Fermentation quality and nutritive value of strip intercropping of sweet sorghum and mung bean grown with different sowing patterns

Fermentation quality and nutritive value of strip intercropping of sweet sorghum and mung bean grown with different sowing patterns | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Fermentation quality and nutritive value of strip intercropping of sweet sorghum and mung bean grown with different sowing patterns Ibrahim Ertekin, Saban Yilmaz This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6434099/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 12 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study aimed to investigate the silage fermentation quality and nutrient content of the forages obtained from mixtures (M) of sweet sorghum and mung bean grown in different sowing patterns (SP) compared to monoculture (pure) systems. In the present study, different sowing patterns (conventional/75 cm row spacing, narrow/55 cm row spacing, and twin/55 + 20 cm row spacing) were used as factors. Sweet sorghum was sown at a density of 14 plants m − 2 (pure SS14), and mung bean was sown at densities of 14, 21, 28 plants m − 2 (pure MB14, pure MB21, and pure MB28). Mixtures of these crops were also utilized (Mix 14 + 14, Mix 14 + 21, and Mix 14 + 28). Forages obtained from sweet sorghum and mung bean grown in different sowing patterns and mixtures were chopped and ensiled in laboratory-type silos using a vacuum device. After 90 days, the silages were opened, and nutrient content along with silage fermentation quality parameters were examined. The impact of SP×M interactions was found to be significant on all examined characteristics except for the condensed tannin feature. All intercropping systems in the present study improved silage fermentation quality compared to pure MB systems in all sowing patterns. In addition, they enhanced the nutrient content of silages compared to pure SS14. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of all the results obtained from present study, the treatment of Mix 14 + 14 is recommended, especially in conventional and narrow sowing patterns. Biological sciences/Plant sciences/Natural variation in plants Biological sciences/Plant sciences/Plant development Intercropping silage fermentation quality nutritive value sweet sorghum mung bean Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Introduction The demand for animal protein sources has gradually increased with the rapid increase in the world population in recent years. In parallel with the increasing feed demands, intercropping and silage making techniques have become increasingly important. Silage making can guarantee access to fresh feed, especially during periods when access to fresh feed is limited 1 . Sweet sorghum is an important silage plant thanks to the sugar compounds it contains 2 yet the protein content of the crop is quite low 3 . On the other hand, it has been reported in various studies that herbage of mung bean ( Vigna radiata ) contains high amounts of protein 3 , 4 , 5 . Various studies have reported that successful silages were obtained with mixed silages of wheat and legumes 6 , 7 , 8 . Because while grasses provide the necessary carbohydrates for the full formation of silage acidity, legumes compensate for the shortcomings of grasses with their high protein content. As a matter of fact, Parra et al. 9 found in a study that corn and soybean silages had higher protein content than pure corn silages. In addition, it has been found that mixed silages are better than pure soybean silages in terms of silage fermentation. In this regard, it can be emphasized that mixed legume and wheat silages are a valuable feed source. Intercropping is an agricultural practice where two or more crops are cultivated simultaneously in the same field 10 . Strip intercropping involves growing different crops in alternating strips within a field 11 . This practice can have various effects on silage quality, including changes in nutrient content, forage yield, and overall crop performance. The specific outcomes may depend on the crops involved, local climate, and management practices. This strategy enhances resource use efficiency and can provide various ecological benefits. On the other hand, silage is a method of preserving and storing green fodder by fermentation, typically used for livestock feed 12 . Both intercropping and silage play pivotal roles in sustainable farming, promoting diversity and ensuring optimal utilization of resources. In recent years, significant study on the practical use of mixed cultivation has been conducted in mixed silage making systems and eventually, various intercropping systems have been suggested for good silage quality 7 , 11 . Consequently, the present study aims to investigate the fermentation quality and nutritive value of sweet sorghum and mung bean grown as mixed with different sowing patterns and mixtures. Methods Experimental Site. A two-year field study was carried out during 2019 and 2020 at Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Field Crops, Research and Application Field (36°15'13.56"N 36°30'7.96"E, altitude 96 m from sea level). The climate conditions of the present study were subtropical with high humidity. As the long-term averages, the experimental site had an annual rainfall of 107 mm and temperature of 26.4°C for growing periods (June, July, August and September). The soil had a pH of 7.2 (slightly alkaline) and organic matter of 1.93% (low). Experimental Design. The field study was a split plot in randomized block design with three replicates. In experimental design, main and sub plots were sowing patterns and mixtures. The sowing patterns were conventional (75 cm row spacing), narrow (55 cm row spacing), and twin (20 + 55 cm row spacing) (see Fig. 1 ). The mixture and pure systems were formed mung bean sowing density (14, 21, and 28 plant m - 2 ) and mung bean and sweet sorghum pure sowings. The mixture and pure systems were identified with Mix14 + 14, Mix14 + 21, Mix14 + 28, Pure MB14, Pure MB21, Pure MB28 and Pure SS14. The cultivars of mung bean and sweet sorghum were local cultivar and cv. Erdurmus, respectively. The mung bean crop used in the study is a semi-erect plant with a pale green plant color. All agronomic practices were done manually for sowing, harvesting, and weed controlling. The irrigation of the experimental site was done with a drip irrigation system. Sweet sorghum and mung bean were sown manually according to experimental design on 20 June in 2019 and on 23 June in 2020 and harvested on 20 September in 2019 and 23 September in 2020. A total of 10 kg da − 1 N was fertilized on the experimental field both at sowing and 30 days after seedling emergence. Harvesting and silage preparation. After harvesting, the crops were chopped theoretically 2–3 cm piece via laboratory-type machine (Fig. 2 ) (CAN SP255, Turkiye). The plant species obtained from mixture systems were chopped separately and ensiled in mixed form according to the yield ratios obtained from plots. Contents of the silage beginning samples of mixture and pure systems were investigated from publications of Ertekin and Yilmaz 3 , 13 . The chopped silage materials were ensiled to polyvinyl packages with ten replicates for each treatment via vacuum machine (Fig. 2 ) (CROMPACK VM-46-S, Turkiye). During the silo opening period, a total of three lab-scale silos were opened out of ten replications, and the samples obtained from these three silos were combined for sampling. Chemical compositions and nutritive value. The dry matter ratio (DMR) crude protein (CP), crude ash (CA) and ether extract (EE) were measured according to AOAC 14 . The NDF, ADF and ADL analyses were made using method described by Van Soest et al. 15 . The water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) was detected according to the phenol-sulfuric acid method of Dubois et al. 16 . The condensed tannin (CT) contents of the silages were determined as the method described by Makkar et al. 17 . The relative feed values (RFV) of the silages were calculated as given formulas below. Dry matter digestibility (%) (DMD) = 88.9-(0779×ADF%) (1) Dry matter intake (%) (DMI) = 120/NDF% (2) RFV = DMD×DMI×0.775 (3) Parameters of silage fermentation quality. After 90 days of ensiling, a 20 g silage sample was taken from silages and placed in 180 mL of ringer solution prepared for microbiological determination. This liquid and solid mixture was blended for 60 s via a mixer (Arçelik K8130 MV, Turkiye) and then the water extract was filtered. The pH values of the silages were determined in the water extract via a table-type pH meter (İnolab 8F93, Germany). The lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and yeast contents of the silages were analyzed using MRS-AGAR (De Man Rogosa, Sharpe) and MEA (Malt Extract Agar), respectively. For this purpose, microorganisms isolated from silages according to a certain procedure were planted in an agar media sterilized in an autoclave (WiseClave WAC-80, Germany) and kept in a water bath (WiseCircu WCB-22, Germany) under a sterile cabinet. The samples with MRS and MEA media prepared to determine LAB and yeast content, respectively, were incubated in a climate cabinet (Devpet Esde series, Turkiye) at 37°C for 48 hours under anaerobic conditions. The ammonia nitrogen (NH 3 -N) content of the silages was measured using distillation (Behrotest S2, Germany) and titration apparatus of Kjeldahl system. Lactic acid (LA), acetic acid (AA), propionic acid (AA) and ethanol (ETOH) contents of the silages were determined according to the method reported by de Quiros et al. 18 . The HPLC device (Shimadzu KC-811, Japan) was performed using a RID detector at 42°C at a flow rate of 0.6 mL s - 1 . In addition, the lactic acid/acetic acid ratio (LA/AA) was calculated according to the results of LA and AA content. Statistical Analyses. All the data obtained from the current study were subjected to variance analysis in the JMP statistical package program according to split plot arrangement in randomized complete block design based on the experimental factors (sowing patterns, and mixture and pure systems) with the effect of the year. Mean differences of the treatments were separated and tested by Tukey's pairwise test considering significance level (P < 0.05). When the analysis of variance indicated that interactions were significant, main effects were ignored, and the results were interpreted based on interactions. Results Dry matter ratio, chemical compositions and nutritive value As seen in Table 1 , dry matter ratio was affected by all treatments (0.01 > P). Considering the Fig. 3 associated with the triple interaction data, the highest dry matter was obtained from the Pure SS 14 sown with a narrow system in 2020. Yet, the lowest value was in Pure MB14 sown with a twin system in 2019. Chemical compositions of the silages were affected by treatments of mixtures and sowing patterns×mixtures (Y×M) as seen in Table 1 . While the WSC, NDF, ADF and ADL were not affected (0.01 > P) by years, the CA, CP, EE, and CT were affected (Table 1 ). Sowing patterns affected the WSC, NDF, ADF, ADL, CP, and EE while it did not affect the CA and CT properties. Chemical compositions of the silages were not affected by factors of Y×SP, Y×M and Y×SP×M. The WSC contents of the pure SS 14 and mixtures (Mix 14 + 14, Mix 14 + 21 and Mix 14 + 28) were found to be higher than pure mung bean (Pure MB14, Pure MB21 and Pure MB28) as seen in Fig. 4 . The highest WSC was obtained from Mix 14 + 28 in the twin system while the lowest value was determined in Pure MB28 of the conventional system (Fig. 4 ). The WSC content of the silages was higher in mixed and pure sweet sorghum silages than pure mung bean silages. The highest NDF content was in Pure SS14 of the narrow system while the lowest value was determined in Pure MB14 of the twin system as seen in Fig. 4 . The NDF content of silages was generally higher in mixed and pure sweet sorghum silages than pure mung bean silages. The ADF content in silages peaked in Pure SS14 grown in a narrow system. In general, ADF contents were higher in pure sweet sorghum silages. The highest ADL content was found in Pure MB28 of conventional system while the lowest ADL was in Mix 14 + 28 of twin system. In general, pure mung bean silages were found to have higher ADL contents. The CA contents in 2019 and 2020 were 9.9% and 10.0%, respectively (Table 2 ). The SP×M results of CA, CP, EE and RFV are given in Fig. 5 . The crude ash of the silages was found to be higher in pure mung bean of all sowing patterns. Mung bean crop improved the CA of mixture silages in all sowing patterns. The lowest CA content was detected in Pure SS14 of twin system. The CP content of the mixture silages increased due to the presence of mung beans in the mixture of all sowing patterns. The CP contents in 2019 and 2020 were 8.8% and 8.8%, respectively (Table 2 ). Pure SS14 treatments of all sowing patterns gave a lower CP content than treatments of Pure MB and mixtures silages. The EE contents were 1.7% in 2019 and 1.8% in 2020 (Table 2 ). The EE contents of the Pure MB in all sowing patterns were higher than Pure SS14 and mixtures. The EE of the mixture silages increased owing to the presence of mung bean. CT contents in 2019 and 2020 were 0.67% and 0.70%, respectively (Table 2 ). The CT contents in silages of the mixtures ranged from 0.60–0.90% (Table 2 ). The RFV values were higher in pure mung bean than silages of Pure SS14 and mixtures of all sowing patterns. The RFV values of mixture silages of all sowing patterns were higher compared to Pure SS14 silages. Table 1 Variance analysis results for all examined features in the study based on the investigated factors. ITEMS Years (Y) Sowing patterns (SP) Y×SP Mixtures (M) Y×M SP×M Y×SP×M DMR 0.0086 < .0001 0.0004 < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 WSC 0.0793 < .0001 0.7526 < .0001 0.9953 < .0001 0.9998 NDF 0.7532 < .0001 0.8578 < .0001 0.9641 < .0001 0.9999 ADF 0.1081 < .0001 0.8123 < .0001 0.9999 < .0001 1.0000 ADL 0.6608 < .0001 0.7097 < .0001 0.9350 < .0001 0.9999 CA 0.0439 0.1107 0.8330 < .0001 0.3739 < .0001 0.9371 CP 0.0055 0.0016 0.0736 < .0001 0.5804 < .0001 0.9963 EE 0.0233 0.0096 0.9392 < .0001 0.9286 0.0005 0.9929 CT 0.0139 0.7084 0.3443 < .0001 0.2013 0.0975 0.8730 RFV 0.8259 < .0001 0.9900 < .0001 0.9954 < .0001 1.0000 pH 0.0365 < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 < .0001 LAB 0.0119 0.0121 0.9361 < .0001 0.2619 < .0001 0.3378 Yeast 0.7429 < .0001 0.3644 < .0001 0.9738 < .0001 0.5760 NH 3 -N 0.1150 0.0884 0.8608 < .0001 0.6071 < .0001 0.7466 LA 0.7902 0.2212 0.7684 < .0001 0.3700 < .0001 1.0000 AA 0.7216 < .0001 0.9672 0.0431 0.9999 0.0268 1.0000 PA 0.8660 0.0031 0.5797 < .0001 0.4278 0.0174 0.9094 ETOH 0.0212 0.0859 0.8988 < .0001 0.9921 0.0017 0.8621 LA/AA 0.2196 0.0001 0.9976 < .0001 0.9476 < .0001 1.0000 DMR: Dry matter ratio, WSC: Water soluble carbohydrate, NDF: Neutral detergent fiber, ADF: Acid detergent fiber, ADL: Acid detergent fiber, CA: Crude ash, CP: Crude protein, EE: Ether extract, CT: Condensed tannin, REF: Relative feed value, pH: Power of hydrogen, LAB: Lactic acid bacteria, NH 3 -N: Ammonia nitrogen, LA: Lactic acid, AA: Acetic acid, PA: Propionic acid, ETOH: Ethanol, LA/AA: Lactic acid and acetic acid ratio Table 2 Results for certain nutrient composition and silage quality parameters that any interactions are not significant are shown. FACTORS/ITEMS CA % DM CP % DM EE % DM CT % DM LAB ETOH % DM Years 2019 9.9 B 8.5 B 1.7 B 0.67 B 6.49 A 1.52 A 2020 10.0 A 8.8 A 1.8 A 0.70 A 6.31 B 1.47 B Mixture and Pure Systems Mix 14 + 14 0.69 B Mix 14 + 21 0.70 B Mix 14 + 28 0.67 B Pure MB 14 0.61 C Pure MB 21 0.60 C Pure MB 28 0.63 C Pure SS 14 0.90 A CA: Crude ash, CP: Crude protein, EE: Ether extract, CT: Condensed tannin, LAB: Lactic acid bacteria, ETOH: Ethanol, DM: Dry matter Parameters of silage fermentation quality As seen in Table 1 , the pH level of the silages significantly affected by all treatments (0.01 > P). The results of the pH level are given in Fig. 6 . In general, the pH levels of Pure MB silages were higher than silages of Pure SS14 and mixtures. Growing sweet sorghum with mung bean in all sowing patterns caused the pH levels of the silages obtained from these cultivations to decrease compared to pure MB systems. As seen in Table 1 , the LAB number was significantly affected by factors of years (0.05 > P), sowing patterns (0.05 > P), mixtures (0.01 > P), and SP×M (0.01 > P). The LAB numbers were 6.49 log 10 cfu g − 1 DM in 2019 and 6.31 log 10 cfu g − 1 DM in 2020 (Table 2 ). The LAB numbers of the pure mung bean silages in all sowing patterns were lower than silages of Pure SS14 and mixtures (Fig. 7 ). The presence of sweet sorghum in the mixtures increased the LAB numbers of the silages in all sowing patterns. Sowing patterns, mixtures, and Y×M affected the yeast numbers of the silages (Table 1 ), considerably (0.01 > P). In the conventional and narrow systems, the number of yeasts was found to be lower in pure mung bean silages than in mixed and Pure SS14 silages (Fig. 7 ). Interestingly, yeast numbers of pure mung bean silages in the twin system were higher than Pure SS14 and mixtures. The ammonia nitrogen (NH 3 -N) contents of the silages were influenced by factors of mixtures (0.01 > P) and SP×M (0.01 > P), substantially (Table 1 ). The NH 3 -N contents of Pure SS14 and mixed silages in conventional and narrow system were higher than pure mung bean silages (Fig. 7 ). The presence of mung bean in the mixtures reduced the NH 3 -N content of the silages compared to Pure SS14 silages. The effect of mixtures and SP×M was significant (0.01 > P) on LA contents of the silages (Table 1 ). The LA contents of pure mung bean silages were lower than silages of the Pure SS14 and mixtures in all sowing patterns (Fig. 7 ). The presence of sweet sorghum in intercropping systems of all sowing patterns improved the LA content of silages. The AA contents of the silages were influenced by sowing patterns (0.01 > P), mixtures (0.05 > P), and SP×M (0.05 > P), significantly (Table 1 ). The lowest AA content was in the Pure SS14 of the conventional system while the highest value was in the Pure MB28 of the twin system (Fig. 8 ). The effect of sowing patterns (0.01 > P), mixtures (0.01 > P), and SP×M (0.05 > P) on PA contents of the silages was considerable (Table 1 ). The PA contents of pure mung bean silages of all sowing patterns were higher than silages of Pure SS14 and mixtures (Fig. 8 ). It was determined that the PA contents of silages obtained from growing mung beans mixed with sweet sorghum decreased compared to pure mung bean silages. The ETOH contents of the silages were affected by years (0.05 > P), mixtures (0.01 > P), and SP×M (0.01 > P) as seen in Table 1 . The ETOH content in 2019 and 2020 were 1.52% and 1.47%, respectively (Table 2 ). The highest ETOH was determined in the Pure SS14 of the conventional system while the lowest value was in the Pure MB14 of the twin system (Fig. 8 ). Presence of sweet sorghum in mixtures of all sowing patterns increased the silage ETOH content but ETOH content of the Pure SS14 in all sowing patterns was higher than silages of pure mung bean and mixtures. The LA/AA ratio of the silages was affected by sowing patterns (0.01 > P), mixtures (0.01 > P), and SP×M (0.01 > P) significantly. The LA/AA ratio of Pure SS14 silages of conventional system was the highest (Fig. 8 ). In all sowing patterns, LA/AA ratio of pure mung bean silages was lower than others. Discussion Dry matter ratio, chemical compositions and nutritive value Dry matter ratio, chemical compositions and nutritive value of the feeds were influenced by many factors, with the sowing patterns 11 , ecological conditions 3 , cultivation methods 19 , harvesting time 20 , feed conservation techniques 21 . In the present study, the dry matter ratio of the silages was affected by factors treated. It has been reported by various studies that dry matter ratio is affected by intercropping techniques 11 , 22 , 23 . Similar to the results obtained from present study, it has been reported that the dry matter content at harvest time in intercropping systems is lower in pure legumes than in pure cereals and their mixed systems 11 . Silage WSC content of the pure SS14 and mixtures was higher than pure MB14, MB21 and MB28. It has been reported that WSC contents are higher in cereal and cereal + legume silages than in pure legume silages 24 . Indeed, a similar result was obtained from our study as well. The NDF and ADF content of the silages was influenced by SP×M interaction. In Pure SS14, the narrow system gave the highest NDF and ADF values, while generally, the NDF and ADF ratios of pure cereal and cereal-legume mixed silages were found to be higher than those of pure legume silages. It has been reported that NDF and ADF values are generally higher in cereals than in legumes 25 . The ADL content of the pure MB silages was higher than pure SS14 and mixed silages. Similarly, Baghdadi et al. 26 reported that pure soybean silages had a higher ADL content compared to pure corn and corn-soybean mixed silages. The crude ash values were found to be higher in mixed silages compared to pure SS14 silages. This can be attributed to the higher crude ash content of legumes compared to cereals 3 , 27 , 28 . The CP content of the pure SS14 silages was lower than treatments of pure MB and mixed silages. Silage CP content improved with mixed cropping systems. Indeed, many studies reported similar results 22 , 23 , 25 . The EE content of the mixed silages improved owing to the presence of mung bean. Similarly, in a study, while an increase in the legume ratio in mixed silages has been reported to result in an increase in silage EE content 22 contrary, in a study, reported a decrease in silage EE content 29 . The content of the silages is influenced by main factors of year and mixture. High CT content (more than 6%) is one of the factors that adversely affects digestion in feeds 30 . The CT values obtained from present study have been determined to be below the threshold that would adversely affect digestion. The silages from the mixture of sweet sorghum and mung bean were improved in terms of RFV compared to silages from pure sweet sorghum silages. Indeed, Kızılşimşek et al. 23 have found a higher RFV in mixed silages of corn with various legumes compared to pure corn silages in a study. Parameters of silage fermentation quality The pH levels of mixed silages showed a decrease in all sowing patterns compared to pure MB systems in both growing seasons. Mixed cultivation systems improved the pH levels of silages. Similarly, Di Miceli et al. 25 have reported that as the proportion of cereal increases in the mixture, the pH levels of silage decrease. Silage LAB numbers of mixed and pure SS14 silage in all sowing patterns were higher than that in pure MB systems. Various studies have also confirmed that lactic acid bacteria (LAB) content in cereal-legume mixed silages is higher than that in pure legume silages 7 , 31 , 32 . In conventional and narrow sowing patterns, the yeast counts in mixed and pure SS14 silages were found to be lower than those in pure MB systems. However, in the twin sowing patterns, the opposite situation has emerged. Kung et al. 33 have stated that the numbers of desired and undesired microorganisms, which provide insights into silage quality, can vary in different cultivation systems. In general, silage NH 3 -N contents of mixed and pure SS14 in all sowing patterns were higher than those of pure MB systems. It has been stated that high NH 3 -N content in silages sometimes negatively affects the performance of animals 33 . Generally, due to the proteolytic activities of clostridia, legume silages may exhibit higher soluble nitrogen and NH 3 -N compared to cereal silages in the silo 33 , 35 , 36 . In present study, silage NH 3 -N contents have been expressed as a percentage of total nitrogen. Therefore, although the results expressed as a percentage of total nitrogen indicate a higher loss in pure sweet sorghum silages, the actual amount of loss is likely higher in pure mung bean silages. In all sowing patterns, pure SS14 and mixed silages gave higher LA content than pure MB systems. In general, a typical concentration of LA in silages is found to be between 2–4% on a dry matter basis. However, in silages with lower dry matter (higher moisture content), this value may be lower 33 . Many studies have reported that legume silages have lower LA contents compared to cereal silages 7 , 31 , 32 . In all sowing patterns, AA content of pure SS14 and mixed silages was lower than pure MB systems. In many well-made silages, AA is the second-highest acid found in amounts ranging from 1–3% of dry matter basis 33 . In fact, silages with very low AA content cannot remain stable for an extended period, especially when exposed to air during the feeding period 36 . Excessively high AA concentration (> 4–6% of dry matter) is typically identified in overly wet silages (> 70% moisture) where undesirable fermentations have been suppressed by enterobacteria, clostridia, or heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria 37 . Additionally, legume silages with high ash content can sometimes have high AA levels due to prolonged fermentation processes 33 . The AA contents obtained from present study are consistent with the literature reports. Similar to silage AA results, PA contents of pure SS14 and mixed silages were also found to be lower than those of pure MB systems. High concentrations of PA (> 0.3–0.5%) are typically found in clostridial silages where the bacterium Clostridium propionicum is present 33 . The higher PA values obtained from current study than expected in a good silage raise the suspicion that 1,2-propanediol (1,2-PD) alcohol is possibly converted to PA in the silo by various microorganisms. In all sowing patterns, the ETOH contents of pure SS14 and mixed silages were determined to be higher than those of pure MB systems. Driehuis and van Wikselaar 38 reported that ETOH content in some grass silages can reach up to 5–6%. Especially in silages of plants with high sugar content, such as sugarcane, ETOH levels exceeding 15% on a dry matter basis can occur 39 , 40 , as the high number of epiphytic (natural) yeasts on these plants convert sucrose to ETOH 33 . The reason for the slightly higher ETOH content in pure SS14 and mixed silages compared to a typical silage, as obtained from present study, might be associated with the high water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC) content of sweet sorghum. In all sowing patterns, LA/AA ratio of pure MB silages were lower than those of pure SS14 and mixed silages. A good silage fermentation typically has a LA/AA ratio between 2.3 and 3.0 33 . A LA/AA ratio below 1 is generally indicative of an abnormal (poor) fermentation 36 . The LA/AA ratios obtained from present study indicated good silage quality. Conclusion This study investigated the silage fermentation quality and nutrient content of products obtained from sweet sorghum and mung bean mixture systems grown using different sowing patterns. Sowing pattern and mixture interactions have significantly affected all characteristics except for the condensed tannin content feature. All intercropping systems evaluated in the study improved silage fermentation quality compared to pure mung bean cultivation systems in all sowing patterns. Additionally, they enhanced nutrient content compared to pure sweet sorghum cultivation. When all the results obtained from the study are considered, cultivating the Mix 14 + 14 combination in both narrow and conventional sowing patterns may yield better results in terms of both silage fermentation quality criteria and nutrient content. Declarations Author Contributions Statement I.E. and S.Y. designed the experiments I.E. and S.Y. performed the experiments. I.E. and S.Y. were mainly responsible for analyzing the data and writing the manuscript. All authors read and critically revised drafts for intellectual content and provided approval for publication. Competing interest The authors declare no competing interests. Funding Information This study was supported by Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Department of Scientific Research Projects with the project number, 19.D.008. Author Contribution I.E. and S.Y. designed the experiments I.E. and S.Y. performed the experiments. I.E. and S.Y. were mainly responsible for analyzing the data and writing the manuscript. All authors read and critically revised drafts for intellectual content and provided approval for publication. Acknowledgement We would like to express our gratitude to Hatay Mustafa Kemal University for providing financial support to this study with project number 19.D.008. Additionally, this article has been produced from Dr. Ibrahim ERTEKIN's doctoral dissertation. Data Availability The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. References Ertekin, İ. & Kızılşimşek, M. Effects of lactic acid bacteria inoculation in pre-harvesting period on fermentation and feed quality properties of alfalfa silage. Asian-Australas J. Anim. Sci. 33 (2), 245. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0801 (2020). Amer, S., Seguin, P. & Mustafa, A. F. Effects of feeding sweet sorghum silage on milk production of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy. Sci. 95 (2), 859–863. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4884 (2012). Ertekin, I. & Yilmaz, S. The effects of sowing designs on forage yield and quality of sweet sorghum and mung bean mixtures under Mediterranean conditions. Turk. J. Field Crops . 27 (2), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.1077392 (2022). Ghotbi, V., Mahrokh, A., Tehrani, A. M. & Asadi, H. Evaluation of forage yield and quality of cowpea, guar, and mung bean under drought stress conditions. Chem. Proc . 10(1), 62. (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/IOCAG2022-12288 Khan, M. A., Naveed, K., Ali, K., Bashir, A. & Samin, J. Impact of mungbean-maize intercropping on growth and yield of mungbean. Pakistan J. Res. Weed Sci. 18 (2), 191–200 (2012). Klevenhusen, F., These, A., Taenzer, J., Weiß, K. & Pieper, R. Effects of ensiling conditions on pyrrolizidine alkaloid degradation in silages mixed with two different Senecio spp. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 76 (2), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2022.2084321 (2022). Zeng, T. et al. Dynamic microbial diversity and fermentation quality of the mixed silage of corn and soybean grown in strip intercropping system. Bioresour Technol. 313 , 123655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123655 (2020). Ni, K. et al. Assessing the fermentation quality and microbial community of the mixed silage of forage soybean with crop corn or sorghum. Bioresour Technol. 265 , 563–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.097 (2018). Parra, C. et al. Influence of soybean-crop proportion on the conservation of maize-soybean bi-crop silage. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 257 , 114295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.114295 (2019). Maitra, S. et al. Intercropping—A low input agricultural strategy for food and environmental security. Agron 11 (2), 343. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020343 (2021). Zeng, T. et al. Silage quality and output of different maize–soybean strip intercropping patterns. Ferment 8 (4), 174. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8040174 (2022). Balehegn, M. et al. Forage conservation in sub-Saharan Africa: Review of experiences, challenges, and opportunities. Agron. J. 114 (1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20954 (2022). Ertekin, İ. & Yilmaz, Ş. Variation of epiphytic flora affecting silage quality in pure and mixed mung bean and sweet sorghum. Black Sea J. Agri . 5 (2), 110–116. https://doi:10.47115/bsagriculture.1069811 (2022). AOAC. 21st edition. Official Methods of Analysis 2019 AOAC International. (2019). Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. D. & Lewis, B. A. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy. Sci. 74 (10), 3583–3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2 (1991). Dubois, M., Gilles, K. A., Hamilton, J. K., Rebers, P. A. & Smith, F. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal. Chem. 28 (3), 350–356. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60111a017 (1956). Makkar, H. P. S., Gamble, G. & Becker, K. Limitation of the butanol-hydrocloric acid-iron assay for bound condensed tannins. Food Chem. 66 , 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(99)00043-6 (1999). de Quirós, A. R. B., Lage-Yusty, M. A. & Lopez-Hernandez, J. HPLC analysis of organic acids using a novel stationary phase. Talanta 78 (2), 643–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2008.11.013 (2009). Ertekin, I., Atis, I., Aygun, Y. Z., Yilmaz, S. & Kizilsimsek, M. Effects of different nitrogen doses and cultivars on fermentation quality and nutritive value of Italian ryegrass ( Lolium multiflorum Lam.) silages. Anim. Biosci. 35 (1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.21.0113 (2022). Ertekin, I., Atis, I. & Yilmaz, S. The effect of cultivar and stage of growth on the fermentation, aerobic stability and nutritive value of ensiled quinoa. J. Agric. Sci. 29 (2), 478–490. https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.1126285 (2023). Matovu, J. & Alçiçek, A. Feed resources used for small ruminant nutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa: a case study of Uganda. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 55 (6), 377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-023-03781-3 (2023). Htet, M. et al. Evaluation of nutritive values through comparison of forage yield and silage quality of mono-cropped and intercropped maize-soybean harvested at two maturity stages. Agriculture 11 (5), 452. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11050452 (2021). Kizilşimşek, M., Günaydin, T., Aslan, A., Keklik, K. & Açikgöz, H. Improving silage feed quality of maize intercropped with some legumes. Turk. J. Agric. Nat. Sci. 7(1) . 165–169. (2020). https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.680048 Li, Q. et al. Effects of soybean density and sowing time on the yield and the quality of mixed silage in corn-soybean strip intercropping system. Ferment 8 (4), 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8040140 (2022). Di Miceli, G., Licata, M. & Marceddu, R. Forage mixture productivity and silage quality from a grass/legume intercrop in a semiarid Mediterranean environment. Agron. J. 115 (3), 1131–1145. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21300 (2023). Baghdadi, A., Halim, R. A., Radziah, O., Martini, M. Y. & Ebrahimi, M. Fermentation characteristics and nutritive value of corn silage intercropped with soybean under different crop combination ratios. JAPS: J. Anim. Plant Sci. 26(6), 1710–1717. (2016) (2016). Bolson, D. C. et al. Intercropped maize-soybean silage: Effects on forage yield, fermentation pattern and nutritional composition. Grassl Sci. 68 (1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/grs.12323 (2022). Javanmard, A., Nasab, A. D. M., Javanshir, A., Moghaddam, M. & Janmohammadi, H. Forage yield and quality in intercropping of maize with different legumes as double-cropped. J. Food Agric. Environ. 7 (1), 163–166 (2009). Angeletti, F. G., Mariotti, M., Tozzi, B., Pampana, S. & Saia, S. Herbage and silage quality improved more by mixing barley and faba bean than by N fertilization or stage of harvest. Agron. 12(8), 1790. (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081790 (2022). Kamalak, A. Kondense tanenin olumsuz etkilerini azaltmak için kullanılan katkı maddeleri ve yemlere uygulanan işlemler. KSÜ Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi . 10 (2), 144–150 (2007). Ertekin, I. Effects of commercial bacterial inoculants on fermentation and nutritive quality of wheat and annual legume mixed silages. Bangladesh J. Bot. 52 (3), 775–782. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjb.v52i3.68896 (2023). Chen, L. et al. Effect of ensiling whole crop oat with lucerne in different ratios on fermentation quality, aerobic stability and in vitro digestibility on the Tibetan plateau. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. (Berl . 101 (5), e144–e153. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12577 (2017). Kung, J. L., Shaver, R. D., Grant, R. J. & Schmidt, R. J. Silage review: interpretation of chemical, microbial and organoleptic components of silages. J. Dairy. Sci. 101 (5), 4020–4033. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13909 (2018). Bijelić, Z. et al. The effect of sward structure and n fertilization on the grass-legume silage quality. J. Agr Sci. 22 (1), 62–68 (2022). Kung, L. Jr. & Shaver, R. D. Interpretation and use of silage fermentation analysis reports. Focus on Forage Vol. 3, No. 13. University of Wisconsin Extension, Madison. (2001). Kung, L. Jr. Understanding the biology of silage preservation to maximize quality and protect the environment. California alfalfa & forage symposium and Corn/Cereal Silage Conference (pp. 1–2). Visalia, CA: University of California, Davis, CA. (2010). McDonald, P., Henderson, A. R. & Heron, S. J. E. The Biochemistry of Silage, 2nd Edn. Mallow, Bucks (UK): Chalcombe Publications (1991). Driehuis, F. & van Wikselaar, P. G. The occurrence and prevention of ethanol fermentation in high-dry-matter grass silage. J. Sci. Food Agric. 80 , 711–718. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(20000501)80:63.0.CO;2-6 (2000). Daniel, J. et al. Occurrence of volatile organic compounds in sugarcane silages. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 185 , 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.06.011 (2023). Kung, L. Jr. & Stanley, R. W. Effect of stage of maturity on the nutritive value of whole plant sugarcane preserved as silage. Anim. Sci. J. 54 , 689–696. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1982.544689x (1982). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 12 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 05 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 31 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 16 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 May, 2025 Reviews received at journal 11 May, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 May, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 07 May, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 07 May, 2025 Editor invited by journal 21 Apr, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 19 Apr, 2025 First submitted to journal 12 Apr, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6434099","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":454345804,"identity":"98fee849-735a-4601-85e1-a1240e41827e","order_by":0,"name":"Ibrahim Ertekin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hatay Mustafa Kemal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ibrahim","middleName":"","lastName":"Ertekin","suffix":""},{"id":454345805,"identity":"5c76c168-80f0-4ed5-9db4-13c309c69340","order_by":1,"name":"Saban Yilmaz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hatay Mustafa Kemal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Saban","middleName":"","lastName":"Yilmaz","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-04-12 10:53:18","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6434099/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6434099/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-44149-5","type":"published","date":"2026-03-12T15:58:53+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":82538550,"identity":"776fc8af-1b8a-4f66-9cd5-5916af74f29c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-12 16:11:09","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":184114,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSchematic representation of the sowing patterns treated in present\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003estudy\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6434099/v1/9c288bec2f228d1c99dcf66b.png"},{"id":82538537,"identity":"aaff396d-7f9e-4f00-a999-f59b8bbebd26","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-12 16:11:09","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":91010,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe silage making process and the obtained silages from mixed cultivation roughage.