Forage Production and Pattern of Forage Quality Indices During Reproductive Development of Millet Genotypes

Journal of Environmental and Agricultural Sciences (JEAS). Ijaz et al., 2016. Volume 8: 54-59

Open Access – Research Article

Forage Production and Pattern of Forage Quality Indices During Reproductive Development of Millet Genotypes
M. K. Ijaz 1, M. Tariq 2, M.A. Nadeem 1, M. Tahir 1, S. A. S. Shah 3, Adeel Anwer 4
1 Institute o1Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
2 Agronomy Section, Central Cotton Research Institute, Multan, Pakistan
3 Cotton Research Station, Bahawalpur, Pakistan
4 Department of Agronomy, Pir Mehr Ali Shah, University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi, Pakistan


Abstract: The forage yield and quality constituents vary greatly depending upon harvesting time and varieties. A field experiment was conducted for better understanding the effect of different harvesting times and genotypic variation in forage yield and quality indices. Three millet varieties i.e. FB-786, MB-87 and AF-POP-2005 were used in the experiment, and were harvested at three different timings i.e., 60, 70 and 80-days after sowing. In the beginning of reproductive development, all the three varieties produce quality fodder, however significant decline in fodder quality was observed due to delay in harvesting. Among the genotypes tested, FB-786 gave the outstanding performance in connection with forage yield, quality and feeding value. A close association in quality components was also found like varieties rich in protein had simultaneously accumulated low crude fibre. The differences produced by harvesting dates for leaf to stem ratio, fresh and dry matter yield were more pronounced even than varietal differences. The dry matter collected at 70 and 80-days after sowing was 43.5% and 68.1% higher than 60-days after sowing but low in quality. The crude protein at 70 and 80-days was 7.21% and 11.23% and ash was 7.08% and 10.63% less than harvesting at 60-days. Therefore, harvesting at 70-days after sowing is better compromise between forage yield and nutritional value. The compromise between forage yield and quality is intricate and it is upto forage producer which one is preferable. The variety with better performance i.e., FB-786 can be used for future forage improvement for narrowing the gap between achieved and required quality.

Keywords: Forage, Harvesting time, Nutritional profile, Genotypic variations

*Corresponding author:  Muhammad Tariq


Cite this article as Ijaz, M.K., M. Tariq, M.A. Nadeem, M. Tahir, S.A. Shah and A. Anwer. 2016. Forage production and pattern of forage quality indices during reproductive development of millet genotypes. Journal of Environmental & Agricultural Sciences. 8: 54-59. [Abstract] [View FullText] [Citations].

Title: Forage Production and Pattern of Forage Quality Indices During Reproductive Development of Millet Genotypes

Authors: M. K. Ijaz, M. Tariq, M.A. Nadeem, M. Tahir, S. A. S. Shah and Adeel Anwer

Pages: 54-59


Copyright © Ijaz et al., 2016. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium provided the original author and source are appropriately cited and credited.


References

Akmal, M., N. Kausar, G. Habib, S. Ahmad, M. Asim and N.H. Shah. 2010. Yield comparison of forage legumes under partial stress and normal irrigation. Sarhad J. Agric. 26 (4): 507-513.

Akmal, M. and Zulfiqar. 2002. Production and evaluation of millet (Pennisetum typhoidum L.) germplasms for fodder. Pak. J. Bio. Sci.,5: 539-542.

AOAC. 1980. Official Methods of Analysis,11th ed. Washington, DC.p:125.

AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis; Association of Official Analytical Chemists 15th ed. Inc. USA.

Ashraf, Y., A.H. Gilani and S.A. Nagra. 1995. Effect of harvesting intervals and varieties on the chemical composition of indigenous fodder. J. Agric. Res. 33(1): 32-43.

Ates, E., L. Coskuntuna and A.S. Tekeli. 2010. The amino acid and fiber contents of four different annual forage legumes at full-bloom stage. Cuban J. Agric. Sci. 44:73-77.

Ayub, M., M.A. Nadeem, A. Tanveer and A. Husnain. 2002. Effect of different levels of nitrogen and harvesting times on growth, yield and quality of sorghum fodder. Asian J. Plant Sci. 4:304-307.

Ball, D.M., M. Collins, G.D. Lacefield, N.P. Martin, D.A. Mertens, K.E. Olson, D.H. Putnam, D.J. Undersander and M.W. Wolf. 2001. Understanding forage quality. American Farm Bureau Federation Publication 1-01, Park Ridge, Illinois.

Beck, P.A., S. Hutchison, S.A. Gunter, T.C. Losi, C.B. Stewart, P.K. Capps and J.M. Phllips. 2007. Chemical composition and in situ dry matter and fibre disappearance of sorghum × sudan grass hybrids. J. Anim. Sci. 85: 545-555.

Bidinger, F.R. and M. Blummel. 2007. Determinants of ruminant nutritional quality of pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Br.] stover I. Effects of management alternatives on stover quality and productivity. Field Crops Res. 103:119–128.

Fahey, J.C. 1994. Forage quality evaluation and utilization. Am. Soc. Agron. p. 998-1023.

Glamočlija, Đ.S. Janković, S. Rakić, R. Maletić, J. Ikanović and Ž. Lakić. 2011. Effects of nitrogen and harvesting time on chemical composition of biomass of Sudan grass, fodder sorghum, and their hybrid. Turk. J. Agric. For. 35:127-138.

