Productivity, profitability and nutritional quality of forage and silage of winter cereals

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Neumann, Mikael
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Dochwat, André, Horst, Egon Henrique, Venancio, Bruno Jose, Santos, Jony Cley, Heker Junior, Julio Cezar, Cristo, Fernando Braga, Santos, Leslei Caroline, Silva, Emylli Pereira e
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Semina. Ciências Agrárias (Online)
Texto Completo: https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/article/view/33674
Resumo: This study aimed to evaluate the production, the physical and nutritional composition of forage and silage, as well as the profitability and aerobic stability of different winter cereals harvested at the stage of floury grain. The experimental design was a 2x7 factorial randomized block design, with two forms of foods (fresh forage and silage) and seven genotypes, with four replications. The genotypes used were the white oat (Avena sativa) cv. URS Taura; barley (Hordeum vulgare) cv. BRS Brau and cv. BRS Cauê; wheat (Tricticum aestivum) cv. CD 1440; rye (Secale cereal) cv. BR 01; and triticale (X Triticosecale) cv. IPR 111 and cv. BRS Saturno. The materials were harvested during the stage of floury grain. In forage evaluation, rye showed the highest (P < 0,05) dry biomass production (7,100 kg ha-1), but with a higher percentage of stem (46.7%) in dry matter, implying higher ADF (44.69%) in relation to other cereals. The forage of the white oats cv. URS Taura and triticale cv. IPR 111 provided the best nutritional quality compared to the other evaluated cereals, but in the resulting silage, only triticale remained with forage-like characteristics. It was clear the superiority of barley cv. BRS Cauê, wheat cv. CD 1440 and rye cv. BR 01 regarding the maintenance of aerobic stability (160 hours), while the other silages lost their stability within 32 hours. Rye cv. BR 01 and triticale IPR 111 presented the highest production of recovered dry biomass (5,402 and 5,352 kg ha-1 respectively), barley cv. BRS Cauê and oat URS Taura provided higher cost of production per kg-1 dry biomass, both with R$ 0.29 and higher cost per kg of recovered dry biomass R$ 0.45 and 0.37 respectively. There are several factors to consider when choosing the winter species for silage production, and future studies can fully elucidate these factors.
id UEL-11_ef94aaad665655168683398e60ff3768
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/33674
network_acronym_str UEL-11
network_name_str Semina. Ciências Agrárias (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Productivity, profitability and nutritional quality of forage and silage of winter cerealsProdutividade, rentabilidade e qualidade nutricional da forragem e da silagem de cereais de invernoAerobic stabilityFloury grainMorphological compositionProduction of dry biomass.Composição morfológicaEstabilidade aeróbiaGrão farináceoProdução de biomassa seca.This study aimed to evaluate the production, the physical and nutritional composition of forage and silage, as well as the profitability and aerobic stability of different winter cereals harvested at the stage of floury grain. The experimental design was a 2x7 factorial randomized block design, with two forms of foods (fresh forage and silage) and seven genotypes, with four replications. The genotypes used were the white oat (Avena sativa) cv. URS Taura; barley (Hordeum vulgare) cv. BRS Brau and cv. BRS Cauê; wheat (Tricticum aestivum) cv. CD 1440; rye (Secale cereal) cv. BR 01; and triticale (X Triticosecale) cv. IPR 111 and cv. BRS Saturno. The materials were harvested during the stage of floury grain. In forage evaluation, rye showed the highest (P < 0,05) dry biomass production (7,100 kg ha-1), but with a higher percentage of stem (46.7%) in dry matter, implying higher ADF (44.69%) in relation to other cereals. The forage of the white oats cv. URS Taura and triticale cv. IPR 111 provided the best nutritional quality compared to the other evaluated cereals, but in the resulting silage, only triticale remained with forage-like characteristics. It was clear the superiority of barley cv. BRS Cauê, wheat cv. CD 1440 and rye cv. BR 01 regarding the maintenance of aerobic stability (160 hours), while the other silages lost their stability within 32 hours. Rye cv. BR 01 and triticale IPR 111 presented the highest production of recovered dry biomass (5,402 and 5,352 kg ha-1 respectively), barley cv. BRS Cauê and oat URS Taura provided higher cost of production per kg-1 dry biomass, both with R$ 0.29 and higher cost per kg of recovered dry biomass R$ 0.45 and 0.37 respectively. There are several factors to consider when choosing the winter species for silage production, and future studies can fully elucidate these factors.O objetivo do trabalho foi avaliar a produção, a composição física e nutricional da forragem e da silagem, bem como a rentabilidade e a estabilidade aeróbia, de diferentes cereais de inverno colhidos em estádio de grão farináceo. O delineamento experimental utilizado foi o de blocos ao acaso, em esquema fatorial 2x7, sendo dois alimentos (forragem e silagem) e sete genótipos, com quatro repetições. Os genótipos utilizados foram a aveia branca (Avena sativa) cv. URS Taura; cevada (Hordeum vulgare) cv. BRS Brau e cv. BRS Cauê; trigo (Triticum aestivum) cv. CD 1440; centeio (Secale cereale) cv. BR 01; e triticale (X Triticosecale) cv. IPR 111 e cv. BRS Saturno. A colheita de todos os materiais ocorreu em estádio de grão-farináceo. Na avaliação das forragens, o centeio apresentou a maior (P < 0,05) produção de biomassa seca (7.100 kg ha-1), porém com maior participação de colmo (46,7%) na matéria seca, implicando em maior teor de FDA (44,69%) em relação aos demais cereais. A forragem da aveia branca cv. URS Taura e do triticale cv. IPR 111 proporcionaram a melhor qualidade nutricional frente aos demais cereais avaliados, porém, na silagem resultante, apenas o triticale manteve-se com características semelhantes à forragem. Ficou evidenciado a superioridade da cevada cv. BRS Cauê, do Trigo cv. CD 1440 e do centeio cv. BR 01 quanto a manutenção da estabilidade aeróbia (160 horas), ao passo que as demais silagens perderam sua estabilidade em 32 horas. O centeio cv. BR 01 e o triticale IPR 111 apresentaram a maior produção de biomassa seca recuperada (5.402 e 5.352 kg ha-1 respectivamente), a cevada cv. BRS Cauê e Aveia URS Taura proporcionaram maior custo de produção por kg-1 de biomassa seca ambas com R$ 0,29 e maior custo por kg de biomassa seca recuperada R$ 0,45 e 0,37 respectivamente. São vários os fatores a serem considerados no momento da escolha da espécie hibernal com vistas a produção de silagem a ser cultivada, onde estudos futuros podem elucidar completamente estes fatores.UEL2019-05-21info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPesquisa Empírica de Campo;application/pdfhttps://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/article/view/3367410.5433/1679-0359.2019v40n3p1275Semina: Ciências Agrárias; Vol. 40 No. 3 (2019); 1275-1286Semina: Ciências Agrárias; v. 40 n. 3 (2019); 1275-12861679-03591676-546Xreponame:Semina. Ciências Agrárias (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)instacron:UELenghttps://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/article/view/33674/25425Copyright (c) 2019 Semina: Ciências Agráriashttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessNeumann, MikaelDochwat, AndréHorst, Egon HenriqueVenancio, Bruno JoseSantos, Jony CleyHeker Junior, Julio CezarCristo, Fernando BragaSantos, Leslei CarolineSilva, Emylli Pereira e2022-10-19T13:33:35Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/33674Revistahttp://www.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrariasPUBhttps://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/oaisemina.agrarias@uel.br1679-03591676-546Xopendoar:2022-10-19T13:33:35Semina. Ciências Agrárias (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Londrina (UEL)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Productivity, profitability and nutritional quality of forage and silage of winter cereals
Produtividade, rentabilidade e qualidade nutricional da forragem e da silagem de cereais de inverno
title Productivity, profitability and nutritional quality of forage and silage of winter cereals
spellingShingle Productivity, profitability and nutritional quality of forage and silage of winter cereals
Neumann, Mikael
Aerobic stability
Floury grain
Morphological composition
Production of dry biomass.
