Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T10:16:18.054Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of variety and harvesting stage on forage production of barley in a low-rainfall environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. N. Droushiotis
D. N. Droushiotis
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Three cutting stages, the boot stage, 50% heading and the milk stage of grain, were imposed on eight barley varieties at four sites, two in each of two successive cropping seasons. Dry-matter and digestible yield increased significantly when harvest was delayed from the boot to the milk stage but crude-protein content and digestibility declined with advanced maturity. A similar pattern of response was obtained in most cases when varieties were examined individually. Variety 628 produced the highest yield, 8·34 t D.M./ha, while the most digestible variety was Athenais with 61·9% digestibility. In low-rainfall regions harvesting at the later stages of maturity is recommended, to take advantage of the higher D.M. yields.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 102 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 289 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

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

References

Agricultural Research Council (1965). The Nutrient Requirements of Farm Livestock No. 2. Ruminants. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Cannell, R. Q. & Jobson, H. T. (1968). The relationship between yield and digestibility in spring varieties of barley, oatsand wheat after ear emergence. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 71, 337–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. O., Corrall, A. J. & Terry, R. A. (1971). Grass species and varieties; relationships between stage of growth, yield and forage quality. Technical Report Grassland Research Institute 8, 81 pp.Google Scholar
Hadjichristodoulou, A. (1976). Effect of harvesting stage on cereal and legume forage production in low rainfall regions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 86, 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadjipanayiotou, M., Economides, S. & Koumas, A. (1981). Intake and nutritive value of hay produced from awned and hooded barley cut at different growth stages. Technical Bulletin, no. 37 12 pp. Cyprus Agricultural Research Institute.Google Scholar
Lawes, D. A. & Jones, D. I. H. (1971). Yield, nutritive value and ensiling characteristics of whole-crop spring cereals. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 76, 479–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Photiades, Th. & Abu Sharr, I. (1967). Hay from cereals under mediterranean conditions. World Crops, 03 1967, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
Raymond, W. F. (1969). The nutritive value of forage crops. Advances in Agronomy 21, 1–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar