Registration of ‘TCLF‐AN‐105’ Triticale

Abstract

‘TCLF‐AN‐105’ (Reg. No.TCL‐009–251104, México; Reg. no. CV‐31, PI 658496) intermediate triticale (× Triticosecale Wittmack) was developed by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), México, and reselected and released as a forage cultivar in Mexico by the Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro (UAAAN). TCLF‐AN‐105 was selected from the progeny of the cross CT776.81//TESM01/MUSK603 produced in the Yaqui Valley, México, in 1989. CT776.81 and TESM01/MUSK603 are two parental lines (winter and spring triticale, respectively) developed by CIMMYT. TCLF‐AN‐105 was released because of its biomass production, cycle duration and nutritive value. The selection was based primarily on forage and agronomic characteristics and resistance to stem and leaf rust. ‘TCLF‐AN‐31’ winter triticale (Reg. no. CV‐25, PI 620762), released as a forage cultivar by the UAAAN in 1992 (México Reg. No. TCL‐07–080592) was used as reference cultivar.

Effects of lines and inoculants on nutritive value and production costs of triticale silages

“…These findings are supported by Mut et al (2006). Forage yield of triticale for the present study was higher than the values reported by Kara et al (2009), Lozano-del Rio et al (2010, and Kaplan et al (2015). Hay yield of triticale lines varied between 13.86-15.94 t/ha, with the lowest value in C14 and the highest value in C1, C13, and C11, respectively (Table 2).…”

“…During the dough stage of maturity, the grain is comprised of a starchy endosperm, protein, some lipid in the germ, and fiber (Kennelly and Weinberg, 2003;Lozano-del Rio et al, 2010). Harvesting in the dough stage of maturity improves the chance of avoiding rainfall during the silage-making process.…”

Registration of ‘AN38’ Facultative Forage Triticale

“…At each harvest, samples were collected for green forage and dry matter (DM) determination following drying for 72 h at 65°C. The forage quality of AN38 and the reference cultivar TCLF‐AN‐105 (Lozano‐del Río et al, 2010) was evaluated across three cuttings at nine locations only from the 2008 to 2012 cycles and was based on composite samples from all replicates. In the evaluation for two cuts, the average growth stages (Zadoks et al, 1974) in first cutting was booting (Zadoks scale 43) and anthesis (Zadoks scale 60) in second cutting.…”