Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T04:08:23.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of harvest period, nitrogen fertilization and mycorrhizal fungus inoculation on triticale (×Triticosecale Wittmack) forage yield and quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2011

E. Cazzato ,
V. Laudadio  and
V. Tufarelli
E. Cazzato
Affiliation:
Department of Agro-Environmental and Territorial Sciences, University of Bari ‘Aldo Moro.’, 70125 Bari, Italy.
V. Laudadio
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, University of Bari ‘Aldo Moro.’, 70010 Valenzano, Bari, Italy.
V. Tufarelli*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production, University of Bari ‘Aldo Moro.’, 70010 Valenzano, Bari, Italy.
*
*Corresponding author: v.tufarelli@veterinaria.uniba.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The practice of grazing winter cereals before heading and subsequently harvesting the forage is common in some countries. Triticale (×Triticosecale Wittmack) is particularly interesting due to its nutritional characteristics, and forage yield and quality are strongly influenced by agronomic techniques. The effect of two modes of utilization (cut at heading stage and cut during winter grazing simulation with regrowth cut at heading stage), three nitrogen (N) fertilization levels [0 and 100 kg ha−1 split in two phases; and 100 kg ha−1 before sowing, using a fertilizer with 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) as a nitrification inhibitor (NI)] and mycorrhizal fungus inoculation (mixed inoculation of Glomus intraradices and Glomus moseae) on forage yield and quality, protein fractions and in vitro digestibility of triticale was determined in southern Italy. Mode of utilization and fertilization affected significantly forage yield and quality, while mycorrhizal fungus inoculation influenced positively some quality parameters. Cutting at heading stage of triticale led to high dry matter (DM) production compared to the winter cut simulating grazing, but no differences in protein yield (PY). N fertilization increased total DM and PYs, but no differences were reported among the application modalities of N fertilizers. Triticale protein fractions and protein and fiber digestibility were improved by N fertilization. Mycorrhizal fungus inoculation positively influenced forage quality at heading stage, which resulted in more digestible fiber and protein. As a result, when triticale was grown under Mediterranean conditions, mode of utilization and N fertilization resulted in greater forage yield and quality, while mycorrhizal fungus inoculation influenced positively forage nutritional quality parameters.

Keywords

triticalefertilizationmycorrhizationprotein fractionsdigestibility
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 278 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

1Bilgili, U., Cifci, E.A., Hanoglu, H., Yagdi, K., and Açıkgöz, E. 2009. Yield and quality of triticale forage. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 7:556–560.Google Scholar
2Cazzato, E., Laudadio, V., and Corleto, A. 1999. Influenza delle modalità di utilizzazione e della concimazione azotata sulla produzione e la qualità di 2 erbai oligofiti autunno-primaverili. Rivista di Agronomia 33:250–256.Google Scholar
3Hennessy, G. and Clements, A. 2003. Cereals for Grazing. On-line. Agnote DPI-367. 2nd ed.New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Agriculture.Google Scholar
4Royo, C., Lopez, A., Serra, J., and Tribò, F. 1997. Effect of sowing date and cutting stage on yield and quality of irrigated barley and triticale used for forage and grain. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 179:227–234.Google Scholar
5Drake, D.J. and Orloff, S.B. 2005. Simulated grazing effects on triticale forage yield. Forage and Grazinglands. Available at Web site http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/sub/fg/research/2005/triticale (accessed November 18, 2011).Google Scholar
6Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., and Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677.Google Scholar
7Dilz, K. 1988. Efficiency of uptake and utilization of fertilizer N by plants. In Jekinson, D.S. and Smith, K.A. (eds). Nitrogen Efficiency in Agricultural Soils. Elsevier Applied Science, London, p. 1–26.Google Scholar
8Arregui, L.M. and Quemada, M. 2008. Strategies to improve nitrogen use efficiency in winter cereal crops under rainfed conditions. Agronomy Journal 100:277–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9Sowers, K.E., Miller, B.C., and Pan, W.L. 1994. Optimizing grain yield in soft white winter wheat with split nitrogen applications. Agronomy Journal 86:1020–1025.Google Scholar
10Strong, W.M. 1995. Nitrogen fertilization of upland crops. In Bacon, P.E. (ed.). Nitrogen Fertilization in the Environment. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, p. 129–169.Google Scholar
11Prasad, R. and Power, J.F. 1995. Nitrification inhibitors for agriculture, health and the environment. Advances in Agronomy 54:233–281.Google Scholar
12Zerulla, W., Barth, T., Dressel, J., Erhardt, K., Horchler von Locquenghien, K., Pasda, G., Radle, M., and Wissemeier, A. 2001. 3,4-Dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP) – a new nitrification inhibitor for agriculture and horticulture: An introduction. Biology and Fertility of Soils 34:79–84.Google Scholar
13Irigoyen, I., Muro, J., Azpilikueta, M., Aparicio-Tejo, A., and Lamsfus, C. 2003. Ammonium oxidation kinetics in the presence of nitrification inhibitors DCD and DMPP at various temperatures. Australian Journal of Soil Research 41:1177–1183.Google Scholar
14Lestingi, A., De Giorgio, D., Montemurro, F., Convertini, C., and Laudadio, V. 2007. Effects of bio-activators on yield and quality composition of triticale forage as an animal food resource. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 5:164–171.Google Scholar
15Zadoks, J.C., Chang, T.T., and Konzak, C.F. 1974. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14:415–421.Google Scholar
16AOAC. 2000. Official Methods of Analysis. 17th ed.Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
17Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B., and Lewis, B.A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74:3583–3592.Google Scholar
18Van Soest, P.J. and Robertson, J.B. 1985. Analysis of forages and fibrous feeds. In: Laboratory Manual for Animal Science 613. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, p. 18.Google Scholar
19Sniffen, C.J., O'Connor, J.D., Fox, D.G., and Van Soest, P.J. 1992. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: 2. Carbohydrate and protein availability. Journal of Animal Science 70:3562–3577.Google Scholar
20Licitra, G., Hernandez, T.M., and Van Soest, P.J. 1996. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feed. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57:347–358.Google Scholar
21NRC. 1985. Nutrient Requirements of Sheep. 6th ed.National Academy of Science, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
22Tilley, J.M. and 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.Google Scholar
23Davidson, J.L. and Milthorpe, F.L. 1996. The effect of defoliation on the carbon balance in Dactylis glomerata. Annales of Botany 30:185–198.Google Scholar
24Mishra, S., Sharma, S., and Vasudevan, P. 2008. Comparative effect of biofertilizers on fodder production and quality in guinea grass (Panicum maximum Jacq.). Journal of the Science of Food Agriculture 88:1667–1673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Reling, E.A., Niekerk Vaan, W.A., Coertze, R.J., and Rethman, N.F.G. 2001. An evaluation of Panicum maximum cv. Gatton: 2. The influence of stage of maturity on diet selection, intake and rumen fermentation in sheep. South African Journal of Animal Science 31:165–171.Google Scholar
26Sukhchain, and Sidhu, B.S. 1992. Inter-relationships among total crude protein and digestible dry matter production and their component traits in guinea grass. Euphytica 64:59–63.Google Scholar
27Bamikole, M.A., Ezenwa, I., and Akinsoyinu, A.O. 1998. Intake and digestibility of Guinea grass fed to West African Dwarf goats. In Oduguwa, O.O., Fanimo, A.O., and Oshinowo, O.A. (eds). Animal Agriculture in West Africa: The Sustainability Question. Proceedings of the Silver Anniversary Conference of the Nigerian Society for Animal Production (NSAP), Abeokuta, Nigeria, p. 341–342.Google Scholar
28Martínez-López, J.R., Vázquez-Alvarado, R.E., Gutiérrez-Ornelas, E., del Río, M.A.P., López-Cervantes, R., Olivares-Sáenz, E., Vidales-Contreras, J.A., and Valdez-Cepeda, R.D. 2009. Mycorrhiza effect on nutritional quality and biomass production of Agave (Agave americana L.) and cactus pear (Opuntia lindheimeri Engelm). Journal of the Professional Association for Cactus Development 11:69–77.Google Scholar
29Harmoney, K.R. and Thompson, C.A. 2005. Fertilizer rate and placement alters triticale forage yield and quality. Forage and Grazinglands. Available at Web site http:// www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/fg/research/2005/fertilizer (Accessed November 18, 2011).Google Scholar
30Peyraud, J.L. and Astigarraga, L. 1998. Review of the effect of nitrogen fertilization on the chemical composition, intake, digestion and nutritive value of fresh herbage: Consequences on animal nutrition and N balance. Animal Feed Science and Technology 72:235–259.Google Scholar
31Wilman, D. 1975. Nitrogen and Italian ryegrass: 2. Growth up to 14 weeks: nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content and yield. Journal of the British Grassland Society 31:243–247.Google Scholar
32Peyraud, J.L., Astigarraga, L., and Faverdin, P. 1997. Digestion of fresh perennial ryegrass fertilized at two levels of nitrogen by lactating dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 64:155–171.Google Scholar
33Van Vuuren, A.M., Krol-Kramer, F., Van Der Lee, R.A., and Corbijn, H. 1992. Protein digestion and intestinal amino acids in dairy cows fed fresh Lolium perenne with different nitrogen contents. Journal of Dairy Science 75:2215–2225.Google Scholar
34Hoover, W.H. 1986. Chemical factors involved in ruminal fiber digestion. Journal of Dairy Science 69:2755–2766.Google Scholar
35Kennedy, I.R., Choudhury, A.T.M.A., and Kecskes, M.L. 2004. Nonsymbiotic bacterial diazotrophs in crop-farming systems: Can their potential for plant growth promotion be better exploited? Soil Biology and Biochemistry 36:1229–1244.Google Scholar
36Messman, M.A., Weiss, W.P., and Erickson, D.O. 1991. Effects of nitrogen fertilization and maturity of bromegrass on in situ ruminal digestion kinetics of fiber. Journal of Animal Science 69:1151–1161.Google Scholar
37Valk, H., Kappers, I.E., and Tamminga, S. 1996. In sacco degradation characteristics of organic matter, neutral detergent fibre and crude protein of fresh grass fertilized with different amounts of nitrogen. Animal Feed Science and Technology 63:63–87.Google Scholar
38Reid, R.L., Jung, G.A., and Thayne, W.V. 1988. Relationships between nutritive quality and fiber components of cool season and warm season forages: a retrospective study. Journal of Animal Science 66:1275–1291.Google Scholar