Abstract
Integrated systems are efficient technologies used for diversifying production and promoting agricultural sustainability. The benefits of double intercropping are well-established in research. With advancements in sustainable food production technology, some studies have explored triple intercropping by adding legumes. However, triple intercropping methods must be comprehensively understood. This study aimed to evaluate the production of dry mass, fermentation profile, and nutritive values of silage from maize based intercropping. The experiment was conducted in the field, in Instituto Federal Goiano, Campus Rio Verde, State of Goiás, Brazil, where we assessed silage production and quality in monoculture and intercropping systems, in a randomized block complete design with three replications. We evaluated 8 treatments, consisting of silage from: maize monoculture; Tamani guinea grass monoculture; Quênia guinea grass monoculture; Zuri guinea grass monoculture; Pigeon pea monoculture; maize + Tamani guinea grass + Pigeon pea; maize + Quênia guinea grass + Pigeon pea and maize + Zuri guinea grass + Pigeon pea. The results showed that maize silage intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon pea increased silage mass production by 37.8% and the crude protein content at 25.1% compared with that of the monoculture maize silage. It also improved the fermentation characteristics of silage, reducing 5.1% of pH, 32.5% of buffering capacity, 28.9% of ammoniacal nitrogen in total nitrogen, 15.7% of effluent production, and 20.0% of dry matter losses, compared with those of grass and legume silage in monoculture. Thus, the silage produced by the triple intercropping proved to be an efficient technique for sustainable forage production.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Triple intercropping increased silage mass production by 37.8% over maize monoculture.
- Treatment
- intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon peae0
- Outcome
- silage mass productione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 37.8%e0
- Comparator
- monoculture maize silagee0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize silage intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon pea increased silage mass production by 37.8% and the crude protein content at 25.1% compared with that of the monoculture maize silage”
Claim · model-written summary
Triple intercropping increased silage crude protein content by 25.1% over maize monoculture.
- Treatment
- intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon peae0
- Outcome
- crude protein contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 25.1%e0
- Comparator
- monoculture maize silagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize silage intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon pea increased silage mass production by 37.8% and the crude protein content at 25.1% compared with that of the monoculture maize silage”
Claim · model-written summary
Triple intercropping reduced silage pH by 5.1% relative to grass and legume monocultures.
- Treatment
- intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon peae1
- Outcome
- pHe0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Value
- 5.1%e0
- Comparator
- grass and legume silage in monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reducing 5.1% of pH, 32.5% of buffering capacity, 28.9% of ammoniacal nitrogen in total nitrogen, 15.7% of effluent production, and 20.0% of dry matter losses, compared with those of grass and legume silage in monoculture”
e1“maize silage intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon pea”
Claim · model-written summary
Triple intercropping reduced silage buffering capacity by 32.5%.
- Treatment
- intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon peae1
- Outcome
- buffering capacitye0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Value
- 32.5%e0
- Comparator
- grass and legume silage in monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reducing 5.1% of pH, 32.5% of buffering capacity, 28.9% of ammoniacal nitrogen in total nitrogen, 15.7% of effluent production, and 20.0% of dry matter losses, compared with those of grass and legume silage in monoculture”
e1“maize silage intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon pea”
Claim · model-written summary
Triple intercropping reduced silage ammoniacal nitrogen in total nitrogen by 28.9%.
- Treatment
- intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon peae1
- Outcome
- ammoniacal nitrogen in total nitrogene0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Value
- 28.9%e0
- Comparator
- grass and legume silage in monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reducing 5.1% of pH, 32.5% of buffering capacity, 28.9% of ammoniacal nitrogen in total nitrogen, 15.7% of effluent production, and 20.0% of dry matter losses, compared with those of grass and legume silage in monoculture”
e1“maize silage intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon pea”
Claim · model-written summary
Triple intercropping reduced silage effluent production by 15.7%.
- Treatment
- intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon peae1
- Outcome
- effluent productione0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Value
- 15.7%e0
- Comparator
- grass and legume silage in monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reducing 5.1% of pH, 32.5% of buffering capacity, 28.9% of ammoniacal nitrogen in total nitrogen, 15.7% of effluent production, and 20.0% of dry matter losses, compared with those of grass and legume silage in monoculture”
e1“maize silage intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon pea”
Claim · model-written summary
Triple intercropping reduced silage dry matter losses by 20.0%.
- Treatment
- intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon peae1
- Outcome
- dry matter lossese0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Value
- 20.0%e0
- Comparator
- grass and legume silage in monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reducing 5.1% of pH, 32.5% of buffering capacity, 28.9% of ammoniacal nitrogen in total nitrogen, 15.7% of effluent production, and 20.0% of dry matter losses, compared with those of grass and legume silage in monoculture”
e1“maize silage intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum (Tamani, Quênia and Zuri guinea grasses) and Pigeon pea”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors considered triple intercropping efficient for sustainable forage production.
- Outcome
- efficient technique for sustainable forage productione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“silage produced by the triple intercropping proved to be an efficient technique for sustainable forage production”
e1“maize silage intercropped with cultivars of Panicum maximum”
The same questions in other papers
Cajanus cajan · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
Megathyrsus maximus · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
Cajanus cajan · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 papers →Megathyrsus maximus · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Cajanus cajan · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Cajanus cajan · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →Cajanus cajan · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →intercropping · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
137 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
180 papers more in this group
See all 184 papers →8 of 12 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.