Imran, M.A. Hussain, R. Khalid, S. Khan, M.S. Zahid, Z.A. Gurmani, A. Bakhshand and D. Baig. 2010. Study of correlation among yield contributing and quality parameters in different millet varieties grown under and hwar conditions. Sarhad J. Agric. 26(3):365-369.

Iqbal, M.A., B. Ahamd, M.H. Shah and K. Ali. 2015. A study on forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) production in perspectives of white revolution in Punjab, Pakistan: Issues and future options. American-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 15 (4): 640-647.

Jafari, A.A. and M. Rezaeifard. 2010. Effects of maturity on yield and quality traits in Tall Fescue (Festuca arundinace Schreb). Am. Eurasian. J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 9 (1): 98-104.

Kacar, B. and A. İnal. 2008. BitkiAnalizleri. Nobel Yayınları. No:1241, Ankara, p: 892.

Khairwal, I.S., S.K. Yadav, K.N. Rai, H.D. Upadhyaya, D. Kachhawa,B. Nirwan, R. Bhattacharjee, B.S. Rajpurohit, C.J. Dangaria and Srikant. 2007. Evaluation and identification of promising pearl millet germplasm for grain and fodder traits. J. SAT Agric. Res. 5(1):1-6.

Martin, R.C., H.D. Voldeng and D.L. Smith. 1990. Intercropping soybean for silage in a cool temperate region: Yield, protein and economic effects. Field Crops Res. 23:295-310.

Mohajer, S., M.V. Dastenai and R.M. Taha. 2011. Forage quality of foxtail millet (SetariaitalicaL.) cultivars at different phonological stages in Karaj region, Iran. J. Food, Agric.Environ. 9(2): 304-308.

Mohajer, S., R.M. Taha, A. Khorasani and E.E. Mubarak. 2013. Comparative studies of forage yield and quality traitsamong Proso millet, Foxtail millet and Sainfoin varieties. Int. J. Environ. Sci.Develop. 4(5):465-469.

Naveed. K., M.A. Khan., M.S. Baloch., K. Ali., M.A. Nadim., E.A. Khan., S. Shah and M. Arif. 2014. Effect of different seeding rates on yield attributes of dual-purpose wheat. Sarhad J. Agric. 30(1): 83-91.

Panahi, F., M.H. Assareh, M. Jafari, A.A. Jafari, H. Arzani, A. Tavili and E.Z. Esfahan. 2012. Phenological effects on forage quality of Salsola arbuscula, Salsola orientalis and Salsola tomentosa in three habitats in the central part of Iran. Middle-East.J. Sci. Res. 11 (6): 800-807.

Sarwar, M., M.A. Khan. and Z. Iqbal, 2002. Feed resources for livestock in Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 4:186-192.

Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torrieand and D.A. Dickey.1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: a biometrical approach. 3rd Ed. McGraw Hill, Inc. Book Co. N.Y. (U.S.A.), p. 352-358.

Tabosa, J.N., A. Neto, A.D. Reis, O.V. Farias, I. Tavares-filho, J.J. Lira, M.A.Tavares, J.A. Brito and A.R. Lima. 1999. Timing harvest of forage pearl millet in semi-arid Pernambuco, Brazil. Int. Sorghum and Millets News Lett. 40: 24-26.

Tariq, M., Ayub, M., M. Elahi, A.H. Ahmad, M.N. Chaudhary and M.A. Nadeem. 2011. Forage yield and some quality attributes of millet (Pennisetum americannum L.) hybrid under various regimes of nitrogen fertilization and harvesting dates. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 6(16):3883-3890.

Tielkes, E. and C.F. Gall. 1998. Pre-harvest pearl millet tillers and leaves as animal food. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 30: 57-66.

Valencia, E., R.L. Smith and M.B. Adjei. 2000. Cutting management effects on yield, nutritive value and persistence of a seeded Pennisetum hybrid. Reports of the American Forage and Grassland Council. p. 220-223.

Van-Soest, P.J., J.B. Robertsonand and B.A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74: 3583–3597.

Vetriventhan, M., A.Nirmalakumari and S. Ganapathy. 2008. Heterosis for grain yield components in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) R. Br.). World J. Agric. Sci. 4: 657-660.


Join Journal of Environmental and Agricultural Sciences (JEAS)

Interested to join the JEAS Team

Join JEAS as a member Editorial Board see Editors’ Responsibilities

Join JEAS as a member Review Panel  Reviewers’ Responsibilities

(send your CV through email at editor.jeas@outlook.com)


JEAS Indexing Journal of Environmental EAS is indexed by reputed indexing services.

Suggest Indexing service/s through email (editor.jeas@outlook.com)


Call for Articles
Submit Your research for publication in the “Journal of Environmental and Agricultural Sciences (JEAS)” through email: editor.jeas@outlook.com


JEAS Recently Published and Highly Cited Articles
Citation record of JEAS: JEAS Google Scholar page
Follow  JEAS Facebook

Subscribe to Get JEAS Updates

We’d love to keep you updated with our latest articles and news 😎

We don’t spam! Read our [link]privacy policy[/link] for more info.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *