Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T05:55:58.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yield and quality of triticale cultivars at progressive stages of maturity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. M. Brignall ,
M. R. Ward  and
W. J. Whittington
D. M. Brignall
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicester, LE12 5RD
M. R. Ward
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicester, LE12 5RD
W. J. Whittington
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicester, LE12 5RD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Two experiments were done in which the yield, digestibility and protein content of several autumnsown triticale cultivars were compared with rye and, on one occasion, ryegrass. Rye and an earlyflowering triticale cultivar (A208) had the highest early season yields and, at that stage, all cultivars and species had high digestibility.

When harvesting was delayed, the yield of later flowering cultivars (A386 or the latest flowering variety, A876) was greatest. When the plots were cut and harvested again, the intermediate and late maturing varieties (e.g. A386, A876–10) gave the highest yields of digestible dry matter. It was concluded that there was no advantage in using a mixture of cultivars as in the commercially available ‘Trical’ and that the available cultivars offered farmers useful alternatives in harvesting strategy and breeders the opportunity to develop earlier high-yielding triticale cultivars.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 111 , Issue 1 , August 1988 , pp. 75 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Allison, M. & Borzucki, R. (1978). Cellulase methods for the efficient digestion of grasses and brassicas. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 29, 293–297.Google Scholar
Barnett, R. D. & Stanley, R. L. (1975). Yield protein content and digestibility of several species and cultivars of small grain harvested for hay and silage. Proceedings of the Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida 35, 87–89.Google Scholar
Briggle, L. W. (1969). Triticale: a review. Crop Science 9, 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. R. & Almodares, A. (1976). Quantity and quality of triticale forage compared to other small grains. Agronomy Journal 68, 264–266.Google Scholar
Clancy, M. J. & Wilson, R. K. (1966). Development and application of a new chemical method for predicting the digestibility and intake of herbage samples. Proceedings of the International Grassland Congress 10, 445–453.Google Scholar
Corrall, A. J., Heard, A. J., Fenlon, J. S., Terry, C. P. & Lewis, G. C. (1977). Whole crop forages; relationships between stage of growth, yield and forage quality in small grain cereals and maize. In Grassland Research Institute Technical Report 22.Google Scholar
Dent, J. W. & Aldrich, D. T. A. (1966). The in vitro digestibility of herbage species and varieties and its relationship with cutting treatment, stage of growth and chemical composition. Proceedings of the International Grassland Congress 10, 419–424.Google Scholar
Droushiotis, D. N. (1984). The effect of variety and harvesting stage on forage production of barley in a low rainfall environment. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 287–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, D. B. (1982). Date of seeding, fall growth and winter survival of winter wheat and rye. Agronomy Journal 74, 1060–1063.Google Scholar
Gregory, R. S. (1975). The commercial production of triticale. Span 18, 65–66.Google Scholar
Hay, R. K. M. & Abbas Al-Ani, M. K. (1983). The physiology of forage rye (Secale cereale). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyder, D. N. (1972). Defoliation in relation to vegetative growth. In The Biology and Utilisation of Grasses (ed. Younger, V. B. and McKell, C. M.), pp. 305–316. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Keane, G. P. (1980). Winter rye for fodder. 1. Effect of cultivar, sowing date, seeding rate and nitrogen on yields. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 19, 33–38.Google Scholar
Kimber, D. S. (1965). Trials of rye varieties for forage. Journal of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany 10, 195–203.Google Scholar
Krolow, K. D. (1973). 4 × Triticale production and use in triticale breeding. Proceedings of the International Wheat Genetics Symposium 4, Agricultural Experimental Station, College of Agriculture, University of Missouri, pp. 237–243.Google Scholar
Morey, D. D. (1961). Forage production of small grains under maximum favourable conditions. Agonomy Journal 53, 57–59.Google Scholar
Prytherch, E. I. (1960). Autumn sown rye for early spring grazing. A survey of cost and returns. Experimental Husbandry 5, 27–31.Google Scholar
Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T. & Konzak, C. F. (1974). A decimal code for the growth stages of cerals. Eucarpia Buletin 7, 10.Google Scholar
Zillinsky, F. J. (1974). The development of triticale. Advances in Agronomy 26, 315–346.Google Scholar