Evaluation of Forage Type Barley Varieties for Forage Yield and Nutritive Value in the Peace Region of Alberta

Gill, K. S.; Omokanye, A. T.; Pettyjohn, J.P.; Elsen, Meghan

doi:10.5539/jas.v5n2p24

Cited by 20 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The lack of significant effect of oat varieties on forage CP in this study is similar to the findings on a set of barley varieties tested on same sites (Gill et al, 2013) and a different set of oat varieties tested in a different environment (Habib et al, 2003). Our findings, however, differ from those of Kibite et al (2002b), who observed higher CP values (ranging from 11.9-13.8% CP) and significant difference in CP among oat varieties.…”

Section: Cp and Cp Fractionssupporting

confidence: 77%

“…The lower CP values in the present study and those of barley (Gill et al, 2013) compared to other locations could be as a result of differences in soil type, crop management practices and weather. In both the present study and Gill et al (2013), the effect of weather is indicated by a tendency of higher CP average in drier year of 2010 compared to the 2009 and 2011. Reduced forage CP with higher DM in 2009 and 2011 is thought to have been a result of dilution effect.…”

Section: Cp and Cp Fractionsmentioning

confidence: 57%

“…Our findings, however, differ from those of Kibite et al (2002b), who observed higher CP values (ranging from 11.9-13.8% CP) and significant difference in CP among oat varieties. Also Gill et al (2013) reported a generally lower forage CP contents for the forage type barley varieties tested in the Peace Region than those reported from elsewhere in different environments (e.g. Baron et al, 2012;Juskiw et al, 2000;McCartney & Vaage, 1994).…”

Section: Cp and Cp Fractionsmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Agronomic Performance and Beef Cattle Nutrition Suitability of Forage Oat Varieties Grown in the Peace Region of Alberta, Canada

Gill¹,

Omokanye²,

Pettyjohn³

et al. 2013

JAS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The economic value of cereal forage for feeding beef cattle is dependent on both its yield and feeding value (i.e., crude protein, minerals, detergent fiber, energy, digestibility and animal performance). The objective of this study was to identify oat varieties grown in the Peace Region of Alberta, Canada, with superior forage yield and feed quality for beef cattle production. Nine oat varieties were compared in field experiments from 2009 to 2011. Significant differences between the tested oat varieties were observed for the plant height, forage dry matter (DM) yield and several of the protein, fiber, macro minerals, micro minerals, energy and digestibility parameters. Three of the 4 taller oat varieties (Murphy, Foothill, CDC Baler and Waldern) also ranked high in DM. Based on the DM data, Murphy and AC Mustang were identified as the high forage yield potential varieties in the study area. However, most of the quality indicators, used for grouping the varieties, indicated that the low potential DM group (probably due to the presence of CDC SO-I) appeared to have slightly better forage quality than the high and the medium potential forage DM yield groups. The tested oat varieties had sufficient levels of some nutrition parameters but not for some others. Because of these inconsistencies, some form of commercial mineral supplement would be required to optimize the health, growth and reproduction of beef cattle. The implications of the results obtained in this study in relation to beef cattle production system are highlighted.

show abstract

Section: Cp and Cp Fractionssupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Cp and Cp Fractionsmentioning

confidence: 57%

Section: Cp and Cp Fractionsmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Agronomic Performance and Beef Cattle Nutrition Suitability of Forage Oat Varieties Grown in the Peace Region of Alberta, Canada

Gill¹,

Omokanye²,

Pettyjohn³

et al. 2013

JAS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Along with DMY, CP concentration in the forage is the key factor to determine winter feed value (Gill et al, 2013b). The two key factors could be represented by CPY.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic Diversity of Great Plains Hard Winter Wheat Germplasm for Forage

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) has been widely grown for winter forage production across the world. However, improvement of forage yield and nutritive characteristics has not been a major goal of wheat breeding programs, and little is known about genetic diversity in the traits of winter wheat germplasm. A set of 299 hard winter wheat germplasm from the Great Plains was evaluated during two growing seasons in Oklahoma and 15 forage‐related traits were evaluated. There were significant (P < 0.0001) genetic variations in all the traits but effects of environment and germplasm × environment interaction were significant for seven and eight traits, respectively. A significant portion of the variation for forage traits was due to genetics, indicating an ability to breed for improved forage traits. Dry matter yield (DMY, kg ha−1) of the germplasm ranged from 1260 for Cheyenne to 4158 for Sturdy2K. Crude protein (CP, g kg−1) ranged from 161 for OK05108 to 268 for Nuplains. When crude protein yield (kg ha−1) was considered, Sturdy2K was the best germplasm, followed by 2180 and OK1068009. State of origin of the germplasm was also a significant source of variation for most of the traits. Heading date was positively and negatively associated with CP and DMY, respectively. This study identified significant genetic variations of the hard winter wheat germplasm for forage traits and the results of this study could provide useful guidelines for winter forage wheat breeding programs.

