Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T01:27:03.429Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of harvesting programme and sowing date on the forage yield, digestibility, nitrogen concentration, tillers and crop fractions of barley in Cyprus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. N. Droushiotis  and
D. Wilman
D. N. Droushiotis
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus
D. Wilman
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed, SY23 3DD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

All combinations of four harvesting treatments and two sowing dates were comparedin each of 3 years in field experiments near Nicosia. In two of the years, different levels of applied nitrogen were compared. The harvesting treatments were: (1) a milk-stage cut,(2) a boot-stage cut and a regrowth cut, (3) a grazing-stage cut and a regrowth cut, and(4) three grazing-stage cuts and a regrowth cut. The sowing dates were (1) normal (12 November) and (2) early (15 October), with sufficient irrigation to ensure establishment. There was almost no response to applied nitrogen, evidently because of high reserves of available nitrogen in the soil. Early sowing reduced by 20 days the time taken to reach the stage at which the first node appeared, but increased, by 36 days, the length of time between the first node and the milk stage. Early sowing increased yield when the firstcut was at the grazing stage, but reduced yield when the first cut was at the boot or milk stage. At the grazing stage, the proportion of green leaf blade and the concentrations of nitrogen and nitrate-N were relatively high (means 74, 4·0 and 0·13% respectively) and digestibility was moderate (mean D-value 61). By the boot stage, green leaf, nitrogen and nitrate-N, but not digestibility, had declined (means 21, 1·8, 0·02 and 63 respectively). By the milk stage, green leaf, nitrogen and digestibility, but not nitrate-N, had declined further (means 3, 1·5, 48 and 0·05 respectively). Fully dead leaf blades were 28 units less digestible and 3·2 percentage units lower in nitrogen concentration than emerging leaves. Half dead leaf blades were higher in nitrate-N than fully expanded, fully green blades. 'Stem’ declined greatly in nitrogen concentration, but relatively little in digestibility, between the grazing and the boot stage.

Crops cut once or three times at a grazing stage recovered well, although theretended to be some reduction in the number of tillers compared with an undefoliated crop.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 109 , Issue 1 , August 1987 , pp. 95 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Abogharsa, S. M. (1985). A comparative study of the growth of grasses and cereals in the year of sowing. M.Sc. thesis, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
Altimimi, M. A. K. (1978). The digestibility of different tissues of herbage plants. Ph.D. thesis, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
Breimer, T. (1982). Environmental factors and cultural measures affecting the nitrate content in spinach. Fertilizer Research 3, 191–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Droushiotis, D. N. (1984 a). The effect of variety and harvesting stage on forage production of barley in a low rainfall environment. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 289–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Droushiotis, D. N. (1984). Effect of grazing simulation on forage hay and grain yields of spring barleys in a low rainfall environment. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 103, 587–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Droushiotis, D. N. (1986). The growth and digestibility of barley(Hordeum vulgare L.) grown as a forage crop. Ph.D. thesis, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
Hadjichristodoulou, A. (1976 a). Effect of harvesting stage on cereal and legume forage production in low rainfall regions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 86, 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadjichristodoulou, A. (1976 b). Effect of genotype and rainfall on yieldand quality of forage barley and wheat varieties in a semi-arid region. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87, 489–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadjichristodoulou, A. (1983). Dual purpose barley. Technical Bulletin No.46, 9pp. Agricultural Research Institute, Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
Hadjidemetriou, D. G. (1982). Comparative study of the determination of nitrates in calcareous soils by the ion selective electrode, chromotropic acid and phenoldisulphonic acid methods. Analyst 107, 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearse, P. J. (1983). Detailed studies of grass growth in field swards, with particular reference to response to nitrogen application and frequency of defoliation. Ph.D. thesis, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
Skorda, E. A. (1977). Effect of clipping on forage, hay and grainproduction from barley, wheat and triticale. Proceedings of the 4th Regional Winter Cereal Workshop (Barley), Amman, Jordan, 1977, vol.2, pp.266–274.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. C., Storrier, R. R. & Gilmour, A. R. (1978). Nitrogen needs of wheat. 2. Grain yield response to nitrogenous fertilizer. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 18, 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilman, D., Ojuederie, B. M. & Asare, E. O. (1976). Nitrogen and Italian ryegrass. 3. Growth up to 14 weeks: yields, proportions, digestibilities and nitrogen contents of crop fractions, and tiller populations. Journal of the British Grassland Society 31, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar