A Comparison study of different grasses on agronomic performance and chemical composition across three altitudes and harvesting dates in Ethiopia

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2247354/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

A Comparison study of different grasses on agronomic performance and chemical composition across three altitudes and harvesting dates in Ethiopia

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2247354/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

One of the major limiting factors of livestock production in Ethiopia is the very low quantity and quality of livestock feeds supplied in the country. This calls for seeking forages that complement poor quality feeds in the country. Hence, this research project was accomplished to comparatively evaluate and find compatible forages among three types of grass. The target of this paper was to compare three types of grass agronomic performance and chemical composition under three different agro-ecologies and three harvesting dates (60, 90, and 120 days). Field experiments were carried out in Tach Gayint (low altitude), Fogera (mid-altitude, and Debre Tabor (high altitude) Districts in 2017/2018. The treatments were laid out in a factorial RCBD (randomized complete block design) with three replications. The treatments contain combinations of 3 altitudes and 3 harvesting dates. Agronomic, yield, and chemical composition data were collected from all treatments in all locations. The collected data were subjected to analysis of variance procedures with a P 0.05 significance test. Altitudes and harvesting dates showed significant effects on the agronomical performance and chemical composition of those 3 types of grass The highest plant height (PH) and dry matter yield (DMY) by Napier and the number of tillers per plant (NTPP) by Mulato II were recorded at all altitudes. Similarly, harvesting dates showed a significant difference (P 0.05) in DMY and CP for all grasses in all studied areas. The significant difference in DMY was increasing as the harvesting date increased, but CP was contrariwise. Although all Napier grass recorded the highest biomass yield in all studied areas and showed high potential as an alternative livestock feed in Ethiopia, the highest crude protein value and the least value of NDF and ADF (best forage quality parameters) were recorded by Mulato II. Thus, the results of this study revealed that Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato II has great potential to fulfil the demands for quality feeds for livestock production, especially at low altitudes However, the current result alone might not lead to a final valid conclusion, hence it is recommended to follow up with a further study about feed value experimental using suitable animals.

Cultivar

Fresh Yield

Height

Hybrid

and Tiller.

Ethiopia has the largest livestock population from Africa (CSA, 2020a) and the 10th largest in the world (Mekonnen, 2018; Teweldemedhn, 2018). The function of livestock is ranging from livelihood to the national economy. The crop-livestock production system is the largest integrated system in the country; showing that cropping is not possible without livestock at large. When it comes to production and productivity it is very disappointing that not possible to respond to the livestock source food demand of the country due to a shortage of animal feed resources both in quantity and quality (CSA, 2019; FAO, 2019) as well as fluctuating feed supplies with seasonal variation (Adnew et al. 2018a). Particularly, the country is importing dairy products with very expensive foreign currency. Overall, the reason for the low productivity is the shortage of year-round available quality and quantity of feed. There is a huge feed deficit at the national level (40% at dry matter bases). But this problem is much escalated for the critical nutrients (protein and energy).

Natural pasture and crop leftovers are the main sources of nourishment for Ethiopian animals, but they are insufficient to meet their nutritional needs (Abebe et al. 2015; Mengistu et al. 2017; CSA, 2017). The country's grazing land is also characterized by low forage yield, low botanical composition, and poor nutritive values, with existing grazing lands becoming overgrazed and degraded due to overstocking as grazing lands shrink year after year in response to the country's alarmingly increasing human population. These unwanted characteristics of the land are because of mismanagement (poor grazing systems) of the natural resource. In addition to this, the country's primary livestock feed resource is unproductive grazing lands, followed by crop residues (CSA, 2019; Abebe et al. 2015), and neither feed resource can even meet the animals' maintenance needs. This is due to the livestock farming system in the country being dependent on a few natural and cultivated forage species that have a narrow genetic base. Therefore, the deficits in terms of dry matter, crude protein, and metabolizable energy are 40, 50, and 55%, respectively, at the national level (FAO, 2019). This undernutrition may exacerbate lower livestock productivity while also increasing enteric methane emissions (Mekuriaw et al. 2020), which contributes to global warming in addition to reducing ruminant energy utilization. Thus, selecting forages that are high quality and adapted to the region is mandatory to address the challenges of feed shortages in the region.

The use of better-quality and climate-smart forage species is in receipt of significant acknowledgment as an option to overcome this problem in tropical areas (Mudavadi et al. 2020), including Ethiopia (Yisehak, 2008). Mulualem and Molla (2013) and FAO (2016) stated that if improved forages are combined and produced at the household level in a maintainable manner, livestock productivity will be improved. Moreover, the amalgamation of improved forage crops in agricultural systems has many benefits, including soil conservation; reduced weeds, pests, and diseases, in addition to their primary use as superior livestock, feeds (Tessema and Feleke, 2018; Amejo et al., 2019). In addition, Brachiaria grass is one of the diverse aspirant forages that have a multipurpose function in the farming systems of the tropics, including Ethiopia (Adnew et al 2019c; Cheruiyot et al. 2020).

Recent try-outs reveal that the adoption of B. brizantha cultivars has great potential to increase milk yield from 3 to 5 liters per cow per day at farmers’ conditions in Kenya by 15–40% (Ghimire et al. 2015) and up to 100% increase (an average of 36%) (Schiek et al. 2018) and 20% meat output in Rwanda (CSB, 2016). A controlled nourishing study in Rwanda by means of heifers revealed an upsurge in average body weight gain of 205g per day over 12 weeks when practicing Brachiaria grass feeding compared with Napier grass (Mutimura et al. 2015; Njarui et al. 2015). Similarly, an increment in milk yield (Mekuriaw et al. 2020) and meat output (Adnew, et al. 2020) were obtained in Ethiopia. Brachiaria grass, especially Mulato II, has now become the most preferred grass among these farming communities in east Africa because of its high stages of drought and disease resistance combined with having high palatability, nutritious and considerable high biomass yield that increased milk production (Ghimire et al. 2015; Schiek et al. 2018); meat production (Adnew et al. 2020). Moreover, the widely cultivated Napier grass, especially in the highlands, is threatened by stunt and smut diseases, which cause total loss of the grass (100%) in severe cases (Khan et al. 2014; Kawube et al. 2015), Mulato II is being used as a climate-smart push-pull technology (Adnew et al 2019c; Midega et al. 2018; Kumela et al 2019).

Although Brachiaria grass is native to East Africa, including Ethiopia, this promising multipurpose cultivar Mulato II has been re-introduced newly in Ethiopia after being outside the country for many decades. Bracharia grass is used for animal feed, as part of push-pull technology, and for soil conservation by various organizations (Adnew et al 2019c; Khan et al. 2014; Kumela et al 2019). However, there is incomplete information on the agronomic performance, management practices, and chemical composition of this grass in Ethiopia in different agroecology. Thus, this experimental study was conducted to evaluate the agronomic performance and chemical composition of Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato II comparatively with Napier and Rhodes grasses at different altitudes and harvesting stages in Ethiopia.

Description of the experimental sites

The agronomic component of this study was conducted in three agro-ecologies (low, mid, and high altitude) using a rain-fed system. The low altitude area was at Futan (110 22 "N, 280 19" E) in the Tach Gayint District, situated at an altitude of 1230 masl. The annual temperature of the area ranges from 13^oC to 27^oC and precipitation from 900 to 1000 mm (Tessera, 2006). The mid-altitude location was represented by a place called Woreta areas in Fogera District, which is situated at 11^o58N and 37^o41E at an altitude range of 1774 masl and is predominantly classified as mid-altitude agroecology. The mean annual rainfall is 1216.3 mm and ranges from 1103 to 1336 mm. According to the District Office of Agriculture, the dominant soil type is black clay soil (ferric vertisols). The highland area was represented by a place named "Melo" which is located near Debre Tabor Town, South Gondar Administrative Zone, Amhara Regional State. The area is located at an altitude of 2650 masl. Farta District is located between latitudes 11°32′ and 12°03′ north and longitudes 37°31′ and 38°43′ east. The soils of the Melo site are characterized by a clay and sand mixture with a chemical composition of 2.26% organic matter, 0.11% total nitrogen, and pH of 5.47 (Asmare et al 2017). The mean annual rainfall is about 1570 mm, and the mean maximum and minimum annual temperatures were reported to be 21.5 C and 9.6 C, respectively (FDOA, 2014).

Land preparation, planting, and experimental design

The experiment was laid-out in a factorial arrangement of three altitudes (low, mid, and high) and three harvesting stages (60, 90, and 120 days (d)) in a randomized complete block design with three replications. A total area of 341 m² for each site was selected from each of the three locations. The experimental land was plowed in May and harrowed in June 2017. The land was divided into three blocks, each of which comprised three plots (3 *3 m each). Planting materials of root splits (Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato II, Napier, and Rhodes (Chloris gayana), were planted in rows on well prepared soil. The spacing between rows and plants was 50 cm and 30 cm, respectively. Land preparation, planting, weeding, and harvesting were undertaken according to the recommendations for grass. Chemical fertilizers, diammonium phosphate and urea (DAP), were applied at a rate of 100 kg ha-1 and urea at 25 kg ha-1, respectively, during planting and after establishment based on the recommendations for the grass.

Data collection

Plant height and leaf length were measured on 10 plants that were randomly selected from the middle rows of each plot at 60, 90, and 120-d after planting at three locations. The tiller density and leaves were determined as mean counts taken from 10 plants that were randomly selected from the middle rows of each plot at 60, 90 and, 120 d after planting at all locations. To determine biomass yield, the forage harvesting was done by hand using a sickle, leaving a stubble height of 8 cm. A fresh herbage yield of the grasses was measured immediately after each harvest using a portable balance with a sensitivity of 0.01 g. Representative samples were taken from each plot at each site and were dried in a draft oven at 65^oc for 72 h before being sent to the laboratory for chemical analysis.

Chemical composition

The chemical makeup of all samples was examined at the Debre Berhan Agricultural Research Centre Animal Nutrition Laboratory. After 72 hours of drying at 65°C, the samples were crushed to pass through a 1mm sieve. Ash and/or organic matter (OM), dry matter (DM), crude protein, and total ash were measured by the AOAC (1990). The neutral detergent fibers (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) were determined using Van Soest and Robertson's technique (1985). The CP was calculated by multiplying the quantity of nitrogen in the sample by a factor of 6.25.

Data Analysis

ANOVA was used to analyze data on agronomic factors and the nutritive value of samples using the model below. The SAS version 9.0 general linear model was used to analyze the data (SAS, 2007). Tukey's test was used to separate treatment means when applicable, with P0.05 as the significance threshold. For data analysis, the following statistical model was used:

Yijk = µ + Ai + Hj + Ck + Ai*Hj + A*C + H*C + A* C*H + εijk

Where:

Yijk is the response (plant morphological parameters, chemical composition, and yields) at each altitude and harvesting days; µ = overall mean; Ai = altitude (i = low, mid and high); Hj = effect of harvesting days (j = 60, 90, and 120 days); Ck = grasses (Mulato II, Napier and Rhodes) Ai*Hj = the interaction of ith altitude and j^th harvesting day; A*H = interaction of altitude and harvesting age; A*C = interaction of altitude and grasses; H*C = interaction of harvesting age and grasses; A*H*C = interaction of altitude, harvesting stages and grasses; εijk = the residual error.

Plant morphological characteristics of Mulato II grass at three altitudes and harvest dates

The effect of harvesting dates and altitudes on the morphological characteristics of Mulato II is presented in Table 1. Altitude and harvesting date had an effect on all morphological parameters (PH, NTPP, NLPP, and LLPP). All parameters were significantly (P 0.05) higher at low altitude, with the exception of the highest LLPP at mid-altitude. Regarding harvesting date, the highest significant difference (P < 0.05) was recorded at the late stages of harvesting (120 d), followed by mid-harvesting (90 d).

Table 1

*Morphological characteristics of Mulato* II *at three altitude and harvest dates*
Factors		Parameters
Factors		Plant height (cm)	Number of tillers per plant (counts)	Number of leaf per plant (counts)	Leaf length per plant (cm)
Altitude	Low	71.52^a	75.39^a	8.32^a	24.29^b
	Mid	57.26^b	64.82^b	7.78^a	28.63^a
	High	49.03^c	53.69^c	5.69^b	17.07^c
	Sig	*	*	***	***
Harvesting Dates	60	40.67^c	46.46^c	6.11^b	19.76^c
	90	58.78^b	64.37^b	7.86^a	23.69^b
	120	78.37^a	83.08^a	7.82^a	26.54^a
	Mean	59.27	64.63	7.26	23.33
	SE	3.62	3.48	0.29	1.16
	Sig	***	***	**	***
Interaction	*AlHD**	***	**	ns	**
Treatments means with different letters in a column are significantly different ( (P < 0.001); (P < 0.01), P < 0.05) for harvesting dates. SE = Standard error

Chemical composition and yield of Mulato II grass at three altitude and harvest dates

Table 2 shows the chemical composition and forage biomass yield of cv. Mulato II as a function of altitude and harvesting date. Significant differences (P < 0.05) were recorded in DM, DMY, ASH, CP, and CPY by altitude and harvesting date. The highest values of DM, DMY, ASH, CP, and CPY were recorded at low altitude, followed by mid-altitude, whereas the highest values of DM and DMY were at late stage, and ASH, CP, and CPY were in the reverse. However, only the harvesting date significantly (P < 0.05) affected the fibers (NDF, ADF, and ADL) content. The highest fibre content scores were recorded at the late harvesting date (120 days), which was followed by the mid-stage of harvesting (90 days).

Table 2

*Chemical composition and yield of Mulato II grass at three altitude and harvest dates*
Factors		Parameters
Factors		DM (%)	DMY (t/ha)	Ash (%)	CP (%)	CPY (t/ha)	NDF (%)	ADF (%)	ADL (%)
Al	Low	37.83^a	11.71^a	13.20^a	14.03^a	1.36^a	59.97	38.17	4.77
	Mid	36.93^ab	10.38^b	12.89^a	13.00^ab	1.32^a	61.98	39.79	5.44
	High	35.78^b	7.42^c	10.98^b	11.75^b	0.78^b	60.93	38.31	5.58
	Sig	ns	***	**	*	***	ns	ns	ns
HD	60	35.50^b	8.20^c	13.63^a	16.81^a	1.47^a	55.64^c	34.23^c	4.80^b
	90	36.51^b	9.71^b	12.44^b	12.61^b	1.16^b	62.03^b	37.13^b	5.19^b
	120	38.54^a	11.60^a	10.99^c	9.36^c	0.82^c	65.22^a	44.91^a	6.21^a
	Mean	36.85	9.84	12.35	12.93	1.15	60.96	38.76	5.40
	SE	0.36	0.46	0.37	0.71	0.08	0.88	1.119	0.20
	Sig	*	***	**	***	***	***	***	**
Interaction	*AlHD**	ns	ns	**	***	*	ns	***	*

Treatments means with different letters in a column are significantly different (*** (P < 0.001); ** (P < 0.01), *P < 0.05) for harvesting dates; HD = harvesting dates; ns = non-significant; DM = dry matter; DMY = dry matter yield; CP = crude protein; CPY = crude protein yield; NDF = neutral detergent fiber; ADF = Acid detergent fiber; ADL = Acid detergent lignin.

Plant morphological characteristics of Napier grass at three altitudes and harvest dates

The morphological characteristics of Napier are presented in Table 3. Both altitude and harvesting date had an effect on all considered morphological parameters except LLPP on harvesting dates. PH, NTPP, and LLPP were recorded with the highest significant (P < 0.05) value at high altitudes, whereas NLPP was at low altitudes. Regarding harvest date, the highest values in all morphological parameters were noted at the late harvesting date (120 days).

Table 3

*Morphological characteristics of Napier grass at three altitudes and harvest dates*
Factors		Parameters
Factors		Plant height (cm)	Number of tillers per plant (counts)	Number of leaf per plant (counts)	Leaf length per plant (cm)
Al	Low	121.30^b	20.87^b	12.77^a	37.37^ab
	Mid	122.30^b	20.72^b	12.42^a	36.53^b
	High	128.63^a	23.23^a	11.62^b	40.17^a
	Sig	**	**	*	*
HD	60	105.86^b	16.83^c	10.16^b	37.38
	90	120.00^b	22.40^b	10.24^b	38.00
	120	146.38^a	25.59^a	16.08^a	38.69
	Mean	124.08	21.61	12.16	38.02
	SE	3.51	0.79	0.56	0.64
	Sig	***	***	***	ns
Interaction	*AlHD**	*	ns		*

Treatments means with different letters in a column are significantly different (*** (P < 0.001); ** (P < 0.01), *P < 0.05) for harvesting dates. SE = Standard error; HD = harvesting dates.

Chemical composition and yield of Napier grass at three altitudes and harvest dates

The results on the effect of altitudes and harvesting date on the chemical composition and forage biomass yield of Napier grass are presented in Table 4. Except for DM, DMY, and ADL by altitude and ASH in harvesting date, there were significant differences (P < 0.05) in chemical composition and yield parameters. The highest values of ASH, CP, and CPY were recorded at low altitude, whereas NDF and ADF were highest at high altitude. At the late stage of harvesting, DM, DMY, CPY, NDF, ADF, and ADL were significantly (P 0.05) higher. CP value, on the other hand, was highest at an early stage of harvesting (60 d).

Table 4

Chemical composition and yield of Napier grass at three altitudes and harvest date
Factors		Parameters
Factors		DM (%)	DMY (t/ha)	Ash (%)	CP (%)	CPY (t/ha)	NDF (%)	ADF (%)	ADL (%)
Al	Low	38.77	31.57	15.37^a	12.59^a	4.48^a	65.95^b	44.44^b	5.35
	Mid	38.59	31.72	14.52^ab	11.55^a	4.12^b	66.06^b	44.70^b	5.36
	High	38.25	31.77	13.16^b	5.85^b	2.38^c	71.92^a	52.18^a	5.65
	Sig	ns	ns	*	***	***	***	***	ns
HD	60	37.36^b	23.16^c	14.46	12.78^a	3.40^b	65.62^b	40.75^c	4.83^b
	90	38.55^ab	33.87^b	14.73	8.98^b	3.72^ab	68.35^a	48.88^b	5.30^b
	120	39.70^a	38.03^a	13.84	8.22^b	3.85^a	69.96^a	51.69^a	6.22^a
	Mean	38.54	31.69	14.35	10.00	3.66	67.98	47.11	5.45
	SE	0.25	1.242	0.30	0.73	0.19	0.91	1.21	0.15
	Sig	***	***	ns	***	**	***	***	***
Interaction	*AlHD**	ns	ns	ns	ns	*	***	*	ns

Plant morphological characteristics of Rhodes grass at three altitudes and harvest dates

The morphological characteristics of Rhodes at different altitudes and harvesting dates are presented in Table 5. All morphological characteristics were affected by both altitude and harvesting date significantly (P < 0.05). PH and NLPP at low altitude and NTPP and LLPP at mid-altitude were recorded as the highest values. Regarding harvesting date, all morphological characteristics were recorded at the late stages of harvesting (120 d) followed by the mid-harvesting stage (90 d).

Table 5

*Morphological characteristics of Rhodes grass at three altitudes and harvest dates*
Factors		Parameters
Factors		Plant height (cm)	Number of tillers per plant (counts)	Number of leaf per plant (counts)	Leaf length per plant (cm)
Al	Low	88.27^a	32.14^b	5.09^a	35.86^b
	Mid	82.11^b	38.18^a	4.78^a	38.12^a
	High	71.80^c	30.33^b	4.01^b	31.38^b
	Sig	***	***	**	***
HD	60	74.47^b	24.63^c	3.94^b	29.80^c
	90	81.81^a	30.92^b	4.52^b	37.28^b
	120	85.90^a	45.10^a	5.41^a	38.28^a
	Mean	80.73	33.55	4.63	35.12
	SE	1.73	1.89	.17	.98
	Sig	***	***	***	***
Interaction	*AlHD**	ns	*	ns	***

Treatments means with different letters in a column are significantly different (*** (P < 0.001); ** (P < 0.01), *P < 0.05) for harvesting dates. SE = Standard error; HD = harvesting dates.

Chemical composition and yield of Rhodes grass at three altitudes and harvest dates

Table 6 shows the chemical composition and yield of Rhodes grass as a function of altitude and harvesting date. All chemical composition and yield parameters showed significant differences by harvesting date, whereas regarding altitude, significant differences were recorded on DM, ASH, CPY, and ADL only. Except for ash and CP, which were highest at the early stage of harvesting (60 d), all parameters were recorded at their highest at the last harvesting stage (120 d).

Table 6

*Chemical composition and yield of Rhodes grass at three altitudes and harvest dates*
Factors		Parameters
Factors		DM (%)	DMY (t/ha)	Ash (%)	CP (%)	CPY (t/ha)	NDF (%)	ADF (%)	ADL (%)
Al	Low	36.88^a	3.53	10.68^a	8.36	0.28^a	70.43	53.22	5.99^b
	Mid	35.09^b	3.40	8.95^b	6.68	0.21^b	72.20	50.99	6.65^ab
	High	35.05^b	2.92	9.21^ab	6.58	0.18^b	70.96	50.76	7.33^a
	Sig	***	ns	**	***	***	**	**	***
HD	60	34.75^b	2.07^b	11.08^a	9.31^a	0.19^b	62.05^b	43.15^c	5.72^c
	90	35.54^b	3.70^a	8.86^b	7.25^b	0.27^a	75.40^a	52.43^b	6.64^b
	120	36.73^a	4.09^a	8.91^b	5.06^c	0.21^b	76.14^a	59.39^a	7.61^a
	Mean	35.67	3.29	9.6	7.21	0.22	71.19	51.66	6.66
	SE	0.25	0.21	0.29	0.38	0.01	1.44	1.40	0.20
	Sig	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	***
Interaction	*AlHD**	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	***	***	ns

Comparison of morphological characteristics of Mulato II, Napier, and Rhodes grasses across altitude and harvesting date

Table 7 compares the effects of altitude and harvesting date on the plant morphological traits of Mulato II, Napier, and Rhodes grasses. Except for NTPP, Napier showed the largest significant differences (P0.05) in all morphological parameters at both low and high elevations, but at mid-altitude, Napier only showed the highest significant differences (P0.05) in PH and NLPP. Rhodes and cv. Mulato II had the largest significant difference (P0.05) in LLPP in mid-altitude and NTPP in all altitudes, respectively. Furthermore, on each harvesting date, Napier grass on PH, NLPP, and LLPP, and Mulato II on NTPP, considerably recorded the highest value.

Table 7

Mean value (%) of plant morphological characteristics (PH, NTPP, NLPP AND LLPP) values of Mulato II, Napier and Rhodes grasses
	Altitude
Variety	Low						Mid					High
	PH		NTPP	NLPP		LLPP	PH	NTPP		NLPP	LLPP	PH	NTPP	NLPP		LLPP
Mulato II	71.52^c		75.39^a	8.32^b		24.29^c	57.26^c	64.82^a		7.78^b	28.63^b	49.03^c	53.69^a	5.69^b		17.07^c
Napier	121.3^a		20.87^c	12.77^a		37.37^a	122.3^a	20.72^c		12.42^a	36.53^a	128.63^a	23.23^c	11.62^a		40.17^a
Rhodes	88.27^b		32.14^b	5.09^c		35.86^b	82.11^b	38.18^b		4.78^c	38.12^a	71.80^b	30.33^b	4.01^c		31.38^b
Sig	***		***	***		***	***	***		***	***	***	***	***		***
Harvesting Stages
	60						90					120
	PH		NTPP	NLPP		LLPP	PH	NTPP		NLPP	LLPP	PH	NTPP	NLPP		LLPP
Mulato II	40.67^c		46.46^a	6.11^b		19.76^b	58.78^c	64.37^a		7.86^b	23.69^b	78.37^c	83.08^a	7.82^b		26.55^b
Napier	105.86^a		16.83^c	10.16^a		37.38^a	120.0^a	22.40^c		10.24^a	38.00^a	146.38^a	25.59^c	16.08^a		38.69^a
Rhodes	74.47^b		24.63^b	3.94^c		29.80^a	81.81^b	30.92^b		4.52^c	37.28^a	85.90^b	45.10^b	5.41^c		38.28^a
Sig	***		***	***		***	***	***		***	***	***	***	***		***
					PH				NTPP			NLPP			LLPP
		Cv			***				***			***			***
		Al			*******				*******			*******			*******
		Hd			*******				*******			*******			*******
P-value		cv*al			***				***			***			***
		cv*hd			***				***			***			***
		al*hd			***				***			ns			*
		cval ha			**				*******			ns			*******
Treatments means with different letters in a column are significantly different (* (P < 0.001); (P < 0.01), *P < 0.05) for altitudes. SE = Standard error; PH = plant height; NTPP = number of tillers per plant; NLPP = number leafs per plant; LLPP = leaf length per plant;, cv = cultivar, al = altitude, hd = harvesting dates

Comparison of chemical composition and yield value of Mulato II, Napier, and Rhodes grasses under three altitudes and three harvesting date

The mean values of chemical composition and yield values of Mulato II, Napier, and Rhodes grasses in every three agroecologies and the overall mean values of harvesting dates are presented in Table 8. Both altitude and harvesting date had effects on the chemical composition and yield value of the grasses. DM, DMY, ash, and CPY by Napier, CP by Mulato II, and the fibres (NDF, ADF, and ADL) by Rhodes were significantly (P < 0.05) recorded as the highest values in all altitudes. Regarding harvesting date, except for CP, there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in all chemical composition and yield parameters. The highest values were recorded at the late stage of the harvesting date (120 d), except for CP at early and CPY mid-harvesting dates.

Table 8

Mean value (%) of chemical composition and yield (DM, DMY, ASH, CP, CPY, NDF, ADF, and ADL) Values of Mulato II, Napier, and Rhodes grasses
Parameters
Altitude	Variety		DM (%)		DMY (t/ha)		ASH (%)	CP (%)		CPY (t/ha)		NDF (%)		ADF (%)		ADL (%)
	Mulato II		37.83^b		11.71^b		13.20^b	14.03^a		1.36^b		59.98^c		39.79^c		4.69^b
Low	Napier		38.77^a		31.57^a		15.37^a	12.59^b		4.48^a		65.95^b		44.44^b		5.35^a
	Rhodes		36.88^c		3.53^c		10.68^c	8.36^c		0.28^c		70.43^a		53.22^a		5.99^a
	Sig		***		***		***	***		***		***		***		**
Mid	Mulato II		36.93^b		10.38^b		12.89^b	12.20^a		1.32^b		61.98^c		38.31^c		5.52^b
	Napier		38.59^a		31.72^a		14.52^a	11.55^b		4.12^a		66.06^b		44.70^b		5.36^b
	Rhodes		35.09^c		3.40^c		8.95^c	6.68^c		0.21^c		72.20^a		50.99^a		6.65^a
	Sig		***		***		***	***		***		***		***		***
High	Mulato II		35.78^b		7.42^b		10.98^b	11.75^a		0.78^b		60.93^b		38.17^b		5.98^b
	Napier		38.25^a		31.77^a		13.16^a	5.85^b		2.38^a		71.92^a		52.18^a		5.65^b
	Rhodes		35.05^b		2.92^c		9.21^c	6.58^b		0.18^c		70.96^a		50.76^a		7.33^a
	Sig		***		***		***	***		***		***		***		***
HD	60		35.87^c		11.14^c		13.06^a	12.97^a		1.69		61.10^b		39.38^c		5.12^c
	90		36.87^b		15.76^b		11.53^b	9.61^b		1.72		69.13^a		47.08^b		5.71^b
	120		38.32^a		17.91^a		11.73^b	7.55^c		1.63		69.90^a		51.06^a		6.68^a
P-value		DM		DMY		ASH	CP		CPY		NDF		ADF		ADL
	cv	***		***		***	***		***		***		***		***
	al	*******		*******		***	***		***		***		***		***
	hd	*******		*******		*	***		***		ns		***		***
	cv*al	*******		*		*	**		**		***		***		*
	cv*hd	no		***		***	***		***		***		***		ns
	al*hd	ns		ns		ns	***		ns		***		***		ns
	cval ha	ns		ns		**	***		***		**		***		ns

Treatments means with different letters in a rows are significantly different (*** (P < 0.001); ** (P < 0.01), *P < 0.05) for altitudes; ns = non-significant; HDs = harvesting dates; DM = dry matter; DMY = dry matter yield; CP = crude protein; CPY = crude protein yield; NDF = neutral detergent fiber; ADF = Acid detergent fiber; ADL = Acid detergent lignin.

The study also proved differences in morphological composition, chemical composition, and productivity among the studied grasses. The overall results of Mulato II, Napier, and Rhodes in all altitudes showed that the highest height of PH and LLPP and the greatest number of NTPP and NLPP were documented for the last harvesting date (120 days) compared to both earlier and mid-harvesting stages (60 and 90 days). Alarming increments in plant height are one of the major acclimatization responses to light competition in plants, i.e., leaf length during the vegetative period in grasses (Huhtanen et al. 2009). Although height is not an exact approximation of estimated biomass yield, as the shortest Mulato II had a higher primary DM yield than Rhodes grass, an increase in plant height is affected by phenotypic plasticity. The high DM yield of Mulato II could be due to the high number of tillers. The leaf length result is contrary to reports for other species of grasses in which the leaf length was reported to decrease as a result of stem development at a later stage of harvesting (Jančík et al. 2009) for grasses. Increments in plant height at later harvest stages could be due to massive root development and efficient nutrient uptake, allowing the plant to continue to increase in height, as mentioned by Asmare et al. (2017) and Adnew et al. (2019a); the high DM yields of the cultivars can be attributed, among other factors, to a well-established root system that enabled the grass to extract growth resources from the soil (Souri et al. 2017; Ajayi et al. 2017). However, both Mulato II and Rhodes grasses gave significantly (p < 0.05) lower DMY than Napier grass in all altitudes. When the environment is favorable, Napier grass, being a fodder crop and gigantic in nature, would naturally a show greater advantage in terms of growth characteristics than other grasses (Ngukuet al., 2016), but low nutritional value and is less preferred by animals compared to Mulato II (Mutimura et al. 2018). Moreover, Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana), one of the cultivated pastures, has a narrow genetic base and limited ecological adaptation; it is a full-sun species that do not grow well under shade (FAO, 2014); establishment on acidic soils is also difficult (Cook et al. 2005). These are some of the major reasons that Cv. Mulato II was introduced as an alternative to Napier grass and Rhodes grass, the predominant forage for dairy cattle in zero-grazing systems (Kabirizi et al. 2013). In addition, Napier grass is threatened by the emergence of stunt and smut diseases (Mureithi et al. 2016), which can damage up to 100% of the grass (Kawube et al. 2015).

Mulato II had higher tiller numbers than Napier and Rhodes grasses at all harvesting dates, but had lower DMY than Napier grass, contradicting reports by Nelson and Zarrough (1981) that tiller numbers are an indicator of resource use efficiency by different grass species and that the weight of a plant's tillers determines its productivity. However, Mulato II had higher tillering and dry matter production abilities than the Rhodes grass. The highest total DM yield observed in all altitudes by all studied grasses at the last harvest stage (120 d) was agreed with Asmare et al. 2017 and Tilahun et al. 2017 for cultivated grasses and Feyissa et al. (2014) for natural pasture in Ethiopia. The increase in yield could be attributed to the development of more tillers, which increased leaf formation, leaf elongation, and stem development (Asmare et al. 2017; Ansah et al. 2010). All these physiognomies would contribute to increased photosynthetic activity and hence higher DM production.

With the advancing stage of development, a consistent decline in ash, CP, and CPY was observed, but on the contrary, NDF, ADF, and ADL were increased. The highest CP concentration was obtained at the earliest stage of harvesting, with values declining as harvesting was delayed. The decline of CP with increased cutting dates and intervals is attributed to the accumulation of fibres with time. Similarly, Inyang et al. (2010) and Hare et al. (2009) reported a higher nutritive value of Mulato II when harvested at 2-week re-growth than at 6 weeks, and cutting Mulato II at 30 -day intervals produced a CP level of 3–4% greater than the cutting interval of 45 to 60 days interval, respectively. However, at all altitudes and stages of harvesting, the levels of CP of the harvested cv. Mulato II exceeded the minimum of 7.0% suggested as necessary for optimum rumen function by Van Soest (2010). But, the overall mean value of CP at the late harvesting date (5.06%) and high altitude of Napier (5.85%) and also at mid (6.68%) and high altitudes (6.58%) of Rhodes, respectively, did not fulfil the minimum of 7% suggested as necessary for optimum rumen function. Generally, the CP content was also higher in all the locations and harvesting stages of Mulato II (14.03, 12.20, and 11.75%) (Table 8), compared with the mean values of Napier (12.59, 11.55, and 5.85%) and Rhodes grasses (8.36, 6.68, and 6.58%) at low, mid, and high altitudes, respectively. Similarly, the CP content of Mulato II was higher than 7–10% reported by Nguku et al. (2015) in the semi-arid region of eastern Kenya and Ondiko et al. (2016) (2016) (5.3–7.7%) in the coastal lowlands of Kenya.

The trend in NDF, ADF, and ADL content significantly increased (P < 0.05) with an advance in maturity due to harvesting stages. This confirmed the results of similar studies by Njarui et al. (2016) and Tilahun et al. (2017). Rhodes grass had the highest ADF and NDF compared with Napier and Mulato II. Forage NDF is relevant to the improvement of the forage nutritional value and can be an important parameter to define the forage quality because the more fibrous pasture occupies more space for longer and limits the intake rate. For all locations used in the study, the values of NDF, ADF, and ADL were significantly (P < 0.05) higher during the third harvest (120). According to Schroeder (2012), high NDF that is above 72% and 40% of ADF (Nussio et al. 1998) will cause a low intake of forage. Mulato II has a lower than 72% NDF and 40% ADF value during all stages of harvesting (59.97, 61.98, and 60.93% of NDF) and (38.17, 39.79, and 38.31% of ADF) at low, mid, and high altitudes, respectively. So, it has a high intake by animals and produces a high milk yield and weight gain animals since milk yield and /or weight gain are closely related to feeding intake (Orodho, 2006). This is true at all locations and harvesting stages. Inversely, the overall mean value of NDF and ADF indicated that Rhodes grass has low intake by animals at the mid (90 d) and late stages of harvesting (120 d) (Table 6), which are having greater than 72% of NDF (75.40 and 76.14%, respectively) and 40% of ADF. Although Napier grass has less than 72% NDF, it has low intake and digestibility by animals, as reported by Nussio et al. (1998). Forage with an ADF content of around 40%, or more shows low intake and digestibility. In addition, the leaves of Napier grass also have a very rough surface, which is not preferred by the animals. This all suggests that the tested Brachiaria hybridcv. Mulato II might offer more advantages in nutritional characteristics than Napier and Rhodes grasses at every harvesting date. This is also revealed by Mutimura et al. (2015), that although chemical analyses of Mulato II grass and Napier grass have consistently ranked the two forages as similar in their nutritional qualities, a few feeding trials and farmers' perceptions have indicated that farmers preferred Mulato II to Napier grass. Farmers prefer Mulato-II over Napier grass for several reasons: it is drought-tolerant, highly palatable and nutritious for livestock, easier to handle as cut-and-carry, and for making hay to be used during the dry season (Maass et al. 2015). This is an indication that the palatability and response of animals improve when fed on Brachiaria grass (Adnew et al. 2019c; Ghimire et al. 2015; Maass et al. 2015; Schiek et al. 2018). Nowadays, Mulato, along with other grasses like B. brizantha cv. Toledo, is now being promoted by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as ‘Send a Cow’ (Kato et al., 2011). It is recommended to feed drought-tolerant cv. Mulato with a forage legume during the dry season when Napier grass mono-crops are disadvantaged due to drought, Napier stunt disease, and/or poor agronomic practices (Kabirizi et al., 2013). However, this is very limited in Ethiopia due to low awareness and research about the grass (Adnew et al. 2018a; Kumela et al. 2019).

Regarding harvesting date, the intake of all the studied grasses is at a decreasing rate as they mature (significant increment of NDF, ADF, and ADL as the harvesting stage increases). The digestibility of foods is related to fiber because the indigestible portion has a proportion of ADF and ADL. The higher the value of ADF (Albayrak et al. 2011) and ADL content (Nsinamwa et al. 2005), the lower the food digestibility. This indicates that digestibility decreases as harvesting stages increase as a greater proportion of lignified tissues leads to poorer digestibility of the forage (Wijiphans et al. 2009).

Brachiaria has now become the most preferred grass among these farming communities in east Africa because of its high levels of drought and disease resistance coupled with palatable and nutritious biomass that increases milk production [19, 20] (Ghimire et al. 2015; Schiek et al. 2018) and meat production [17] (Adnew et al. 2019c). Generally, the recent study in the studied areas revealed that Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato II grass adapted well and had higher yield and nutritive values than other Brachiaria ecotypes [63] (Wassie et al. 2018b), Brachiaria cultivars (Marandu and La Librtad) [64] (Adnew et al. 2019b), natural pastures grown in Ethiopia lands produce about 2 tons of DM/ha/year with low nutritive value [7] and also Napier and Rhodes’s grasses used as control.

Based on the study results, total crude protein production with less fiber content, and high biomass per hectare were taken as the ultimate objective of forage production for the study area. Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato II was found to be the best cultivar for presenting high-quality feed. Particularly, in the low altitude, Brachiaria hybrid cv. Mulato II demonstrated superior performance in all parameters, and thus this cultivar is recommended for further demonstrations in the low altitude in particular and all study areas in general. Further study on agronomic and nutritional evaluation involving live-animal experiments is recommended to utilize this cultivar efficiently.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Abebe, Y., Tafere, M., Dagnew, S., Tolla, M., Gebre-Selassie, Y., Amane, A., Molla, D., “Best fit practice manual for Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) production,” BDU CASCAPE, 2015, working paper 10. 46. Njarui, D. M. G., Gatheru, M., Mwangi, D. M., Keya, G. A., Persistence and productivity of selected Guinea grass ecotypes in semiarid tropical Kenya”. Grassland Science, 61, 142-152, 2015.
Adnew, W., Tsegay, B.A., Tassew, A., Asmare, B. “Combinations of Urochloa hybrid Mulato II and natural pasture hays as a basal diet for growing Farta lambs in Ethiopia,” Tropical Grasslands-Forrajes Tropicales (2021) Vol. 9(2):206–215. DOI: 10.17138/TGFT (9)206-215, 2020.
Adnew, W., Tsegay, B.A., Tassew, A., Asmare, B. “Evaluation of Brachiaria hybrid Mulato II hay as a basal diet for growing Farta lambs in Ethiopia” Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 2019c.
Adnew, W., Tsegay, B.A., Tassew, A., Asmare, B. “Effect of Altitudes and Harvesting Stages on Agronomic Responses and Chemical Composition of Brachiaria grass Cultivars in Northwestern Ethiopia,” Scientific Papers: Animal Science and Biotechnologies, 52(2), 2019b.
Adnew, W., Tsegay, B.A., Tassew, A., Asmare, B. “Effect Of Harvesting Stage and Altitude on Agronomic and Qualities of Six Brachiaria Grass in Northwest Ethiopia,” AgroLife Scientific Journal, 8(1): 2285-5718, 2019a.
Adnew W, Berhanu AT, Asaminew T, Bimrew A. “Assessments of farmers′ perception and utilization status of Brachiaria grass in selected areas of Ethiopia,” BIODIVERSITAS; 19:951-962. DOI: 10.13057/biodiv/d190326, 2018a.
Ajayi, A.E., Horn, R., Rostek, J., Uteau, D., Peth, S. “Evaluation of temporal changes in hydrostructural properties of regenerating permanent grassland soils based on shrinkage properties and μCT analysis,” Soil Tillage Res., 185: 102-112, 2019. 10.1016/j.still.2018.09.005.
Amejo, A.G., Gebere, Y.M., Kassa, H., Tana, T. “Characterization of smallholder mixed crop-livestock systems in integration with spatial information,” In case Ethiopia. Cogent Food and Agricultural, 5(1), 1565299, 2019.
Ansah, T., Osafo, E.L.K. and Hansen, H.H. “Herbage yield and chemical composition of four varieties of Napier (Pennisetum purpureum) grass were harvested on three different days after planting,” Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America. 1(5):923‒929, 2010.
Asmare B, Solomon D, Taye T, Firew T, Aynalem H, Jane W. “Effects of altitude and harvesting dates on morphological characteristics, yield and nutritive value of desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin.) in Ethiopia,” Agric Nat Resour. 51:148–53, 2017.
AOAC (Association of Analytical Chemists), Official methods of analysis 15th ed. AOAC Inc. Arlington, Virginia, USA. 1990, pp.1298.
Cheruiyot, D., Midega, C.A.O., Pittchar, J.O., Pickett, J.A., Khan, Z.R. “Farmers’ Perception and Evaluation of Brachiaria Grass (Brachiaria spp.) Genotypes for Smallholder Cereal-Livestock Production in East Africa,” Agriculture, 10: 268, 2020.
CSA. “Agricultural Sample Survey,” 2019/20 [2012 E.C.]. Volume II report on livestock and livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings). Central Statistical Agency (CSA): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2020a.
Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia (CSA). “Agricultural sample survey Livestock and livestock characteristics (private peasant holding),” Ethiopia. Stat. Bull., 585: 2, 2018.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). “Agricultural Sample Survey,” Livestock and Livestock Characteristics (Private Peasant Holdings). Statistical bulletin, 2017; 585(2): 33-35, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2017.
Cook, B.G., Pengelly, B., Brown, S.D., Donnelly, J.L., Eagles, D.A., Franco, M.A., Hanson, J., Mullen, B.F., Partridge, I.J. “Tropical forages,” Brisbane Australia. Cairo. Dpi and F (Old), CIAT, 2005.
CSB (Climate-Smart Brachiaria Program). CSB annual review meeting. KALRO (Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization), Embu, Kenya 2016. Goo.gl/VbzJ4D, 2016.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nation). “Livestock, health, livelihoods and the environment in Ethiopia,” An integrated analysis. Rome. 108 pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO, 2019.
FAO “FAO's role in livestock and the environment,” (http://www.fao.org/livestockenvironment/en/), 2016.
FAO. “Grassland Index. A searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes,” FAO, Rome, Italy, 2014.
FDOA (Farta District Office of Agriculture), Annual report (unpublished), 2014.
Ghimire, S.R., Njarui, D., Mutimura, M., Cardoso, J.A., Johnson, L. “Climate-smart Brachiaria for improving livestock production in East Africa,” Emerging opportunities. In: Vijay D, Srivastava MK, Gupta CK, Malaviya DR, Roy MM, Mahanta SK, Singh JB, Maity A, Ghosh PK, editors. Proceedings of the XXIII international grassland congress, New Delhi, India, 20–24 November 2015, 361–370, hdl.handle.net/10568/69364, 2015.
Feyissa F., Shiv P., Getnet A., Seyoum B., Getu K., Aemiro K., Gezahenge K. “Dynamics in nutritional characteristics of natural hays as affected by harvesting stage, storage method, and storage duration in the cooler tropical highlands” Afr J Agric Res, 9: 3233-44, 2014.
Hare M.D., Tatsapong P., Phengphet S., 2009. Herbage yield and quality of Brachiaria cultivars, Paspalum atratum and Panicum maximum in north-east Thailand. Tropical Grasslands 43, 65-72.
Huhtanen P, Nousiainen J, Rinne M. “Recent developments in forage evaluation with special reference to practical applications.” Agric Food Sci. 15:293–323, 2006.
Inyang, U., Vendramini, J.M.B., Sollenberger, L.E., Sellers, B., Adesogan, A., Paiva, L., Lunpha, A. “Effects of stocking rates on animal performance and herbage responses of Mulato and bahiagrass pastures,” Crop Science 50: 179–185, 2010.
Jančík F, Koukolová V, Kubelková P, Čermák B. “Effects of grass species on ruminal degradability of silages and prediction of dry matter effective degradability,” Czech J Anim Sci. 54:315–23, 2009.
Kabirizi, J., Zziwa, E., Mugerwa, S. and Namagembe, A. “Dry season forages for improving dairy cattle production in smallholder dairy systems,” Tropical Grasslands-Forrajes Tropicales 1(2): 212–214. doi: 10.17138/TGFT(1) 212-214, 2013.
Kawube, G., Talwana, H., Nicolaisen, M., Alicai, T., Otim, M., Kabirizi, J., Mukwaya, A., Nielsen, S.L. “Napier grass stunt disease prevalence, incidence, severity and genetic variability of the associated phytoplasma in Uganda,” Crop Protection. 75: 63-69, 2015.
Kato, J. “Start preparing for the dry season. New Vision, Uganda, published 2011 May 31,” Retrieved 2014 Mar 24 from: http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/9/756/756237, 2011.
Khan, Z.R., Midega, C.A.O., Pittchar, J.O., Murage, A.W., Birkett, M.A., Bruce, T.J.A., Pickett, J.A. “Achieving food security for one million subSaharan African poor through push-pull innovation by 2020. Philos,” Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B: Biol. Sci. Vol. 369, No. 1639, 10.1098/rstb.2012.0284, 2014.
Kumela, T., Mendesil, E., Enchalew, B., Kassie, M., Tefera, T. “Effect of the Push-Pull Cropping System on Maize Yield, Stem Borer Infestation, and Farmers’ Perception,” Agronomy 9: 452, 2019.
Maass B.L., Midega A.O., Mutimura M., Rahetlah B., Salgado P., Kabirizi M. “Homecoming of Brachiaria: Improved hybrids prove useful for African animal agriculture,” East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal, 81 (1): 71-78, 2015.
Mekonnen T. “Characterization of productive and reproductive performances, morphometric and challenges and opportunities of indigenous cattle breeds of Ethiopia,” A review.International Journal of Livestock Production, 9(3): 29-41.DOI: 10.5897/IJLP2017.0426, 2018.
Mekuriaw, S., Tsunekawa, A., Ichinohe, T., Haregeweyn, N. “Stall feeding regimen for indigenous dairy cow production in northwestern Ethiopia,” PhD Dissertation, the United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Tottori University, Japan, 2020.
Mengistu, A., Kebede, G., Feyissa, F., Assefa, G. “Review on Major Feed Resources in Ethiopia: Conditions, Challenges, and Opportunities,” Academic Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Research, 5: 176-185, 2017.
Midega, C.A.O., Pittchar, J.O., Pickett, J.A., Hailu, G.W., Khan, Z.R. “A climate-adapted push-pull system effectively controls fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith), in maize in East Africa. Crop protection,” 105:10-15, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.11.003.
Mudavadi, O.P., Emmanuel, M.A., Charles, G., Namasake, M.F., Bernard, L.A. “Effects of Season Variation on Water, Feed, Milk Yield and Reproductive Performance of Dairy Cows in Smallholder Farms in Eastern Africa. Journal of Agriculture and Ecology Research,” International 21(8): 1-15, 2020; Article no. JAERI.59895 ISSN: 2394-1073, 2020.
Mulualem, T., Molla, M. “Production Constraints, Farmers Preferences and Participatory on Farm Evaluation of Improved Forage Technologies in Selected Districts of Southern Ethiopia,” Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 3(9): 628-635, 2013.
Mureithi, J.G. and Djikeng, A. “Overview of the climate-smart Brachiaria grass programme,” In: Njarui, DMG, Gichangi EM, Ghimire SR, Muinga RW (Eds.).2016. Climate-smart Brachiaria grasses for improving livestock production in East Africa: Kenya Experience: Proceedings of a workshop, Naivasha, Kenya, 14- 15 September 2016. Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization, Nairobi, Kenya, 2016.
Mutimura, M., Ebong, C., Rao, I.M., Nsahlai, I.V. “Effects of supplementation of Brachiaria brizantha cultivar Piatá and Napier grass with Desmodium distortum on feed intake, digesta kinetics and milk production by crossbred dairy cows,” 2018.
Mutimura, M., Ebong, C., Rao, I.M., Sahlai, I.V. “Nutritional values of available ruminant feed resources in smallholder dairy farms in Rwanda,” Tropical animal health and production, 47: 1131- 1137, 2015.
Nelson, C.J. and Zarrough, K.M. “Tiller density and tiller weight as yield determinants of vegetative swards,” In P. p. production, Wrigth, C.E. (Ed.). Hurley: British Grassland Society, 1981.
Nguku S. “An evaluation of Brachiaria grass cultivars productivity in semi-arid Kenya,” MSc.Thesis, South Eastern Kenya University, Kenya, 2015.
Njarui D.M.G., Gichangi E.M., Ghimire S.R., Muinga R.W. (Eds). “Climate Smart Brachiaria Grasses for Improving Livestock Production in East Africa – Kenya Experience,” Proceedings of the workshop held in Naivasha, Kenya, 14 - 15 September, 2016. Nairobi, Kenya. 271 p, 2016.
Njarui, D.M.G., Gatheru, M., Mwangi, D.M., Keya, G.A. “Persistence and productivity of selected Guinea grass ecotypes in semiarid tropical Kenya,” Grass Sci. 61: 142-52, 2015.
Nsinamwa M., Moleele N.M., Sebego R.J. “Vegetation patterns and nutrients in relation to grazing pressure and soils in the sandveld and hardveld communal grazing areas of Botswana,” African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 22 (1): 17-28, 2005.
Nussio L.G., Manzano R.P., Pedreira C.G.S. “Valor Alimentício em Plantas do Gênero Cynodon” In:Simpósio Sobre Manejo da Pasagem, 15, FEALQ/ESALQ, 203-242, 1998.
Ondiko C.N., Njunie M.N., Njarui M.G., Auma E., Ngode L. “Effect of cutting frequency on forage production and nutritive value of Brachiaria grass cultivars in coastal lowlands of Kenya,” In: Njarui D.M.G., Gichangi E.M., Ghimire S.R., Muinga R.W., editors. Climate smart Brachiaria grasses for improving livestock production in East Africa-Kenya experience. Proceedings of the workshop held in Naivasha, Kenya, 14-15 September 2016, Nairobi, Kenya, p. 271, 2016.
Orodho. “The role and importance of Napier grass in the smallholder dairy industry in Kenya,” Kitale, Kenya, 2006.
SAS., Statistical Analysis System, version 9.0, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA., 2002.
Schiek, B., González, C., Mwendia, S., Steven, D., Prager. Got forages? “Understanding potential returns on investment in Brachiaria spp. for dairy producers in Eastern Africa,” Trop Grassl Forrajes Trop. 6(3): 117-133. https: //doi.org/10.17138 /tuft (6)117-133, 2018.
Schroeder J. “Interpreting Forage Analysis,” North Dakota: NDSU Extension Service, 2012.
Souri, M., Neumann, G. “Indications for passive rather than active release of natural nitrification inhibitors in Brachiaria humidicola root exudates,” J Plant Nutr, 41: 477–486, 2017.
Tessema, K., Feleke, S. “Yield, yield dynamics and nutritional quality of grass-legume mixed pasture,” The J. Anim. Plant Sci., 28(1): 155-164. ISSN: 1018-7081, 2018.
Teweldemedhn M. “Characterization of productive and reproductive performances, morphometric and challenges and opportunities of indigenous cattle breeds of Ethiopia,” A review. International Journal of Livestock Production.9 (3):29-41.DOI: 10.5897/IJLP2017.0426, 2018.
Tilahun G., Asmare B., Mekuriaw Y. “Effects of harvesting age and spacing on plant characteristics, chemical composition, and yield of desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin.) in the highlands of Ethiopia,” Tropical Grasslands-Forrajes Tropicales, Vol. 5 (2):77-84 77 DOI: 10.17138/TGFT (5)77-84, 2017.
Van Soest P.J., 1994. “Nutritional Ecology of Ruminants. 2nd Edition” pp. 50-65, 478. New York, USA: Cornel University Press: Ithaca, 2010.
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B. “Analysis of forage and fibrous food.” A laboratory manual for animal science 613, Cornell University, USA. pp. 202, 1985.
Yisehak, K. “Effect of seed proportions of Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) and white sweet clover (Melilotus alba) at sowing on agronomic characteristics and nutritional quality,” Livestock Research for Rural Development 20 (2), 2008.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

A Comparison study of different grasses on agronomic performance and chemical composition across three altitudes and harvesting dates in Ethiopia

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Description of the experimental sites

Land preparation, planting, and experimental design

Data collection

Chemical composition

Data Analysis

Results

Plant morphological characteristics of Mulato II grass at three altitudes and harvest dates

Chemical composition and yield of Mulato II grass at three altitude and harvest dates

Plant morphological characteristics of Napier grass at three altitudes and harvest dates

Chemical composition and yield of Napier grass at three altitudes and harvest dates

Plant morphological characteristics of Rhodes grass at three altitudes and harvest dates

Chemical composition and yield of Rhodes grass at three altitudes and harvest dates

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1