show abstract

“…To improve annual cereal and legume forages utilization as hay, green feed or silage and to develop supplementation programs for forage-based nutrition, it is important to know how the nutritional values of different forages match up with beef cow needs. Studies to identify promising barley (Gill et al, 2013a) oat (Gill et al, 2013b), and triticale (Gill & Omokanye, 2016) varieties for beef cattle production systems have been conducted in the PC region of Alberta. The objectives of this study were to compare the intercrops of spring oat, barley and triticale with pea varieties to respective cereal monocrops grown in the north western (PC) Alberta, Canada; in terms of their forage yield, and feed quality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential of Spring Barley, Oat and Triticale Intercrops with Field Peas for Forage Production, Nutrition Quality and Beef Cattle Diet

Gill¹,

Omokanye²

2018

JAS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), oat (Avena sativa L.) and triticale (x Triticosecale Wittmack) monocrops and their intercrops with two forage varieties (40-10 and Tucker) and one seed variety (Cooper) peas (Pisum sativum L.) were evaluated for forage production, nutrition quality and suitability in the beef cattle diet. Pea + cereal intercrops were compared to respective cereal monocrops in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Plant height of cereals tended to be reduced in intercrops compared to respective monocrops. Taller 40-10 forage type pea tended to cause lodging in 2009 and 2011, not observed with other pea varieties. Fresh forage of pea + cereal intercrops had higher moisture than respective cereal monocrops. Fourteen of the 18 intercrops had less dry matter yield (DMY) than respective cereal monocrops. Shorter Tucker pea had less negative impact on DMY than taller 40-10 pea. Treatments with barley had lower DMY than respective oat and triticale systems. Intercrops improved forage crude protein (CP) content over the respective monocrops, which was enough to overcome the DMY penalty and produce more CP yield than their monocrops. The forage Ca and Mg contents were improved by intercrops over their monocrops, and they were greater with 40-10 pea than other pea varieties and with barley than oat or triticale. The forage P content also tended to be higher in intercrops than corresponding monocrops, without a consistent effect of cereal type or pea variety. The forage K and S contents were not consistently influenced by the cereal types, pea varieties or intercrops. Forage Na content was greater from oat than respective barley and triticale treatments. The monocrops and intercrops had similar forage Cu content, and treatments with barley had more Cu than with oat or triticale. Forage Zn content tended to be intercrops > monocrops; and barley > triticale > oat. Treatments had no influence on the forage Fe and Mn contents. Levels of acid (ADF) and neutral (NDF) detergent fibres in the forage were similar for the corresponding intercrops and monocrops, and greater for oat than barley or triticale treatments. Some of the intercrops improved total digestible nutrients (TDN) content in forage over their monocrops. Monocrop of oat had less TDN than barley or triticale. Drought reduced the ADF, NDF and TDN contents. The forage NE L , NE M and NE G as well as RFV and NFC showed similar trend as the TDN. Overall, the tested pea + cereal intercrops did not increase DMY over the respective monocrops, but they indicated several nutritional quality benefits. These improvements present opportunities to substitute some grain or supplements in the beef cattle diet with better quality forage by intercrops.

show abstract

Evaluation of Forage Type Barley Varieties for Forage Yield and Nutritive Value in the Peace Region of Alberta

Cited by 20 publications

References 13 publications

Agronomic Performance and Beef Cattle Nutrition Suitability of Forage Oat Varieties Grown in the Peace Region of Alberta, Canada

Agronomic Performance and Beef Cattle Nutrition Suitability of Forage Oat Varieties Grown in the Peace Region of Alberta, Canada

Genetic Diversity of Great Plains Hard Winter Wheat Germplasm for Forage

Potential of Spring Barley, Oat and Triticale Intercrops with Field Peas for Forage Production, Nutrition Quality and Beef Cattle Diet

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About