Forage quality of canola (Brassica napus L.) at early and late bloom under rainfed conditions in Zacatecas, Mexico
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v8i3.4501Keywords:
Canol, Forage potential, Nutritional profile, Protein, Energy.Abstract
Canola forage could be an option for diversify crops grown under rainfed conditions and to improve quality forage produced. The objective was to evaluate nutritional composition of canola under rainfed conditions at two plant-growing stages. Fourty eight (48) randomly samples of forage in early bloom (5 % bloom, n= 24) and late bloom (90 % bloom, n= 24) were used within 1 ha plot located in semi-temperate climate at North of Mexico. All samples were dry at 65 °C during 48 h; bromatological and nutritional evaluation were performed using standard methods. Differences (P<0.05) were observed in all variables, averaging 26 vs 12 % crude protein, 47 vs 60 % neutral detergent fiber, 28 vs 52 % acid detergent fiber, 2.56 vs 1.99 % dry matter intake (%BW), 67 vs 48 % DMS, and 133 vs 72 relative forage value, 1.52 vs 0.86 net energy for maintenance (Mcal/kg), respectively for early and late bloom. It is concluded that early bloom canola forage represents better quality because of its protein content and fiber fraction. Estimated energetic value is 1.8 times greater in early bloom compared with late bloom (1.52 vs 0.86 Mcal ENm/kg); and early bloom energetic value is compared with sudan grass.
Downloads
References
Luna FM, Hernández MJ, Luna EMG, de Santiago Z, Humberto L, García HS. Los cultivos de frijol y maíz de grano bajo condiciones de secano en Zacatecas, México de 1980 a 2008. Rev Mex Cienc Agríc 2012;3(2):327-338.
Oleaginosas. Los agricultores que siembran oleaginosas ahorran agua. Oleaginosas en cadena. 2009; No. 24. www.oleaginosas.org/ cargas/boletin_24.pdf, Consultada 12 Sep, 2016.
Van Soest PJ. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. 2nd ed. Ithaca, NY; Comstock, Cornell University Press; 1994.
Belyea RL, Steevens B, Garner G, Whittier JC, Sewell H. Using NDF and ADF to balance diets. 1993. http://extension.missouri.edu/p/ G3161. Accessed Sep 13, 2015.
Moore JE, Undersander J. Relative forage quality: An alternative to relative feed value and quality index. Proc Ann Florida Rum Nut Symp. 2002;32:16-29.
NRC. National Research Council. The nutrient of requirements of beef cattle. 7th ed. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 2000.
Zandate HR, Medina GG. Guía para la producción de canola en Zacatecas. Campo Experimental Zacatecas. CIRNOC-INIFAP. Folleto para productores No. 36. 2010.
Goering HK, Van Soest PJ. Forage fiber analyses. Apparatus, reagents, procedures, and some applications. Agric 1970. Handbook 379.
SAS. User Guide. Statiscal analysis system. Inc. Cary, NC. Version 9.1. 2002.
Taize L, Zerge E. Fisiología vegetal. 3ª ed. Porto Alegre, Brasil: Artemet; 2004.
Müller L, Manfron PA, Santos OS, Medeiros SLP, Neto NN, Morselli TBGA, et al. Efecto de soluções nutitives na produ- ção e qualidade nutricional da forragem hidropônica de trigo (Triticum aestivum L). Zootec Trop 2006;24:137-152.
NRC. National Research Council. The nutrient requirements of Dairy cattle. 6th ed. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 1989.
Bosch MW, Tamminga S, Post G, Leffering CP, Muylaert JM. Influence of stage of maturity of grass silages on digestion processes in dairy cows. 1. Composition, nylon bag degradation rates, fermentation characteristics, digestibility and intake. Livest Prod Sci 1992;32(3):245-264.
Rotz CA, Muck RE. Changes in forage quality during harvest and storage. In: Forage quality, evaluation, and utilization. Madison, WI; Am Soc Agron 1994:828-868.
Van Soest PJ. Environment and forage quality. Cornell Nutrition Conference for Feed Manufacturers (USA). 1996.
Van Soest PJ, Mertens DR, Deinum B. Preharvest factors influencing quality of conserved forage. J Anim Sci 1978;47:712-720.
Nocek JE. Bovine acidosis: Implications on laminitis. J Dairy Sci 1997;80(5):1005-1028.
Marston TT, Blasi DA, Brazle FK, Kuhl GL. Beef cow nutrition guide. Kansas State University, Agr Exp Sta Coop Ext Service. 1998.
Urriola DM. Efecto de la edad de rebrote sobre la composición química y digestibilidad in vitro de cinco procedencias de Gliricidia sepium (Jacq.) y su aceptabilidad por cabras adultas. [tesis maestría]. CATIE. Turrialba, Costa Rica; 1994.
Carr PM, Horsley RD, Poland WW. Barley, oat and cereal pea mixtures as dryland forages in the northern plains. Agro J 2004;(96):677-684.
Strydhorts SM, King JR, Lopetinsky KJ, Harker KN. Forage potential of intercropping barley with faba bean, lupin, or feal pea. Agron J 2008;(100):182-190.
Sánchez GRA, Gutiérrez BH, Serna PA, Gutiérrez LR, Espinoza CA. Producción y calidad de forraje de variedades de avena en condiciones de temporal en Zacatecas. Rev Mex Cienc Pecu 2014;5(2):131-142.
Hutjens M. Guía de alimentación. 2a ed. Wisconsin, USA: Hoard’s Dairyman en Español 2003.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
-
Abstract1287
-
PDF (Español)659
-
XML (Español)490
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