Composição morfológica
Estabilidade aeróbia
Grão farináceo
Produção de biomassa seca.
title_short Productivity, profitability and nutritional quality of forage and silage of winter cereals
title_full Productivity, profitability and nutritional quality of forage and silage of winter cereals
title_fullStr Productivity, profitability and nutritional quality of forage and silage of winter cereals
title_full_unstemmed Productivity, profitability and nutritional quality of forage and silage of winter cereals
title_sort Productivity, profitability and nutritional quality of forage and silage of winter cereals
author Neumann, Mikael
author_facet Neumann, Mikael
Dochwat, André
Horst, Egon Henrique
Venancio, Bruno Jose
Santos, Jony Cley
Heker Junior, Julio Cezar
Cristo, Fernando Braga
Santos, Leslei Caroline
Silva, Emylli Pereira e
author_role author
author2 Dochwat, André
Horst, Egon Henrique
Venancio, Bruno Jose
Santos, Jony Cley
Heker Junior, Julio Cezar
Cristo, Fernando Braga
Santos, Leslei Caroline
Silva, Emylli Pereira e
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Neumann, Mikael
Dochwat, André
Horst, Egon Henrique
Venancio, Bruno Jose
Santos, Jony Cley
Heker Junior, Julio Cezar
Cristo, Fernando Braga
Santos, Leslei Caroline
Silva, Emylli Pereira e
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Aerobic stability
Floury grain
Morphological composition
Production of dry biomass.
Composição morfológica
Estabilidade aeróbia
Grão farináceo
Produção de biomassa seca.
topic Aerobic stability
Floury grain
Morphological composition
Production of dry biomass.
Composição morfológica
Estabilidade aeróbia
Grão farináceo
Produção de biomassa seca.
description This study aimed to evaluate the production, the physical and nutritional composition of forage and silage, as well as the profitability and aerobic stability of different winter cereals harvested at the stage of floury grain. The experimental design was a 2x7 factorial randomized block design, with two forms of foods (fresh forage and silage) and seven genotypes, with four replications. The genotypes used were the white oat (Avena sativa) cv. URS Taura; barley (Hordeum vulgare) cv. BRS Brau and cv. BRS Cauê; wheat (Tricticum aestivum) cv. CD 1440; rye (Secale cereal) cv. BR 01; and triticale (X Triticosecale) cv. IPR 111 and cv. BRS Saturno. The materials were harvested during the stage of floury grain. In forage evaluation, rye showed the highest (P < 0,05) dry biomass production (7,100 kg ha-1), but with a higher percentage of stem (46.7%) in dry matter, implying higher ADF (44.69%) in relation to other cereals. The forage of the white oats cv. URS Taura and triticale cv. IPR 111 provided the best nutritional quality compared to the other evaluated cereals, but in the resulting silage, only triticale remained with forage-like characteristics. It was clear the superiority of barley cv. BRS Cauê, wheat cv. CD 1440 and rye cv. BR 01 regarding the maintenance of aerobic stability (160 hours), while the other silages lost their stability within 32 hours. Rye cv. BR 01 and triticale IPR 111 presented the highest production of recovered dry biomass (5,402 and 5,352 kg ha-1 respectively), barley cv. BRS Cauê and oat URS Taura provided higher cost of production per kg-1 dry biomass, both with R$ 0.29 and higher cost per kg of recovered dry biomass R$ 0.45 and 0.37 respectively. There are several factors to consider when choosing the winter species for silage production, and future studies can fully elucidate these factors.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-05-21
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Pesquisa Empírica de Campo;
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/article/view/33674
10.5433/1679-0359.2019v40n3p1275
url https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/article/view/33674
identifier_str_mv 10.5433/1679-0359.2019v40n3p1275
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://ojs.uel.br/revistas/uel/index.php/semagrarias/article/view/33674/25425
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2019 Semina: Ciências Agrárias
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2019 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. 40 No. 3 (2019); 1275-1286
Semina: Ciências Agrárias; v. 40 n. 3 (2019); 1275-1286
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_ 1799306080252067840