Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:54:26.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Study of Hasawi Alfalfa under Three Irrigation and Three Cutting Regimes in Saudi Arabia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

A. A. Al-Noaim ,
G. M. Davies  and
J. Farnworth
A. A. Al-Noaim
Affiliation:
Hofuf Animal Production and Agricultural Research Centre, Saudi Arabia
G. M. Davies
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of North Wales, Bangor, UK
J. Farnworth
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of North Wales, Bangor, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The experiment, designed to investigate the production of alfalfa in Saudi Arabia, was a factorial involving three irrigation rates and three cutting heights. The irrigation rates were sub-optimum, optimum and super-optimum, supplying 2730, 3850, and 5040 mm of water over the duration of the experiment respectively; cutting heights were low (2 cm), high (8 cm) and alternate (2 cm and 8 cm). The experiment ran for a year, with 14 harvests. Sub-optimum, optimum and super-optimum irrigation treatments produced 27·5, 31·4 and 31·9 tonnes of DM per hectare respectively. Proximate analysis of crude fibre, crude protein, and ash percentage were determined, and plant density and weed infestation recorded.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , January 1978 , pp. 57 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Causley, D. C. (1972). J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 38, 294.Google Scholar
Cordero Di, , Montezemolo, & Prove Di, M. (1951). Ann. Sper. Agr. 5, 133 (English summary p. 134; 1st Agron. Univ. Bologne, Italy).Google Scholar
Cowett, E. R. & Sprague, M. A. (1962). Agron. J. 54, 294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farnworth, J. & Ruxton, I. B. (1973). Univ. Coll. N. Wales and Min. Agric. and Water, Saudi Arabia Joint Agric. Res. and Development Proj. Publ. 19.Google Scholar
Farnworth, J. & Ruxton, I. B. (1974) Agron. J. 40.Google Scholar
Langer, R. H. M. & Steinke, T. D. (1965). J. Agric. Sci., Camb. 64, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langille, J. E. & Warren, F. S. (1961). Canad. J. Pl. Sci. 41, 693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lathwell, D. J. & Vittum, M. T. (1962). Agron. J. 54, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leichtweiss Institute (1973). Rep. on work of Leichtweiss Institute Research Team, Technical University Braunschweig, Publ. 8.Google Scholar
Nishikawa, Ki. I. (1971). Herb. Abstr. 1972, 42, abst. 2639.Google Scholar
Ridgman, W. J. (1960). J. Brit. Grassd Soc. 15, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safta, I., Balan, C. & Nedelciuc, C. (1969). Herb. Abstr. 1970, 40, abst. 891.Google Scholar
Sekan, A., Al-Noaim, A. A. & Farnworth, J. (1973). Univ. Coll. N. Wales and Min. Agric. and Water, Saudi Arabia Joint Agric. Res. and Development Proj. Publ. 20.Google Scholar
Smith, D. & Nelson, C. J. (1967). Crop. Sci. 7, 130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thatcher, L. E., Willard, C. J. & Lewis, R. D. (1937). Ohio Agric. Exp. Stn Bull. 586.Google Scholar
Van Riper, G. E. & Owen, F. G. (1964). Agron. J. 56, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar