Productivity, profitability and nutritional quality of forage and silage of winter cereals
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2019 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , , |
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 |