Structural, productive and bromatologic characteristcs of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses fertilized with some macronutrients

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Rezende, Adauton Vilela de
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Rabelo, Flávio Henrique Silveira, Rabelo, Carlos Henrique Silveira, Lima, Poliana Patrícia, Barbosa, Larissa de Ávila, Abud, Marcella de Carvalho, Souza, Flávia Romam Costa
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Semina. Ciências Agrárias (Online)
Texto Completo: https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/article/view/15881
Resumo: The aim this study was to evaluate the effect of fertilization of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses with some macronutrients on the structural, productive and bromatologic characteristics. Were evaluated two grasses (Cynodon dactylon cv. Tifton 85 and C. dactylon cv. Jiggs) and five sources of fertilizer (three formulations NPK: 08-28-16, 30-00-20 and 20-10-10, and two sources nitrogen: urea and super N) in a factorial scheme 2 x 5, distributed in a completely randomized design with four replications. The planting of grasses without fertilization was performed to simulate a pasture located in low natural fertility. The highest yields (P = 0.009) and ratios of leaves (P < 0.001) were observed in Tifton 85 grass, resulting in a lower proportion of stems when compared to Jiggs grass. The sources of fertilizers used changed the weight and the proportion of leaves and stems, as well as the leaf/stem ratio, number of tillers and mass production of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses. There was a significative interaction between the study factors (grass and fertilizer) for concentrations of DM (P = 0.024), ADF (P = 0.012), hemicellulose (P = 0.007), DMD (P = 0.012), TDN (P = 0.012), DE (p = 0.012) and ME (P = 0.012) leaves and the protein content (p = 0.016) of the stem. In general, the application of 30-00-20 fertilizer resulted in lower ADF content in the leaves of Tifton 85 grass and higher DM, with higher energy content also, and providing super N implied lower ADF content and higher DM digestibility of Jiggs grass leaves. In the whole plant, the Jiggs grass had higher NDF (P = 0.017) compared to Tifton 85 grass, however, the concentration of ADF that grass was lower (P < 0.001) than Tifton 85 grass, which resulted in higher DM (P < 0.001) and energy intake (P < 0.001). The application of super N decreased the ADF content (P = 0.026) of grasses, mainly from Jiggs, implying an increase in the digestibility of DM (P = 0.026) and energy content (P = 0.026). Although there are differences between the two grasses, productive and nutritional characteristics make these excellent forage options for the introduction in livestock systems. The supply of NPK 20-10-10 and 08-28-16 formulation is suitable for the cultivation of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses by increasing mass production and improve the nutritional quality of the forage.  
id UEL-11_e3698bd970beb013708876541aad1da0
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/15881
network_acronym_str UEL-11
network_name_str Semina. Ciências Agrárias (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Structural, productive and bromatologic characteristcs of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses fertilized with some macronutrientsCaracterísticas estruturais, produtivas e bromatológicas dos capins Tifton 85 e Jiggs fertilizados com alguns macronutrientesCynodon dactylonMorphologyNitrogenNutritional valuePhosphorus.Cynodon dactylonFósforoMorfologiaNitrogênioValor nutritivo.The aim this study was to evaluate the effect of fertilization of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses with some macronutrients on the structural, productive and bromatologic characteristics. Were evaluated two grasses (Cynodon dactylon cv. Tifton 85 and C. dactylon cv. Jiggs) and five sources of fertilizer (three formulations NPK: 08-28-16, 30-00-20 and 20-10-10, and two sources nitrogen: urea and super N) in a factorial scheme 2 x 5, distributed in a completely randomized design with four replications. The planting of grasses without fertilization was performed to simulate a pasture located in low natural fertility. The highest yields (P = 0.009) and ratios of leaves (P < 0.001) were observed in Tifton 85 grass, resulting in a lower proportion of stems when compared to Jiggs grass. The sources of fertilizers used changed the weight and the proportion of leaves and stems, as well as the leaf/stem ratio, number of tillers and mass production of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses. There was a significative interaction between the study factors (grass and fertilizer) for concentrations of DM (P = 0.024), ADF (P = 0.012), hemicellulose (P = 0.007), DMD (P = 0.012), TDN (P = 0.012), DE (p = 0.012) and ME (P = 0.012) leaves and the protein content (p = 0.016) of the stem. In general, the application of 30-00-20 fertilizer resulted in lower ADF content in the leaves of Tifton 85 grass and higher DM, with higher energy content also, and providing super N implied lower ADF content and higher DM digestibility of Jiggs grass leaves. In the whole plant, the Jiggs grass had higher NDF (P = 0.017) compared to Tifton 85 grass, however, the concentration of ADF that grass was lower (P < 0.001) than Tifton 85 grass, which resulted in higher DM (P < 0.001) and energy intake (P < 0.001). The application of super N decreased the ADF content (P = 0.026) of grasses, mainly from Jiggs, implying an increase in the digestibility of DM (P = 0.026) and energy content (P = 0.026). Although there are differences between the two grasses, productive and nutritional characteristics make these excellent forage options for the introduction in livestock systems. The supply of NPK 20-10-10 and 08-28-16 formulation is suitable for the cultivation of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses by increasing mass production and improve the nutritional quality of the forage.  Objetivou-se avaliar o efeito da fertilização dos capins Tifton 85 e Jiggs com alguns macronutrientes sobre as características estruturais, produtivas e bromatológicas. Avaliaram-se duas forrageiras (Cynodon dactylon cv. Tifton 85 e C. dactylon cv. Jiggs) e cinco fontes de fertilizantes (três formulações NPK: 08-28-16, 30-00-20 e 20-10-10 e duas fontes de nitrogênio: ureia e super N), em esquema fatorial 2 x 5, distribuídos em delineamento inteiramente casualizado, com quatro repetições. O plantio dos capins foi realizado sem adubação, simulando uma pastagem implantada em condições de baixa fertilidade natural. As maiores produções (P = 0,009) e proporções de folhas (P < 0,001) foram verificadas no capim-Tifton 85, resultando em menor proporção de colmos quando comparado ao capim-Jiggs. As fontes de fertilizantes empregadas na adubação dos capins Tifton 85 e Jiggs alteraram o peso e a proporção de folhas e colmos, bem como a relação folha/colmo, número de perfilhos e produção de massa. Houve interação significativa entre os fatores de estudo (capim e fertilizante) quanto aos teores de MS (P = 0,024), FDA (P = 0,012), hemicelulose (P = 0,007), DMS (P = 0,012), NDT (P = 0,012), ED (P = 0,012) e EM (P = 0,012) das folhas, além do teor protéico (P = 0,016) do colmo. De maneira geral, a aplicação do fertilizante 30-00-20 resultou em menor teor de FDA nas folhas do capim-Tifton 85 e maior digestibilidade da MS, com maior teor energético também, e o fornecimento de super N implicou em menor teor de FDA e maior digestibilidade da MS das folhas do capim-Jiggs. Considerando-se a planta inteira, o capim-Jiggs apresentou maior teor de FDN (P = 0,017) em relação ao Tifton 85, entretanto, a concentração de FDA nesse capim foi menor (P < 0,001) do que o Tifton 85, o que implicou em maior digestibilidade da MS (P < 0,001) e aporte energético (P < 0,001). A aplicação do fertilizante super N diminuiu o teor de FDA (P = 0,026) dos capins, principalmente do Jiggs, implicando em acréscimo na digestibilidade da MS (P = 0,026) e aporte energético (P = 0,026). Embora existam diferenças entre os dois capins, as características produtivas e nutricionais tornam essas forrageiras excelentes opções para a introdução em sistemas pecuários. O fornecimento das formulações NPK 20-10-10 e 08-28-16 é indicado para o cultivo dos capins Tifton 85 e Jiggs por aumentar a produção de massa e melhorar a qualidade nutricional das forrageiras. UEL2015-06-10info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/article/view/1588110.5433/1679-0359.2015v36n3p1507Semina: Ciências Agrárias; Vol. 36 No. 3 (2015); 1507-1518Semina: Ciências Agrárias; v. 36 n. 3 (2015); 1507-15181679-03591676-546Xreponame:Semina. Ciências Agrárias (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)instacron:UELporhttps://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/article/view/15881/pdf_695Copyright (c) 2015 Semina: Ciências Agráriashttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRezende, Adauton Vilela deRabelo, Flávio Henrique SilveiraRabelo, Carlos Henrique SilveiraLima, Poliana PatríciaBarbosa, Larissa de ÁvilaAbud, Marcella de CarvalhoSouza, Flávia Romam Costa2023-01-13T12:51:17Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/15881Revistahttp://www.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrariasPUBhttps://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/oaisemina.agrarias@uel.br1679-03591676-546Xopendoar:2023-01-13T12:51:17Semina. Ciências Agrárias (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Structural, productive and bromatologic characteristcs of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses fertilized with some macronutrients
Características estruturais, produtivas e bromatológicas dos capins Tifton 85 e Jiggs fertilizados com alguns macronutrientes
title Structural, productive and bromatologic characteristcs of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses fertilized with some macronutrients
spellingShingle Structural, productive and bromatologic characteristcs of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses fertilized with some macronutrients
Rezende, Adauton Vilela de
Cynodon dactylon
Morphology
Nitrogen
Nutritional value
Phosphorus.
Cynodon dactylon
Fósforo
Morfologia
Nitrogênio
Valor nutritivo.
title_short Structural, productive and bromatologic characteristcs of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses fertilized with some macronutrients
title_full Structural, productive and bromatologic characteristcs of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses fertilized with some macronutrients
title_fullStr Structural, productive and bromatologic characteristcs of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses fertilized with some macronutrients
title_full_unstemmed Structural, productive and bromatologic characteristcs of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses fertilized with some macronutrients
title_sort Structural, productive and bromatologic characteristcs of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses fertilized with some macronutrients
author Rezende, Adauton Vilela de
author_facet Rezende, Adauton Vilela de
Rabelo, Flávio Henrique Silveira
Rabelo, Carlos Henrique Silveira
Lima, Poliana Patrícia
Barbosa, Larissa de Ávila
Abud, Marcella de Carvalho
Souza, Flávia Romam Costa
author_role author
author2 Rabelo, Flávio Henrique Silveira
Rabelo, Carlos Henrique Silveira
Lima, Poliana Patrícia
Barbosa, Larissa de Ávila
Abud, Marcella de Carvalho
Souza, Flávia Romam Costa
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Rezende, Adauton Vilela de
Rabelo, Flávio Henrique Silveira
Rabelo, Carlos Henrique Silveira
Lima, Poliana Patrícia
Barbosa, Larissa de Ávila
Abud, Marcella de Carvalho
Souza, Flávia Romam Costa
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Cynodon dactylon
Morphology
Nitrogen
Nutritional value
Phosphorus.
Cynodon dactylon
Fósforo
Morfologia
Nitrogênio
Valor nutritivo.
topic Cynodon dactylon
Morphology
Nitrogen
Nutritional value
Phosphorus.
Cynodon dactylon
Fósforo
Morfologia
Nitrogênio
Valor nutritivo.
description The aim this study was to evaluate the effect of fertilization of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses with some macronutrients on the structural, productive and bromatologic characteristics. Were evaluated two grasses (Cynodon dactylon cv. Tifton 85 and C. dactylon cv. Jiggs) and five sources of fertilizer (three formulations NPK: 08-28-16, 30-00-20 and 20-10-10, and two sources nitrogen: urea and super N) in a factorial scheme 2 x 5, distributed in a completely randomized design with four replications. The planting of grasses without fertilization was performed to simulate a pasture located in low natural fertility. The highest yields (P = 0.009) and ratios of leaves (P < 0.001) were observed in Tifton 85 grass, resulting in a lower proportion of stems when compared to Jiggs grass. The sources of fertilizers used changed the weight and the proportion of leaves and stems, as well as the leaf/stem ratio, number of tillers and mass production of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses. There was a significative interaction between the study factors (grass and fertilizer) for concentrations of DM (P = 0.024), ADF (P = 0.012), hemicellulose (P = 0.007), DMD (P = 0.012), TDN (P = 0.012), DE (p = 0.012) and ME (P = 0.012) leaves and the protein content (p = 0.016) of the stem. In general, the application of 30-00-20 fertilizer resulted in lower ADF content in the leaves of Tifton 85 grass and higher DM, with higher energy content also, and providing super N implied lower ADF content and higher DM digestibility of Jiggs grass leaves. In the whole plant, the Jiggs grass had higher NDF (P = 0.017) compared to Tifton 85 grass, however, the concentration of ADF that grass was lower (P < 0.001) than Tifton 85 grass, which resulted in higher DM (P < 0.001) and energy intake (P < 0.001). The application of super N decreased the ADF content (P = 0.026) of grasses, mainly from Jiggs, implying an increase in the digestibility of DM (P = 0.026) and energy content (P = 0.026). Although there are differences between the two grasses, productive and nutritional characteristics make these excellent forage options for the introduction in livestock systems. The supply of NPK 20-10-10 and 08-28-16 formulation is suitable for the cultivation of Tifton 85 and Jiggs grasses by increasing mass production and improve the nutritional quality of the forage.  
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-06-10
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/article/view/15881
10.5433/1679-0359.2015v36n3p1507
url https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/article/view/15881
identifier_str_mv 10.5433/1679-0359.2015v36n3p1507
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/article/view/15881/pdf_695
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2015 Semina: Ciências Agrárias
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2015 Semina: Ciências Agrárias
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv UEL
publisher.none.fl_str_mv UEL
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Semina: Ciências Agrárias; Vol. 36 No. 3 (2015); 1507-1518
Semina: Ciências Agrárias; v. 36 n. 3 (2015); 1507-1518
1679-0359
1676-546X
reponame:Semina. Ciências Agrárias (Online)
instname:Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)
instacron:UEL
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)
instacron_str UEL
institution UEL
reponame_str Semina. Ciências Agrárias (Online)
collection Semina. Ciências Agrárias (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Semina. Ciências Agrárias (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv semina.agrarias@uel.br
_version_ 1799306070359801856