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6434099/v1/fb327aed55e7a5c59648e8da.png"},{"id":82538493,"identity":"05be7a73-798a-4b25-b301-2cec11093732","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-12 16:11:07","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":115610,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTriple interaction results of silage DMR according to years, sowing patterns and mixtures\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6434099/v1/3a50103f9f0b52e2d1b5a182.png"},{"id":82538849,"identity":"31d30791-9d76-4268-8f5a-5930c641f8b7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-12 16:19:09","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":218016,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDouble interaction results of WSC, NDF, ADF and ADL according to sowing patterns and mixtures (SP×M)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6434099/v1/cd90d092fab3cfd50fcbddb1.png"},{"id":82538529,"identity":"e848571c-9caf-46a1-878b-5ba391ae5ac8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-12 16:11:08","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":218897,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDouble interaction results of CA, CP, EE and RFV according to sowing patterns and mixtures (SP×M)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6434099/v1/9131bcae30f680a2de75cd53.png"},{"id":82538541,"identity":"47e12bf0-fac1-4fb7-8eb4-5cb4d242a631","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-12 16:11:09","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":112906,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTriple interaction results of silage pH according to years, sowing patterns and mixtures\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6434099/v1/70befa19428e7ebe2532c477.png"},{"id":82538543,"identity":"03848b25-3a39-4001-8e44-13a05b2c1aec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-12 16:11:09","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":219466,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDouble interaction results of LAB, Yeast, NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e-N and LA according to sowing patterns and mixtures (SP×M)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6434099/v1/4f28978692a5926735e288e9.png"},{"id":82538567,"identity":"d7acd542-93b5-42f5-a3fb-6db0127f1715","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-12 16:11:11","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":209448,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDouble interaction results of AA, PA, ETOH and LA/AA according to sowing patterns and mixtures (SP×M)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"image8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6434099/v1/0f9c2717bc7b8105907c6843.png"},{"id":104739478,"identity":"4c03236f-a5f4-4685-a950-f72121157817","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-16 16:07:26","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2278264,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6434099/v1/fdf7f57e-1b46-4d60-93de-14492206ab58.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eFermentation quality and nutritive value of strip intercropping of sweet sorghum and mung bean grown with different sowing patterns \u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe demand for animal protein sources has gradually increased with the rapid increase in the world population in recent years. In parallel with the increasing feed demands, intercropping and silage making techniques have become increasingly important. Silage making can guarantee access to fresh feed, especially during periods when access to fresh feed is limited \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Sweet sorghum is an important silage plant thanks to the sugar compounds it contains \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e yet the protein content of the crop is quite low \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. On the other hand, it has been reported in various studies that herbage of mung bean (\u003cem\u003eVigna radiata\u003c/em\u003e) contains high amounts of protein \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Various studies have reported that successful silages were obtained with mixed silages of wheat and legumes \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Because while grasses provide the necessary carbohydrates for the full formation of silage acidity, legumes compensate for the shortcomings of grasses with their high protein content. As a matter of fact, Parra et al. \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e found in a study that corn and soybean silages had higher protein content than pure corn silages. In addition, it has been found that mixed silages are better than pure soybean silages in terms of silage fermentation. In this regard, it can be emphasized that mixed legume and wheat silages are a valuable feed source.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntercropping is an agricultural practice where two or more crops are cultivated simultaneously in the same field \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Strip intercropping involves growing different crops in alternating strips within a field \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This practice can have various effects on silage quality, including changes in nutrient content, forage yield, and overall crop performance. The specific outcomes may depend on the crops involved, local climate, and management practices. This strategy enhances resource use efficiency and can provide various ecological benefits. On the other hand, silage is a method of preserving and storing green fodder by fermentation, typically used for livestock feed \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Both intercropping and silage play pivotal roles in sustainable farming, promoting diversity and ensuring optimal utilization of resources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn recent years, significant study on the practical use of mixed cultivation has been conducted in mixed silage making systems and eventually, various intercropping systems have been suggested for good silage quality \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Consequently, the present study aims to investigate the fermentation quality and nutritive value of sweet sorghum and mung bean grown as mixed with different sowing patterns and mixtures.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eExperimental Site.\u003c/b\u003e A two-year field study was carried out during 2019 and 2020 at Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Field Crops, Research and Application Field (36\u0026deg;15'13.56\"N 36\u0026deg;30'7.96\"E, altitude 96 m from sea level). The climate conditions of the present study were subtropical with high humidity. As the long-term averages, the experimental site had an annual rainfall of 107 mm and temperature of 26.4\u0026deg;C for growing periods (June, July, August and September). The soil had a pH of 7.2 (slightly alkaline) and organic matter of 1.93% (low).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eExperimental Design.\u003c/b\u003e The field study was a split plot in randomized block design with three replicates. In experimental design, main and sub plots were sowing patterns and mixtures. The sowing patterns were conventional (75 cm row spacing), narrow (55 cm row spacing), and twin (20\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;55 cm row spacing) (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The mixture and pure systems were formed mung bean sowing density (14, 21, and 28 plant m\u003csup\u003e-\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e) and mung bean and sweet sorghum pure sowings. The mixture and pure systems were identified with Mix14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;14, Mix14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;21, Mix14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;28, Pure MB14, Pure MB21, Pure MB28 and Pure SS14. The cultivars of mung bean and sweet sorghum were local cultivar and cv. Erdurmus, respectively. The mung bean crop used in the study is a semi-erect plant with a pale green plant color. All agronomic practices were done manually for sowing, harvesting, and weed controlling. The irrigation of the experimental site was done with a drip irrigation system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSweet sorghum and mung bean were sown manually according to experimental design on 20 June in 2019 and on 23 June in 2020 and harvested on 20 September in 2019 and 23 September in 2020. A total of 10 kg da\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e N was fertilized on the experimental field both at sowing and 30 days after seedling emergence.\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHarvesting and silage preparation.\u003c/b\u003e After harvesting, the crops were chopped theoretically 2\u0026ndash;3 cm piece via laboratory-type machine (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) (CAN SP255, Turkiye). The plant species obtained from mixture systems were chopped separately and ensiled in mixed form according to the yield ratios obtained from plots. Contents of the silage beginning samples of mixture and pure systems were investigated from publications of Ertekin and Yilmaz \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The chopped silage materials were ensiled to polyvinyl packages with ten replicates for each treatment via vacuum machine (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) (CROMPACK VM-46-S, Turkiye). During the silo opening period, a total of three lab-scale silos were opened out of ten replications, and the samples obtained from these three silos were combined for sampling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eChemical compositions and nutritive value.\u003c/b\u003e The dry matter ratio (DMR) crude protein (CP), crude ash (CA) and ether extract (EE) were measured according to AOAC \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The NDF, ADF and ADL analyses were made using method described by Van Soest et al. \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) was detected according to the phenol-sulfuric acid method of Dubois et al. \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The condensed tannin (CT) contents of the silages were determined as the method described by Makkar et al. \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The relative feed values (RFV) of the silages were calculated as given formulas below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDry matter digestibility (%) (DMD)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;88.9-(0779\u0026times;ADF%) (1)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDry matter intake (%) (DMI)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;120/NDF% (2)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRFV\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;DMD\u0026times;DMI\u0026times;0.775 (3)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eParameters of silage fermentation quality.\u003c/b\u003e After 90 days of ensiling, a 20 g silage sample was taken from silages and placed in 180 mL of ringer solution prepared for microbiological determination. This liquid and solid mixture was blended for 60 s via a mixer (Ar\u0026ccedil;elik K8130 MV, Turkiye) and then the water extract was filtered. The pH values of the silages were determined in the water extract via a table-type pH meter (İnolab 8F93, Germany). The lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and yeast contents of the silages were analyzed using MRS-AGAR (De Man Rogosa, Sharpe) and MEA (Malt Extract Agar), respectively. For this purpose, microorganisms isolated from silages according to a certain procedure were planted in an agar media sterilized in an autoclave (WiseClave WAC-80, Germany) and kept in a water bath (WiseCircu WCB-22, Germany) under a sterile cabinet. The samples with MRS and MEA media prepared to determine LAB and yeast content, respectively, were incubated in a climate cabinet (Devpet Esde series, Turkiye) at 37\u0026deg;C for 48 hours under anaerobic conditions. The ammonia nitrogen (NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e-N) content of the silages was measured using distillation (Behrotest S2, Germany) and titration apparatus of Kjeldahl system. Lactic acid (LA), acetic acid (AA), propionic acid (AA) and ethanol (ETOH) contents of the silages were determined according to the method reported by de Quiros et al. \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The HPLC device (Shimadzu KC-811, Japan) was performed using a RID detector at 42\u0026deg;C at a flow rate of 0.6 mL s\u003csup\u003e-\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In addition, the lactic acid/acetic acid ratio (LA/AA) was calculated according to the results of LA and AA content.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStatistical Analyses.\u003c/b\u003e All the data obtained from the current study were subjected to variance analysis in the JMP statistical package program according to split plot arrangement in randomized complete block design based on the experimental factors (sowing patterns, and mixture and pure systems) with the effect of the year. Mean differences of the treatments were separated and tested by Tukey's pairwise test considering significance level (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). When the analysis of variance indicated that interactions were significant, main effects were ignored, and the results were interpreted based on interactions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDry matter ratio, chemical compositions and nutritive value\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs seen in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, dry matter ratio was affected by all treatments (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P). Considering the Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e associated with the triple interaction data, the highest dry matter was obtained from the Pure SS 14 sown with a narrow system in 2020. Yet, the lowest value was in Pure MB14 sown with a twin system in 2019. Chemical compositions of the silages were affected by treatments of mixtures and sowing patterns\u0026times;mixtures (Y\u0026times;M) as seen in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. While the WSC, NDF, ADF and ADL were not affected (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P) by years, the CA, CP, EE, and CT were affected (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Sowing patterns affected the WSC, NDF, ADF, ADL, CP, and EE while it did not affect the CA and CT properties. Chemical compositions of the silages were not affected by factors of Y\u0026times;SP, Y\u0026times;M and Y\u0026times;SP\u0026times;M. The WSC contents of the pure SS 14 and mixtures (Mix 14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;14, Mix 14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;21 and Mix 14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;28) were found to be higher than pure mung bean (Pure MB14, Pure MB21 and Pure MB28) as seen in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. The highest WSC was obtained from Mix 14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;28 in the twin system while the lowest value was determined in Pure MB28 of the conventional system (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). The WSC content of the silages was higher in mixed and pure sweet sorghum silages than pure mung bean silages. The highest NDF content was in Pure SS14 of the narrow system while the lowest value was determined in Pure MB14 of the twin system as seen in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. The NDF content of silages was generally higher in mixed and pure sweet sorghum silages than pure mung bean silages. The ADF content in silages peaked in Pure SS14 grown in a narrow system. In general, ADF contents were higher in pure sweet sorghum silages. The highest ADL content was found in Pure MB28 of conventional system while the lowest ADL was in Mix 14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;28 of twin system. In general, pure mung bean silages were found to have higher ADL contents. The CA contents in 2019 and 2020 were 9.9% and 10.0%, respectively (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The SP\u0026times;M results of CA, CP, EE and RFV are given in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e. The crude ash of the silages was found to be higher in pure mung bean of all sowing patterns. Mung bean crop improved the CA of mixture silages in all sowing patterns. The lowest CA content was detected in Pure SS14 of twin system. The CP content of the mixture silages increased due to the presence of mung beans in the mixture of all sowing patterns. The CP contents in 2019 and 2020 were 8.8% and 8.8%, respectively (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Pure SS14 treatments of all sowing patterns gave a lower CP content than treatments of Pure MB and mixtures silages. The EE contents were 1.7% in 2019 and 1.8% in 2020 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The EE contents of the Pure MB in all sowing patterns were higher than Pure SS14 and mixtures. The EE of the mixture silages increased owing to the presence of mung bean. CT contents in 2019 and 2020 were 0.67% and 0.70%, respectively (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The CT contents in silages of the mixtures ranged from 0.60\u0026ndash;0.90% (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The RFV values were higher in pure mung bean than silages of Pure SS14 and mixtures of all sowing patterns. The RFV values of mixture silages of all sowing patterns were higher compared to Pure SS14 silages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVariance analysis results for all examined features in the study based on the investigated factors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eITEMS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYears\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Y)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSowing\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003epatterns (SP)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eY\u0026times;SP\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMixtures\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(M)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eY\u0026times;M\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSP\u0026times;M\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eY\u0026times;SP\u0026times;M\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eDMR\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0086\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eWSC\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0793\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7526\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9953\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9998\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNDF\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7532\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8578\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9641\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9999\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eADF\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1081\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8123\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9999\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eADL\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6608\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7097\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9350\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9999\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCA\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0439\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1107\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8330\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3739\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9371\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCP\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0055\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0016\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0736\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5804\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9963\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eEE\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0233\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0096\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9392\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9286\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9929\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eCT\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0139\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7084\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3443\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0975\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8730\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eRFV\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8259\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9900\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9954\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003epH\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0365\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLAB\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0119\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0121\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9361\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2619\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3378\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eYeast\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7429\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3644\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9738\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5760\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eNH\u003c/b\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003cb\u003e-N\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.1150\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0884\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8608\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6071\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7466\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLA\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7902\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2212\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7684\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3700\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAA\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7216\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9672\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0431\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9999\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0268\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePA\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8660\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0031\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5797\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4278\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0174\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9094\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eETOH\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0212\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0859\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8988\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9921\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8621\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLA/AA\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2196\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9976\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9476\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.0001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003eDMR: Dry matter ratio, WSC: Water soluble carbohydrate, NDF: Neutral detergent fiber, ADF: Acid detergent fiber, ADL: Acid detergent fiber, CA: Crude ash, CP: Crude protein, EE: Ether extract, CT: Condensed tannin, REF: Relative feed value, pH: Power of hydrogen, LAB: Lactic acid bacteria, NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e-N: Ammonia nitrogen, LA: Lactic acid, AA: Acetic acid, PA: Propionic acid, ETOH: Ethanol, LA/AA: Lactic acid and acetic acid ratio\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults for certain nutrient composition and silage quality parameters that any interactions are not significant are shown.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFACTORS/ITEMS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCA % DM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCP % DM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEE % DM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCT % DM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLAB\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eETOH\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e% DM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYears\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.9 B\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.5 B\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.7 B\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.67 B\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.49 A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.52 A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.0 A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.8 A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.8 A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.70 A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.31 B\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.47 B\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMixture and Pure Systems\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMix 14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.69 B\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMix 14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.70 B\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMix 14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.67 B\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePure MB 14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.61 C\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePure MB 21\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.60 C\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePure MB 28\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.63 C\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePure SS 14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.90 A\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"7\"\u003eCA: Crude ash, CP: Crude protein, EE: Ether extract, CT: Condensed tannin, LAB: Lactic acid bacteria, ETOH: Ethanol, DM: Dry matter\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParameters of silage fermentation quality\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs seen in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, the pH level of the silages significantly affected by all treatments (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P). The results of the pH level are given in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e. In general, the pH levels of Pure MB silages were higher than silages of Pure SS14 and mixtures. Growing sweet sorghum with mung bean in all sowing patterns caused the pH levels of the silages obtained from these cultivations to decrease compared to pure MB systems. As seen in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, the LAB number was significantly affected by factors of years (0.05\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P), sowing patterns (0.05\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P), mixtures (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P), and SP\u0026times;M (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P). The LAB numbers were 6.49 log\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003ecfu g\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e DM in 2019 and 6.31 log\u003csub\u003e10\u003c/sub\u003ecfu g\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e DM in 2020 (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The LAB numbers of the pure mung bean silages in all sowing patterns were lower than silages of Pure SS14 and mixtures (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). The presence of sweet sorghum in the mixtures increased the LAB numbers of the silages in all sowing patterns. Sowing patterns, mixtures, and Y\u0026times;M affected the yeast numbers of the silages (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), considerably (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P). In the conventional and narrow systems, the number of yeasts was found to be lower in pure mung bean silages than in mixed and Pure SS14 silages (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). Interestingly, yeast numbers of pure mung bean silages in the twin system were higher than Pure SS14 and mixtures. The ammonia nitrogen (NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e-N) contents of the silages were influenced by factors of mixtures (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P) and SP\u0026times;M (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P), substantially (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e-N contents of Pure SS14 and mixed silages in conventional and narrow system were higher than pure mung bean silages (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). The presence of mung bean in the mixtures reduced the NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e-N content of the silages compared to Pure SS14 silages. The effect of mixtures and SP\u0026times;M was significant (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P) on LA contents of the silages (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The LA contents of pure mung bean silages were lower than silages of the Pure SS14 and mixtures in all sowing patterns (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). The presence of sweet sorghum in intercropping systems of all sowing patterns improved the LA content of silages. The AA contents of the silages were influenced by sowing patterns (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P), mixtures (0.05\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P), and SP\u0026times;M (0.05\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P), significantly (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The lowest AA content was in the Pure SS14 of the conventional system while the highest value was in the Pure MB28 of the twin system (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). The effect of sowing patterns (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P), mixtures (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P), and SP\u0026times;M (0.05\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P) on PA contents of the silages was considerable (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The PA contents of pure mung bean silages of all sowing patterns were higher than silages of Pure SS14 and mixtures (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). It was determined that the PA contents of silages obtained from growing mung beans mixed with sweet sorghum decreased compared to pure mung bean silages. The ETOH contents of the silages were affected by years (0.05\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P), mixtures (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P), and SP\u0026times;M (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P) as seen in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The ETOH content in 2019 and 2020 were 1.52% and 1.47%, respectively (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The highest ETOH was determined in the Pure SS14 of the conventional system while the lowest value was in the Pure MB14 of the twin system (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). Presence of sweet sorghum in mixtures of all sowing patterns increased the silage ETOH content but ETOH content of the Pure SS14 in all sowing patterns was higher than silages of pure mung bean and mixtures. The LA/AA ratio of the silages was affected by sowing patterns (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P), mixtures (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P), and SP\u0026times;M (0.01\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;P) significantly. The LA/AA ratio of Pure SS14 silages of conventional system was the highest (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). In all sowing patterns, LA/AA ratio of pure mung bean silages was lower than others.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDry matter ratio, chemical compositions and nutritive value\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDry matter ratio, chemical compositions and nutritive value of the feeds were influenced by many factors, with the sowing patterns \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, ecological conditions \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, cultivation methods \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, harvesting time \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, feed conservation techniques \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In the present study, the dry matter ratio of the silages was affected by factors treated. It has been reported by various studies that dry matter ratio is affected by intercropping techniques \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Similar to the results obtained from present study, it has been reported that the dry matter content at harvest time in intercropping systems is lower in pure legumes than in pure cereals and their mixed systems \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Silage WSC content of the pure SS14 and mixtures was higher than pure MB14, MB21 and MB28. It has been reported that WSC contents are higher in cereal and cereal\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;legume silages than in pure legume silages \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Indeed, a similar result was obtained from our study as well. The NDF and ADF content of the silages was influenced by SP\u0026times;M interaction. In Pure SS14, the narrow system gave the highest NDF and ADF values, while generally, the NDF and ADF ratios of pure cereal and cereal-legume mixed silages were found to be higher than those of pure legume silages. It has been reported that NDF and ADF values are generally higher in cereals than in legumes \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The ADL content of the pure MB silages was higher than pure SS14 and mixed silages. Similarly, Baghdadi et al. \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e reported that pure soybean silages had a higher ADL content compared to pure corn and corn-soybean mixed silages. The crude ash values were found to be higher in mixed silages compared to pure SS14 silages. This can be attributed to the higher crude ash content of legumes compared to cereals \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The CP content of the pure SS14 silages was lower than treatments of pure MB and mixed silages. Silage CP content improved with mixed cropping systems. Indeed, many studies reported similar results \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The EE content of the mixed silages improved owing to the presence of mung bean. Similarly, in a study, while an increase in the legume ratio in mixed silages has been reported to result in an increase in silage EE content \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e contrary, in a study, reported a decrease in silage EE content \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The content of the silages is influenced by main factors of year and mixture. High CT content (more than 6%) is one of the factors that adversely affects digestion in feeds \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The CT values obtained from present study have been determined to be below the threshold that would adversely affect digestion. The silages from the mixture of sweet sorghum and mung bean were improved in terms of RFV compared to silages from pure sweet sorghum silages. Indeed, Kızılşimşek et al. \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e have found a higher RFV in mixed silages of corn with various legumes compared to pure corn silages in a study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eParameters of silage fermentation quality\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe pH levels of mixed silages showed a decrease in all sowing patterns compared to pure MB systems in both growing seasons. Mixed cultivation systems improved the pH levels of silages. Similarly, Di Miceli et al. \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e have reported that as the proportion of cereal increases in the mixture, the pH levels of silage decrease. Silage LAB numbers of mixed and pure SS14 silage in all sowing patterns were higher than that in pure MB systems. Various studies have also confirmed that lactic acid bacteria (LAB) content in cereal-legume mixed silages is higher than that in pure legume silages \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In conventional and narrow sowing patterns, the yeast counts in mixed and pure SS14 silages were found to be lower than those in pure MB systems. However, in the twin sowing patterns, the opposite situation has emerged. Kung et al. \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e have stated that the numbers of desired and undesired microorganisms, which provide insights into silage quality, can vary in different cultivation systems. In general, silage NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e-N contents of mixed and pure SS14 in all sowing patterns were higher than those of pure MB systems. It has been stated that high NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e-N content in silages sometimes negatively affects the performance of animals \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Generally, due to the proteolytic activities of clostridia, legume silages may exhibit higher soluble nitrogen and NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e-N compared to cereal silages in the silo \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In present study, silage NH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e-N contents have been expressed as a percentage of total nitrogen. Therefore, although the results expressed as a percentage of total nitrogen indicate a higher loss in pure sweet sorghum silages, the actual amount of loss is likely higher in pure mung bean silages. In all sowing patterns, pure SS14 and mixed silages gave higher LA content than pure MB systems. In general, a typical concentration of LA in silages is found to be between 2\u0026ndash;4% on a dry matter basis. However, in silages with lower dry matter (higher moisture content), this value may be lower \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Many studies have reported that legume silages have lower LA contents compared to cereal silages \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In all sowing patterns, AA content of pure SS14 and mixed silages was lower than pure MB systems. In many well-made silages, AA is the second-highest acid found in amounts ranging from 1\u0026ndash;3% of dry matter basis \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In fact, silages with very low AA content cannot remain stable for an extended period, especially when exposed to air during the feeding period \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Excessively high AA concentration (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;4\u0026ndash;6% of dry matter) is typically identified in overly wet silages (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;70% moisture) where undesirable fermentations have been suppressed by enterobacteria, clostridia, or heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Additionally, legume silages with high ash content can sometimes have high AA levels due to prolonged fermentation processes \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The AA contents obtained from present study are consistent with the literature reports. Similar to silage AA results, PA contents of pure SS14 and mixed silages were also found to be lower than those of pure MB systems. High concentrations of PA (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.3\u0026ndash;0.5%) are typically found in clostridial silages where the bacterium \u003cem\u003eClostridium propionicum\u003c/em\u003e is present \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The higher PA values obtained from current study than expected in a good silage raise the suspicion that 1,2-propanediol (1,2-PD) alcohol is possibly converted to PA in the silo by various microorganisms. In all sowing patterns, the ETOH contents of pure SS14 and mixed silages were determined to be higher than those of pure MB systems. Driehuis and van Wikselaar\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e reported that ETOH content in some grass silages can reach up to 5\u0026ndash;6%. Especially in silages of plants with high sugar content, such as sugarcane, ETOH levels exceeding 15% on a dry matter basis can occur \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, as the high number of epiphytic (natural) yeasts on these plants convert sucrose to ETOH \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The reason for the slightly higher ETOH content in pure SS14 and mixed silages compared to a typical silage, as obtained from present study, might be associated with the high water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC) content of sweet sorghum. In all sowing patterns, LA/AA ratio of pure MB silages were lower than those of pure SS14 and mixed silages. A good silage fermentation typically has a LA/AA ratio between 2.3 and 3.0 \u003csup\u003e33\u003c/sup\u003e. A LA/AA ratio below 1 is generally indicative of an abnormal (poor) fermentation \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The LA/AA ratios obtained from present study indicated good silage quality.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated the silage fermentation quality and nutrient content of products obtained from sweet sorghum and mung bean mixture systems grown using different sowing patterns. Sowing pattern and mixture interactions have significantly affected all characteristics except for the condensed tannin content feature. All intercropping systems evaluated in the study improved silage fermentation quality compared to pure mung bean cultivation systems in all sowing patterns. Additionally, they enhanced nutrient content compared to pure sweet sorghum cultivation. When all the results obtained from the study are considered, cultivating the Mix 14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;14 combination in both narrow and conventional sowing patterns may yield better results in terms of both silage fermentation quality criteria and nutrient content.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contributions Statement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI.E. and S.Y. designed the experiments I.E. and S.Y. performed the experiments. I.E. and S.Y. were mainly responsible for analyzing the data and writing the manuscript. All authors read and critically revised drafts for intellectual content and provided approval for publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interest\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eFunding Information\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was supported by Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Department of Scientific Research Projects with the project number, 19.D.008.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI.E. and S.Y. designed the experiments I.E. and S.Y. performed the experiments. I.E. and S.Y. were mainly responsible for analyzing the data and writing the manuscript. All authors read and critically revised drafts for intellectual content and provided approval for publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to express our gratitude to Hatay Mustafa Kemal University for providing financial support to this study with project number 19.D.008. Additionally, this article has been produced from Dr. Ibrahim ERTEKIN\u0026apos;s doctoral dissertation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErtekin, İ. \u0026amp; Kızılşimşek, M. Effects of lactic acid bacteria inoculation in pre-harvesting period on fermentation and feed quality properties of alfalfa silage. \u003cem\u003eAsian-Australas J. Anim. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e33\u003c/b\u003e (2), 245. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0801\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5713/ajas.18.0801\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAmer, S., Seguin, P. \u0026amp; Mustafa, A. F. Effects of feeding sweet sorghum silage on milk production of lactating dairy cows. \u003cem\u003eJ. Dairy. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e95\u003c/b\u003e (2), 859\u0026ndash;863. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4884\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3168/jds.2011-4884\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErtekin, I. \u0026amp; Yilmaz, S. The effects of sowing designs on forage yield and quality of sweet sorghum and mung bean mixtures under Mediterranean conditions. \u003cem\u003eTurk. J. Field Crops\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e27\u003c/b\u003e (2), 188\u0026ndash;199. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.1077392\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.17557/tjfc.1077392\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGhotbi, V., Mahrokh, A., Tehrani, A. M. \u0026amp; Asadi, H. Evaluation of forage yield and quality of cowpea, guar, and mung bean under drought stress conditions. \u003cem\u003eChem. Proc\u003c/em\u003e. 10(1), 62. (2022). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/IOCAG2022-12288\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/IOCAG2022-12288\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhan, M. A., Naveed, K., Ali, K., Bashir, A. \u0026amp; Samin, J. Impact of mungbean-maize intercropping on growth and yield of mungbean. \u003cem\u003ePakistan J. Res. Weed Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e18\u003c/b\u003e (2), 191\u0026ndash;200 (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKlevenhusen, F., These, A., Taenzer, J., Wei\u0026szlig;, K. \u0026amp; Pieper, R. Effects of ensiling conditions on pyrrolizidine alkaloid degradation in silages mixed with two different \u003cem\u003eSenecio\u003c/em\u003e spp. \u003cem\u003eArch. Anim. Nutr.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e76\u003c/b\u003e (2), 93\u0026ndash;111. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1745039X.2022.2084321\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1745039X.2022.2084321\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZeng, T. et al. Dynamic microbial diversity and fermentation quality of the mixed silage of corn and soybean grown in strip intercropping system. \u003cem\u003eBioresour Technol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e313\u003c/b\u003e, 123655. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123655\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123655\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNi, K. et al. Assessing the fermentation quality and microbial community of the mixed silage of forage soybean with crop corn or sorghum. \u003cem\u003eBioresour Technol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e265\u003c/b\u003e, 563\u0026ndash;567. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.097\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.097\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParra, C. et al. Influence of soybean-crop proportion on the conservation of maize-soybean bi-crop silage. \u003cem\u003eAnim. Feed Sci. Tech.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e257\u003c/b\u003e, 114295. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.114295\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.114295\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaitra, S. et al. Intercropping\u0026mdash;A low input agricultural strategy for food and environmental security. \u003cem\u003eAgron\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e (2), 343. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020343\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/agronomy11020343\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZeng, T. et al. Silage quality and output of different maize\u0026ndash;soybean strip intercropping patterns. \u003cem\u003eFerment\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e8\u003c/b\u003e (4), 174. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8040174\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/fermentation8040174\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBalehegn, M. et al. Forage conservation in sub-Saharan Africa: Review of experiences, challenges, and opportunities. \u003cem\u003eAgron. J.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e114\u003c/b\u003e (1), 75\u0026ndash;99. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20954\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/agj2.20954\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErtekin, İ. \u0026amp; Yilmaz, Ş. Variation of epiphytic flora affecting silage quality in pure and mixed mung bean and sweet sorghum. \u003cem\u003eBlack Sea J. Agri\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e5\u003c/b\u003e (2), 110\u0026ndash;116. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi:10.47115/bsagriculture.1069811\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi:10.47115/bsagriculture.1069811\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAOAC. 21st edition. Official Methods of Analysis 2019 AOAC International. (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. D. \u0026amp; Lewis, B. A. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. \u003cem\u003eJ. Dairy. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e74\u003c/b\u003e (10), 3583\u0026ndash;3597. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (1991).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDubois, M., Gilles, K. A., Hamilton, J. K., Rebers, P. A. \u0026amp; Smith, F. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. \u003cem\u003eAnal. Chem.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e28\u003c/b\u003e (3), 350\u0026ndash;356. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1021/ac60111a017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1021/ac60111a017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (1956).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMakkar, H. P. S., Gamble, G. \u0026amp; Becker, K. Limitation of the butanol-hydrocloric acid-iron assay for bound condensed tannins. \u003cem\u003eFood Chem.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e66\u003c/b\u003e, 129\u0026ndash;133. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(99)00043-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S0308-8146(99)00043-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (1999).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Quir\u0026oacute;s, A. R. B., Lage-Yusty, M. A. \u0026amp; Lopez-Hernandez, J. HPLC analysis of organic acids using a novel stationary phase. \u003cem\u003eTalanta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e78\u003c/b\u003e (2), 643\u0026ndash;646. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2008.11.013\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.talanta.2008.11.013\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErtekin, I., Atis, I., Aygun, Y. Z., Yilmaz, S. \u0026amp; Kizilsimsek, M. Effects of different nitrogen doses and cultivars on fermentation quality and nutritive value of Italian ryegrass (\u003cem\u003eLolium multiflorum\u003c/em\u003e Lam.) silages. \u003cem\u003eAnim. Biosci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e35\u003c/b\u003e (1), 39\u0026ndash;46. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5713/ab.21.0113\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5713/ab.21.0113\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErtekin, I., Atis, I. \u0026amp; Yilmaz, S. The effect of cultivar and stage of growth on the fermentation, aerobic stability and nutritive value of ensiled quinoa. \u003cem\u003eJ. Agric. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e29\u003c/b\u003e (2), 478\u0026ndash;490. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.1126285\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.15832/ankutbd.1126285\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatovu, J. \u0026amp; Al\u0026ccedil;i\u0026ccedil;ek, A. Feed resources used for small ruminant nutrition in Sub-Saharan Africa: a case study of Uganda. \u003cem\u003eTrop. Anim. Health Prod.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e55\u003c/b\u003e (6), 377. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-023-03781-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11250-023-03781-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHtet, M. et al. Evaluation of nutritive values through comparison of forage yield and silage quality of mono-cropped and intercropped maize-soybean harvested at two maturity stages. \u003cem\u003eAgriculture\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e11\u003c/b\u003e (5), 452. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11050452\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/agriculture11050452\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKizilşimşek, M., G\u0026uuml;naydin, T., Aslan, A., Keklik, K. \u0026amp; A\u0026ccedil;ikg\u0026ouml;z, H. Improving silage feed quality of maize intercropped with some legumes. \u003cem\u003eTurk. J. Agric. Nat. Sci. 7(1)\u003c/em\u003e. 165\u0026ndash;169. (2020). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.680048\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.30910/turkjans.680048\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, Q. et al. Effects of soybean density and sowing time on the yield and the quality of mixed silage in corn-soybean strip intercropping system. \u003cem\u003eFerment\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e8\u003c/b\u003e (4), 140. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8040140\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/fermentation8040140\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDi Miceli, G., Licata, M. \u0026amp; Marceddu, R. Forage mixture productivity and silage quality from a grass/legume intercrop in a semiarid Mediterranean environment. \u003cem\u003eAgron. J.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e115\u003c/b\u003e (3), 1131\u0026ndash;1145. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21300\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/agj2.21300\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaghdadi, A., Halim, R. A., Radziah, O., Martini, M. Y. \u0026amp; Ebrahimi, M. Fermentation characteristics and nutritive value of corn silage intercropped with soybean under different crop combination ratios. \u003cem\u003eJAPS: J. Anim. Plant Sci.\u003c/em\u003e 26(6), 1710\u0026ndash;1717. (2016) (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBolson, D. C. et al. Intercropped maize-soybean silage: Effects on forage yield, fermentation pattern and nutritional composition. \u003cem\u003eGrassl Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e68\u003c/b\u003e (1), 3\u0026ndash;12. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/grs.12323\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/grs.12323\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJavanmard, A., Nasab, A. D. M., Javanshir, A., Moghaddam, M. \u0026amp; Janmohammadi, H. Forage yield and quality in intercropping of maize with different legumes as double-cropped. \u003cem\u003eJ. Food Agric. Environ.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e7\u003c/b\u003e (1), 163\u0026ndash;166 (2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAngeletti, F. G., Mariotti, M., Tozzi, B., Pampana, S. \u0026amp; Saia, S. Herbage and silage quality improved more by mixing barley and faba bean than by N fertilization or stage of harvest. \u003cem\u003eAgron.\u003c/em\u003e 12(8), 1790. (2022). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081790\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/agronomy12081790\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKamalak, A. Kondense tanenin olumsuz etkilerini azaltmak i\u0026ccedil;in kullanılan katkı maddeleri ve yemlere uygulanan işlemler. \u003cem\u003eKS\u0026Uuml; Fen ve M\u0026uuml;hendislik Dergisi\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e10\u003c/b\u003e (2), 144\u0026ndash;150 (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eErtekin, I. Effects of commercial bacterial inoculants on fermentation and nutritive quality of wheat and annual legume mixed silages. \u003cem\u003eBangladesh J. Bot.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e52\u003c/b\u003e (3), 775\u0026ndash;782. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3329/bjb.v52i3.68896\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3329/bjb.v52i3.68896\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen, L. et al. Effect of ensiling whole crop oat with lucerne in different ratios on fermentation quality, aerobic stability and in vitro digestibility on the Tibetan plateau. \u003cem\u003eJ. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. (Berl\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cb\u003e101\u003c/b\u003e (5), e144\u0026ndash;e153. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jpn.12577\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/jpn.12577\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKung, J. L., Shaver, R. D., Grant, R. J. \u0026amp; Schmidt, R. J. Silage review: interpretation of chemical, microbial and organoleptic components of silages. \u003cem\u003eJ. Dairy. Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e101\u003c/b\u003e (5), 4020\u0026ndash;4033. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13909\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3168/jds.2017-13909\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBijelić, Z. et al. The effect of sward structure and n fertilization on the grass-legume silage quality. \u003cem\u003eJ. Agr Sci.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e22\u003c/b\u003e (1), 62\u0026ndash;68 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKung, L. Jr. \u0026amp; Shaver, R. D. Interpretation and use of silage fermentation analysis reports. Focus on Forage Vol. 3, No. 13. University of Wisconsin Extension, Madison. (2001).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKung, L. Jr. Understanding the biology of silage preservation to maximize quality and protect the environment. California alfalfa \u0026amp; forage symposium and Corn/Cereal Silage Conference (pp. 1\u0026ndash;2). Visalia, CA: University of California, Davis, CA. (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcDonald, P., Henderson, A. R. \u0026amp; Heron, S. J. E. The Biochemistry of Silage, 2nd Edn. Mallow, Bucks (UK): Chalcombe Publications (1991).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDriehuis, F. \u0026amp; van Wikselaar, P. G. The occurrence and prevention of ethanol fermentation in high-dry-matter grass silage. \u003cem\u003eJ. Sci. Food Agric.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e80\u003c/b\u003e, 711\u0026ndash;718. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(20000501)80:6\u0026lt;711::AID-JSFA593\u0026gt;3.0.CO;2-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(20000501)80:6%3C711::AID-JSFA593%3E3.0.CO;2-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2000).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDaniel, J. et al. Occurrence of volatile organic compounds in sugarcane silages. \u003cem\u003eAnim. Feed Sci. Technol.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e185\u003c/b\u003e, 101\u0026ndash;105. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.06.011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.06.011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKung, L. Jr. \u0026amp; Stanley, R. W. Effect of stage of maturity on the nutritive value of whole plant sugarcane preserved as silage. \u003cem\u003eAnim. Sci. J.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cb\u003e54\u003c/b\u003e, 689\u0026ndash;696. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2527/jas1982.544689x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.2527/jas1982.544689x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (1982).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Intercropping, silage, fermentation quality, nutritive value, sweet sorghum, mung bean","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6434099/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6434099/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to investigate the silage fermentation quality and nutrient content of the forages obtained from mixtures (M) of sweet sorghum and mung bean grown in different sowing patterns (SP) compared to monoculture (pure) systems. In the present study, different sowing patterns (conventional/75 cm row spacing, narrow/55 cm row spacing, and twin/55\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;20 cm row spacing) were used as factors. Sweet sorghum was sown at a density of 14 plants m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e (pure SS14), and mung bean was sown at densities of 14, 21, 28 plants m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e (pure MB14, pure MB21, and pure MB28). Mixtures of these crops were also utilized (Mix 14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;14, Mix 14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;21, and Mix 14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;28). Forages obtained from sweet sorghum and mung bean grown in different sowing patterns and mixtures were chopped and ensiled in laboratory-type silos using a vacuum device. After 90 days, the silages were opened, and nutrient content along with silage fermentation quality parameters were examined. The impact of SP\u0026times;M interactions was found to be significant on all examined characteristics except for the condensed tannin feature. All intercropping systems in the present study improved silage fermentation quality compared to pure MB systems in all sowing patterns. In addition, they enhanced the nutrient content of silages compared to pure SS14. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of all the results obtained from present study, the treatment of Mix 14\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;14 is recommended, especially in conventional and narrow sowing patterns.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Fermentation quality and nutritive value of strip intercropping of sweet sorghum and mung bean grown with different sowing patterns","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-05-12 16:11:02","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6434099/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-11-05T09:56:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-31T19:05:27+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"224834716398576116844766252180673806690","date":"2025-10-20T15:31:03+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"23426571431689173927754960607956084276","date":"2025-09-16T16:36:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"268351479647899230323005462368556410696","date":"2025-05-12T20:48:34+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-05-12T00:26:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"65642358408474296594589963460660728329","date":"2025-05-09T13:12:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-05-07T12:55:54+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-05-07T12:37:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-04-21T09:54:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-04-19T04:33:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2025-04-12T10:44:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"31f7e81a-6d46-4130-8de5-b603557adbde","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 12th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":48417147,"name":"Biological sciences/Plant sciences/Natural variation in plants"},{"id":48417148,"name":"Biological sciences/Plant sciences/Plant development"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-16T16:03:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-6434099","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-44149-5","journal":{"identity":"scientific-reports","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Scientific Reports"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-12 15:58:53","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 12th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-05-12 16:11:02","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41598-026-44149-5","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-44149-5","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6434099","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6434099","identity":"rs-6434099","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}