A nutritional evaluation of common barley varieties grown for silage by beef and dairy producers in western Canada

Nair, Jayakrishnan; Christensen, David A.; Yu, Peiqiang; Beattie, Aaron D.; McAllister, Tim A.; Damiran, Daalkhaijav; Preston, Natalie; Fuhr, Leland Gustav Michael; McKinnon, J. J.

doi:10.1139/cjas-2016-0032

Cited by 26 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…silages, where CDC Cowboy BS had high NDF concentration, compared with other barley forages (55% vs. 50% DM). The fiber concentration for all barley varieties in the present study was greater than that reported by Nair et al (2016). The lower starch and higher NDF concentration for BS varieties in the present study may be attributed to effect of maturity and (or) environmental conditions that altered the chemical profile of the selected forages (Yu et al 2004).…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 61%

“…Starch concentration was higher in CS (26.4% DM), intermediate for CDC Copeland and Xena BS (average 14.3% DM), and lower for CDC Cowboy BS (8.7% DM). A previous study by Nair et al (2016) reported a lower starch concentration for CDC Cowboy (14.7%), compared with CDC Copeland (21.0% DM) and Xena (20.0% DM). The fiber concentration differs between Table 2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…To our opinion, the stage of maturity is the most important. A previous study also showed ruminal ivNDFD was higher in CDC Cowboy BS than Xena and CDC Copeland BS (Nair et al 2016).…”

Section: Itemsmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…However, knowledge on the effects of BS with different ivNDFD on dairy cattle performance is very limited (Oba and Allen 2011). Previous research by Nair et al (2016) showed differences in ruminal in vitro digestible fiber concentration among seven varieties of BS grown in western Canada. However, effects of barley with different ruminal in vitro digestible fiber concentration on the productivity of lactating dairy cows and chewing activities have not been studied for those varieties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Three barley varieties were selected based on the screening study by Nair et al (2016) from seven varieties of BS using 30 h ivNDFD as an approach for ranking silage varieties. The seven varieties (Conlon, CDC Copeland, CDC Cowboy, Falcon, Legacy, Metcalfe, and Xena) of BS were collected within 2 yr (2012 and 2013).…”

Section: Preparation Of Silagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of Barley Silage with Varying Ruminal In Vitro Fiber Digestibility on Lactation Performance and Chewing Activity of Lactating Dairy Cows in Comparison with Corn Silage

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is limited knowledge on the effect of barley silage (BS) with different ruminal in vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibility (ivNDFD) on dairy cow performance and chewing activity. The objective of this study was to assess the effects of BS varieties selected for varying rates of ivNDFD on lactation performance and chewing activity of high-yield dairy cows in comparison with a new corn silage (CS) hybrid. A 4 × 4 Latin square design was applied in this study with four mid-lactating multiparous Holstein cows. The cows were fed diets containing 49% barley-based concentrate and 51% forage (dry matter basis). The results show that cows fed CS produced more milk (P < 0.05) and had greater (P < 0.05) feed efficiency than cows fed BS. Cows fed BS with relatively higher ruminal ivNDFD did not show significant difference from the cows fed other BS varieties in milk yield and total chewing activity. The preliminary results indicated that a univariate approach with only one factor consideration (ivNDFD) might not be a satisfactory method for evaluating and ranking BS quality. However, a large-scale animal study with different stages of lactation (early, mid, late) is warranted to confirm this finding. This new corn forage hybrid may be an appropriate option as forage source for high-producing dairy cows in western Canada.

show abstract

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 61%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…To our opinion, the stage of maturity is the most important. A previous study also showed ruminal ivNDFD was higher in CDC Cowboy BS than Xena and CDC Copeland BS (Nair et al 2016).…”

Section: Itemsmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Preparation Of Silagementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of Barley Silage with Varying Ruminal In Vitro Fiber Digestibility on Lactation Performance and Chewing Activity of Lactating Dairy Cows in Comparison with Corn Silage

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Breeding for purpose: Sole‐ and dual‐use barley

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in south-central China can be either harvested at earlydough stage as a sole-use (SU) forage crop or as a dual-use (DU) crop that is grazed at early jointing stage for forage and harvested at mature stage for grain. A 2-yr field experiment was conducted to compare genotypic differences in yield and quality of forage and grain for both SU and DU production. Barley genotypes differed significantly in forage yield for both SU and DU, among which six-row genotypes were superior to two-row genotypes especially in SU production. Wansipi 14008 had the greatest forage yield with the averaged fresh weights of 3.3 and 1.01 kg m −2 for SU and DU, respectively, across 2 yr. Greater differences for forage crude protein (CP) content were found among genotypes for SU than those for DU, suggesting a more effective selection of barley varieties to improve CP content for SU production. The contents of crude fiber (CF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) differed among genotypes for both SU and DU, which were affected by the environmental conditions as well. Grain yield from DU treatment showed less variation than grain quality and agronomic traits. The high forage yield variety Wansipi 14008 could be recommended to farmers as a desired barley variety for both SU and DU production in south-central China.

show abstract

Breeding strategies in evaluation of forage barley

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Producers on the Canadian Prairies grow barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) as a forage crop for ruminants, especially cattle. The purpose of our study was to determine methods to improve our selection of barley lines with superior forage value for ruminants. Data from the Western Cooperative Forage Barley Registration Test were used with permission of the Prairie Recommending Committee for Oat and Barley (PRCOB) and the breeders. Data were analyzed from 20 environments collected from 3 yr (2012–2014) and seven sites. We measured forage accumulation (FA) at the soft dough stage, five nutritive value traits, and three derived cow–calf variables. Although the variation in FA and forage nutritive value traits attributed to environment (E) was large, significant genotypic (G) effects were found for all traits measured. Whereas G× E effects were also significant, the mean square effect for G was up to 40 times higher than the mean squares for G×E. The proportion of variance attributed to G was greater for nutritive value traits than for FA. Significance of G means there was variability in the germplasm tested, and improvement through selection should be possible. The two parametric methods of stability analyses (Francis–Kannenberg method and Eberhart–Russell method) often identified the same lines as superior. Lines that were superior for FA and carrying capacity (cow on swath grazing, CC) were often different from those identified as superior for nutritive value, empty body weight gain (cow, EBWG) and average daily gain (backgrounding calf, ADG). A nonparametric method used to determine dynamic stability (Nassar–Hühn method) identified different lines as superior from the parametric methods. Breeders can use a combination of these selection criteria in breeding forage barley varieties with enhanced forage value for ruminants.

show abstract

A nutritional evaluation of common barley varieties grown for silage by beef and dairy producers in western Canada

Cited by 26 publications

References 55 publications

Evaluation of Barley Silage with Varying Ruminal In Vitro Fiber Digestibility on Lactation Performance and Chewing Activity of Lactating Dairy Cows in Comparison with Corn Silage

Evaluation of Barley Silage with Varying Ruminal In Vitro Fiber Digestibility on Lactation Performance and Chewing Activity of Lactating Dairy Cows in Comparison with Corn Silage

Breeding for purpose: Sole‐ and dual‐use barley

Breeding strategies in evaluation of forage barley

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About