Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T15:50:08.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of variety, row type and time of sowing on the morphology, chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of barley straw

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

B. S. Capper ,
G. Sage ,
P. R. Hanson  and
A. H. Adamson
B. S. Capper
Affiliation:
Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute, Central Avenue, Chatham, Kent ME4 4TB, UK
G. Sage
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding International, Marts Lane, Trumpington, Cambridge CB2 2LQ, UK
P. R. Hanson
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding International, Marts Lane, Trumpington, Cambridge CB2 2LQ, UK
A. H. Adamson
Affiliation:
Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Burghill Road, Westbury-on-Trym, Bristol BS10 6NJ, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Leaf proportions (LP) were determined in spring barley straws harvested at Cambridge in 1984 and 1985. Linear regression equations showed that a greater number of days to flowering increased LP whilst greater plant height decreased LP in spring barley straws. Plant height accounted for more than 70% of the variance in LP. By contrast, grain yield and stem diameter accounted for only a small percentage of the variance in LP. Straws from two-rowed winter barleys had slightly higher LP than six-rowed winter barleys but LP in winter and spring barleys were similar.

Leaf blade and leaf sheath fractions of the straws had lower acid detergent fibre and lignin contents and were more digestible than the stem fractions. Linear regression equations of straw digestibility in spring barleys on LP, grain yields, days to flowering and plant heights showed that LP accounted for a higher percentage of the variance in digestibility in 1984 than the other characteristics. In 1985, when harvesting conditions were unusually wet, grain yield accounted for the highest percentage of the variance in straw digestibility.

There were no differences in chemical composition and straw digestibility between two-rowed and six-rowed barleys, but winter barleys had higher straw digestibility than spring barleys. Date of sowing did not influence straw quality in two-rowed winter barleys.

The ranking of two-rowed spring barleys for LP, chemical composition and digestibility suggested that varieties with consistently better straw quality could be identified.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 118 , Issue 2 , April 1992 , pp. 165 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Capper, B. S. (1988). Genetic variation in the feeding value of cereal straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology 21, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capper, B.S., Thomson, E. F., Rihawi, S., Termanini, A. & MaCrae, R. (1986). The feeding value of straw from different genotypes of barley when given to Awassi sheep. Animal Production 42, 337–342.Google Scholar
Capper, B. S., Thomson, E. F. & Herbert, F. (1988). Genetic variation in the feeding value of barley and wheat straw. In Plant Breeding and the Nutritive Value of Crop Residues (Eds Reed, J. D., Capper, B. S. & Neate, P. J. H.), pp. 177–193. Addis Ababa: International Livestock Centre for Africa.Google Scholar
Capper, B. S., Thomson, E. F. & Rihawi, S. (1989). Voluntary intake and digestibility of barley straw as influenced by variety and supplementation with barley grain or cottonseed cake. Animal Feed Science and Technology 26, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, D. O., Meyer, D. W. & Foster, A. E. (1982). The effect of genotypes on the feed value of barley straws. Journal of Animal Science 55, 1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage Fiber Analysis (Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures and Some Applications). Agriculture Handbook of the United States Department of Agriculture no. 379. Washington, DC: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.Google Scholar
Goto, I. & Minson, D. J. (1977). Prediction of the dry matter digestibility of tropical grasses using a pepsincellulase assay. Animal Feed Science and Technology 2, 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laredo, M. A. & Minson, D. J. (1973). The voluntary intake, digestibility and retention time by sheep of leaf and stem fractions of five grasses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24, 875–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust (1988). Genstat 5, Release 1.3. Rothamsted: Lawes Agricultural Trust.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1975). Energy Allowances and Feeding Systems for Ruminants. Technical Bulletin 33. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1981). The Analysis of Agricultural Materials. Technical Bulletin RB 427. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R. (1988). Consistency of differences in nutritive value of straw from different varieties in different seasons. In Plant Breeding and the Nutritive Value of Crop Residues (Eds Reed, J. D., Capper, B. S. & Neate, P. J. H.), pp. 163–176. Addis Ababa: International Livestock Centre for Africa.Google Scholar
Ørskov, E. R., Tait, G. A. G., Reid, G. W. & Flachowski, G. (1988). Effect of straw quality and ammonia treatment on voluntary intake, milk yield and degradation characteristics of faecal fibre. Animal Production 46, 23–27.Google Scholar
Pearce, G. R., Lee, J. A., Simpson, R. J. & Doyle, P. T. (1988). Sources of variation in the nutritive value of wheat and rice straws. In Plant Breeding and the Nutritive Value of Crop Residues (Eds Reed, J. D., Capper, B. S. & Neate, P. J. H.), pp. 195–231. Addis Ababa: International Livestock Centre for Africa.Google Scholar
Ramanzin, M., ØRskov, E. R. & Tuah, A. K. (1986). Rumen degradation of straw. 2. Botanical fractions of straw from two barley cultivars. Animal Production 43, 271–278.Google Scholar
Reid, G. W., ØRskov, E. R. & Kay, M. (1988). A note on the effect of variety, type of straw and ammonia treatment on digestibility and on growth rate in steers. Animal Production 41, 157–160.Google Scholar
Riggs, T. J., Hanson, P. R., Start, N. D., Miles, D. M., Morgan, C. L. & Ford, M. A. (1981). Comparison of spring barley varieties grown in England and Wales between 1880 and 1980. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 97, 599–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, T., Grigera-Naon, J. J., Broster, W. H. & Siviter, J. W. (1986). The use of barley straw as a feed. Animal Feed Science and Technology 14, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staniforth, A. R. (1982). Straw for Fuel, Feed and Fertilizer? Ipswich: Farming Press.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis System Institute (1987). SAS Guide for Personal Computers, Version 6. Cary: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Thomson, E. F., Bahhady, F. & Martin, A. (1988). Sheep Husbandry at the Cultivated Margin of the North- West Syrian Steppe. Aleppo: International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1983). A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuah, A. K., Lufadeju, E., ØRskov, E. R. & Blackett, G. A. (1986). Rumen degradation of straw. I. Untreated and ammonia-treated barley, oat and wheat straw varieties and triticale straw. Animal Production 43, 261–269.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. N. & Brigstocke, T. (1977). The commercial straw process. Process Biochemistry 12, 17–20.Google Scholar