indicated that the main as well as the interactive effect of sowing methods and different sources of nitrogen on plant height was significant. The maximum plant height (140.33 cm) was attained in the S2T1 treatment where 100% nitrogen was applied through urea and sowing method adopted was line sowing. It was followed by S2T4 treatment where 50% N was applied from urea + 50% N from poultry manure and crop was line sown giving plant height of 126.00 cm. The minimum plant height (88.60 cm) was recorded in S1T6 where 50% N from poultry manure + 50% N from farmyard manure were applied and sowing method used was broadcast. These results are in confirmation with Iqbal et al. [18] and Arshad and Ranamukhaarachchi [19], who stated that nitrogen supplied as urea was not only economical but also significantly increased vegetative growth. As far as number of tillers m 2 were concerned the main as well as interactive effect of different sowing methods on number of tillers m 2 was significant.
1036
Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 14 (10): 1035-1040, 2014 Table 2: Effect of sowing methods and different sources of nitrogen on plant height, number of tillers, fresh weight, dry weight, leaf area per plant, green forage yield and dry matter yield of forage oat (Avena sativa L.) Treatments
Fresh weight tiller
(g)
Dry weight tiller
(g)
Leaf area plant
Green forage yield (t ha 1)
Plant height cm
No. of tiller m2
S1 S2
102.16 B 113.61 A
174.56 B 212.67 A
20.43 B 26.04 A
3.6317 B 4.6083 A
102.34 B 119.12 A
28.987 B 34.352 A
LSD0.05
1.541
26.573
1.69
0.2032
5.5823
2.3817
1
1
1
Dry matter yield (t ha 1)
Main plots 5.19 B 6.11 A
Subplots T1
131.33 A
260.63 A
31.70 A
5.5117 A
130.10 A
46.54 A
8.09 A
T2 T3
96.33 D 96.33 D
149.50 E 178.83 D
22.16 C 15.45 E
3.9400 C 2.8900 D
106.83 CD 100.12 DE
26.99 C 22.25 D
4.80 C 4.37 C
T4 T5
120.50 B 110.17 C
208.50 B 190.00 C
27.80 B 24.16 C
4.8333 B 4.2967 C
117.28 B 110.92 BC
36.33 B 33.14 B
6.32 B 5.90 B
T6 LSD0.05
92.63 E 0.816
174.00 D 7.00
18.16 D 2.55
3.2483 D 0.394
99.12 E 6.78
24.74CD 4.42
4.43 C 0.79
S1T1 S1T2
122.33 c 94.33 g
234.67 a 134.33 d
28.7NS 19.16
4.99 NS 3.40
117.23 bc 100.40 def
41.93 b 26.16 de
7.29 b 4.65 d
S1T3 S1T4
88.33 h 115.00 d
163.67 c 192.67 b
13.63 24.80
2.61 4.31
92.07 ef 109.23 cd
21.86 e 30.16 cd
4.39 d 5.24 cd
S1T5 S1T6
104.33 e 88.60 h
175.33 c 146.67 d
21.16 15.16
3.76 2.71
103.87 cde 91.23 f
29.80 cd 23.99 de
5.30 cd 4.29 d
S2T1 S2T2
140.33 a 98.33 f
287.00 a 164.67 c
34.70 25.16
6.03 4.47
142.97 a 113.27 cd
51.16 a 27.82 de
8.90 a 4.95 d
S2T3 S2T4
104.33 e 126.00 b
194.00 b 224.33 a
17.26 30.80
3.17 5.35
108.17 cd 125.33 b
22.63 de 42.50 b
4.35 d 7.39 b
S2T5 S2T6
116.00 d 96.67 g
204.67 b 201.33 b
27.16 21.16
4.83 3.78
117.97 bc 107.00 cde
36.49 bc 25.49 de
6.51 bc 4.56 d
LSD0.05
3.564
62.75
NS
NS
14.97
8.06
1.42
Interaction
S1T 1 (100% N from urea in broadcast method); S1T2 (100% N from poultry manure in broadcast method); S T1 3(100% N from farmyard manure in broadcast method); S T1 (50% N from urea 4 + 50% N from poultry manure in broadcast method); S1T5 (50% N from urea + 50% N from farmyard manure in broadcast method); S 1T 6 (50% N from poultry manure + 50% N from farmyard manure in broadcast method); S2T1 (100% N from urea in line sowing); S2T2 (100% N from poultry manure in line sowing); S 2T 3 (100% N from farmyard manure in line sowing); S 2T 4 (50% N from urea + 50% N from poultry manure in line sowing); S2T5 (50% N from urea + 50% N from farmyard manure in line sowing); S2T 6 (50% N from poultry manure + 50% N from farmyard manure in line sowing)
The maximum number of tillers m 2 of 287, 234.67 and 224.37 were recorded in case of S2T1 (100% N from urea in line sowing), S1T1 (100% N from urea in broadcast method) and S2T4 (50% N from urea + 50% N from poultry manure in line sowing) respectively. Similar results were also reported by Chellamuthu et al. [20] and Khandaker and Islam [21], who recoded more growth and development in maize with application of 100% nitrogen from inorganic source. Regarding fresh weight per tiller the main effects of sowing methods and different sources of nitrogen on the fresh weight per tiller were significant while their interaction was non- significant. The maximum fresh weight per tiller was recorded in case of line sowing giving 26.04 g fresh weight per tiller and the minimum (20.43 g) in case of broad cast method. As far as different sources of nitrogen were concerned the maximum fresh weight per tiller (31.70) was recorded in case of those plots where nitrogen was applied 100 % from urea and it was followed by plots receiving 50 % nitrogen from urea and 50 % from poultry manure giving fresh weight of 27.80 g. The increase in fresh weight per tiller in the treatments other than control treatment with organic and inorganic fertilizers application alone and in combinations was probably due to higher number of leaves per plant, plant height and leaf area per plant. These results are in
agreement with but contrary to not in accordance with the findings of Naterchera and Salagae [22] and Sasireka et al., [23], who reported that fodder yield was increased with the application of cattle and chicken manure. Dry weight per tiller was significantly affected by sowing methods and different sources of nitrogen while their interaction was non-significant. Statistically maximum dry weight per tiller of 4.60 g was recorded in case of line sowing and minimum (3.63 g) was recorded in case of broad cast method. In case of different sources of nitrogen maximum dry weight per tiller of 5.51 g was recorded in case of those plots where source of nitrogen was 100 from urea and it was followed by the plots receiving nitrogen 50 % from urea and 50% from poultry manure giving dry weight per tiller of 2.89. The rest of treatment combinations were intermediated. These results are in agreement with Ibrahim et al. [24], who revealed that recommended dose of fertilizer on maize gave statistically the highest dry weight per plant than different combinations of fertilizer and FYM while Ayub et al. [25] reported in contradiction that maize dry matter per plant was increased with the application of poultry manure and fertilizer. The main as well as interactive effect of different sowing methods and sources of nitrogen on leaf area per plant was significant (Table 2). The maximum leaf area 1037
Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 14 (10): 1035-1040, 2014 Table 3: Effect of sowing methods and different sources of nitrogen on the quality of forage oat (Avena sativa L.) Treatments
Crude Protein (%)
Crude Fiber (%)
Total Ash (%)
Main Plots S1 S2 LSD0.05
7.52 7.69 NS
33.39 32.96 NS
12.922 12.950 NS
Sub Plots T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 LSD0.05
10.50 A 6.56 B 6.21 B 9.36 A 6.61 B 6.38 B 1.23
36.65 33.05 31.01 33.56 33.76 31.01 NS
15.60 A 12.88 C 10.18 D 14.23 B 13.63BC 11.03 D 0.98
Interaction S1T1 S1T2 S1T3 S1T4 S1T5 S1T6 S2T1 S2T2 S2T3 S2T4 S2T5 S2T6 LSD0.05
10.23 a 6.63 c 6.10 c 9.33 ab 6.46 c 6.36 c 10.76 a 6.50 c 6.33 c 9.40 ab 6.76 c 6.40 c 2.24
36.16 32.93 32.26 34.70 33.53 30.67 37.13 33.16 29.76 32.43 34.00 31.26 NS
15.53 12.73 10.16 14.36 13.56 11.16 15.66 13.03 10.20 14.20 13.70 10.90 NS
S1T1 (100% N from urea in broadcast method); S1T2 (100% N from poultry manure in broadcast method); S1T3 (100% N from farmyard manure in broadcast method); S1T4 (50% N from urea + 50% N from poultry manure in broadcast method); S1T5 (50% N from urea + 50% N from farmyard manure in broadcast method); S1T6 (50% N from poultry manure + 50% N from farmyard manure in broadcast method); S2T1 (100% N from urea in line sowing); S2T 2 (100% N from poultry manure in line sowing); S 2T 3 (100% N from farmyard manure in line sowing); S2T4 (50% N from urea + 50% N from poultry manure in line sowing); S2T5 (50% N from urea + 50% N from farmyard manure in line sowing); S2T6 (50% N from poultry manure + 50% N from farmyard manure in line sowing)
plant 1 (142.97 cm2) was recorded by the treatment S2T1 in which 100% nitrogen was fulfilled with sole application of urea (inorganic source) under line sowing method and it was statistically higher than all other interactions. It was followed by S2T4 treatment where leaf area plant 1 of 125.33 cm2 was recorded. The minimum leaf area plant 1 (91.23 cm2) was showed by treatment S1T6, i.e. 50% N from farmyard manure + 50% N from poultry manure and sown by broadcast method. The increase or decrease in leaf area per plant in different treatments may be a result of less or more number of leaves per plant and availability flow of nutrients from inorganic and organic sources of fertilizers. These results are inconsonance of the findings of Bhatti et al. [26] who reported that application
of NP fertilizer significantly affected the leaf area plant 1 of different crops. The highest green forage yield (51.16 t ha 1) was recorded in treatment S2T1 which was supplemented with 100% nitrogen from urea alone under line sowing method. It was followed by the treatment S2T4 (50% N from urea + 50% N from poultry manure in line sowing) and S1T1 (100% N from urea in broadcast method) giving fresh green forage yield of 42.5 and 41.93 t ha 1 and both were statistically at par with each other. So this suggest that for sustainable forage oat production 50 % urea and 50 % poultry manure may also be applied in case of shortage of urea. These results are quite in line with the Karki et al. [27], who reported that nitrogen produced significantly higher fodder yield of maize. Similarly Lacoo et al. [28] also reported that fodder maize produced significantly higher green fodder yield at higher dose of nitrogen while bio-fertilizers produced lower yield. Results presented in Table 2 showed that the main as well as the interactive effect of sowing methods and different sources of nitrogen significantly affected dry matter yield (t ha 1). S2T1 (100% nitrogen from urea alone under line sowing method) gave significantly more dry matter yield (8.90 t ha 1) among all other. It was followed by the treatment S2T4 incorporated with 50 % N from urea + 50% N from poultry manure under line sowing method attained dry matter yield of 7.39 t ha 1 and was statistically at par with the results obtained in treatment S1T1 (100% N from urea in broadcast method) giving dry matter yield of 7.2933 t ha 1. The above results are in accordance with Safdar [29], who stated that 100 % use of inorganic nitrogen fertilizer gave significantly higher maize yields in comparison with 50 % inorganic nitrogen and 50 % organic nitrogen. Quality Attributes: The maximum crude protein content (10.76 %) was recorded in treatment S2T1 in which 100% N was incorporated through urea alone under line sowing method and was statistically at par with treatment S1T1 (10.23 %) that was incorporated with 100% N from urea alone under broadcast method as shown in Table 3. The results are in line with the findings of Shaffer and Delgado [30], who reported that in fodder maize, crude protein percentage was increased while fiber percentage was non-significant. Results in Table 3 depicts that the main as well as inter active effect of sowing methods and different sources of nitrogen on ash contents was significant while sowing methods and the interactive effect of sowing methods and different sources of nitrogen on ash contents was non-significant. The highest ash contents (15.60 %) were recorded in case of
1038
Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 14 (10): 1035-1040, 2014 Table 4: Economic analysis on per hectare basis for each treatment combinations of forage oat (Avena sativa L.) as effected by sowing methods and different sources of nitrogen Treatments
Total Fixed Cost (Rs. ha 1)
Total Variable Cost (Rs. ha 1)
Total Expenditure (Rs. ha 1)
Gross Income (Rs. ha 1)
Net Income (Rs. ha 1)
Benefit-cost Ratio (Rs. ha 1)
S1T1 S1T2
52656 52656
13557 7366
66213 60022
157237 98111
91024 38089
2.37 1.63
S1T3 S1T4
52656 52656
10252 11430
62908 64086
82001 113111
19093 49025
1.30 1.76
S1T5 S1T6
52656 52656
13254 9829
65910 62485
111750 89988
45840 27503
1.70 1.44
S2T1 S2T2
52656 52656
15943 9749
68599 62405
191861 104336
123262 41931
2.80 1.67
S2T3 S2T4
52656 52656
12635 13813
65291 66469
84873 159375
19582 92906
1.29 2.40
S2T5 S2T6
52656 52656
15637 12212
68293 64868
136863 95613
68570 30745
2.00 1.47
S1T 1 (100% N from urea in broadcast method); S1T2 (100% N from poultry manure in broadcast method); S 1T 3 (100% N from farmyard manure in broadcast method); S 1T 4 (50% N from urea + 50% N from poultry manure in broadcast method); S1T5 (50% N from urea + 50% N from farmyard manure in broadcast method); S1T 6 (50% N from poultry manure + 50% N from farmyard manure in broadcast method); S2T1 (100% N from urea in line sowing); S2T2 (100% N from poultry manure in line sowing); S 2T 3 (100% N from farmyard manure in line sowing); S 2T 4 (50% N from urea + 50% N from poultry manure in line sowing); S2T5 (50% N from urea + 50% N from farmyard manure in line sowing); S 2T 6 (50% N from poultry manure + 50% N from farmyard manure in line sowing)
those plots where nitrogen was applied 100 % from urea. It was followed by the plots receiving 50 % nitrogen from urea and 50 % from poultry manure giving ash contents of 14.28 %. The results are in line with the findings of Ulysses [31], who reported that in fodder maize, crude protein percentage was increased with the increase in inorganic nitrogen. Economic Analysis: Economic analysis as shown in Table 4 was performed for each treatment combination. Treatment S2T1 which was supplemented with 100% N from urea under line sowing, exhibited maximum benefit-cost ratio (2.80) with net benefit of Rs. 123262, followed by treatment S2T4 (2.40), which was supplemented with 50% N from poultry manure + 50% N from urea under line sowing method with net benefit of Rs. 92906. While minimum benefit-cost ratio of 1.29 was computed in treatment S2T3 which was supplemented with 100% N from farmyard manure in line sowing method. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION So on the basis of results it is concluded that forage oat should be sown in lines and inorganic source of nitrogen (urea) should be applied than organic form (poultry and farmyard manure). This might be due to the reason that plant roots absorb majority of the nutrients from soil solution in the ionic (inorganic) form. However results of economic analysis also suggested that due to increasing prices of inorganic form of fertilizers organic and inorganic form (50 % nitrogen from urea and 50 % from Poultry manure may also be applied to forage oat sown in lines on sustainable basis. Moreover keeping in mind the environmental hazards created by inorganic fertilizers in the soil environment and in the water table ultimately leading to human health hazards. The above
results would be a step to switch to organics by provoking farmers to switch to organics by least decrease in their net profits meanwhile maintaining the soil biota and decreasing the use of inorganic fertilizers. REFERENCES 1. 2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1039
Devi, L.G., 2002. Forage yield of maize (Zea mays L.) as influenced by nitrogen levels and bio-fertilizers. Forage Res., 27: 263-266. Addo, Q.A., A. Darkwa and G.K. Ocloo, 2011. Growth analysis of component crops in a maize-soybean intercropping system as affected by time of planting and spatial arrangement. J. Agric. and Biol. Sci., 6(6): 34-44. Ahmad, A.H., R. Ahmad, N. Ahmad and A. Tanveer, 2007. Performance of forage sorghum intercropped with forage legumes under different planting patterns. Pak. J. Bot., 39: 431-439. Akhtar, A., J. Iqbal, M. Arshad, A. Jahangeer and Z.A. Ahmad, 2014. Effect of foliar application of urea on oat forage productivity. J. Agric. Res., 52(1): 91-97. Iqbal, F.M., M.A. Sufyan, M.M. Aziz, I.A. Zahid, Q. Ghani and S. Aslam, 2009. Efficacy of nitrogen on green fodder yield and quality of oat (Avena sativa L.). J. Anim. Plant Sci., 19(2): 82-84. Ahmad, B., 1999. Effect of different levels nitrogen seeding density on growth yield and quality of maize fodder. M.Sc. Thesis, Dept. Agron. Univ. Agric. Faisalabad, Pakistan. Ogboghodo, A., E.B. Erebors, I.O. Osemwota and H.H. Isitekhale, 2004. The effect of application of poultry manure to crude oil polluted soils on maize (Zea mays L.) growth and soil properties. Environ. Moni Assess., 96: 153-161.
Am-Euras. J. Agric. & Environ. Sci., 14 (10): 1035-1040, 2014
8. 9.
10. 11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16. 17.
18.
19.
Oad, F.C., U.A. Buriro and S.K. Agha, 2004. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizer application on maize fodder production. Asian J. Plant Sci., 3: 375-377. Haq, I. and A. Jan, 2001. Effect of different fertilizer levels and time or irrigation on the fodder yield of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.). J. Biol. Sci., 1: 348-349. Kadam, G.L. and I.A.B. Baig, 2008. Studies on different planting patterns of sorghum + soybean intercropping system. Int. J. Agric. Sci., 4(1): 181-187. Tariq, M., 1998. Fodder yield and quality of two maize varieties at different nitrogen levels. M.Sc (Hons.) Thesis, Dept. Agron. Univ. Agric. Faisalabad, Pakistan. Jayanthi, C., P. Malarvizhi, A.K. Fazullah Khan and C. Chinnusamy, 2002. Integrated nutrient management in forage oat (Avena sativa L.). Ind. J. Agron., 47: 130-133. Zada, K., P. Shah and M. Arif, 2000. Management of organic farming: Effectiveness of farmyard manure and nitrogen for maize productivity. Sarhad J. Agric., 16: 461-465. Reiad, M.S., E.L. Hakeem, M.A. Hammada and S.O.M. Abd-Alla, 1992. Fodder sorghum yield and its components as affected by nitrogen and organic manure fertilization rates under Siwa Oasis conditions. Ann. Agric. Sci., 33: 613-622. Yang, S., F. Li, S.S. Malhi, P. Wang, D. Suo and J. Wang, 2004. Long-term fertilization effects on crop yield and nitrate nitrogen accumulation in soil in Northwestern China. Agron. J., 96: 1039-1049. Freed, R.D. and S.P. Eisensmith, 1986. MSTAT. Michigan State Uni. Agric., Michigan, Lansing, USA. Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torrie and D.A. Dicky, 1997. Principles and procedures of statistics, a biological approach. 3rd Ed. McGraw Hill Inc. Book Co. NY, USA, pp: 352-358. Iqbal, A., M.A. Iqbal, A. Raza, N. Akbar, R.N. Abbas and H.Z. Khan, 2014. Integrated nitrogen management studies in forage maize. AmericanEurasian J. of Agric. & Environ. Sci., 14(8): 744-747. Arshad, M. and S.L. Ranamukhaarachchi, 2012. Effects of legume type, planting pattern and time of establishment on growth and yield of sweet sorghum-legume intercropping. Aus. J. Crop Sci., 6(8): 1265-1274.
20. Chellamuthu, V., A.K.F. Khan and P. Malarvizhi, 2000. Studies on effect of inorganic and biofertilzer on bajra-napier hybrid grass. Range Manage. Agroforestry, 21: 135-137. 21. Khandaker, Z.H. and M.M. Islam, 1988. Effect of nitrogen fertilization and stage of maturity on yield and quality of fodder maize. Bangl. J. Anim. Sci., 7: 47-53. 22. Naterchera, L. and B. Salagae, 2002. Effect of cattle and chicken manure on the yield of forage maize. Agron. J., 25: 18-43. 23. Sasireka, K.P., A. Rangasamy and I. Sekar, 1998. Effect of organic and inorganic sources of nitrogen and molybdenum on yield and quality of bajra-napied hybrid grass. Madras Agric. J., 85: 99-102. 24. Ibrahim, M., M. Ayub, A. Tanveer and M. Yaseen, 2012. Forage quality of maize and legumes as monocultures and mixtures at different seed ratios. J. Animal & Plant Sci., 22(4): 987-992. 25. Ayub, M., M.A. Nadeem., M.S. Sharar and N. Mahmood, 2002. Response of maize (Zea mays L.) fodder to different levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. Asian J. Plant Sci., 4: 352-354. 26. Bhatti, I.H., R. Ahmad, A. Jabbar, M.S. Nazir and T. Mahmood, 2008. Competitive behaviour of component crops in different sesame legume intercropping systems. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 8: 165-167. 27. Karki, T.B., A. Kumar and R.C. Gautam, 2005. Influence of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and uptake of nutrients and soil fertility status in maize (Zea mays L.). Ind. J. Agric. Sci., 75: 682-685. 28. Lakoo, A.A., F.C. Oad, A.A. Solangi and M.H. Siddiqui, 2004. Economics of maize fodder under organic and inorganic fertilizers. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 6: 1172-1173. 29. Safdar, Z., 1997. Optimization of nitrogen and its effect on yield and quality of maize fodder. M.Sc (Hons.) Thesis, Dept. Agron. Univ. Agric. Faisalabad, Pakistan. 30. Shaffer, M.J. and J.A. Delgado, 2002. Essentials of a national nitrate leaching index assessment tool. J. Soil Water Conserv., 57: 327-335. 31. Ulysses, S.J, 1982. Fertilizers and Soil Fertility. 2nd Ed. Reston Publishing Co. Reston, Virginia. A prentice-Hall Co., pp: 117-134.
1040
