EFFECTS OF INTERCROPPING DESHO GRASS WITH VETCH ON FORAGE YIELD, NUTRITIONAL QUALITY AND SOIL FERTILITY IN LEMO DISTRICT OF HADIYA ZONE, SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA MSc THESIS BY MELKAMU BERHANU OCTOBER, 2022 HOSSANA, ETHIOPIA EFFECTS OF INTERCROPPING DESHO GRASS WITH VETCH ON FORAGE YIELD, NUTRITIONAL QUALITY AND SOIL FERTILITY IN LEMO DISTRICT OF HADIYA ZONE, SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA MSc THESIS BY MELKAMU BERHANU A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND HEATH OCTOBER, 2022 HOSSANA, ETHIOPIA i STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR First, I declare that this thesis is my bonafide work and that all sources of materials used for this thesis has been duly acknowledge. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for M.Sc. degree at the Wachemo University and is deposited at the University library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the library. I solemnly declare that this thesis is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any other academic degree, diploma or certificate. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided that accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Request for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the Head of the Department of Animal Sciences or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in interests of scholar ship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author of the Thesis. Name: Melkamu Berhanu Erose Signature: _________________ Place: Wachemo University, Ethiopia Submission Date: __________________ ii BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH The author was born in September 1987 in Soro woreda of Hadiya Zone, Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region of Ethiopia. He attended elementary School and Junior Secondary in wosheba and High school (9-10) in Jajura and (11-12) in Wachemo preparatory school. He completed high school and passed Ethiopian school leaving certificate examination in 2012 G.C. The author joined Wachemo University in 2013 G.C academic years and graduated with BSc. in Animal Sciences in July 03, 2015 G.C. He served in Fonko Enterprise and Industry office until 2019 G.C and he joined the school of graduate studies at Wachemo University in September 2020 G.C. iii WACHEMO UNIVERSITY APPROVAL SHEET This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Effects of Intercropping Desho Grass with Vetch on Forage Yield, Nutritional Quality and Soil Fertility in Lemo District of Hadiya Zone, Southern Ethiopia” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s with specialization in Animal Production and Health, the Graduate Program of the Department of Animal Science, and has been carried out by Melkamu Berhanu Erose Id. No PG/Ag-0223/12, under my/our supervision. Therefore I/we recommend that the student has fulfilled the requirements and hence hereby can submit the thesis to the department for defense. Sefa Salo ____________ _____________ Name of Major Advisor Signature Date Melkamu Bezabih (PhD) 01/11/2022 Name of Co-advisor Signature Date iv EXAMINERS’ APPROVAL SHEET We, the undersigned, members of the Board of Examiners of the final open defence by having read and evaluated his/her thesis entitled “Effects of Intercropping Desho Grass With Vetch On Forage Yield, Nutritional Quality And Soil Fertility In Lemo District of Southern Ethiopia”, and examined the candidate. This is, therefore, to certify that the thesis has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s science with specialization in Animal Production and Health. ______________________________ _________________ _______________ Name of the Chairperson Signature Date ______________________________ __________________ _______________ Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date ______________________________ __________________ _______________ Name of External examiner Signature Date ______________________________ __________________ _______________ SGS Approval Signature Date v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I would like to praise the Almighty God for his invaluable gift of full health, strength, patience, hope and protection throughout my study. I sincerely convey my deep thanks to my major advisor Dr. Sefa Salo and Co-adivor Dr. Melkamu Bezabih for their encouragement, guidance and support from proposal development up to the write up of the thesis. I wish to express my sincere word of thanks to Ato Abera Adie and also Dr Melkamu Bezabih, who was solving all the troubles concerning the budget and techniques from sowing to harvesting the field trials. I am deeply indebted to my parents who supported me morally in successful accomplishment of this thesis. I forward my thanks to my beloved wife w/o Kebebush Genamo, my father Berhanu Erose, my mother Tadelech Lanjore; and my friends , for their encouragement and moral support; I am deeply indebted to Workineh Dubale who provided research materials and technical support during my field trial at Lemo. This research was undertaken with support from Africa RISING, a program financed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of the United States Government’s Feed the Future Initiative. vi DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis manuscript to My Father Berhanu Erose and My mother Tadelech Lanjore and My brothers and Sisters for their endless love and moral support and encouragement during my study at Wachemo University and during Field work at Lemo district. vii LIST OF ABBREVATIONS ADF Acid Detergent Fiber ADL Acid Detergent Lignin ANOVA Analysis of Variance ANRS Amhara National Regional State AOAC Association of Official Analytical Chemists CP Crude Protein CPY Crude Protein Yield CSA Central Statistical Agency DAP Di Ammonium Phosphate DM Dry Matter Content DMY Dry Matter Yield DMYT/HA Dry Matter Yield Ton Per Hectare EPPO European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization ESGPIP Ethiopia Sheep and Goat Productivity Improvement Program FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GDP National Gross Domestic Product GLM General Linear Model ILRI International Livestock Research Institute NDF Neutral Detergent Fiber NIRS Near- infrared reflective strotoscopy NPS Nitrogen Phosphorus and Sulfur OC Organic Carbon OM Organic Matter SAS Statistical Analysis System SNNPRS Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Regional State SOC Soil Organic Carbon viii TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR ......................................................................................... ii BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................... vi LIST OF ABBREVATIONS ................................................................................................. viii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. xi LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX .............................................................................. xii 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1 1.1. Back Ground .....................................................................................................................1 1.2. Objectives of the Study .....................................................................................................3 1.2.1. General objective........................................................................................................3 1.2.2. Specific objectives ......................................................................................................3 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................................4 2.1. Livestock Feed Resources in Ethiopia ...............................................................................4 2.1.1. Natural pasture ...........................................................................................................4 2.1.2. Crop residues..............................................................................................................5 2.1.3. Agro-industrial by-products ........................................................................................5 2.1.4. Non-conventional feed sources ...................................................................................6 2.1.5. Improved forage .........................................................................................................7 2.2. Desho Grass (Pennisetum glaucifolium) in Ethiopia ..........................................................7 2.3. Vetch Production in Ethiopia ............................................................................................8 2.4. Overview of grass - legume mixtures ................................................................................9 2.5. The Role of grass legume mixtures on soil fertility ......................................................... 10 2.6. Importance of Growing Desho and Vetch Mixtures ......................................................... 11 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................ 12 3.1. Description of the Study Area ......................................................................................... 12 3.2. Experimental Design and Treatments .............................................................................. 12 3.3. Land Preparation and Planting ........................................................................................ 13 3.4. Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 13 3.5. Soil sample handling ....................................................................................................... 14 3.5.1. Soil sample collection procedure .............................................................................. 14 3.5.2. Soil sample analysis procedure ................................................................................. 14 3.6. Forage Yield Parameters ................................................................................................. 16 3.6.1. Forage yield determination ....................................................................................... 16 ix 3.6.2. Crude protein yield ................................................................................................... 16 3.6.3. Neutral detergent fiber yield ..................................................................................... 17 3.7. Chemical Analysis .......................................................................................................... 19 3.8. Statistical Analysis .......................................................................................................... 19 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 21 4.1. Physical and Chemical Properties of the soil at Study Area ............................................. 21 4.1.1. Chemical properties of soil before forage planting .................................................... 21 4.1.2. Chemical properties of soil after forage harvested..................................................... 23 4.2. Plant Height of Desho Grass and Vetch (V.villosa) ......................................................... 27 4.3. Dry Matter Yield of Desho and Vetch ............................................................................. 28 4.4. Effects of intercropping vetch (v.villosa) on chemical Composition of Desho Grass........ 31 4.4.1. Dry matter content .................................................................................................... 31 4.4.2. Crude protein contents .............................................................................................. 31 4.4.3. Ash content .............................................................................................................. 32 4.4.4. Fiber contents of desho grass .................................................................................... 33 4.4.5. Total In vitro Organic matter digestibility (TIVOMD %) .......................................... 35 4.5. Biological Efficiency of Desho-Vetch Mixtures .............................................................. 37 4.5.1. Relative yield and relative yield total of desho- vetch (v. villosa) mixture ................. 37 4.5.2. Aggressivity index .................................................................................................... 37 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 39 5.1. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 39 5.2. Recommendations........................................................................................................... 40 6. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 41 7. APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................... 52 x LIST OF TABLES Tables Pages Table 1. Soil chemical properties before forage sowing ............................................................. 22 Table 2. The average soil texture distribution by soil depth ....................................................... 23 Table 3. Chemical properties of soil after forage harvest ........................................................... 26 Table 4. The average value of plant height of desho grass and vetch species (v.villosa) ............. 28 Table 5. Dry matter yield of sole desho and intercropped with vetch (v. villosa) ....................... 30 Table 6. Effect of intercropping of vetch species (v.villosa) on chemical composition of desho grass in the study area ............................................................................................................... 36 Table 7. Relative yield, relative yield total and Aggressivity index of desho and vetch mixtures ................................................................................................................................................ .38 xi LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX Appendix Table Page 7. 1. ANOVA for Pant height of desho grass 52 7. 2. ANOVA for Dry matter yield ton per hectare desho grass 52 7. 3. ANOVA for crude protein content of desho grass 53 7. 4. ANOVA for Ash content of desho grass 53 7. 5. ANOVA for Acid detergent fiber of desho grass 54 7. 6. ANOVA for Acid detergent lignin of desho grass 54 7. 7. ANOVA for neutral detergent fiber of desho grass 55 7. 8. Total In vitro Organic matter digestibility of desho grass 55 xii LIST OF FIGURES IN THE APPENDIX Figure page Figure 1. Partial view of land preparation and early weeding process in experimental site. ....... 56 Figure 2. Sample collection process in experimental site .......................................................... 57 Figure 3. Sample drying process ............................................................................................... 58 xiii EFFECTS OF INTERCROPPING DESHO GRASS WITH VETCH ON FORAGE YIELD, NUTRITIONAL QUALITY AND SOIL FERTILITY IN LEMO DISTRICT OF HADIYA ZONE, SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA ABSTRACT This experiment was conducted in Hadiya Zone, Lemo district of southern Ethiopia with the objectives of evaluating the effects of intercropping desho grass with vetch (v.villosa) on forage yield, nutritional quality and soil fertility. The experiment was conducted in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Soil samples were collected before planting and after forage harvest. The treatments were desho vetch intercropping at a 12kg/ha seed rate for vetch (T1), desho vetch intercropping at a 9kg/ha seed rate for vetch (T2), desho vetch intercropping at 6kg/ha seed rate for vetch (T3), sole desho grass (T4) and sole vetch (T5). Data on biomass yield; plant height and chemical compositions were recorded and analyzed using the General Linear Model procedures of SAS. Relative yield, relative yield total, and aggressivity index were calculated for biological compatibility and yield advantages of desho and vetch (V.villosa). The pre- sowing soil analysis showed that the experimental soil had average pH of 6.73. This indicates that the soil was slightly acidic. Intercropping vetch with desho grass resulted in significantly higher total dry matter yield than sole desho grass at all cutting stages. The highest total dry matter yield (16.04-26.3 t/ha) was obtained from T1. The highest forage CP content (%) was obtained from T1 (10.07-13.45%) at all harvesting stages. On the other hand, significantly (P<0.05) higher ADF, ADL and NDF contents (%) was obtained from sole desho grass. Significantly higher in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) was obtained from intercropped desho grass with vetch (T1; 60.24, T2; 58.54 and T3; 60.03) at all cutting stages compared to the pure stand. The relative yield total of desho-vetch mixtures were greater than one, showing a yield advantage over the pure stand. The higher organic carbon percentage in tested soil after forage harvest in all vetch based treatments was probably due to improved soil fertility. The intercropping at a 12kg/ha seed rate for vetch has the potential to provide maximize production and productivity in study area and thus can be recommended for further evaluation and application. Key words: Desho grass and Vicia villosa Seed rates, Dry matter yield, Nutritional quality, soil fertility xiv 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Back Ground Ethiopia has the largest livestock population in Africa with estimation of 70 million cattle, 42.9 million sheep, 52.50 million goats, 13.33 million equines, 8.1 million camels and 57 million poultries (CSA, 2020/2021). The livestock sub-sector has significant contributions to the national income and the livelihoods of households by providing food, cash income, promoting saving, social functions and employment. The livestock subsector contributes about 47.7% of agricultural GDP, 16.5% of national GDP and 5- 17% of total exports (IGAD, 2011). It also contributes 15% of export earnings and 30% of agricultural employment (Behnke, 2011). However, its productivity is below the expectation because of inadequate feed quantity and poor quality as one of the major constraints in the livestock sector (Alemayehu et al., 2016). The major available feed resources in Ethiopia are natural pasture, crop residues, and agro- industrial by-products (Alemayehu, 2006; Adugna, 2007; Firew and Getnet, 2010; Yaynshet, 2010). Livestock are mainly dependent on naturally available feed resources (Abebe et al., 2014). About (54.54%), (31.13%), 7.35% and 2.03% of the total livestock feed supply of the country is derived from grazing on natural pasture, crop residues, Hay and agro-industrial by products, respectively (CSA, 2020/2021). However, the contribution of the natural pasture, is retreating from time to time due to poor management and continued expansion of crop farming (Solomon et al., 2003), indicating that livestock feed shortage in the country is further aggravated by the continuous conversion of grazing land to crop land. The available grazing lands are also vulnerable to degradation and consequently become barren and gullies due to poor management. This illustrates the increasing role of poor-quality crop residues in livestock feeding (Zewdie and Yosef, 2014), which in turn is explanatory for exploring alternative feed resources. At the same time, the existing natural pastures of the country are poor in nutritional quality, productivity and biodiversity because of mismanagement. Crop residues are inherently poor in nutritive value especially in protein and minerals for livestock farming in the country. Multipurpose improved forage species were introduced to the country, but its livestock feed contribution is very limited which is 0.32 percent (CSA, 2018). The reason justified for these low 1 improved forages availability is lack of land allocation for forage cultivation and low technical knowledge for improved forage production by the smallholder farmers (Abebe et al., 2008). One of the potential approaches to improve livestock feed availability in terms of quality and quantity is the use of grass-legume mixtures (Alemu et al., 2007). The role of such integrated forage production system in ensuring quality fodder availability and growing mixtures of grasses and legumes improves biomass production as compared to grass monocultures (Matt et al., 2013). In Ethiopia desho grass (Pennisetum glaucifolium) is known as a perennial grass which has an extensive root system that anchors well with the soil and has a high biomass production capacity 30–109 t/ha and the grass is utilized as a means of soil conservation practices and animal feed in the highlands of Ethiopia (Ecocrop, 2010; Welle et al., 2006). The grass is drought resistant plant, used as feed for ruminants (EPPO, 2014). It has the potential of meeting the challenges of feed scarcity since it provides more forage per unit area and ensures regular forage supply due to its multi-cut nature (Ecocrop, 2010). The grass is also available in other tropical countries and is palatable to cattle, sheep and other herbivores (FAO, 2010). It has the ability to recover after water stress even under severe drought condition. Moreover, the grass serves as a business opportunity for farmers in Ethiopia through selling of seedlings (Sheiferaw et al., 2011; Leta et al., 2013). Intercropping technology plays a vital role in subsistence food and feed production in both advanced and emerging countries. It tends to give higher yield than sole crops, greater yield stability and efficient use of nutrients. Using of grass- legume pasture has advantage than pure stand forages (Albayrak and Ekiz, 2005; Kocer and Albayrak, 2012). In addition, intercropping grass and legumes could improve the forage nutritive value so that both energy and protein values available in the rumen fermentative digestion and in turn improve livestock productivity. Mixture of vetch-oat production in the high lands of Ethiopia is common practice, but intercropping of vetch with other grass like desho grass had not been practiced in the different parts of our country. Vetch is an annual forage legume widely adapted to the highlands of Ethiopia. It is reported that vetches are rich in protein, minerals, and have lower fiber content. 2 With the highest level of crude protein (CP), vetch could be used as supplement to roughages for dairy cows (Gezahagn et al., 2014). Farmers who grow desho grass in southern Ethiopia complain that after few years of harvest, the yield goes down and also the grass turns yellowish. This could be associated with nutrient mining from the soil and limited fertilization to replenish lost nutrients. This research was initiated with a hypothesis that by intercropping legumes, which fix nitrogen biologically, the nutrient mining issue can be solved and farmers can obtain higher overall forage productivity with good nutritional quality. Therefore, the aim of this work was to explore to what extent intercropping desho grass with legume forages vetch, help to minimize nutrient mining and help to sustain high forage biomass yield in the small holder system. 1.2. Objectives of the Study 1.2.1. General objective  To evaluate effects of intercropping desho grass with vetch on forage yield, nutritional quality and soil fertility 1.2.2. Specific objectives  To evaluate effects of intercropping desho grass with vetch on forage yield and nutritional quality  To evaluate effects of intercropping desho grass with vetch on soil fertility 3 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Livestock Feed Resources in Ethiopia According to the reports of Alemayehu (2005), the livestock feed resources in Ethiopia are grouped in to grazing land (natural pasture), crop residues, improved pasture, fodder trees and browse, forage crops and agro-industrial by-products. Moreover, there are also feed resources such as byproducts of vegetables, kitchen wastes, etc. generally known as non-conventional feeds. The proportion of animal feed source in Ethiopia were 55.9, 30.12, 6.55, 1.61, 5.44 and 0.32 % for grazing, crop residue, hay, agro-industrial byproducts, others and improved fodder, respectively (CSA, 2018). Hence, there is no sufficient and quality feed throughout the year in the country; leading to feed deficiency in Ethiopia is 25 percent as DM, while ME and CP deficiencies are 45 percent and 42 percent respectively, deficit in the livestock feed (FAO, 2018). 2.1.1. Natural pasture Natural pasture is the major source of livestock feed and in the lowland’s livestock production is almost totally dependent on it. In the highlands with the rapid increase of human population and high demand for food, pastures are steadily being converted to farmlands (Malede and Takele, 2014). Natural pastures include annual and perennial species of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees naturally grown (Solomon, 2004). Grazing of natural pasture constitutes the main source of animal feed throughout the year with maximum availability during main crop growing season in mixed livestock production system (Dereje et al., 2013). However, quality and productivity of natural pasture is very poor to meet the nutrient requirement of animals (Malede and Takele, 2014) particularly in the dry season, due to poor management, their inherent low productivity and poor quality. 4 2.1.2. Crop residues Crop residue is one of main feed in animal production in Ethiopia, especially those area which practice livestock and crop production together as mixed farming. It includes cereal and legume residue like wheat straw, barley straw, teff straw Faba bean straw, field pea straw, and maize stover. Apart from being a source of animal feed, residues are also used as fuel, sold as an income source and are also used for house construction, particularly for plastering of walls and thatching of roofs in rural areas. Some farmers also use crop residues (wheat, teff, millet, maize, sorghum etc.) for mulching purposes to enhance fertility of the soil (Dereje et al., 2013). The contributions of crop residues reach up to 80% during the dry seasons of the year (Adugna , 2007). Cereal crop residues are fed to livestock during the dry season when the quantity and quality of available fodder from natural pasture declines drastically (Paulos, 2009). Crop residues are abundantly available at the beginning of the dry season following the harvest and threshing of cereal and pulse crops. The low protein-content (3.1-6.7%) and poor digestibility (40.7- 54.1%) of the stuffs make them feeds o f low nutritional value (Malede and Takele, 2014). According to the information collected on feed usage experience of holders in the rural areas of The country, crop residue is the type of feed about 31.13% (CSA, 2020/2021). The general tendency is that the role of crop residue as livestock feed is increasing from time to time at the expense of shrinkage of grazing lands (CSA, 2015). But quality and digestibility are very low with less than 50% digestibility, high fiber content (more than 70% NDF) and low crude protein (< 5% CP) (Gizachew and Smit, 2005). 2.1.3. Agro-industrial by-products The current trends of increasing urban population have a significant effect on the establishment of agro industries due to the corresponding demand for food products. Consequently, this leads to an increase in the availability of agro- industrial by-products such as molasses, brewer’s dried grains, palm oilcake, winery mash and soon, which by used in livestock feeding. Agro-industrial by-products cover flour mill by-products such as wheat bran and milling, oilseed cakes (noug seed cake, linseeds, sesame seeds and rapeseeds), brewers’ grain and sugarcane byproducts like 5 molasses and bagasse and also slaughter product (Yayneshet, 2010). Traditional brewery and distillation by-products such as Atella and Brint respectively also contribute as supplement feed source for livestock Agro-industrial by-products have special value in feeding livestock mainly in urban and peri-urban livestock production system, as well as in situations where the productive potential of the animals are relatively high and require high nutrient supply (Andualem, 2016). Agro-industrial by-products are rich in energy and/or protein contents or both. They have low fiber content, high digestibility, and energy values compared with the other class of feeds (Lentes et al., 2010). Thus, the use of agro-industrial by-product is restricted to the emerging private dairy and fattening farms (Yayneshet, 2010). Even though, there are limited accessibility of agro- industrial by-products farmers supply agro-industrial by-products to their animal. According to Firew and Getnet (2010), the major agro-industrial by-products of available as feed source in ANRS are wheat bran, wheat middling, rice bran, oats bran, noug seed cake, cotton seed cake, sesame seed cake, groundnut cake, and brewery by-products. However, the contribution of the by-products is proportionally low, due to their growing prices and low accessibility (Felekech et al., 2013). 2.1.4. Non-conventional feed sources Non-conventional feed source generally refers to all those feeds that have not been traditionally used for feeding livestock and are not commercially used in the production of livestock feeds. It includes vegetable refusals, sugarcane leaves, enset leaves and fish offal used as animal feed. Feedstuffs such as fish offal, duckweed and kitchen leftovers (i.e., potato peel, carrot peel, onion peel, and cabbage left over), poultry litter, algae, local brewery and distillery by-products, sisal waste, cactus, coffee parchment and coffee pulp are commonly used in Ethiopia, and could be invaluable feed resources for small and medium size holders of livestock (Negesse et al., 2009). However, the categories of non-conventional feed vary according to the feeding habit of the community (Endale et al., 2016). Another non-conventional feed type like kitchen waste and coffee residues used as animal feed in Jimma Zone, South Western, Ethiopia (Zemene et al., 2016). Local alcohol by products known as‘areke’, ‘tela’ and‘atela’ were commonly used in 6 central rift valley of Ethiopia (Felekech et al., 2013). Endale et al. (2016) reported that farmers were utilizing non-conventional feeds such as vegetable refusals and local alcohol waste for their animal. Due to their low cost and availability of non- conventional feed source such as by- products from local brewery and distillery are widely used by small holder farmers (Ajebu, 2010). Thus, non-conventional feeds could partly fill the gap in the feed supply, decrease competition for food between humans and animals, reduce feed cost, and contribute to self- sufficiency in nutrients from locally available feed sources (Tenegne et al., 2009). 2.1.5. Improved forage Improved forages provide benefits such as soil fertility through their nitrogen fixing ability and reducing soil erosion. Introduction, popularization and utilization of improved multipurpose forage crops and trees such as Sesbanias species, Leucaena leucocephala, Calliandra species and Chamaecytisuspalmensis through integration with food crops cultivation in the mixed crop- livestock system in Ethiopia started in the 1970s aimed at supplementing the widely available roughage feed source(Alemayehu, 2006). Forage legumes play a significant role in nitrogen fixation; have high crude protein in the leaves and foliage, which can be used as a protein supplement for livestock (Tiruset, 2019). Legumes are rich in minerals (calcium, phosphorus) and vitamins A and D (Lukuyu et al., 2012). Cultivated fodder crops such as oats, vetch, alfalfa, and fodder beet are not well developed under the present country’s conditions (Alemayehu, 2005). Unsatisfactory and limited success rate have been reported from the attempts made in the establishment of improved forages (Abebe et al., 2008) with less than one percent contribution (CSA, 2018) which calls for further effort in extension and research activities in the country 2.2. Desho Grass (Pennisetum glaucifolium) in Ethiopia Desho grass is one of the indigenous potential forage species which needed comprehensive research in Ethiopia (Bimrew, 2016). Desho grass (Pennisetum glaucifolium) is native to tropical countries including Ethiopia (Ecocrop, 2010; Leta et al., 2013; EPPO, 2014). In Ethiopia desho grass is known as a perennial plant originated in Southern Nations, Nationalities Peoples Regional State in a place called Chencha in 1991 (Welle et al., 2006). Currently it is utilized as a 7 means of soil conservation practices and animal feed in the highlands of Ethiopia (Ecocrop, 2010; Yakob et al., 2015). The grass is popular, drought resistant plant, used as feed for ruminants (FAO. 2010; EPPO, 2014). It has the potential of meeting the challenges of feed scarcity since it provides more forage per unit area and ensures regular forage supply due to its multi-cut nature (Ecocrop, 2010). The Desho grass is also available in other tropical countries and is palatable to cattle, sheep and other herbivores (FAO, 2010). The grass is drought resistant plant, used as feed for ruminants (FAO, 2010; EPPO, 2014). It has the potential of meeting the challenges of feed scarcity since it provides more forage per unit area and ensures regular forage supply due to its multi-cut nature (Ecocrop, 2010). Desho grass is suitable for intensive management and performs well at an altitude ranging from 1500 to 2800 meters above sea level (Leta et al., 2013). It has the ability to recover after water stress even under severe drought condition; moreover, the grass serves as a business opportunity for farmers in Ethiopia (Sheiferaw et al., 2011; Leta et al., 2013). 2.3. Vetch Production in Ethiopia Vetch (Vicia villosa) is an annual forage legume widely adapted to the highlands of Ethiopia. It grows well on the reddish brown clay soils and the black soils of the highland areas. It has been grown successfully in areas of acid soil with pH of 5.5-6. It is reported that vetches are rich in protein, minerals, and have lower fiber content. Forages which are moderate to high in CP reduce the need for supplemental purchased protein (Gezahegn et al., 2014). Vetch is a vigorous climbing/sprawling annual legume with a wide range of adaptation and high level of farmer acceptability. It is herbaceous legume that can grows in area with an altitude ranging from 1500- 3000 meter and is suited to a wide range of rainfall – typically anything above 400 mm per annum (Fantahun, 2016, ESGPIP, 2008). Vetch grows on a wide range of soils but requires good drainage for optimum productivity. It is ideally suited to under-sowing, mixed pasture and backyard forage plots and establishes readily, even on rough seedbeds. Typical sowing rates are 20 kg/ha for pure stands, 12 kg/ha for under- 8 sowing, and 5-12 kg/ha as a pioneer component of mixed pasture. When sown at 12-20 kg/ha with oats, vetch makes excellent hay (Mengistu, 2008). Species of vetch have different characteristics in terms of growth habit, days to maturity, morphological fractions, and climatic adaptation. In general, growth habit of vetch species can be broadly grouped as erect, creeping or climbing. For instance, Vicia dasycarpa, Vicia villosa and Vicia atropurpurea have creeping or climbing growth habit, whereas Vicia narbonensis and Vicia sativa have erect growth habit. These differences in genetic characteristics are the basis for variation in nutritive values and also determine the production, utilization and the various management practices. This shows that the different vetch species and their accessions need to be assessed for the nutritional quality differences under the different soil types and climatic conditions (Gezahegn, 2014). 2.4. Overview of grass - legume mixtures Mixtures are more preferable than pure forage stands throughout the world because they often increase the total yields of herbage and protein and offer balanced nutrition (Albayrak and Ekiz, 2005). They tend to provide a superior nutrient balance and produce higher forage yields. However, grass-legume mixtures are more difficult to manage than mono culture pastures because of competition among the mixture components for light, water, and nutrients (Cinar and Hatipoglu, 2014). Growing mixtures of grasses and legumes improves biomass production as compared to grass monocultures (Matt et al., 2013). Their green foliage parts and roots also can decompose and release nitrogen into the soil where it might be made available to succeeding crops (Lithourgidis et al., 2011). Mixed planting of grasses and legumes was also indicated to be more productive than monocultures and the approach was thus reported to help control weeds, diseases and pests (Erla, 2011). Several investigators have reported that legumes exert a beneficial effect by increasing the protein content of the non-legume component of the mixture (Wagner, 1954). Legume-grass mixtures produce more forage than pure stands of grasses receiving no or moderate amounts of N fertilizer (Carter and Scholl, 1962; Dobson et al., 1976; Barnett and Posler, 1983; Jones et al., 1988). 9 Compatibility of forage legumes with grasses depends on the morphology and physiological characteristics of the legume grass, in combination with the response of each to management imposed and the climate, and soil and biotic conditions under which the crop is growing (Gezahagn et al., 2016). Besides, increasing herbage productivity, establishing legume/grass mixture could improve forage quality and is also advantageous on account of the possibility of nitrogen accretion from the legume to the soil and then to the grass there by improving soil fertility and nutritional quality of the companion grass (Fekede et al., 2003). Grass legume mixture provide higher feed quality owing to the higher crude protein concentration of legumes (Umuna et al., 1995), increased biomass yield (Getnet and Lendin, 2001; Lithourgidis et al., 2006), reduced use of non-renewable resources through reduced N fertilizer use, a consistent production pattern, improved soil fertility ( Lopez-bellido, 2001) and improved livestock production (Umuna et al., 1995). 2.5. The Role of grass legume mixtures on soil fertility Legumes are plants with the special ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen and provide nitrogen to grass– legume mixtures, so mixtures may produce more forage yield than grasses grown alone (Gulwa et al., 2017). Legumes also improve the nutritive value of the low quality native pastures grown with them and are an important component of the farming system since they have high nutritive value and improve soil fertility and reduce the cost of chemical fertilizers (Kebede et al., 2016). Therefore, legume intercropping with grasses allow lower inputs through reduced fertilization and contribute to a greater uptake of water and nutrients, increased soil conservation, increased efficiency of land use, enhanced interception and use of light, weed and pest control, high productivity and profitability compared to mono cropping systems (Akman et al., 2013). An important reason for grass legume mixture is on the improvement and maintenance of soil fertility. Legumes are beneficial because they fix atmospheric nitrogen (N2) through a symbiotic relationship with Rhizobia bacteria, which form nodules in leguminous roots. These beneficial bacteria enhance soil fertility by increasing N through rhizo deposition, which reduces the amount of synthetic N fertilizer needed for soil fertilization (Ashworth et al., 2015). After the 10 intercrop is harvested, decaying roots and fallen leaves provide nitrogen and other nutrient for the next crop resulting to less needs for external nitrogen addition (Borin and Frankow-Lindberg, 2005). Legumes, like Vetch can provide N to the non-legume directly through microbial links, root exudates, or decay of roots and nodules; or indirectly when the legume fixes atmospheric nitrogen (N2), and thereby reducing competition for soil NO3 with the non-legume (Anil et al., 1998). 2.6. Importance of Growing Desho and Vetch Mixtures Legumes provide nitrogen to grass– legume mixtures, so mixtures may produce more forage yield than grasses grown alone (Gulwa et al., 2017). Growing a mixture of Vicia species with desho grass is a suitable practice used to improve forage DM production and quality, and farmers can use land more efficiently by growing Vicia species with desho grass (Abera et al., 2021). Legumes, like Vetch can provide N to the non-legume directly through microbial links, root exudates, or decay of roots and nodules; or indirectly when the legume fixes atmospheric nitrogen (N2), and thereby reducing competition for soil NO3 with the non-legume (Anil et.al., 1998). Therefore, legume intercropping with grasses allow lower inputs through reduced fertilization and contribute to a greater uptake of water and nutrients, increased soil conservation, increased efficiency of land use, enhanced interception and use of light, weed and pest control, high productivity and profitability compared to mono cropping systems (Akman et al., 2013; Coll et al., 2012 11 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1. Description of the Study Area The study was conducted in Lemo district of Hadiya zone, at Jawe kebele, Southern Ethiopia. Lemo district Located at about 232 kilometers from Addis Ababa. The Woreda lies between 70.42” to 70.75' 00'' Latitude and 370.80” to 380 .07’Longitude with an altitude range of 1501- 2500 m.a.s.l. The mean annual rain fall varies between 1001 to 1200 mm, and the mean annual temperature varies between 15.10c and 200c. It is bordered by Silte Zone in the North, Kembata Tembaro Zone in the South, Gombora Woreda of Hadiya Zone in the North West, Ana Lemo Woreda of Hadiya Zone in the North East and Shashogo Woreda of Hadiya Zone in the East. Lemo woreda is third populated woreda in hadiya zone with its total human population of 156,886 and total area of land is 354 square kilometer out of which 78.5% is crop land (Hadiya Zone Statistical Abstract, 2019- 2020). The Woreda is classified in to two climatic zones: Dega or the highland (9%), Weina Dega or midland (91%). Type of crops grown in the area was wheat, faba bean, ‘Enset’ oat, coffee, and pea. The district is appropriate for different crops and livestock production. Livestock is considered as an important component in the farming system of the district. Hence, farmers in the study area hold livestock species such as cattle, equines (horses, asses and mules), small ruminants, poultry and bee colonies, which serve the household as source of draft power, meat, milk, honey and beeswax, family income, manure and means of transportation ( Lemo woreda livestock and fishery office, 2021) 3.2. Experimental Design and Treatments The experiment design was randomized complete block design with three replications and five treatments per replication. Fifteen plots of 6m2 each (2×3m2) were prepared at one experimental location. The plots in each block were randomly assigned to one of the five treatments. 12 Treatment 1, Desho vetch intercropping at a 12kg/ha seed rate for vetch, Treatment 2, Desho vetch intercropping at 9kg/ha seed rate for vetch Treatment 3, Desho vetch intercropping at 6kg/ha seed rate for vetch Treatment 4, Sole desho Grass Treatment 5, Sole vetch forage (At 30 kg/ha rate). Desho grass was established using root splits at a spacing of 50cm between rows and 25cm between plants. Then, the vetch (Vicia villosa) was sown in between subsequent rows of desho grass as per the seed rate indicated below for the vetch. For the sole vetch forage plots, seeds were planted in a row (row spacing 50cm). 3.3. Land Preparation and Planting . The experimental field was cleared from weeds and trees before laying out plots and planting. The land was ploughed during the short rainy season to get a fine seedbed and the plots were leveled manually. Planting was done during the rainy season May at Jawe kebele of Lemo woreda. Before planting, pre-treatment soil samples were taken from randomly assigned locations in the experimental plots at two depths (0-10cm and 10-20 cm layers). 3.4. Data Collection Data tools were prepared and used to record relevant information. Routine monitoring of the planted plots was done regularly to observe plant developmental stages including germination, growth and flowering and incidences including diseases, pests, erosion or water logging for appropriate actions. Harvests were done at full vegetative stage of the crops (50- 75cm height and greater or equal to 75% of plot cover for desho grass and 30- 50% flowering for vetch). Desho was harvested multiple times during the meher growth period while vetch, being annual, was harvested only once. Uniform rate of DAP/NPS (100kg/ha) and urea fertilizer were applied at planting. Data collected include plant height, forage biomass yield (by forage type), forage quality at each harvest, and 13 soil fertility profile at two depths (0-10 cm and 10-20cm) from each plot before planting and after end of harvest. 3.5. Soil sample handling 3.5.1. Soil sample collection procedure The first soil sample was randomly collected from experimental field at the depth of 0-10 cm and 10-20cm using an auger before forage sowing (Wilding, 1985). Soil samples after forage harvest were collected from each plots representing five surface soil samples (in each corner and center of plots) taken diagonally at a depth of 0-10 cm and 10-20cm by using auger (Jackson, 1958). The collected soil samples were composited and the composited reduced to working sample size for analysis. 3.5.2. Soil sample analysis procedure The soil samples were analyzed in Addis Ababa soil lab. In addition, it was analyzed for, total nitrogen, soil pH, available phosphorus, organic matter, cation exchange capacity (CEC), soil texture, available potassium. Particle size distribution (soil texture) was analyzed by the modified Buoyoucos hydrometric method (Day,1965) after destroying OM using colgon solution (sodium hexametaphosphate solution) as soil dispersing agent hydrogen peroxide (H2O4) and sodium carbonate, (Na2CO3) were used as soil dispersing agents (silt, clay and sand). The pH of the soil was determined according to Peech, 1965 using 1:2.5 soil water ratio methods. For soil water ratio methods, 25ml of distilled water were added to 10g of soil. The mixture was shaken for 30 minutes with the mechanical shaker and allowed to stand the solution which was stirred for one minute and left for one hour. After this, the soil suspension was stirred and measured by glass electrode pH meter until the reading is constant. Determination of total N of samples were performed by the Kjeldahl method as described by Jackson, (1958). A1.0 gram of air dried samples were passed through a 0.5 mm sieve and added in to the digestion tube. These were 1.0 gram of selenium mixture catalyst added followed by 10 ml of concentrated 14 sulpheric acid to start the digestion process. Digest the block digester at375 oc the set-up was left in digestion chamber for 2 hours. After 2 hours, the digests were retrieved from digestion chamber and allowed to cool for 5 minutes after which they were transferred into distillation flask and 40 ml of 45% NaOH were added followed by distillation process. Then, the released NH3 was collected into 30 ml of Boric acid (H3BO3) and titration was done against 0.01 M H2SO4 (Okalebo et al., 2002). The collected NH3 titrated with 0.1N HCL (Hydrochloric acid) and recorded the volume of titrant (Hydrochloric acid) determined by the formula. %N = (V-B) N * 𝐄𝐪.𝐖𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐍∗𝟏𝟎𝟎 𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎∗ 𝐖 Where; %N = percentage of total nitrogen, V= volume of hydrochloric acid consumed by the sample; B = blank used for error reduction, N = Nitrogen, Equilibrium weight of N per 1000gram; W = weight of soil used (gm). The CEC was measured after saturating the soil with 1 N ammonium acetate (NH4OAC) solution (Chapman, 1965). Available soil phosphorus was determined by Olsen methods of the Bray II (Bray and Kurtz, 1945). Five grams of air dried soil were passed through 2 mm sieve and weighed into a 100 ml extracting tube and 50 ml double acid reagent added. The tubes were corked tightly, placed horizontally in a rack on a mechanical shaker and shaken for 30 minutes. The soil was filtered through Whitman filter paper No. 42 and filtrate collected in specimen bottles. A suitable aliquot of the soil extract measured and put into a 50 ml volumetric flask. Twenty-five ml of distilled water were added to each tube followed by 8 ml of reagent and immediately distilled water was added to the mark and mixed thoroughly. The solution was allowed to stand 25 minutes before readings (Okalebo et al., 2002). Then the concentration of the sample was read from the graph using the observance value recorded or calibrates the spectrophotometer with the standard series and read the sample concentration directly. Soil organic carbon was determined by the wet digestion method as described by (Walkey and Black, 1934) and soil OM was calculated by multiplying percent OC by a factor of 1.724. 15 3.6. Forage Yield Parameters 3.6.1. Forage yield determination Three adjacent rows from the center of each plot was harvested at approximately 3 cm above ground when 50% desho reach heading and vetches reach flowering stage from 1mx1m area excluded about 0.5m border area from each side (Aklilu and Alemayehu, 2007). The Forage Yield were weighed and separated into desho and vetch to estimate yield advantage. The fresh weight was recorded in the field using a weighing balance. The fresh sub samples were measured from each plot and each plant species were separately weighed and chopped in to short length (2- 4cm) to estimate fresh biomass yield. The fresh sub sample was taken from each treatment and dried in an oven for quality determination. Sub sample was taken and dried in a forced draft oven at a temperature of 105 °C overnight for total dry matter yield determination (Molla et al., 2018). The oven dried samples were re weighed to determine the total dry matter yield as:- DM yield (t/ha) = (10 x TFW x SSDW) / (HA x SSFW) (James, 2008). Where: 10 = is a constant for conversion of yields in kg/m2 to tone/ ha TFW = Total fresh weight from harvested area (kg) SSDW= Sub-sample dry weight (g) HA = Harvest area (m2) SSFW = Sub-sample fresh weight (g) 3.6.2. Crude protein yield Crude protein yield (CPY) (t/ha) =𝑫𝑴𝒀 𝒕/𝒉𝒂 ∗%𝑪𝑷 𝟏𝟎𝟎 Where: DMY (t/ha) = dry matter yield (ton per hectare) %CP = crude protein content of forage 16 3.6.3. Neutral detergent fiber yield Neutral detergent fiber yield (NDFY) (t/ha) =𝑫𝑴𝒀 𝒕/𝒉𝒂∗% 𝑵𝑫𝑭 𝟏𝟎𝟎 Where: DMY (t/ha) = dry matter yield ton per hectare %NDF = neutral detergent fiber content of forage. Plant N uptakes were determined by multiplying the N concentrations of each treatment by their respective dry matter weights (Ansarul et al., 2018; Abreha et al., 2013). N uptake (t/ha) = %𝑁∗𝐷𝑀𝑌 (𝑡/ℎ𝑎) 100 The benefit of intercropping system and the effect of inter specific competition between the intercropped species, the relative yield, relative yield total, and Aggressivity Index (AI) will be calculated. Relative yield: The relative yield of the mixed components were calculated with the formula described by (Ghosh, 2004; Midya et al., 2005) RYG = DMYGL/DMYGG RYL = DMYLG/DMYLL Where; RYG =is Relative yield of grass and RYL= is Relative yield of legume DMYGL = is the dry matter yield of desho grown in mixture with vetch DMYGG = is the dry matter yield of desho grown as monoculture DMYLG = is the dry matter yield of vetch grown in mixture with desho DMYLL= is the dry matter yield of vetch as monoculture. If RY > 0.5; higher yield in the mixture than sole. 17 RY < 0.5; lower yield in the mixture than sole and RY=0.5; no effect of cropping system on yield(Caballero et al., 1995; Rauber et al., 2001; Lithourgidis et al., 2006). Relative yield total (RYT): Relative total yield (RTY) is used as the first criteria to show the advantages of sole and mixed cropping over the other among the different species. It was used to show the effectiveness of mixture in resource utilization in the environment in comparison with mono cropping. Relative yield total was calculated according to the formula used by Dhima et al., (2007) and Dawit and Nebi, (2017): RYTGL = (DMYGL/DMYGG) + (DMYLG/DMYLL) Where; DMYGL= is the dry matter yield of desho grown in mixture with vetch DMYGG= is the dry matter yield of desho as monoculture DMYLG= is the dry matter yield of vetch grown in mixture with desho DMYLL= is the dry matter yield of vetch monoculture. If RYT > 1, it shows yield advantage of mixtures compared to the pure stand. RYT < 1 indicates a disadvantage of mixtures compared to sole cropping. RYT=1 shows no biological yield advantage from mixed crops. Aggressivity index (AI): Measures the competitive ability of grass against the legume in mixture and vice versa. The DM yield of vetch and desho accessions was calculated on a per unit area basis, if vetch and desho have the same competitive ability the value of Aggressivity index is zero. The numerical value of the Aggressivity index of both species is the same but the sign of the dominant species is positive and that of the dominated negative; the greater the numerical value the bigger the difference in competitive abilities and the bigger the difference between the actual and the expected yields. The Aggressivity index (AI) was calculated according to the formula (Ghosh, 2004; Midya et al., 2005). 18 AIGL = (DMYGL/ DMYGG) - (DMYLG / DMYLL) AILG = (DMYLG/DMYLL) - (DMYGL/DMYGG) Where, AIGL = Aggressivity index of grass grown in mixture with legume AILG =Aggressivity index of legume component grown in mixture with grass 3.7. Chemical Analysis The forage samples were properly wilted and dried under shed, put in a paper bag, labeled and transported to the animal nutrition laboratory of the International Livestock Research Institute in Addis Ababa. In the lab the samples were dried in the forced air-drying oven at 65 °C for 48 hours and then ground to pass a 1 mm sieve screens for quality determination. The samples were then analyzed for ash, organic matter, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), acid detergent lignin (ADL), crude protein (CP) and in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) with NIRS. The NIRS prediction equations were developed based on the conventional wet chemistry analysis. 3.8. Statistical Analysis Data on forage yield, nutritional quality and soil fertility samples were subjected to ANOVA based on the model designed for a randomized complete block design (RCBD) according to Gomez and Gomez (1984) using, the GLM of SAS Least significance differences (LSD) was used to compare means as described by Steel and Torrie (1986) at (p < 0.05). The following model was used for data analysis of experiment: Yij = μ + Ti + Bj + Hj + Eij Where, Yij = measured variable μ = overall mean of the population 19 Ti = the ith Treatment effect Bj = jth Block effect (r1 - r3) Eij = random error 20 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - 4.1. Physical and Chemical Properties of the soil at Study Area 4.1.1. Chemical properties of soil before forage planting The soil chemical analyses by soil depth (0-10cm and 10-20cm) before planting forage are shown in Table 1. The pre- sowing soil analysis showed that the experimental soil had average pH of 6.65 at 0-10cm depth and 6.59 at 10-20cm depth. This indicates that the soil was slightly acidic in both cases which are in line with the report by Ashagre (2008). The preferable pH ranges for most crops are in the range of 6.0 and 7.5 (Hazelton and Murphy, 2007; Hall; 2008). Therefore, the pH of the experimental soil was fulfills the recommended range for the forages. The experimental soil had 0.14% average nitrogen at 0-10cm and 0.12% at 10-20cm depth. Murphy (1968) classified soil total N of less than 0.10% as low, 0.10-0.15% as medium, 0.15- 0.25% as high and greater than 0.25% as very high. The average organic carbon content of soil in the study area before planting was 2.36% at 0-10cm depth and 2.13% at 10-20cm depth. According to Tesfaye (2020), and Hazelton and Murphy (2007) rating, nitrogen contents were medium in the present finding. The soil analysis result showed that average available phosphorous (11.28 ppm) at 0-10cm depth and 8.37 ppm at 10-20cm depth rated in the experiment site before forage planting was medium at 0-10cm depth and low at depth 10-20cm according to classification of a relative range of extractable phosphorous of <5 ppm, 5-10 ppm, 11-15ppm, 16-20ppm and 21-25ppm as very low, low, medium, high and very high, respectively (Marx et al., 1999). The electrical conductivity (EC) of a soil indicates the amount of salt in the soil sample. Soils with EC extract greater than 4 ms/cm (4mmohs/cm) generally indicate the occurrence of excess salts and need for reclamation (Netherlands commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, 1985 and Tekalign et al., 1991). In this study area at both depths (0-10cm and 10-20cm) the total salt content was 0.07ms/cm, it is salt free soil which is similar with the finding of (Tesfaye, 2020). 21 The average cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil was medium (0-10cm; CEC= 23.75 meq/100g soil) and 10-20cm; CEC=23.48 meq/100g soil), implying that the soil has medium resistance to changes to soil chemical properties inflicted by changes in land use (Hazelton and Murphy, 2007). The soil organic content decreases with increased soil depth and its concentration also decrease with soil depth, and therefore, the greatest concentration founds in the 0-10 cm topsoil (Gandhiv, 2019). Accordingly, the soil depth influences the percent of soil organic carbon and soil organic carbon stock (Mohammed et al., 2017). The soil analysis result showed that the organic carbon at 0-10cm depth (2.36%) was greater than 10-20cm depth (2.13%). Table 1. Soil chemical properties before forage sowing Soil Depth ( 0-10 cm) Soil sample PH EC OC TN P K CEC 1:2.5H20 ms/cm % % ppm ppm Meq/100g 1 6.67 0.07 2.83 0.15 10.78 755.64 24.57 2 6.64 0.07 1.98 0.14 11.74 790.64 23.96 3 6.64 0.07 2.26 0.12 11.32 670.59 22.71 Mean 6.65 0.07 2.36 0.14 11.28 738.96 23.75 Soil Depth (10-20 cm) 1 6.57 0.07 2.21 0.12 9.32 681.69 24.55 2 6.60 0.07 2.14 0.1 8.4 725.01 23.01 3 6.61 0.07 2.04 0.15 7.38 706.13 22.88 Mean 6.59 0.07 2.13 0.12 8.37 704.28 23.48 OC% = Organic carbon percentage, TN% = total nitrogen percentage, Av.P = Available phosphorous (parts per million), Av.k (ppm.) = Available potassium (parts per million), CEC (meq/100g) = Cation Exchange capacity (mills equivalent per 100 gram), EC= electrical conductivity 22 Table 2. The average soil texture distribution by soil depth Texture class Soil depth Clay Silt Sandy Rating 0-10cm 32 44 22 Clay loam 10-20cm 33 38 23 Clay loam 4.1.2. Chemical properties of soil after forage harvested The change in soil pH were significant (p<0.05) at both soil depths (0-10cm and 10-20cm) (Table 3). The analysis of soil samples after forage harvest showed that the average soil pH at 0- 10cm soil depth (6.72) was higher than 10-20cm (6.65). The pH of the soil after forage harvest was high at both soil depth in sole vetch plots (T5) and their mixtures (T1, T2 and T3) than sole desho plots (T4). This result is in line with the result of Tesfaye (2020) who reported that the pH of the soil after forage harvest was higher (5.04 to 5.56) in pure vetch cropped plots and their mixtures than sole cropped plots (4.69 and 4.75). Generally, decreasing trends in soil pH was observed with increasing soil depth in all measured soil profiles. The soil average organic carbon at surface (0-10 cm) soil layer showed slightly higher (2.89%) than at 10-20cm soil depth (2.86 %). The current result agrees with Melkamu (2020), who reported that a changing trend on organic carbon observed in all soil profile exhibited a higher content at top soil layer than the associated bottom soil layers. In most soils, management effects on soil carbon at depth are minimal compared to changes that occur in the topsoil and consequently most information on soil carbon responses to different management practices are limited to the upper soil horizons 0–30 cm depth, therefore, predictions of soil organic carbon(SOC) in deeper layers are less common (Murphy et al., 2019). However, the SOC content decreases with increased soil depth (N. Dahal and R.M. Bajracharya, 2013) and its concentration also decrease with soil depth, and therefore, the greatest concentration founds in the 0–10 cm topsoil (Gandhiv, 2019). Accordingly, the soil depth influences the percent of soil organic carbon and soil organic carbon stock (Mohammed et al., 2017). Organic carbon percentage of the soil was higher at both depth (0-10cm; OC=2.89%) and 10-20cm; OC=2.86%) 23 after forage harvest in all vetch and desho-vetch mixture treatments. The higher organic carbon percentage in tested soil after forage harvest in all vetch based treatments was probably due to improved soil fertility. The lower OC % in pure stand desho crop treatments showed that there was more utilization of organic carbon by desho plants. In the current study, the increasing amount of organic carbon percentage at 0-10cm soil depth was obtained in sole vetch treatments (T5; OC=3.06%) than desho vetch intercropped treatments (T1; OC=2.76%, T2; OC=3%, and T3; OC=2.79%) after forage harvested respectively. This indicates that vetch based treatments was build up high organic carbon content. This result is supported by Tesfaye (2020) and Eshetu (2011) who reported that the soil which was cultivated on legume plants field have high organic matter content than cereals. According to Barber (1984) percent of organic matter rates > 10 percent to be very high, 5-10 percent high, 2-5 percent medium, 1-2 percent low and < 1 percent is very low. Employing this rating, the average organic matter percentage of this study after forage harvested at both soil depth (0-10cm; OM=4.95% and 10-20cm; OM=4.93%) to be ranked medium. In the current study, the increasing amount of organic matter percentage at 0- 10cm soil depth which was obtained in sole vetch treatment (T5; OM=5.27%) than desho vetch intercropped treatments (T1; OM=4.59%, T2; OM=5.16%, and T3; OM=4.82%) after forage harvested respectively. Total nitrogen content of the soil was high in sole vetch plots and their mixtures than in sole desho plots after harvested at both depths (Table 3). Total nitrogen contents of the soil at both depths (0-10cm and 10-20cm) of treatments nearly the similar except T4. The highest nitrogen content was obtained at top soil layer (0.26%) and bottom soil layer (0.21%) of T5. The total nitrogen content (TN) at 0-10cm soil depth after forage harvest was TN=0.12% in pure stand desho (T4) and 0.24%, 0.2% and 0.19% in desho-vetch mixture treatments (T1, T2, and T3, respectively). The average TN after forage harvested at 0-10cm depth was (0.2%) and 0.18% at 10-20cm. The increasing total nitrogen percentage after forage harvest in vetch varieties were attributed due to the ability of vetch plants to biologically fix atmospheric nitrogen in to the soil and improving the soil N status than pre planting soil status(Tesfaye, 2020). Thus, mixed cropping desho- with vetch in this study offers better opportunities of complementary nitrogen use under low input farming systems without compromising the yield of both species. In this 24 Study change in soil TN across 0-10cm soil depth was significant (p<0.05) different while at 10- 20cm soil depth was non-significant (p > 0.05). The available phosphorus of soil samples after forage harvest in vetch based treatments(T1,T2 and T3) were higher at 0-10cm depth (8.11ppm to10.19 ppm) and at 10-20cm (7.44ppm- 9.98ppm) depth than pure stand desho at both depths (6.10 ppm and 8.11 ppm), respectively (Table 3). However, the available phosphorus value obtained after forage harvest was greater than before sowing. The highest average P value was obtained in sole vetch forage (T5; P=11.96ppm and 11.48ppm) and the lowest av. P was obtained in sole desho (T4; P=6.10ppm). The highest av. P in sole vetch might be due to the fact that vetch varieties increased phosphorus availability by mobilization of soil mineral due to its nodulation that enhance the soil fertility (Tesfaye, 2020). The lowest value of soil available phosphorus in sole desho based treatment. This result is also in line with that of Tesfaye (2020) who reported that the lowest value of soil available phosphorus in pure stand oat based treatment showed that there was more utilization of phosphorus by oats plants. Also this result is in line with the result of Hassen et al. (2012), who reported that including legume in crop rotation increases the phosphorus availability to the succeeding crop due to their deep roots. The average soil available potassium levels were increased at both soil depths (0-10cm; K=756.94ppm and 10-20cm; K=771.05) after forage harvest compared to before forage planting (0-10cm; K=738.96; and 10-20cm; K=704.28) in experiment soils. The highest av. K value was obtained in sole vetch forage (T5; K=917.69ppm and 936.57ppm) at both soil depths (0-10cm and 10-20cm), respectively. According to Marx, et al.(1999) the rating level for available potassium<50, 150-250, 250-800, >800, classified to low, medium, high and excessive, respectively. Therefore, average available potassium at 0-10cm and 10-20cm soil depth was high. Treatments had a positive effect (p<0.05) on available potassium in the soil. The average cation exchange capacity (CEC) values of the soils in treatments after forage harvest at both soil depths were slightly below CEC value indicated before forage planting. According to Landon (1991), rating the top soils having CEC of > 40meq/100g, 25 - 40 meq/100g, 15-25 meq/100g, 5-15 meq/100g and < 5 meq/100g were classified as very high, high, medium, low 25 and very low, respectively. The CEC value of top soil layer was 23.08 to 24.49 meq/100g after forage harvest and the average value of CEC at both depths(0-10cm;CEC=23.37 meq/100g and 10-20cm;CEC=23.64) were medium. This implying that the soil has medium resistance to changes to soil chemical properties inflicted by changes in land use (Hazelton and Murphy, 2007). Table 3. Chemical properties of soil after forage harvest Post harvested Soil sample test(0-10cm soil depth) Treatment PH Av.P CEC TN OC OM Ava.K (1:2.5) H2o ppm meq/100g (%) (%) (%) ppm T1 6.79a 10.19ab 23.36ab 0.24a 3.00a 5.16a 801.30b T2 6.73ab 8.98b 23.08ab 0.20ab 2.85ab 4.91b 748.88c T3 6.66ab 8.11b 23.40ab 0.19ab 2.79b 4.82b 784.16c T4 6.58c 6.10c 22.54b 0. 12c 2.76b 4.59c 532.68d T5 6.86a 11.9a 24.49a 0.26a 3.06a 5.27a 917.69a mean 6.72 9.07 23.37 0.2 2.89 4.95 756.94 p-value 0.001 0.001 0.036 0.02 0.005 0.04 0.02 Post harvested Soil sample test(10-20cm soil depth) T1 6.66 9.98b 22.93b 0.20 2.97 4 .87b 822.50b T2 6.65 9.36b 23.02b 0.21 2.82 5.15a 800.76b T3 6.60 8.11bc 22.64b 0.20 2.79 4.82b 739.13c T4 6.56 7.44c 22.58b 0.10 2.73 4.70c 556.27d T5 6.76 11.48a 27.01a 0.21 2.99 5.12a 936.57a mean 6.65 9.27 23.64 0.18 2.86 4.93 771.05 p-value 0.001 0.04 0.001 0.09 0.72 0.02 0.019 T1= Desho vetch intercropping at a 12kg/ha seed rate for vetch, T2= Desho vetch intercropping at 9kg/ha seed rate for vetch, T3= Desho vetch intercropping at 6kg/ha seed rate for vetch, T4 = Sole Desho Grass, T5= Sole Vetch Forage, OC% = Organic carbon percentage, OM% = Organic matter percentage, TN% = total nitrogen percentage, Av.P = Available phosphorous (parts per million), av. K= available potassium, CEC (meq/100g) = Cation Exchange (Capacity mills equivalent per 100 gram) 26 4.2. Plant Height of Desho Grass and Vetch (V.villosa) The intercropping of vetch (v.villosa) with desho grass had significant (P< 0.05) effect on plant height (Table 4). The tallest vetch plant height was recorded from T1 (113.33cm) which might be a result of moisture conservation by the legumes and competition for sunlight between the plants of two species and followed by T2 (103.67cm) and lowest height obtained from sole vetch (T3; 94cm). In the current result, intercropping of vetch (v.villosa) with desho grass showed significantly higher plant height than sole desho grass which is agree with Truset (2019), who reported that intercropping of different vetch species with desho grass had no any negative effect on the plant height, rather the intercropped desho with vetch species had significantly longer plant height as compared to sole desho grass. This difference might be due to by nitrogen fixations of vetch species in the soil gave better advantage to grow faster intercropped desho grass than sole desho and also could be reducing unwanted weeds and shattering of vetch leaves on the ground may create favorable environment for plant growth. However, this result was disagree with Fekede et al. (2003) who report that intercropping vetch species with Napier grass was not significantly affect the height of intercropped Napier as compared to sole Napier. This difference might be due to variations from genetics of grass, soil fertility and altitudes differences, where current experiment was conducted. The current finding was also disagrees with Samuel et al. (2015) study in which intercropping of Napier with herbaceous legumes had significant effect on the plant height, where the sole Napier plant height (1.62m) was significantly longer than intercropped Napier grass with different herbaceous legumes (1.5m).This effect of difference might be due to variations from genetics of grass, environmental conditions and genetics of intercropped legumes species where both of current and previous studies were conducted. Generally, the current result showed that intercropping of different seed rate level of vetch (v.villosa) with desho grass had significantly (p<0.05) longer plant height as compared to sole desho grass. The tallest desho plant height was recorded from T1 (92cm) followed by T2 (88.67). The shortest desho plant height was measured from sole desho (T4=73.67cm). This might be due to intercropping of vetch with desho grass added important nutrient for plant growth in to soil through nitrogen fixation, this could be the fact that longest plant height of intercropped desho 27 grass as compare to sole desho grass. The plant height of desho grass increasing progressively with increasing the amount of vetch seed rate at desho vetch intercropped species. The current result is in agreement with Fekede et al. (2003) who reported that intercropping of forage legumes with forage grass can produce better yield than sole forage grass and legume. Table 4. The average value of plant height of desho grass and vetch species (v.villosa) Average value of Plant height(cm) Treatment Desho Vetch T1 92.00a 113.33a T2 88.67a 103.67b T3 78.00b 98c T4 73.67c - T5 - 94d P- value 0.001 0.0001 CV 2.59 0.86 T1= Desho vetch intercropping at a 12kg/ha seed rate for vetch, T2= Desho vetch intercropping at 9kg/ha seed rate for vetch, T3= Desho vetch intercropping at 6kg/ha seed rate for vetch, T4 = Sole Desho Grass, T5= Sole Vetch Forage, CV = Coefficient of variance 4.3. Dry Matter Yield of Desho and Vetch The effect of intercropping desho grass with vetch on the dry matter yield of desho grass is presented in Table 5. Significant differences (p<0.05) were observed in forage total dry matter (TDM) yield among the treatment groups. The highest TDM yield was obtained from T1 (26.3) followed by T2 (25.45) at the first cut of harvesting period, whereas the lowest TDM yield was obtained from T4 (21.39). At the second cut the highest TDM yield was obtained from T1 (16.53) followed by T2 (15.98). The intercropping of different rate of vetch (Vicia villosa) seed proportion had significant (p<0.05) effect on the dry matter yield of desho grass as compared to sole desho grass at all cutting stage. The current result is in agreement with Fekede et al. (2003), 28 who reported that intercropping of forage legumes with forage grass can produce better yield than sole forage grass and legume. The current finding showed that intercropping of vetch (v. villosa) with desho grass was produced higher total dry matter yield than sole desho grass from all harvesting stage. The present result is in line with Truset et al. (2019), who reported that intercropping of vetch species with desho grass were results significantly (P < 0.001) higher total dry matter yield sole desho grass. The present result is also in line with that of Bimrew et al. (2017), who reported that the mean dry matter yield from desho grass with all vetch species was higher than sole desho grass at 120 days of harvesting age while mean dry matter from desho with two Vicia villosa and Vicia dayscarpa was higher and from desho with Vicia sativa and sole desho grass was lower than desho grass as reported by same author at 90 days of harvesting age. This difference might be due to variations of environment conditions, management practices, planting systems, soil fertility conditions where both studies were conducted in the different seasons. This result is in line with Fekede et al. (2003) report when Napier grass was intercropped with two species of vetch Similarly, it was indicated that Napier grass intercropped with herbaceous perennial legume had significant advantage than growing sole Napier grasses to increasing the DM yield (Samuel et al., 2015). Generally in this study, intercropping of different rate of vetch (Vicia villosa) seed proportion (T1,T2 and T3) with desho grass were produced significantly (P<0.05) higher total dry matter yield as compared to sole desho grass at all cutting stage. The possible reason for higher DM yield for mixture than pure stand might be due to the higher number of tillers and maximum plant vegetative growth were observed in mixed plots compared to pure stand plots (Tesfaye, 2020). This result is in line with Truset (2019), who reported that intercropping of vetch species with desho grass were produced significantly (P<0.05) higher total dry matter yield as compared to sole desho grass. 29 Table 5. Dry matter yield of sole desho and intercropped with vetch (v. villosa) Variables Dry Matter yield (ton/hectare) Harvesting stage Treatment DM(%) DMYof DM(%)of DMY TDMY of Desho Desho vetch of vetch First cutting T1 94.13a 23.68 92.92 2.62a 26.3a T2 93.89ab 23.18 92.93 2.27a 25.45b T3 93.80ab 22.87 92.64 2.28a 25.15c T4 93.75b 21.39 - - 21.39d T5 - - 92.59 1.67b 1.67e p-value 0.001 0.93 0.09 0.01 0.0001 Second cutting T1 94.05b 15.23 92.79 1.30b 16.53a T2 94.20a 14.74 92.87 1.24b 15.98b T3 94.09ab 13.09 92.65 1.08b 14.17c T4 94.21a 12.91 - - 12.91d T5 - - 92.66 4.68a 4.68e p-value 0.08 0.83 0.61 0.0001 0.0001 Third cutting T1 94.42 14.68 92.21ab 1.36 16.04a T2 94.38 14.43 92.13b 1.56 15.99b T3 94.49 14.33 92.49a 1.29 14.92c T4 94.39 13.63 - - 14.33d T5 - - 92.55a 2.83 2.83e p-value 0.96 0.89 0.006 0.32 0.0001 DMY= Dry matter yield, TDMY= total dry matter yield ton per hectare, T1=Treatment 1: Desho vetch intercropping at a 12kg/ha seed rate for vetch, T2=Treatment 2: Desho vetch intercropping at 9kg/ha seed rate for vetch, T3=Treatment 3: Desho vetch intercropping at 6kg/ha seed rate for vetch, T4= Treatment 4: Sole Desho Grass, T5=Treatment 5: Sole Vetch Forage (At 30kg/ha rate). 30 4.4. Effects of intercropping vetch (v.villosa) on chemical Composition of Desho Grass 4.4.1. Dry matter content The dry matter (DM) content of the sole desho and desho-vetch intercropped treatments is presented in Table 6. There was significant difference (P<0.05) between desho and vetch under mixture and pure stand in DM content. The DM percentage of T1 (94.13) at the first harvesting was significantly (p<0.05) higher than T4 (93.75). The intercropping of desho with vetch (v.villosa) species (T1) were results significantly (P<0.05) higher dry matter percentage as compared to sole desho grass (T4) (93.75) at the first cutting in the current study. At the second harvesting, the DM percentage of T4 (94.21) and T2 (94.20) was significantly (p<0.05) higher than from T1 (94.05). This result is agree with Truset ( 2019), who reported that intercropping of vetch species had a significant effect on the DM content of intercropped desho grass. 4.4.2. Crude protein contents Significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed in crude protein content among the treatment groups (Table 6). In current study significantly highest CP content (%) was obtained from T1(13.45, 13.22 and 10.07) at the first, second and third harvesting stage while significantly lower CP content was obtained from sole desho (12.57,11.46 and 7.60) at the first, second and third harvesting respectively followed by T2 (13.25;12.63 and 9.21 ) at the first, second and third harvesting. Under desho-vetch cropping, CP content was ranged from 8.94 to 13.45 for desho at heading stage and vetch at flowering stage. The CP content of desho at mixtures was above the CP content of their respective pure desho grass, mixtures showed greater CP content than their respective pure desho grass. Possible reason for the variability in CP content of grass growing in the vicinity of vetch use the nitrogen assimilated by nodule bacteria, as it is transferred to the soil which enhance soil fertility and species differences being the basis for variation in CP content of grass in mixture compared to the respective pure stand grass (Tesfaye, 2020). In current study, the CP content was relatively increased with increasing rate of vetch (Vicia villosa) seed proportion in the desho grass. Legumes in general and vetch in specific had better CP content compared with grasses. The current study is agrees with Fantahun (2016), who reported that the 31 CP content of vetch varieties were greater and increased in the mixtures within increasing vetch seed proportions. The CP content of vetch varieties and mixtures showed greater than the threshold level (15%) reported to be optimal for production or growth (Norton, 1982). The current study is agrees with Truset (2019), who reported that significantly higher CP content (%) was recorded from desho+ Vicia villosa (12.36) and desho+ Vicia dayscarpa (11.4) followed by desho+ Vicia villosa (11.45) at 90 days of harvesting age while significantly lower CP content was obtained from sole desho (6.9 and 5.41) at 90 and 120 days of harvesting respectively and as report by Bimrew et al. (2017) at 90 (9.38), 120 ( 8.75) and 150 (6.93) and with Genet et al. (2017) at 75 (10.9), 105 (10.2) and 135 (9.3) days of harvesting age. The present result also agrees with Abera et al. (2021) who report that intercropped desho grass with hairy vetch and smooth vetch had greater CP concentration than pure stand desho while intercropped desho grass with common vetch was lower than pure stand desho grass. The current result is also in line with the finding of Molla et al. (2018) who obtained the highest mean CP % of 19.55 % from mixtures at first cutting stage which was higher than their counter part purely sown plots in Fogera district, North West Ethiopia. Generally, under desho-vetch cropping, percent of CP content is higher than sole desho in the first cut, second and third harvesting ages in the current study. 4.4.3. Ash content There was significant difference (P<0.05) between desho under vetch mixture and pure stand in ash content (Table 6). Significantly (P<0.05) highest ash content was recorded from sole desho grass at all cutting followed by desho-vetch mixture treatment groups. In current study, the ash content of the mixtures was low compared to the sole desho grass at all cutting. The variability in %ash content between treatments might be due to varietal differences. Variation in concentration of minerals in forages can be induced by factors like varieties and morphological fractions, plant developmental stage, climatic conditions, soil characteristics and fertilization regime has been reported (Gezahagn et al., 2016). The current study is in line with Abera et al. (2017) report indicated that the pure stand desho grass was gave a higher ash content than the intercropped desho with Vicia species at first 32 harvesting stage. The present result Also agree with Truset (2019), who reported that significantly lower ash content was obtained from desho+Vicia sativa (9.5) at 90 days of harvesting age. Njoka et al. (2006) reported that ash content were significantly different when intercropping of herbaceous legumes such as Staylosanths scarab and Macroptium atropurpram with Napier grass in Semi-Arid Region of Eastern Kenya. The mean ash content was 15.97, 14.97 and 14.84 for sole Napier, Napier with Staylosanths scarab and Napier with Macroptium atropurpram, respectively. The current result was higher than this result, which may be due to genetic variation of grass and legumes species, environmental condition and management system where the current and previous experiments were conducted. In this study the ash content was ranged from 15.13% to 16.65%, 14.58 to 15.64% and 16.39% to 17.18% at first, second and third harvesting stage for both desho and vetch under pure stand and mixture, respectively. Generally, There was significant difference (P<0.05) between desho and vetch (v.villosa) under both mixture and pure stand in ash content at first, second and third harvesting stage. 4.4.4. Fiber contents of desho grass Intercropping desho grass with vetch (v.villosa) had significant (p<0.05) effect on ADF content of desho grass (Table 6). Significantly higher ADF contents (%) was obtained from T4 (41.29; 40.45 and 39.22) at first, second and third harvesting respectively. While significantly lower ADF contents of desho was recorded from T1 (38%) at first and third harvesting, respectively. In current study, higher (p<0.05) ADF content was recorded in sole desho plot at all stages of harvesting. The result from the present study also indicated that the value of ADF was significantly affected by treatment. The decline in ADF levels with increasing vetch seed proportion observed in this study and mixtures showed relatively lower ADF level. The lower ADF content indicates that it is more digestible and desirable. In the present study ADF content of desho-vetch (v.villosa) mixtures was lower which indicates that it is more digestible and desirable which is agrees with others (Aesen et al., 2004; Negash, 2014; Fantahun; 2016). The current study was also agrees with Truset (2019), who reported that significantly higher ADF content was obtained from sole desho (58.62) at 120 harvesting age followed by desho+ Vicia sativa at 90 harvesting age. The present result was also agrees with Njoka et al. (2006), who reported that intercropping of herbaceous legumes such as Staylosanths scarab and Macroptium 33 atropurpram with Napier grass was resulted in significantly higher ADF content in Napier grass in Semi-Arid Region of Eastern Kenya. The mean ADF content was 45.91, 43.57 and43.91 for sole Napier, Staylosanths scarab with Napier and Macroptium atropurpram with Napier grass, respectively. There was significant difference (P<0.05) between desho and vetch under mixture and pure stand in ADL content at first harvesting (Table 6). The significantly highest ADL content was recorded from sole desho Grass (4.16 %) at first cutting. Digestibility decreased with advancing age and this could be linked to the interaction of factors such as increased fiber concentration in plant tissue, and increased lignifications during plant development (Wilson et al., 1991). Generally, the presence of insoluble fiber, particularly lignin, lowers the overall digestibility of the feed by limiting nutrient availability (Mustafa et al., 2000). Intercropping of desho grass with vetch (v.villosa) had significant effect on NDF content of desho grass (Table 6). The higher (p<0.05) NDF contents were obtained from sole desho (67.33, 65.32 and 61.53) at first, second and third cutting, respectively, with non-significant (p>0.05) difference between other treatments at all harvesting stage. The current study is in line with Truset (2019), who reported that harvesting stage and intercropping vetch species had significant effect on NDF content of desho grass and higher NDF content was obtained from sole desho (83.84%) at 120 harvesting age. A decreasing trend for NDF and ADF was observed with increasing seed proportion of vetch in the mixture and this is in agreement with reports of other authors (Aesen et al., 2004; Gezahegn et al., 2014; Negash, 2014). This is due to the fact that grasses contain higher concentrations of NDF and ADF than do legumes. In the present study also ADF content of vetch varieties was lower means it indicates that it is more digestible and more desirable which agrees with others (Aesen et al., 2004; Negash, 2014; Fantahun;2016). Generally, the higher NDF contents of desho grass was recorded from sole desho grass while the lower NDF contents of desho grass was recorded from desho- vetch mixtures at all cutting stage. 34 4.4.5. Total In vitro Organic matter digestibility (TIVOMD %) There was significant difference (P<0.05) between desho under mixture and pure stand in TIVOMD (Table 6). In current study significantly higher TIVOMD was obtained from intercropped desho grass with Vicia villosa at the first, second and third cutting stage. While significantly lower TIVOMD (%) was obtained from sole desho (56.10, 54.08 and 55.27) at the first, second and third cutting respectively. The current study was agrees with Abera et al. (2021), who reported that intercropped desho grass with Vicia species had a higher IVOMD than pure stand grass. This result was also agrees with the finding of Gulwa et al. (2017) who reported that growing of plant mixtures with legumes could boost the nutritional value of ruminant diets. 35 Table 6. Effect of intercropping of vetch species (v.villosa) on chemical composition of desho grass in the study area Cutting level Treatment Parameters in percentage DM DMY CP ASH ADF NDF ADL TIVOMD 1st cut T1 94.13a 23.68 13.45a 15.13b 38.16c 64.90b 3.23b 60.24a T2 93.89ab 23.18 13.25a 15.43b 39.51bc 66.38ab 3.41ab 59.07a T3 93.80ab 22.87 12.62b 15.13b 39.66b 67.01a 3.45ab 59.27b T4 93.75b 21.39 12.57b 16.65a 41.29a 67.33a 4.16a 56.10b mean 93.89 22.82 12.97 15.59 39.66 66.41 3.6 58.16 CV 0.18 19.76 2.13 3.03 1.78 1.17 10.72 1.28 SEM 0.02 20.34 0.07 0.22 0.48 0.60 0.15 0.55 P-value 0.001 0.93 0.017 0.02 0.001 0.03 0.025 0.002 2nd cut T1 94.05b 15.23 13.22a 14.58c 38.00b 61.75c 3.12 58.54a T2 94.20a 14.74 12.63ab 15.11bc 38.27b 62.64bc 3.09 58.44a T3 94.09ab 13.09 12.43ab 15.14ab 38.67b 63.85ab 3.19 57.53a T4 94.21a 12.91 11.46b 15.64a 40.45a 65.32a 3.15 54.08b mean 94.14 13.99 12.44 15.12 38.85 63.39 3.14 57.15 CV 0.08 27.38 6.85 1.75 1.97 1.61 3.95 0.98 SEM 0.005 14.68 0.72 0.07 0.59 1.04 0.02 0.31 P-value 0.08 0.83 0.19 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.79 0.0002 3rd cut T1 94.42 14.43 10.07a 16.39b 31.54c 54.92b 2.89 60.03a T2 94.38 14.68 9 .21b 16.72b 34.20bc 56.99b 2.79 59.88a T3 94.49 14.33 8.94b 16.57ab 37.55ab 57.62b 2.81 59.12a T4 94.39 13.63 7.60c 17.18a 39.22a 61.53a 2.79 55.27b mean 94.42 14.27 8.96 16.72 35.63 57.69 2.82 58.58 CV 0.28 12.39 4.54 1.67 4.78 3.29 7.99 1.48 SEM 0.07 3.12 0.17 0.07 2.9 3.61 0.05 0.75 P-value 0.96 0.89 0.008 0.04 0.006 0.03 0.93 0.002 T1=Treatment 1: Desho vetch intercropping at a 12kg/ha seed rate for vetch, T2=Treatment 2: Desho vetch intercropping at 9kg/ha seed rate for vetch, T3=Treatment 3: Desho vetch intercropping at 6kg/ha seed rate for vetch, T4= Treatment 4: Sole Desho Grass, T5=Treatment 5: Sole Vetch Forage (At 30kg/ha rate), CV = Coefficient of variance, SEM = standard error mean 36 4.5. Biological Efficiency of Desho-Vetch Mixtures 4.5.1. Relative yield and relative yield total of desho- vetch (v. villosa) mixture The result of biological efficiency in desho- vetch (v.villosa) mixtures is indicated in Table 7. The result showed that, the RY of desho was increased as seed a proportion of vetch (v.villosa) was increased at all harvesting and greater than 0.5. The higher RY of desho was obtained in T1 (1.23, 1.18 and 1.01) followed by T2 (1.08, 1.14 and 1.02) \at all cutting stage and the lowest RY of desho was calculated in T3 (1.07, 1.01 and 0.95) at first, second and third cutting stage, respectively. The current study revealed that the RY of mixed treatments were greater than 0.5 at first, second and third cutting. The RY > 0.5 indicates positive effect on yields in the mixed treatments. Similarly, in present study the RYT of all desho-vetch mixed treatments were greater than one, there was yield advantage of mixtures compared to the pure stand. The present study also showed that relative yield total of desho-vetch mixture was greater than one and ranges between 1.24 to 2.5 and dry matter yields advantages were recorded between the treatments (Table 7). Therefore, evaluation of desho-vetch mixtures indicated that mixtures were improved total dry matter (DM) yield compared to pure stand (Tesfaye, 2020). 4.5.2. Aggressivity index The Aggressivity index of desho-vetch mixture indicates the dominance of certain species in the mixture (Table 7). The current study revealed that the Aggressivity index of desho (T1, T2 and T3) had negative value when mixed with Desho vetch intercropping at a 12kg/ha seed rate for vetch, Desho vetch intercropping at a 9kg/ha seed rate for vetch and Desho vetch intercropping at 6kg/ha seed rate for vetch at first cut whereas, positive value when mixed with Desho vetch intercropping at a 12kg/ha seed rate for vetch, Desho vetch intercropping at a 9kg/ha seed rate for vetch and Desho vetch intercropping at 6kg/ha seed rate for vetch at second and third harvesting stage. The result showed that desho were dominated by Vicia vilosa at Desho vetch intercropping at a 12kg/ha seed rate for vetch, Desho vetch intercropping at a 9kg/ha seed rate for vetch and Desho vetch intercropping at 6kg/ha seed rate for vetch mixtures at the first cutting stage. This vetch dominance over desho might be due to Vicia vilosa had better plant height, 37 climbing behavior and high branching ability that make aggressive over desho grass at first cutting stage. Table 7. Relative yield, relative yield total and Aggressivity index of desho and vetch mixtures Cutting level Trt RY AI Desho Vetch RYT Desho Vetch 1st cutting T1 1.23 1.27 2.5 -0.04 0.04 T2 1.08 1.36 2.44 -0.28 0.28 T3 1.07 1.37 2.44 -0.3 0.3 2nd cutting T1 1.18 0.28 1.46 0.9 -0.9 T2 1.14 0.26 1.4 0.88 -0.88 T3 1.01 0.23 1.24 0.78 -0.78 3rd cutting T1 1.01 0.55 1.56 0.46 -0.46 T2 1.02 0.48 1.5 0.54 -0.54 T3 0.95 0.46 1.41 0.46 -0.46 Trt= Treatment, RY=Relative yield, RYT= Relative yield total, AI = Aggressivity index. 