A Comparison Between Russian Comfrey and Lucerne

dc.bibliographicCitation.endpage205en
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue3en
dc.bibliographicCitation.stpage203en
dc.bibliographicCitation.titleEast African Agricultural and Forestry Journalen
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume24en
dc.contributor.authorStrange, R.null
dc.contributor.institutionGrassland Research Station, Department of Agriculture, Kenya
dc.date.accessioned2015-07-02T06:07:48Znull
dc.date.available2015-07-02T06:07:48Znull
dc.date.issued1959en
dc.description.abstractApart from a number of other disadvantages in its use, Russian comfrey has beenshown to be inferior to lucerne in the following respects:- (i) it gives a lower dry-matter yield; (ii) its percentage of dry matter and crude protein are lower than those of lucerne; (iii) the digestibility of the crude protein is lower in comfrey than in lucerne; (iv) soil contamination of the herbage is considerably greater on comfrey than on lucerne. Russian comfrey was therefore inferior to lucerne under the conditions of this experiment except in its lower fiber content, which would favour it to some extent for feeding to pigs and poultry. The growth of the lucerne was markedly stimulated by an application of gypsum.en
dc.description.statusPublisheden
dc.identifier.citationStrange, R. (1959). A Comparison Between Russian Comfrey and Lucerne. The East African Agricultural Journal, 24(3), 203–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670074.1959.11665207en
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1080/03670074.1959.11665207
dc.identifier.issn0012-8325*
dc.identifier.urihttps://kalroerepository.kalro.org/handle/0/1771null
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/en
dc.subject.agrovocLucerneen
dc.subject.agrovocAltitudeen
dc.subject.agrovocLoam soilsen
dc.subject.agrovocGrasslandsen
dc.titleA Comparison Between Russian Comfrey and Lucerneen
dc.typeJournal Contribution*
dc.type.refereedRefereeden
dc.type.specifiedArticleen

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
KARI EAAF JANUARY 1959 VOL XXIV NO 3 Split 10.pdf
Size:
150.86 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format