YIELD AND NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF THREE SMALL GRAIN FORAGES FROM AUTUMN-WINTER, ALONE AND IN MIXTURES, IN NORTHERN COAHUILA - Atena EditoraAtena Editora

Artigo

Baixe agora

Livros

YIELD AND NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF THREE SMALL GRAIN FORAGES FROM AUTUMN-WINTER, ALONE AND IN MIXTURES, IN NORTHERN COAHUILA

The experiment was conducted during the 2017/18 fall-winter growing season to evaluate the effect of three small-grain fall-winter forage crops— —in monoculture and in mixture on the availability of timely forage, production period, dry matter yield, and nutritional value of the forage. The study consisted of five treatments with the following densities: T1: Avena Tamo 397 (100 kg ha⁻¹), T2: Wheat Coahuila S-92 (100 kg ha⁻¹), T3: Ryegrass (35 kg ha⁻¹), T4: Oats 50 kg ha⁻¹+ Ryegrass 17.5 kg ha⁻¹, T5: Wheat 50 kg ha⁻¹+ Ryegrass 17.5 kg ha⁻¹; conducted in a randomized block design with four replicates. There was no difference (p<0.05) in plant height at first cut between treatments. The first cut was obtained at 45 days. On average, 5 cuts and 159 days of production were obtained. The analysis reported differences (P< 0.05) in dry matter (DM) yield. Ryegrass with the highest yield, 14.97 t DM ha-1, was equal (p<0.05) to mixtures, oats + ryegrass and wheat + ryegrass with 14.27 and 13.47 t DM ha-1, respectively. The increase compared to oats was 16.11 and 5%. Oats alone and the oats + ryegrass mixture provided higher DM yield in the first and second cuts. The contribution of ryegrass in mixture with oats in the first and second cuts (27:73% and 31:69%) and with wheat (42:58% and 68:32%), respectively. The yield of PC, NDT, and DMS was higher in ryegrass and similar to the wheat + ryegrass and oats + ryegrass mixture with a PC range (2,339 to 2,159 kg ha⁻¹). NDT (10,566 to 9,288 kg ha⁻¹) and MSD (13,991 to 12,618 kg ha⁻¹). These results suggest that to obtain timely forage, a longer production period, higher DM yield, and nutritional yield, mixtures and ryegrass monoculture are the best options.

Ler mais

YIELD AND NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF THREE SMALL GRAIN FORAGES FROM AUTUMN-WINTER, ALONE AND IN MIXTURES, IN NORTHERN COAHUILA

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.22533/at.ed.9735725291013

  • Palavras-chave: Monoculture, mixture, dry matter, crude protein, digestibility.

  • Keywords: Monoculture, mixture, dry matter, crude protein, digestibility.

  • Abstract:

    The experiment was conducted during the 2017/18 fall-winter growing season to evaluate the effect of three small-grain fall-winter forage crops— —in monoculture and in mixture on the availability of timely forage, production period, dry matter yield, and nutritional value of the forage. The study consisted of five treatments with the following densities: T1: Avena Tamo 397 (100 kg ha⁻¹), T2: Wheat Coahuila S-92 (100 kg ha⁻¹), T3: Ryegrass (35 kg ha⁻¹), T4: Oats 50 kg ha⁻¹+ Ryegrass 17.5 kg ha⁻¹, T5: Wheat 50 kg ha⁻¹+ Ryegrass 17.5 kg ha⁻¹; conducted in a randomized block design with four replicates. There was no difference (p<0.05) in plant height at first cut between treatments. The first cut was obtained at 45 days. On average, 5 cuts and 159 days of production were obtained. The analysis reported differences (P< 0.05) in dry matter (DM) yield. Ryegrass with the highest yield, 14.97 t DM ha-1, was equal (p<0.05) to mixtures, oats + ryegrass and wheat + ryegrass with 14.27 and 13.47 t DM ha-1, respectively. The increase compared to oats was 16.11 and 5%. Oats alone and the oats + ryegrass mixture provided higher DM yield in the first and second cuts. The contribution of ryegrass in mixture with oats in the first and second cuts (27:73% and 31:69%) and with wheat (42:58% and 68:32%), respectively. The yield of PC, NDT, and DMS was higher in ryegrass and similar to the wheat + ryegrass and oats + ryegrass mixture with a PC range (2,339 to 2,159 kg ha⁻¹). NDT (10,566 to 9,288 kg ha⁻¹) and MSD (13,991 to 12,618 kg ha⁻¹). These results suggest that to obtain timely forage, a longer production period, higher DM yield, and nutritional yield, mixtures and ryegrass monoculture are the best options.

  • Pedro Hernández Rojas
  • Mauricio Velázquez Martínez
  • Víctor Hugo González Tórres
  • Jesús Ariel Rodríguez Ávila
  • Rubén Darío Garza Cedillo
  • Macotulio Soto Hernández
Fale conosco Whatsapp