Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5187/jast.2021.e56

Effects of cultivar and harvest days after planting on dry matter yield and nutritive value of teff  

Saylor, Benjamin A (Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University)
Min, Doohong (Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University)
Bradford, Barry J (Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University)
Publication Information
Journal of Animal Science and Technology / v.63, no.3, 2021 , pp. 510-519 More about this Journal
Abstract
One of the most pressing issues facing the dairy industry is drought. In areas where annual precipitation is low, irrigation for growing feed presents the greatest water-utilization challenge for dairy producers. Here, we investigated the effects of cultivar and harvest days after planting (DAP) on dry matter (DM) yield and nutritive value of teff (Eragrostis tef), a warm-season annual grass native to Ethiopia that is well adapted to drought conditions. Eighty pots were blocked by location in a greenhouse and randomly assigned to four teff cultivars (Tiffany, Moxie, Corvallis, and Dessie) and to five harvest times (40, 45, 50, 55, or 60 DAP). Cultivars had no effect on DM yield and nutritive value. As harvest time increased from 40 to 60 DAP, DM yield and ash-free neutral detergent fiber (aNDFom) concentrations increased, while crude protein (CP) concentrations and in vitro NDF digestibility decreased. To assess carryover effects of time of harvest on yield and nutritive value, two additional cuttings were taken from each pot. Increasing first-cutting harvest time decreased CP concentrations in the second cutting and reduced DM yields in the second and third cutting. Harvesting teff between 45 and 50 DAP best optimized forage yield and nutritive value in the first and subsequent cuttings.
Keywords
Drought; Eragrostis tef; Dry matter yield; Nutritive value;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Reid JT, Clark B, Welch JA, Dosza L, Jung GA. Investigation of plant species and maturity stage on forage nutritive value as determined by in vitro digestion techniques. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station; 1962. USDA Contract No. 12-14-100-4524.
2 Mesfin R, Ledin I. Comparison of feeding urea-treated teff and barley straw based diets with hay based diet to crossbred dairy cows on feed intake, milk yield, milk composition and economic benefits. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2004;16.
3 Young A, Creech E, ZoBell D, Israelsen C, Eun JS. Integrating teff into livestock operations. Logan, UT: Utah State University; 2014. Report No.: AG/Forages/2014-01pr.
4 Allen MS. Relationship between forage quality and dairy cattle production. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 1996;59:51-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00886-1   DOI
5 Hunter M, Ketterings QM, Cherney JH, Barney P, Kilcer T, Godwin G. Nitrogen needs of teff managed as forage crop in New York. Forage and Grasslands. 2009;7:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1094/FG-2009-0612-01-RS   DOI
6 Hall MH, Cherney JH. Increased teff seeding rates in the northeast region of the United States increases forage yield. Forage and Grazinglands. 2010;8:1-2.   DOI
7 Staniar WB, Bussard JR, Repard NM, Hall MH, Burk AO. Voluntary intake and digestibility of teff hay fed to horses. J Anim Sci. 2010;88:3296-303. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-2668   DOI
8 Vinyard JR, Hall JB, Sprinkle JE, Chibisa GE. Effects of maturity at harvest on the nutritive value and ruminal digestion of Eragrostis tef (cv. Moxie) when fed to beef cattle. J Anim Sci. 2018;96:3420-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky202   DOI
9 Burns J, Bennett B, Rooney K, Walsh J, Hensley J. Coatings for legume and grass seed. In: Proceedings of the 57th South Pasture Forage Crop Improvement Conference; 2002; Athens, GA.
10 Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2   DOI
11 Van Soest PJ. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Corvallis, OR: O & B Books; 1982.
12 Jung HG. Forage lignins and their effects on fiber digestibility. Agron J. 1989;81:33-8. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1989.00021962008100010006x   DOI
13 Ballard CS, Thomas ED, Tsang DS, Mandebvu P, Sniffen CJ, Endres MI, etal. Effect of corn silage hybrid on dry matter yield, nutrient composition, in vitro digestion, intake by dairy heifers, and milk production by dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2001;84:442-52. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74494-3   DOI
14 Carmi A, Aharoni Y, Edelstein M, Umiel N, Hagiladi A, Yosef E, et al. Effects of irrigation and plant density on yield, composition and in vitro digestibility of a new forage sorghum variety, Tal, at two maturity stages. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2006;131:120-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.02.005   DOI
15 Chen L, Auh C, Dowling P, Bell J, Chen F, Hopkins A, et al. Improved forage digestibility of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) by transgenic down-regulation of cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase. Plant Biotechnol J. 2003;1:437-49. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-7652.2003.00040.x   DOI
16 Assefa G, Ledin I. Effect of variety, soil type and fertiliser on the establishment, growth, forage yield, quality and voluntary intake by cattle of oats and vetches cultivated in pure stands and mixtures. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2001;92:95-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(01)00242-5   DOI
17 Kilcher MR, Troelsen JE. Contribution of stems and leaves to the composition and nutrient content of irrigated bromegrass at different stages of development. Can J Plant Sci. 1973;53:767-71. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps73-149   DOI
18 Oba M, Allen MS. Evaluation of the importance of the digestibility of neutral detergent fiber from forage: effects on dry matter intake and milk yield of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 1999;82:589-96. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75271-9   DOI
19 Mir Z, Acharya SN, Mir PS, Taylor WG, Zaman MS, Mears GJ, LA Goonewardene. Nutrient composition, in vitro gas production and digestibility of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) and alfalfa forages. Can J Anim Sci. 1997;77:119-24.   DOI
20 Bonsi, MLK, Tuah AK, Osuji PO, VI Nsahlai, NN Umunna. The effect of protein supplement source or supply pattern on the intake, digestibility, rumen kinetics, nitrogen utilisation and growth of Ethiopian Menz sheep fed teff straw. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 1996;64:11-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-8401(96)01048-6   DOI
21 Guo D, Chen F, Wheeler J, Winder J, Selman S, Peterson M, et al. Improvement of in-rumen digestibility of alfalfa forage by genetic manipulation of lignin O-methyltransferases. Transgenic Res. 2001;10:457-64. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012278106147   DOI
22 Ademosum AA, Baumgardt BR, Scholl JM. Evaluation of a sorghum-sudangrass hybrid at varying stages of maturity on the basis of intake, digestibility and chemical composition. J Anim Sci. 1968;27:818-23. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1968.273818x   DOI
23 Bonsi MLK, Osuji PO, Tuah AK, Umunna NN. Intake, digestibility, nitrogen balance and certain rumen characteristics of Ethiopian Menz sheep fed teff straw supplemented with cotton seed cake, dry sesbania, dry leucaena or fresh leucaena. Agrofor Syst. 1995;31:243-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00712077   DOI
24 Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy. [Internet]. U.S. dairy's environmental footprint. 2013 [cited 2020 Aug 4]. http://www.usdairy.com/~/media/usd/public/dairysenvironmentalfootprint.pdf
25 Cross JA. Change and sustainability issues in America's dairyland. Focus Geogr. 2015;58:173-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/foge.12060   DOI
26 Mengesha MH. Chemical composition of teff (Eragrostis tef) compared with that of wheat, barley and grain sorghum. Econ Botany. 1966;20:268-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02904277   DOI
27 Miller D. Teff grass: crop overview and forage production guide [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2017 Feb 1]. http://teffgrass.com/wp-content/themes/tg/downloads/TeffGrassManagementGuide.pdf
28 USDA [United States Department of Agriculture]. Crop production 2018 summary. Washington, DC: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service; 2019.
29 Roseberg RJ, Norberg S, Smith J, Charlton B, Rykbost K, Shock C. Yield and quality of teff forage as a function of varying rates of applied irrigation and nitrogen. Klamath Exp Stn. 2005;119-36.
30 Roseberg RJ, BA Charlton, S Norberg, J Kugler. Yield and forage quality of six teff seed brands grown in three Pacific Northwest environments. In: Klamath Experiment Station 2006 Annual Report. Washington, DC: USDA; 2016. p. 31-45.