Forage yield and nutritive value of winter wheat varieties in the southern Great Plains

Kim, Ki-Seung; Anderson, Joshua D.

doi:10.1007/s10681-014-1325-8

Cited by 14 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Arzadún et al (2006) explained this phenomenon with a higher proportion of leaf rust (Puccinia recondita) that happened with earlier sowing dates. Other conducted cutting studies (Royo et al, 1997;Lyon et al 2001;Arzadún et al, 2006;Tian et al, 2012;Islam et al, 2014;Kim and Anderson, 2015) reported that forage crude protein contents of cereals cut late winter or early spring were above 200 g kg -1 . Also, observed these crude protein values were above the maintenance requirement levels for grazing cattle (Islam et al, 2014).…”

Section: Responses To Sowing Datesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lack of forage is one of the most important problems of livestock feeding during the winter and early spring and winter cereals provide a very good quality forage for the these season when they are cut or grazed in suitable vegetative stage (Balabanlı et al, 2010;Geren, 2014;Naveed et al, 2014;Kim and Anderson, 2015;Hajighasemi et al, 2016;Munsif et al, 2016). Winter cereals have the ability to regenerate vegetative parts such as stems and leaves after cutting or grazing and they produce grain after this regeneration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this purpose, we tried to interpret the forage quality through Digestible Dry Matter (DDM), Dry Matter Intake (DMI) and Relative Feed Value (RFV) values calculated using these values in addition to Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF), Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF) and Acid Detergent Lignin (ADL). While RFV is a frequently used criterion for pricing and evaluating the quality of forage crops, there is little work in with RFV of forage quality of dual-purpose cereals (Rohweder et al, 1978;Moore and Undersander, 2002;Hackmann et al, 2008;Kim and Anderson, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Grain Yield, Forage Yield and Forage Quality of Dual Purpose Wheat as Affected by Cutting Heights and Sowing Date

Atiş

Akar

2018

Turkish Journal of Field Crops

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dual purpose wheat production can help to produce the forage needed for livestock feeding, without reducing the sowing area of reserved for grain production. To determine the proper management techniques that reduce the loss of grain yield crops in dual purpose systems is very important. The objectives of this study were to investigate the effects of sowing date and cutting heights on grain yield, forage yield and nutritive value of dual-purpose wheat. The experimental design was split-plot under randomized complete block design, sowing dates (early, normal and late) as the main plot treatments and cutting heights (5, 7.5 and 10 cm) as the subplot treatments with three replications. Forage yield and forage protein yield were significantly affected by sowing date. Maximum forage yield and forage protein yield were obtained at normal sowing date (20 November) in both years, while maximum grain yield was obtained at early sowing date (20 October). The effect of sowing date on forage quality characters varied between years. Deeper cutting increased forage yield, while decreased grain yield. The effects of cutting heights on forage quality were different between years. The cutting treatments caused the decrease yield of the grain, but dual-purpose system for winter wheat was an advantageous crop system when evaluated in terms of the total amount of production. The height of 7.5 cm can be recommended as a suitable cutting height in term of the total crop quantity.

show abstract

Section: Responses To Sowing Datesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Grain Yield, Forage Yield and Forage Quality of Dual Purpose Wheat as Affected by Cutting Heights and Sowing Date

Atiş

Akar

2018

Turkish Journal of Field Crops

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, forage associated traits such as forage yield and nutritive value have not been major breeding goals in winter wheat breeding programs (Kim and Anderson, 2015). Although there have been efforts to develop dual-purpose varieties in the southern Great Plains, the priority has been the improvement of grain yield and quality rather than forage yield and quality.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Atkins et al (1969) mentioned that winter wheat varieties for forage production should be developed through breeding programs for forage wheat because forage and grain yield were different traits and they had no positive correlation. Recently, Kim and Anderson (2015) reported significant effects of germplasm, clippingdate, and environment on forage production of winter wheat based on three year field-trials. They also identified significant variations in crude protein (CP), minerals, fiber, and nutritive value as well as correlations among the traits.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic Diversity of Great Plains Hard Winter Wheat Germplasm for Forage

et al. 2016

Self Cite

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

Forage and cattle production during organic transition in dual‐purpose wheat systems

Hinson

Pinchak²,

Adams

et al. 2023

Agronomy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dual‐purpose wheat (Triticum aestivum L. emend. Thell.) production systems (i.e., graze and grain) are prevalent in the U.S. Southern Great Plains region, though few of them are managed organically and organic research is very limited, particularly on forage and grazing aspects of the system. Therefore, the objective of this 3‐year systems study (2018–2021) conducted near Vernon, TX, was to compare forage production, forage nutritive value, and cattle gains in transitional organic and conventional dual‐purpose wheat systems. Forage data were collected each year during the early‐season dual‐purpose grazing period until maturity. Monthly standing crop biomass, rate of forage production, and forage nutritive value did not differ during the grazing period between systems in any year. Limited early‐season precipitation resulted in slow forage growth in all years and inadequate forage production to support grazing in 2 of 3 years. In the year when grazing occurred (2018–2019), cattle performance did not differ between systems. Following the dual‐purpose grazing period, the organic system trended toward lower forage production and crude protein concentration than the conventional system, suggesting that in a “graze‐out” scenario (i.e., season‐long grazing and no grain production), the organic system might not support as much cattle production. The late‐season divergence between systems could likely be minimized or eliminated by improving N availability in the organic system. Agronomic viability of the organic system, in terms of forage production, nutritive values, and cattle gains, was supported by its overall similarity to the conventional system.

show abstract

Forage yield and nutritive value of winter wheat varieties in the southern Great Plains

Cited by 14 publications

References 36 publications

Grain Yield, Forage Yield and Forage Quality of Dual Purpose Wheat as Affected by Cutting Heights and Sowing Date

Grain Yield, Forage Yield and Forage Quality of Dual Purpose Wheat as Affected by Cutting Heights and Sowing Date

Genetic Diversity of Great Plains Hard Winter Wheat Germplasm for Forage

Forage and cattle production during organic transition in dual‐purpose wheat systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About