38 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1. Conclusion Intercropping of desho grass with vetch (vicia villosa) showed significantly higher total dry matter yield than sole desho at all cutting (harvesting ages). The result showed most chemical composition of the pure stand and mixtures of desho and vetch (vicia villosa) were significantly different. The CP content was significantly higher at intercropped desho grass than sole desho in all experimental groups. The highest CP content was obtained from desho grass intercropped with vetch (vicia villosa) with ranges of 12.62 to 13.45 %, 12.43 to 13.22 and 8.94 to 10.07 at first, second and third cutting stage respectively. The CP content of desho at mixtures was above the CP content of their respective pure desho grass. In current study, the CP content was relatively increased with increasing rate of vetch (Vicia villosa) seed proportions in the desho grass at all harvesting age in the current study. The current study confirmed that intercropping of desho grass with vetch can help to overcome the shortage of livestock feed in both quantity and quality by producing the additional quantity and quality feed especially by intercropping with the vicia villosa at high seed proportions (Desho vetch intercropping at a 12kg/ha seed rate for vetch) . Therefore, vicia villosa were selected and best compatible with desho grass in terms of total dry matter yield and CP content during the establishment phase of desho grass without affecting the main forage grass of desho in the current study to fulfill ruminant livestock feed constraints. The current study revealed that the RY of mixed treatments were greater than 0.5 at all cutting. The RY > 0.5 indicates positive effect on yields in the mixed treatments. The RYT of all desho- vetch mixed treatments were greater than one, there was yield advantage of mixtures compared to the pure stand. Therefore, it can be concluded that growing a mixture of Vicia Villosa with desho grass is a suitable practice to improve forage DM yield, nutritional quality and soil fertility and farmers can use land more efficiently by growing Vicia villosa at high seed proportions (Desho vetch intercropping at a 12kg/ha seed rate for vetch) with desho grass. 39 5.2. Recommendations Based on the finding of this study and the above conclusion, the following recommendations are forwarded:  Based on yield, quality, indices of compatibility obtained in this study, growing a mixture of Vicia Villosa with desho grass is a suitable practice to improve forage DM yield and nutritional quality. Especially, desho vetch (v.villosa) intercropping at 12kg/ha seed rate for vetch can be recommended for use by farmers in the study area and other areas having similar agro-ecologies and soil type.  However, this study was conducted in only one location over a single season therefore it is recommended that the experiment should be conducted over different locations and years in order to draw more concrete recommendation  The effect of intercropping of desho and vetch (v.villosa) on nutritional value should be tested on animal performance 40 6. REFERENCES Abebe Mekoya, Oosting, S.J., Fernandez-Rivera, S., and Van der Zijpp, A.J. 2008. Farmers’perceptions about exoti multi-purpose fodder trees and constraints to their adoption. Agrofor.Syst. 73(2):141-153. Abebe Y., Tesfaye B., Dindamo B., Hundessa F. and Tesfay T. 2014. Fodder production to improve livestock productivity: Challenges / tradeoffs and potentials. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Abera M., Tolera A., Nurfeta A, Geleti D.2021. Herbage accumulation and nutritive value of mixtures of desho grass and Vicia spp. in southern Ethiopia. Agronomy Journal. 2021;1– 8. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20891 Abreha, K., Heluf, G., Tekalign, M. and Kindie, T. 2013. Wheat crop response to liming Materials and N and P fertilizers in acidic soils of Tsegede highlands, Northern Ethiopia. Agriculture, forestry and fisheries.2 (3), pp. 126-135. Adugna Tolera. 2007. Feed source for producing export quality meat and livestock in Ethiopia. Ethiopia Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards and Livestock and Meat Marketing project (SPS LMM). Agro-industrial by-products as animal feed, pp.77. Aesen A., Baron V.S., Clayton G.W., Dick A.C., and McCartney D.H. 2004. Swath grazing potential of spring cereals, field pea and mixtures with other species. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 84: 1051-1058. Ajebu Nurfeta. 2010. Feed intake, digestibility, nitrogen utilization and body weight change of sheep consuming wheat straw supplemented with local agricultural and agro-industrial by products. Trop Anim Health Prod. 42: 815-824. Aklilu, M. and Alemayehu, M. 2007. Measurements in pasture and forage cropping systems. Technical manual 18. Ethiopian Agricultural Resear45e67rch Institute. Akman, H., Tamkoc, A., & Topal, A. 2013. Effects on yield, yellow berry and black point disease of fertilization applications in Hungarian vetch and durum wheat intercropping system. Journal of Selcuk University Natural and Applied Science, 839–847. Albayrak.S and Ekiz.H. 2005. An investigation on the establishment of artificial pasture under Ankara’s ecological conditions. T. Jo, of Agri. Forest. 29:69-74. 41 Alemayehu Mengistu, Kebede G, Getnet Assefa, Feyissa F. 2016. Improved forage crops production strategies in Ethiopia: A review. Acad. Res. J. Agri. Sci. Res. 4(6): 285- 296. Alemayehu Mengistu. 2005. Feed resources base of Ethiopia: Status, limitations andopportunities for integrated development. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 12-14, 2004, Addis Ababa, 410p. Alemayehu Mengistu. 2006. Range management for east Africa: Concepts and practices sponsored by RPSUD and printed by press. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Alemu B., Melaku S. and Prasad N. K. 2007. Effects of varying seed proportions and harvesting stages on biological compatibility and forage yield of oats (Avena sativa L.) and vetch (Vicia villosa R.) mixtures. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 19: Retrieved June 11, 2015, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/1/alem19012.htm. Andualem Tonamo. 2016. Review on Status of Animal Biotechnology and Options for Improving Animal Production in Developing Countries. Jthenal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 5(19): 2015. Anil L, Park, J., Phipps, R. H., Miller F. A. 1998. Temperate intercropping of cereals for forage: a review of the potential for growth and utilization with particular reference to the UK. Grass and Forage Science, 53:301–317. Ansarul Haq, S., K. Joseph Korieng, T.A. Shiekh, F.A. Bahar, Khurshid A. Dar, Waseem Raja, Rayees A. Wani and Khuroo, N.S. 2018. Yield and quality of winter cereal-legume fodder mixtures and their pure stand under temperate conditions of Kashmir valley.Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci.7 (2): 3626-3631. AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). 1990. Official methods of analysis. 15th ed. Washington, DC, 69-88. AOAC. 2000. Association of Official Agricultural Chemist. Official Methods of Analysis (16th ed.). Virlington, Virginia, USA. Ashagre Abate. 2008. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer and harvesting stage on yield and quality of natural pasture in fogera district, north western ethiopia. Ashworth, A.J.; Allen, F.; Keyser, P.; Tyler, D.; Saxton, A.; Taylor, A. 2015. Switch grass yield and stand dynamics from legume intercropping based on seeding rate and harvest management. J. Soil Water Conserve. 70, 374–384. 42 Banik, P. Midya, A., Sarkar, B. K., and Ghose, S. S. 2006. Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy, 24(4), pp.325-332. Barber, R. 1984. An assessment of the dominant soil degradation processes in the Ethiopian highlands; their impacts and hazards. 23, LUPRD, MoA and FAO. Behnke. R and Menagerie Fitaweke. 2011. The Contribution of Livestock to the Ethiopian Economy-Part II, IGAD Livestock Policy Initiative (LPI) Working Paper No. 0211. Accessed in juanary, 2017at www.igad-lpi.org/publication/docs/IGADLPI-WP-02- 11- Part II. Bimrew Asmare, Solomon Demeke, Taye Tolemariyam, Firew Tegegne, Aynalem Haile, Jane Wamatu. 2017. Effects of altitude and harvesting dates on morphological characteristics, yield and nutritive value of desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin.) in Ethiopia. Caballero, R., Goicoechea, E.L. and Hernaiz, P.J. 1995. Forage yields and quality of common vetch and oat sown at varying seeding ratios and seeding rates of vetch. Field crops Res. 41: 135 140. Carter L. P. and J. M. Scholl. 1962. Effectiveness of inorganic nitrogen as a replacement for legumes grown in association with forage grasses. I. Dry matter production and botanical composition. Agron. J., 54:161-163. Cinar, S. and Hatipoglu, R. 2014. Forage yield and botanical composition of mixtures of some perennial warm season grasses with alfalfa (Medicago sativa Mediterranean conditions. T. Jthenal of Field Crops. 19(1):13-18. Coll, L., Cerrudo, A., Rizzalli, R., Monzon, J. P., and Andrade, F. H. 2012. Capture and use of water and radiation in summer intercrops in the southeast Pampas of Argentina. Field Crops Research, 134(1), 105–113. CSA (Central Statistical Authority), 2015. Agricultural sample survey livestock and livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings), Ethiopia. CSA. 2018. Agricultural sample survey 2017/18 [2010 E.C.] Volume II report on livestock and livestock characteristics, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Central Statistical Agency; Statistical bulletin number 587. 43 CSA. 2020/2021. Agricultural sample survey 2020/21 [2013 E.C.]. Volume II report on livestock and livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings). Central Statistical Agency (CSA): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Dawit, A. and Nebi, H. 2017. Effect of vetch varieties intercropped with maize on forage and maize yield performance in different agro-ecologies of West Arsi and East Showa Zone of Oromia, Ethiopia. Adami Tulu Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 35, Ziway, Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare ISSN 2224-3208 (P) ISSN 2225-093X Vol.7, No.19. Dereje Duressa, Debela Kenea, Wakgari Keba, Zelalem Desta, Gutema Berki, Gerba L. 2013. Rainwater management for resilient livelihoods in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the Nile Basin Development Challenge science meeting, Addis Ababa, 9-10 July 2013. NBDC Technical Report 5. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute Dhima KV. Lithourgidis AS., Vasilakoglou IB. and CA. Dordas. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field crop Res. 100: 249-256. Dobson J. W., C. D. Fisher and E. R. Beaty. 1976. Yield and persistence of several legumes grown with tall fescue. Agron. J., 68:123-125. Ecocrop. 2010. Ecocrop database. FAO. http://ecocrop.fao.org/ecocrop/srven/home. (Accessed 02 February 2015). Empirical evidence from Alaba Special District, Southern Ethiopia. Development in Practice 21(8):1138–1152. Endale Yadessa, Abule Ebro, Lemma Fita and Getnet Asefa. 2016. Livestock feed production and feed balance in meta- Robi District, West Shewa Zone, and Oromiya Regional State, Ethiopia. Acad. Res. J. of Agri. Sci. and Res. 4(2):45-54. EPPO (European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization). 2014. PQR database. Paris, Erla S. (2011): Forage quality and yield in grass-legume mixtures in Northern Europe and Canada, Master’s thesis, Faculty of Physical Sciences, University of Iceland, pp. 62. ESGPIP (Ethiopia Sheep and Goat Productivity Improvement Program). 2008. Sheep and goat production hand book for Ethiopia. Eshetu, L. 2011. Assessment of soil acidity and determination of lime requirements for different land use types: The Case of Degem Woreda, North Shoa Zone, Northwestern Ethiopia. 44 M.Sc. thesis submitted to school of graduate studies Addis Ababa University, In Partial fulfillment of master’s degree in environmental science. Fantahun Dereje. 2016. The effect of variety and seed proportions on yield, nutritional quality and compatibility of oats and vetch mixtures FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2010. Grassland Index. A searchable catalogue of grass and forage legumes Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. FAO. 2018. Ethiopia: Report on feed inventory and feed balance. 2018. Rome, Italy. 160 pages. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. Fekede Fayissa, Getenet Asefa, Lulseged G/Hiwot, Muluneh Minta and Tadesse T/Tsadik. 2003. Evaluation of Napier grass-vetch mixture to improve total herbage yield in the central highlands.156 13th ESAP-Proceedings. Felekech Lemecha, Jamroen T, Sayan T, Somkiert P. 2013. Survey of goat feed sources and supplements in central rift valley of Ethiopia. Kasetsart Jthenal Natural Science, 47: 712 - 719 pp. Firew Tegegne and Getnet Assefa. 2010. Feed source Assessment in Amhara National Region state. Ethiopia sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards and livestock and meat marketing program (SPS-LMM) Texas A and M University System, pp.104. Gandhiv K. 2019. Vertical Distribution of Soil Organic Carbon and Nitrogen in aTropical Community Forest of Nepal.International Journal of Forestry Research.Volume 2019, Article ID 3087570, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3087570. Getnet Assefa and Inger Ledin. 2001. Effect of variety, soil type and fertilizer on the establishment, growth, forage yield, quality and voluntary intake by cattle of oats and vetches cultivated in pure stands and mixtures, Animal Feed Science and Technology. 92: 95-111. Gezahagn Kebede, Getenet Assefa, Fekede Feyissa and Alemayehu Mengistu. 2016. Forage Legumes in the Crop-Livestock Mixed Farming Systems. pp 6 (04). Gezahegn K., Getnet A., Alemayehu M. and Fekede F. 2014. Forage nutritive values of vetch species and their accessions grown under nitosol and vertisol conditions in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 26: Retrieved June 11, 2015, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd26/1/kebe26020.htm 45 Ghosh P.K. 2004. Growth yield competition and economics of groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crops Res., 88: 227-237. Gizachew L. and Smit G.N. 2005. Crude protein and mineral composition of major crop residues and supplemental feeds produced on Vertisols of the Ethiopian highland. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 119:143-53. Gomez, A.A. and Gomez, K.A. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research.2nd edition. John Willey and Sons, Singapore. Gulwa,U., Mgujulwa,N.,&Beyene, S. T. 2017. Effect of grass-legume intercropping on dry matter yield and nutritive value of pastures in the eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Univers. Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(2017), 355–362. Hassen AI, Bopape FL, Habig J, Lamprecht, SC., 2012. Nodulation of rooibos (Aspalathuslinearisburm. f), an indigenous South African legume by members of both the α-Proteobacteria and β- Proteobacteria. Biol. Fert. Soils 48:295-303. Hazelton, P., and Murphy, B., 2007. Interpreting Soil Test Results. What Do All the Numbers Mean Published by CSIRO Publisjing.160 Pp. IGAD. 2011. the contribution of livestock to the Ethiopian economy-part II, IGAD livestock policy initiative, Roy Behnke, Odessa Centre, Great Wolford, United King Jackson, M.L. 1958. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Jones T. A., Carlson I. T. and Buxton D. R. 1988. Reed canarygrass binary mixtures with alfalfa and birdsfoot trefoil in comparison to monocultures. Agron. J., 80:49-55.0 Kebede, G., Assefa, G., Feyissa, F., & Mengistu, A. (2016). Forage legumes in crop-livestock mixed farming systems: A review. International Journal of Livestock Research, 6(4), 1– 18. Landon, J.R. 1991. Booker tropical soil manual: A Handbook for Soil Survey and Agricultural Land Evaluation in the Tropics and Subtropics. Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex, New York. 474p. Lentes, P., Holmann, F., Peters, M., and White, D. 2010. Constraints, feeding strategies and opportunities to improve productivity and income in milk production systems in Olancho, Honduras. Tropical grasslands, 44 (1): 33- 46. 46 Leta Gerba, Duncan, A., Asebe A. 2013. Desho grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum) for Livestock feed, grazing land and soil and water management on small-scale farms. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya 2 pp. Lithourgidis A.S., Vasilakoglou I.B., Dhima K.V., Dordas C.A. and Yiakoulaki M.D. 2006. Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticalein two seedling ratios. Field Crops Research, 99: 106–113. Lithourgidis, A. S., Dordas, C. A., Damalas, C. A., and Vlachostergios, D. N. 2011. Annual intercrops: An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 5(4), pp. 396–410. Lopez-bellido Garrido, R.J. and Lopez-bellido L. 2001. Effects of crop rotation and nitrogen fertilization on soil nitrate and wheat yield under rainfed Mediterranean conditions. Agronomie, 21: 509–516. Lukuyu. B, Gachuiri CK, Lukuyu MN, Lusweti C and Mwendia.S. 2012. Feeding dairy cattle in East Africa. East Africa Dairy Development Project, Nairobi, Kenya. Malede Birhan and Takele Adugna. 2014. Livestock Feed Source Assessment, Constraints and Improvement Strategies in Ethiopia. Middle-East J. of Sci. Re. 21 (4): 616- 622. Marx, E.S., Hart J. and Stevens, R.G. 1999. Soil Test interpretation guide. Oregon state University extension service in soil science EC 1478 • Matt A. Sanderson, Geoffrey Brink, Robert Stout, and Leah Ruth. 2013. Grass–Legume Proportions in Forage Seed Mixtures and Effects on Herbage Yield and Weed Abundance. Agronomy Journal, 105: 1-67. Melkamu mebrate, 2020. Selected soil physiochemical properties as influenced by soil depth and farm management under coffee plantations in tello district, kaffa south western ethiopia. Mengistu S. 2008. Forage development for sheep and goats. Sheep and goat production hand book for Ethiopia. Ethiopia Sheep and Goat Productivity Improvement Program. Midya A., Bhatta charjee K., Ghose S.S. and Banik P. 2005. Deferred seeding of blackgram (PhaseolusmungoL.) in rice (Oryza sativa L.) field on yield advantages and smothering of weeds. J Agron Crop Sci, 191:195-201. Mohammed Mussa, Abule Ebro and Lissahanwork Nigatu., 2017.Soil organic carbon and total nitrogen stock response to traditional enclosure management in eastern Ethiopia. Journal 47 of Soil Science and Environmental Management.Vol. 8(2), pp. 37- 43 February 2017.DOI:10.5897/JSSEM2015.0545. Articles Number: 506868162488. ISSN 2141- 2391. Molla, E.A., Wondimagegn, B.A. & Chekol, Y.M. 2018. Evaluation of biomass yield and nutritional quality of oats–vetch mixtures at different harvesting stage under residual moisture in Fogera District, Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security 7(1):p88. Murphy, F.H., 1968. A report on the fertility status and other data on some soils of Ethiopia. P. 551. Experiment Station Bulletin No. 44. College of Agriculture, Haile-Silasie University. Mustafa A. F., McKinnon J. J. and Christensen D. A. 2000. The nutritive value of thins tillage and wet distillers' grains for ruminants. Asian Australian Journal of Animal Science. 13: 1609-1618. N. Dahal and R. M. Bajracharya. 2013. Prospects of soil organic carbon sequestration: implications for Nepal’s mountain agriculture. Journal of Forest and Livelihood.vol.9, no. 1, pp. 45–56, 2013. Negash D. 2014. Evaluation of yield and nutritive value of oats (Avena sativa) grown in mixture with vetch (Vicia villosa) with or without phosphorus fertilization. M.Sc. Thesis. Haramaya University, Ethiopia. Negesse T., Makkar H.P.S, Becker K. 2009. Nutritive value of some non-conventional feed resources of Ethiopia determined by chemical analyses and an in vitro gas method. Animal Feed Science and Technology.154 (26): 204–217 Netherlands Commissioned by Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. 1985. Agricultural compendium for rural development in the tropics and sub-tropics. The Netherlands ministry of agriculture and fisheries Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Njoka Njiru, E. N., Njarui, M. G., Abdulrazak, S. A and Mureithi, J. G. 2006. Effect of intercropping herbaceous legumes with Napier grass on dry matter yield and nutritive value of the feed stuffs in semi-arid regions of eastern Kenya. Agriculture Tropical et SubtropicaVol.39 (4) 2006. Norton B. W. 1982. Differences between species in forage quality. P. 89-110. In: J.B. (ed). Nutritional limits to animal production from pastures. Proceedings of an international 48 symposium held at St. Luica Queensland, Australia, August 24-28, 1981. Common wealth agricultural bureau. U.K. Okalebo, J.R., Gathua, K. W. and Woomer, P. 2002. Laboratory Methods of Soil and PlantAnalysis: A Working Manual, Second Edition. TSBF, Nairobi, Kenya. Paulos Getachew. 2009. Chemical composition and the effects of traditional processing on nutritional composition of Gibto (Lupinus albus L.) grown in Gojam area. M.Sc. Theis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Peech, M. 1965. Hydrogen ion activity. In: Black CA et al. n(Eds).Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. American Society of Agronomy, Madison. Pp. 914-926. Rauber, R., Schmidtke, K. and Kimpel-Freund, H. 2001. The performance of pea (PisumsativumL.) and its role in determining yield advantages in mixed stands of pea and oat (Avena sativa L.). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 187: 137-144. Samuel Menbere, Mesfin Deene and Solomon Abera. 2015. Dry matter yiled and agronomic perfromance of Her baceous Legumes intercroped with Napier grass (Pennisetum Purpurem in the semi arid areas of Eastern Amhara Region. International Jthenal of recent Research in Life Sciences(IJRLS)Vol.2,Issue 1,PP: (714). Shiferaw, A., Puskur, R., Tegegne, A. and Hoekstra, D. 2011. Innovation in forage development: Solomon Bogale .2004. Assessment of livestock production systems and feed source base in Sinana and Dinsho districts of Bale highlands, Southeast Oromia. M.Sc.Theis. University of Alemaya, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, pp.141. Solomon Melaku, Peters K.J. and Azage Tegegne. 2003. In vitro and in situ evaluation of selected multipurpose trees, wheat bran and Lablab purpureus as potential feed supplements to teff (Eragrostis tef) straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 108: 159-179. Statistical Analysis System (SAS). 2002. SAS/STAT guide for personal computers, version 9.0 editions.SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA. Steel, R. D. G. and J. H. Torrie. 1986. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A Biometrical Approach. New-York: 5th Ed. McGraw-Hill International Book Company. Tekalign Mamo, I. Haque and E.A. Aduayi. 1991. Soil, plant, water, fertilizer, animal manure and compost analys is manual. Plant science division working document 13, ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 49 Tenegne Negesse, Makkar H.P.S, Becker K. 2009. Nutritive value of some nonconventional feed source of Ethiopia determined by chemical analyses and an in vitro gas method. Animal Feed Science and Technology.154 (26): 204–217. Tesfaye Abiso. 2020. Evaluation of biomass yield, seed yield and chemical composition of vetch and oatsgrown in pure stand and in mixture in mareka district, southernethiopia Truset, T. 2019. Effect of Intercropping Vetch Species and Harvesting Age on Morphological Characteristics, Forage Yield and Chemical Composition of Desho Grass (Pennisetum pedicellatum) and Vetch Species in North Mecha District, Ethiopia Umuna N.N., Osuji P.O., Khalili H., Nsahlai I.V. and Cross e, S.1995. Comparative feeding value of forages from two cereal-legume based cropping systems for beef production of crossbred (Bos Taurus X Bos indicus) steers and subsequent performance of underfed and realimented steers. Animal Science, 61: 35–42. Van Soest, P.J., Roberston JB, Lewis BA. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci74: 3583- 3597. Walkley, A. and Black, C. A. 1934. Estimation of organic carbon by chronic acid titration method. Soil Science. 37:29-38. Welle, S., Chantawarangul, K., Nontananandh, S. and Jantawat, S. 2006. Effectiveness of grass strips as barriers against runoff and soil loss in Jijiga area, northern part of Somalia region, Ethiopia. Kasetsart Journal: Natural Science 40:549–558. Wilding, L.G. 1985. Soil spatial variability: Its documentation, accommodation and implication to soil surveys. pp. 166-187. In: D.R. Nielsen and J. Bouma (Eds.). Soil Spatial Variability Proceedings of a Workshop of the ISSS and the SSA, Las Vegas PUDOC, Wageningen. Wilson J. R., Deinum B. and Engels F. M. 1991. Temperature influences on anatomy and digestibility leaf and stem of tropical and temperate forage species. Netherland Journal of Agricultural Science, 39: 1-31. Yakob, G., Gebremicheal, A., Aklilu, A. and Melaku, E. 2015. Participatory Evaluation of Different Multipurpose Grass Species for Graded Soil Bund Stabilization in Gimbo District, South West Ethiopia. Open Access Library Journal, 2:e1627. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1101627 50 Yaynshet Tesfaye. 2010. Feed Resources Available in Tigray Region, North Ethiopia, For Production of Export Quality Meat and Livestock Addis Ababa Ethiopia, pp: 9-16. Zemene Worku, Samuel Tilahun, Taye Tolemariam and Worku Jimma .2016. Assessment of the Prevailing Cattle Fattening Practices in Jimma Zone, South-Western Ethiopia. Glo.Vet. 17 (2): 105-113. Zewdie Wondatir and Yosef Mekasha. 2014. Feed resources availability and livestock production in the central rift valley of Ethiopia. International Journal of Livestock Production. 5(2), pp. 30-35. 51 7. APPENDICES Appendix 7. 1: ANOVA for Pant height of desho grass Source DF Sumof Squares Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 6 83571.03115 13928.50519 2987.52 <.0001 Error 6 27.97335 4.66223 Total 12 83599.00450 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE PH Mean 0.963350 2.598833 2.159219 83.08417 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Treatment 3 675.6950250 225.2316750 48.31 0.0001 Appendix 7. 2: ANOVA for Dry matter yield ton per hectare desho grass Source DF Sum of Mean Square F value Pr > F Squares Model 6 6167.049922 1027.841654 51.46 <.0001 Error 6 119.842408 19.973735 Total 12 6286.892330 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE DM Mean 0.386071 19.83588 4.469198 22.53088 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F treatment 3 8.52461422 2.84153807 0.14 0.9310 52 Appendix 7. 3: ANOVA for crude protein content of desho grass Source DF Sum of Mean Square F value Pr > F Squares Model 6 2026.458517 337.743086 4376.01 <.0001 Error 6 0.463083 0.077181 Total 12 2026.921600 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE CP Mean 0.935977 2.141423 0.277814 12.97333 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F treatment 3 1.78046667 0.59348889 7.69 0.0177 Appendix 7. 4: ANOVA for Ash content of desho grass Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F value Pr > F Model 6 2920.852133 486.808689 2183.22 <.0001 Error 6 1.337867 0.222978 Total 12 2922.190000 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE ASH Mean 0.804972 3.029546 0.472205 15.58667 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Treatment 3 4.72913333 1.57637778 7.07 0.0214 53 Appendix 7. 5: ANOVA for Acid detergent fiber of desho grass Source DF Sum of Mean Square F value Pr > F Squares Model 6 3147.64491 6316.52 <.0001 18885.86948 Error 6 2.98992 0.49832 Total 12 18888.85940 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE ASH Mean 0.839520 1.780147 0 . 7 0 5 9 1 7 39.65500 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F treatment 3 14.85363333 4.95121111 9.94 0.0096 Appendix 7. 6: ANOVA for Acid detergent lignin of desho grass Source DF Sum of Mean Square F value Pr > F Squares Model 6 154.1292833 25.6882139 175.84 <.0001 Error 6 0.8765167 0.1460861 Total 12 155.0058000 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE DM Mean 0.648705 10.72124 0.382212 3.565000 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Treatment 3 1.51203333 0.50401111 3.45 0.0919 54 Appendix 7. 7: ANOVA for neutral detergent fiber of desho grass Source DF Sum of Mean Square F value Pr > F Squares Model 6 52934.91965 8822.48661 14672.2 <.0001 Error 6 3.60785 0.60131 Total 12 52938.52750 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE DM Mean 0.833825 1.167730 0.775441 66.40583 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Treatment 3 10.46142500 3.48714167 5.80 0.0331 Appendix 7. 8: Total In vitro Organic matter digestibility of desho grass Source DF Sum Mean Square F value Pr > F of Squares Model 6 40630.76378 6771.79396 12124.5 <.0001 Error 6 3.35112 0.55852 Total 12 40634.11490 R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE DM Mean 0.904103 1.284846 0.747342 58.16583 Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F Treatment 3 10.46142500 3.48714167 5.80 0.0331 55 Figure 1. Partial view of land preparation and early weeding process in experimental site. 56 Figure 2. Sample collection process in experimental site 57 Figure 3. Sample drying process 58