Sorghum is an important forage crop grown in summer

The An Asian Journal J.of Hort. of June Soil Science 2008 Vol. (June 3 (1) 2010) : (...) Vol. 5 No. 1 : 70-74 Research Paper : Effect of FYM and Fe-Zn-S supplementation on yield and quality of multicut forage sorghum (cv. SSG- 3) K.H. PATEL N.K. KALYANASUNDARAM B.T. SHETA D.B. PANCHAL AND J.C. PATEL Accepted : March 2010 See end of the article for authors affiliations Correspondence to : D.B. PANCHAL Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soil Science B.A. College of Agriculture Anand Agricultural University ANAND (GUJARAT) INDIA ABSTRACT Eighteen treatments comprising of combination of three levels of FYM (0 (F 0 ) 10 (F 1 ) and 20 (F 2 ) t ha -1 ) and six nutrient management treatments [control (M 0 ) Fe (M 1 ) Zn (M 2 ) S (M 3 ) Fe + Zn (M 4 ) and Fe + Zn + S (M 5 )] were tested in factorial randomized block design with three replications in field experiments conducted during Kharif and summer seasons of 2003 and 2004. Fe Zn and S were applied @ 10 5 and 40 kg ha -1 as FeSO 4 ZnSO 4 and gypsum respectively. Initial available S Fe and Zn contents in the soil were low. Yield of green forage and dry forage were increased by the treatments F 2 (8.5 and 5.3 % respectively) over treatment F 0. The treatments M 5 and M 4 significantly increased the green fodder yield by 13.0 and 8.5 per cent respectively over that of M 0 (731.5 q ha -1 ). The study of quality parameters viz. crude protein content neutral detergent fiber and sugar content revealed that application of FYM at F 1 as well as Fe-Zn-S treatments favourably influenced the quality parameters in comparison to their respective control. Key words : Green forage yield Dry forage yield quality parameter like crude protein content neutral detergent fiber and sugar content. Sorghum is an important forage crop grown in summer and Kharif seasons. It is becoming popular amongs the farmers of Gujarat State. Fodder and feeds are the major inputs in animal production especially for milch animals. Gujarat is known for its dairy industry and multicut forage crops like sorghum and Lucerne are extensively grown in milk shed areas of the State. The farmenrs are growing milticut forage sorghum (SSG-59-3) during Kharif as well as in summer seasons. Such intensive multicut cropping of cereal forage crop naturally results in more nutrient mining from the soil. The nutrient management practices can increase the forage production and improve its quality (Varma 2000). Application of sulphur containing amino acids namely cystin cystenin and methionine performs many physiological functions in the plant. It also plays an important role in activation of vitamins metabolism of carbohydrates proteins and lipids formation of chlorophyll and flavour compounds. Because of the above functions sulphur improves yield and quality of forage crops (Tandon 1995) The zinc is involved in many enzymatic activities as well as important in the synthesis of tryptophan a component of some proteins and a compound needed for the production of growth hormones.reduced growth hormone production in Zn deficiency plants causes the shortening of internodes and reduce the size of leaves (Tisdale et al. 2003). Likewise iron is a structural components of porphyrin molecules cytochromes hemes hematin ferri chrome and leghem-globin. Iron is necessary for the maintenance of chlorophyll in plants. MATERIALS AND METHODS A field experiment was under taken during summer and Kharif seasons of 2003 and 2004 at Main Forage Research Station Anand. The experiment consisted of nine treatments combinations of FYM [(F 0 ) (F 1 ) and (F 2 )] and six levels of Zn-Fe-S supplements [ N 0 Zn or Fe or S (M 0 )] [ 10kg Fe ha -1 (50 kg FeSO 4 ha -1 ) (M 1 )] [5 kg Zn ha -1 (25 kg ZnSO 4 ha -1 ) (M 2 )] [40kg S ha -1 as gypsum (267 hg CaSO 4. 2H 2 O ha -1 ) (M 3 )] [10kg Fe ha -1 + 5 kg Zn ha -1 (M 4 )]and [10kg Fe ha -1 + 5 kg Zn ha -1 + 40 kg S ha -1 (M 5 )]. The field experiments was laid out in factorial randomized block design keeping three replications. The soil of the experimental field was sandy loam (Typic ustochrepts). It was low in oirganic carbon (0.23%) medium available phosphorus (48.5 kg ha -1 ) and available potash (235 kg ha -1 ). The available sulphur iron and zinc were low (19.0 kg ha -1 3.0 mg kg -1 and 0.35 mg kg -1 respectively). A common total dose of 100-40-40 NPK kg ha -1 was given in the form of Urea DAP muriate of potash. Application of 25-40-40 NPK kg ha -1 was applied as basal 25 kg N ha -1 at 30 DAS and 25 kg N ha -1 of each dose was applied after first and second cutting. The well

K.H. PATEL N.K. KALYANASUNDARAM B.T. SHETA D.B. PANCHAL AND J.C. PATEL 71 decomposed FYM was applied uniformly and incorporated into the soil one week before sowing as per the rates specified in the respective treatments. The green plant samples were oven dried at 70 0 C and crude protein content was workout on dry weight basis using micro-kjeldhl s digestions method (Sadashivam and Manikam 1991). The analysis of total sugar and NDF content were carried out by Dubois et al. 1956 and NDF by Van Soest and wine (1967) respectively. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results obtained from the present investigation are summarized below : Effect of FYM : The green forage yield of total of three cuts was significantly influenced by FYM treatments (Table 1). Increase in each level of FYM from 0 to 10 and 20 t ha - 1 significantly increased total green forage yield and the highest green forage yield (805 q ha -1 ) was obtained with F 2 (20 t FYM ha -1 ) treatment which was significantly higher than F 1 (10 t FYM ha -1 ) and F 0 (No FYM) which registered 781.2 and 742.2 q ha -1 respectively. The increase in green fodder yield due to F 2 treatments over F 0 was 8.5 and 5.3 per cent respectively. Application of FYM might have improved the physical chemical and biological properties of the soil and there by increased the productivity. The results are in agreement with those of Vasanthi et al. (1998) Niranjan and Arya (1992) Patel and Patel (1994) and Sarangamath et al. (1994). The total dry matter yield of forage sorghum was significantly increased in the order F 2 >F 1 >F 0 (Table 1). In the first second and the third cuts as well as in total of three cuts treatments F 2 recorded significantly higher total dry matter yield than F 0 treatment. In pooled analysis F 2 recorded 15.4 and 11.0 per cent higher total dry matter yield than treatment F 0 (182.9 q ha -1 ). Similar results were obtained by Vasanthi and Venkatakrishan (1992) and Gangwar et al. (1992). Forage quality : Data on pooled analysis (Table 2) showed that the over all mean cuts protein content of three cuts was significantly influenced due to FYM treatments. Both the treatments F 1 significantly increased the mean crude protein content over that of treatment F 0. The per cent increase in mean crude protein content of three cuts due to F 1 treatments over F 0 was 5.2 and 6.9 respectively. Similar results were also reported by Patel et al. (2007) and Jat et al. (2003). The minimum mean neutral detergent fiber content (67.44 per cent) was recorded by treatment F 2 which was significantly lower than that of treatments F 1 (Table 2). The decrease in mean neutral detergent fiber content due to treatments F 1 over that of F 0 was 2.4 and 4.7 per cent respectively indicating superior forage quality with FYM application. The neutral detergent fiber includes cell wall constituents comprising of ADF as well as relatively easily digestive fiber compounds such as hemi cellulose lignified N compounds etc. It imparts bulk and improves digestibility in animals when the neutral detergent fiber becomes very high than quality of forage becomes low. Table 1 : Effect of FYM and Zn-S-Fe supplementation on green forage and dry matter yield of forage sorghum Treatments Green fodder yield (q/ha) Dry fodder yield (q/ha) FYM level 2003 2004 Pooled 2003 2004 Pooled F 0 751.0 733.4 742.2 185.33 180.44 182.88 F 1 788.0 774.4 781.2 205.15 200.72 202.93 F 2 816.4 793.5 805.0 213.19 208.82 211.01 S.E. + 9.42 9.04 6.53 3.02 2.94 2.11 C.D. (P=0.05) 27.0 25.9 18.4 8.67 8.45 5.93 Fe Zn-S supplimentatuion M 0 743.7 719.3 731.5 179.22 174.89 177.06 M 1 767.9 756.1 762.0 194.91 193.76 194.34 M 2 779.2 761.2 770.2 200.13 193.08 196.61 M 3 783.3 763.1 773.2 200.48 196.85 198.66 M 4 805.4 781.7 793.6 210.07 205.31 207.69 M 5 831.3 812.2 826.3 222.52 216.06 219.29 S.E. + 13.32 12.78 9.23 4.27 4.16 2.98 C.D. (P=0.05) 38.2 36.7 26.1 12.26 11.95 8.39 C.V. % 5.09 5.00 5.04 6.37 6.35 6.36

72 EFFECT OF FYM AND FE-ZN-S SUPPLEMENTATION ON YIELD & QUALITY OF MULTICUT FORAGE SORGHUM The effect of FYM on sugar content was significant in all the three cuts as well as in averaged values (Table 2). Treatment F 2 recorded significantly higher sugar content than that of treatments F 1 and F 0. The per cent increase in average sugar content of three cuts due to F 1 treatments over F 0 was by 3.6 and 6.7 per cent respectively. Effect of Fe-Zn-S supplementation: Forage yield : In pooled analysis the effect of Fe-Zn-S supplementation on total green forage yield was found significant (Table 2). Treatment M 5 (Combined application of Fe Zn and S) gave the highest total green forage yield (826.3 q ha -1 ) which was significantly higher over the green forage yield produced by the all other treatments. Treatments M 1 (10 kg Fe ha -1 ) (5 kg Zn ha -1 ) (40 kg S ha -1 ) also produced significantly higer toatl green forage yield (762 770.2 and 773.2 q ha -1 respectively) over M 0 (Control) (731.5 q ha -1 ) but the effects were at par amongs M 1 treatments. The effects of M 5 and M 4 with their individual nutrient treatments showed synergistic effect of sulphur. The treatments M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 increased the total green forage yield by 4.2 5.3 5.7 8.5 and 13.0 per cent respectively over M 0 treatment (Control). The experimental site was deficient in available Zn (0.36 and 0.34 ppm) Fe (2.95 and 3.15 ppm) and S (20.4 and 18.8 kg ha -1 ) during 2003 and 2004 respectively. So supplementation of Fe-Zn-S resulted in the crop response thus resulting in significant increase in total green forage yield. This result could be explained by liebig s law of minimum i.e. if two factors are limiting than addition of one will have little effect on the growth where as provision of both together will have a much greater influence (Tisdale et al. 2003). The results are confirmed by Raj et al. (1989) Patel and Patel (1994) Singh et al. (1984) Babaria and Patel (1981) Mathers et al. (1980) Patel et al. (2003) and Tripathi et al. (1992). The dry matter yield of forage sorghum was significantly influenced by Fe Zn and S supplementation in pooled results (Table 1). The significantly highest total dry matter yield (219.3 q ha -1 ) was registered by treatment M 5. Treatments M 1 recorded significantly higher total dry matter yield (194.3 196.6 and 198.7 q ha - 1 respectively) than that of treatment M 0 (177.1 q ha -1 ) but among them the differences were found at par. Treatments M 1 M 3 M 4 increased the total dry matter yield by 7.8 11.0 12.2 17.3 and 23.9 per cent respectively over treatment M 0 (Control). The results of the present investigation are in agreement with Patel and Patel (1994) Raj et al. (1989) Singh and Singh (1998) Tripathi et al. (1992) and Patel et al. (2003). Forage quality: Treatment M 5 recorded the highest mean crude protein content in pooled results which was significantly higher than the crude protein content of M 1 but it was at par with that of treatment M 4. In pooled analysis treatments M 1 also enhanced the mean crude protein content by 3.8 4.3 and 4.9 per cent over that of treatment M 0 respectively. Application of Fe Zn and S helped in significant increase in N content of forage sorghum. Sulphur plays in important role in protein synthesis by being constituent of S containing Table 2 : Quality parameter of forage sorghum as influencd by FYM and Zn-S-Fe supplementation Treatments Crude protein content (%) Neutral detergent fiber (%) Sugar content (%) FYM level 2003 2004 Pooled 2003 2004 Pooled 2003 2004 Pooled F 0 7.226 7.196 7.211 70.91 70.35 70.63 4.846 4.848 4.847 F 1 7.639 7.536 7.588 69.07 68.83 68.95 5.054 4.990 5.022 F 2 7.703 7.720 7.712 67.74 67.13 67.44 5.187 5.152 5.170 S.E. + 0.083 0.084 0.059 0.619 0.731 0.479 0.034 0.048 0.029 C.D. (P=0.05) 0.238 0.241 0.166 1.78 2.10 1.35 0.097 0.136 0.082 Fe Zn-S supplimentatuion M 0 7.222 7.128 7.175 72.15 70.85 71.50 4.850 4.773 4.811 M 1 7.489 7.403 7.446 68.78 69.26 69.02 4.982 5.025 5.003 M 2 7.489 7.480 7.484 69.48 68.33 68.91 5.050 4.958 5.004 M 3 7.497 7.557 7.517 69.00 68.85 68.93 5.000 5.015 5.008 M 4 7.643 7.600 7.622 68.48 68.37 68.43 5.108 5.005 5.057 M 5 7.798 7.738 7.768 67.56 66.96 67.26 5.185 5.206 5.197 S.E. + 0.117 0.119 0.083 0.875 1.034 0.677 0.048 0.067 0.041 C.D. (P=0.05) 0.336 0.340 0.235 2.51 NS 1.91 0.137 0.193 0.116 C.V. % 4.67 4.75 4.71 3.79 4.51 4.16 2.86 4.03 3.49

K.H. PATEL N.K. KALYANASUNDARAM B.T. SHETA D.B. PANCHAL AND J.C. PATEL amino acids (Mengal and Kirkby 1987). The results of present study are in line with Tripathi et al. (1992) Singh and Singh (1998) Panwar and Singh (2005) Joshi et al. (2007). The average neutral detergent fiber content of three cuts was significantly influenced by the nutrient supplementation treatments (Table 2). Treatments M 1 M 3 M 4 recorded significantly lower mean neutral detergent fiber content than that of treatment M 0 however among them the differenced were found non significant. The treatment M 5 decrease the mean neutral detergent fiber content by 6.3 per cent over that of treatment M 0. The results were supported by Tripathi et al. (1992) and Patel et al. (2007). The results suggest that application of S Zn and Fe helped in imparting better quality to the forage. The average sugar content of treatment M 5 was significantly higher than that of rest of the treatments (Table 2). In pooled analysis treatments M 1 M 3 M 4 gave 4.0 4.0 4.1 5.1 and 8.0 per cent higher sugar content over mean sugar content that of M 0. Among the sugar content of treatment M 1 there was no significant difference. The result of present study was confirmed by Tripathi et al. (1992). Authors affiliations: K.H. PATEL N.K. KALYANASUNDARAM B.T. SHETA AND J.C. PATEL Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry B.A. College of Agriculture Anand Agricultural University ANAND (GUJARAT) INDIA REFERENCES Babaria C.J. and Patel C.L. (1981). Response and uptake of iron by sorghum to application of iron FYM and S in calcareous soil. GAU Res. J. 6(2) : 121-124. Dubois M. Gilles K.A. Hamilton J.K. Robers P.A. and Smith F. (1956). Colorimetric methods of determination of sugars and related substances Anal. Chem. 26:350. Gangwar K.S. Singh Y. and Singh Y. (1992). Integrated nutrient management in fodder sorghum-gram cropping sequence under dry land conditions. Indian Agron. 37 (1):107-109. Jat S.L. Sumeriya H.K. and Mehta Y.K. (2003). Influence of integrated nutrient management on content and uptake of nutrients on sorghum. Crop Res. 26(3) : 390-394. Joshi Y.P. Verma S.S. and Bhilarem R.L. (2007). Effect of zinc levels on growth and yield of oat (Avenna sativa L.). Forage Res. 32 (4) : 238-239. 73 Mathers A.C. Thomus J.D. Stewart B.A. and Herring J.E. (1980). Manures and inorganic fertilizers effects on sorghum and sunflowers growth on iron deficient soil. Agron. J. 72 (6): 1025-1029. Maynard L.A. and Thomus G.W. (1969). Animal Nutrition 6 th Edition Pub. Tata Mc GRAW- Hill Publication Co. Ltd. Bombay / New Delhi. Pp 67-85. Mengel K. and Kirkby E.A. (1987). Principles of plant nutrition 4 th Edition Panima Pub. Corporation New Delhi / Bangalore. Panwar O.P.S. and Singh A. (2005). Studies on Zn and N nutrition in sorghum fodder in Alfisols of Bundelkhand region central India. Paper presented in Nat. semi. On Development in Soil Sci.: 2005 p. 118-119. Patel A.S. Sadhu A.C. Patel M.R. and Patel P.C. (2007). Effect of zinc FYM and fertility levels on yield and quality of forage maize (Zea mays L.). Forage Res. 32(4) : 209-212. Patel P.C. and Patel J.C. (1994). Growth response content and uptake of nutrients by different forage sorghum varieties as influenced by nitrogen and zinc fertilization. GAU Res. J. 19(2) : 9-14. Patel K.P. Ramani V.P. George V. and Patel K.C. (2003). TSI- FAI-IFA- Workshop on Sulphur in Balanced Fetilization. 25-26 Feb. New Delhi pp: 137-147. Raj M.F. Patel B.K. and Patel P.C. (1989). Effect of zinc on yield and nutrient content of summer forage sorghum. GAU Res. J. 14 (2) : 79-81. Sadashivam S. and Manikam (1991). Biochemical Methods of agricultural sciences. H.S. Popalai for Wilay Eastern Limited New Delhi. Sarangamath P.A. Itnal C.J. Basavaraja P.K. Bidari B.I. and Lingaraju B.S. (1994). Response of Rabi sorghum to application of FYM and fertilizers. Karnataka J. agric. Sci. 7(3) : 349-351. Singh S.P. Nayyar V. K. and Takkar P.N. (1984). Response of sorghum cultivers to iron sources and mode of its application. Zeitschtift fur Acker und Pflanzenbau 153 (5) : 342-347. Singh V.P. and Singh V. (1998). Response of nitrogen and zinc levels on biomass quality and chemical composition of forage sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L). Moench]. Forage Res. 24(1) : 21-23. Tondon H.L.S. (1995). Sulphur fertilizers in Indian agriculture. A guide book. Pun. Festi. Dev. And Consultation Organisation New Delhi. Tisdale S.L. Nelson W.L. Beaton J.D. and Halvin J.L. (2003). Soil fertility and fertilizers. 5 th Ed. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Tripathi S.B. Singh R.S. and Tripathi R.K. (1992). Effect of levels and sources of Sulphur on forage yield nutrient content and their uptake by sorghum. Forgae Res. 18 (1) : 15-25.

74 EFFECT OF FYM AND FE-ZN-S SUPPLEMENTATION ON YIELD & QUALITY OF MULTICUT FORAGE SORGHUM Van Soest P.J. and Wine R.H. (1967). Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. iv. Determination of plant cell constituents. J. Asso. Anal. Chem. 50 : 50-55. Varma Arun (2000). Harvesting the potential of animal husbandry. Fert. News 45 (2) : 47-52. Vasanthi D. Kumaraswami K. and Subbiah S. (1998). Yield and nutritive values of cereal forage crops as influenced by manure-fertilizer schedules. Forage Res. 24(3) : 163-167. Vasanthi D. and Venkatakrishnan J. (1992). Effect of organic inorganic and bio fertilizers on the yield and quality of forage sorghum. New Agriculturist 3 (1) : 93-98. ******** ****** ****