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

Abstract

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.

Response of dual‐purpose winter wheat yield and its components to sowing date and cutting timing in a semiarid region of China

“…Delayed sowing reduced forage yield. Similar findings were also reported by other researchers (Arzadun et al., 2006; Atis & Akar, 2018; Darapuneni et al., 2016; Garcia del Moral et al., 1995; ). Royo et al.…”

“…Cutting at tillering had no effect on grain yield or the capacity to increase grain yield and was related to an increase in HI due to a reduction in biomass (Zhu et al., 2004; Harrison et al., 2011b). In dual‐purpose winter wheat, grain yield components have been shown to be widely affected by differences in intensity of cutting, cutting height, air temperature, and water status (Atis & Akar, 2018; Butchee & Edwards, 2013; Harrison et al., 2011a). In addition, kernel size affects kernel weight (Harrison et al., 2011a; Royo, 2003; Rajae et al., 2017).…”

“…(1997) found that forage yield in triticale ( X Triticosecale Wittmack) and barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.) was positively and strongly related to the time between sowing and cutting, and cutting date had greater impact on forage production than sowing date. Atis and Akar (2018) reported that yearly weather conditions remarkably affected the response of forage yield of dual‐purpose winter wheat to sowing date. Forage yield may vary greatly from year to year depending on seasonal rainfall, crop variety, cutting times and intensity, and other factors (Harrison et al., 2011c), such as acidic soils which are predominant in some regions where winter wheat is grown as dual‐purpose (Lollato et al., 2019).…”

“…(2003) reported that delayed sowing for 20 d (from 10 to 30 Sept.) increased grain yield by 18% but decreased forage yield by 68%. A study by Atis and Akar (2018) showed that maximum forage yield was obtained with a normal sowing date, whereas maximum grain yield was obtained with early sowing. Furthermore, forage and grain yield of dual‐purpose winter wheat may also be affected by varieties.…”

Forage performance of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum [L.] R. Br.) in arid regions: Yield and quality assessment of new genotypes on different sowing dates

“…They proved to be superior under Egyptian conditions than the millet genotypes investigated by Abd El-Lattief (2011) and Ziki et al (2019). Atis and Akar (2018) reported DMY means of 2.64 and 2.45 t ha -1 for wheat cut at the vegetative growth stage; these values were less than those obtained from the millet genotypes in the present study. The tested genotypes contained better amounts of CP and NFE; however, NDF and ADF contents were comparable to sorghum and Sudan grass grown under similar farming contexts (Salama and Zeid, 2016).…”