Journal of The Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science (한국초지조사료학회지)

The Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science (한국초지조사료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of Productivity and Feed Value at Different Harvest Stages and Seeding Methods of Bermudagrass and Bahiagrass Cultivars

Bermudagrass와 Bahiagrass의 품종별 수확시기 및 파종방법에 따른 생산성 및 사료가치 비교

  • Received : 2018.11.22
  • Accepted : 2018.11.27
  • Published : 2018.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The southern type grasses announced for the test were the Bermudagrass cultivars (Giant, Cheyenne, Mohawk, Panchero Frio, Common and Tifton 85) and the Bahiagrass cultivars (TifQuik, Tifton 9), and the changes in the productivity and nutrient content were surveyed in Jeju area (450m altitude). The different cultivars were sowed by broadcasting or drill seeding method, and Tifton 85 was transplanted from sprigs. The fresh and dry matter yield showed varying significant differences for different cultivars (p<0.05). The fresh yields of Tifton 85, TifQuik and Tifton 9 were excellent, compared to the other cultivars, and for the dry matter yield, Tifton 85 and Tifton 9 were excellent when compared to the other cultivars. Crude protein content showed significant differences among different cultivars (p<0.05). Cheyenne, Mohawk, Panchero Frio, and Common showed differences in the crude protein content by sowing method and harvest time (p<0.05). The different cultivars showed differences in the crude fiber content (p<0.05), and Tifton 9 registered significantly high content and Mohawk and Tifton 85 showed significant crude fiber content by harvest time (p<0.05). According to these results, the southern type grass cultivars showed big differences in the regenerative capacity against damage from frost, productivity, and nutrient content, so they need to be chosen according to the purposes, and to increase their usage, their evaluation needs to be conducted at various altitudes.

본 연구는 제주지역에서 초식동물의 방목을 위해 주로 이용되고 있는 한지형 목초의 경우에 여름철 하고기에 생산성이 저하되고 있어 여름철에 생산성을 높일 수 있는 난지형 목초를 도입하여 이용하기 위한 목적으로 수행되었다. 시험에 사용된 난지형목초는 Bermudagrass 품종(Cynodon dactylon (L.)Pers. : Giant, Cheyenne, Mohawk, Panchero Frio, Common, Tifton 85)과 Bahiagrass 품종(Paspalum notatum : TifQuik, Tifton 9)을 이용하였으며, 해발 450m고지에서 월동 후에 수확시기별 생산성 및 영양소 함량의 변화를 조사하였다. 시험구는 품종별로 8처리 3반복 난괴법으로 배치하여 수행하였다. 파종방법은 산파와 조파형태로 파종되었으며, Tifton 85품종은 줄기 파종되었다. 시험결과를 보면 월동 후에 Bermudagrass와 Bahiagrass 품종 모두에서 동해에 의한 피해로 봄철에 재생이 대체로 늦었으며, 이중 줄기 파종되었던 Bermudagrass의 Tifton 85와 TifQuik, Tifton 9 품종이 다른 품종에 비해 동해에 비교적 강한 것으로 평가되었다. 생초와 건물수량은 품종에 따라 유의성 있는 차이를 보여 주었는데(p<0.05). Tifton 85, TifQuik 및 Tifton 9 품종의 생초수량이 다른 품종에 비하여 우수하였으며, 건물수량은 Tifton 85와 Tifton 9 품종이 다른 품종에 비하여 우수하였다. 건물 함량에 있어서도 품종에 따라서 유의있는 차이를 보여주었고(p<0.05), Giant 품종이 다른 품종에 비하여 높은 결과를 나타내었다. 수확시기별 건물 함량은 Bermudagrass의 모든 품종에서 수확시기에 따른 차이를 보였다(p<0.05). 조단백질 함량도 품종에 따라 유의있는 차이를 나타내었고(p<0.05), Cheyenne, Mohawk, Panchero Frio와 Common 품종이 다른 품종에 비하여 높은 결과를 보여주었으며, Giant 품종에서는 파종방법과 수확시기에 따른 차이를 나타내었다(p<0.05). 조섬유 함량도 품종에 따라 차이를 나타내었으며(p<0.05), Tifton9 품종이 다른 품종에 비하여 유의있게 높은 함량을 보여주었고, 수확시기별 조섬유 함량은 Mohawk과 Tifton 85 품종에서 유의있는 결과를 나타내었다(p<0.05). 그리고 조회분 함량에 있어서도 품종에 따른 유의있는 차이를 보였으며(p<0.05), Cheyenne이 다른 품종에 비하여 유의있게 높은 함량을 보였다. 수확시기별 조회분 함량은 Cheyenne, Panchero Frio와 Tifton 85 품종에서 유의있는 결과를 나타내었고(p<0.05), 파종방법에 따른 차이는 Giant 품종에서 유의있는 결과를 보였다(p<0.05). 이러한 결과에 따르면 난지형 목초류는 품종에 따라 동해에 따른 재생능력, 생산성, 영양소 함량이 차이가 크게 나타나고 있어 이용목적에 따라 선택할 필요가 있으며, 이용을 확대하기 위하여서는 다양한 해발고도에서의 평가가 필요한 것으로 사료되었다.

Keywords

References

  1. AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis (15th Ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, Va.
  2. Ball, D., Ballard, E., Kennedy, M., Lacefield, G. and Undersander, D. 2008. Extending grazing and reducing stored feed needs. Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, Bryan, TX.
  3. Barnes, R.F., Miller, D.A. and Nelson, C.J.(eds.). 2007. Forages: The Science of Grassland Agriculture. 6th ed. Vol. 2. Blackwell publishing. p. 88.
  4. Burns, J.C., Pond, K.R., Fisher, D.S. and Luginbuhl, J.M. 1997. Changes in forage quality, ingestive mastication, and digesta kinetics resulting from switchgrass maturity. Journal of Animal Science. 75:1368-1379. https://doi.org/10.2527/1997.7551368x
  5. Buxton, D.R., Mertens, D.R. and Moore, K.J. 1995. Forage quality for ruminants: plant and animal considerations. The Professional Animal Scientist. 11:121-131. https://doi.org/10.15232/S1080-7446(15)32575-4
  6. Deinum, B., Van Es, A.J.H. and Van Soest, P.J. 1968. Climate, nitrogen and grass. II. The influence of light intensity, temperature and nitrogen on in vivo digestibility of grass and the prediction of these effects from some chemical procedures. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science. 16:217-223.
  7. Difante, G.S., Nascimento Junior, D., Silva, S.C., Euclides, V.P.B., Zanine, A.M. and Adese, B. 2008. Tillering dynamics of marandu palisadegrass submitted to two cutting heights and three cutting intervals. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 37:189-196. doi:10.1590/S1516-35982008000200003.
  8. Ditsch, D.C., Smith, S.R. and Lacefield, G.D. 2009. Bermudagrass : A Summer Forage in Kentucky. Publication # AGR-48. University Of Kentucky College Of Agriculture, Lexington, KY, 40546.
  9. Duncan, D.B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics. 11:1-42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001478
  10. Gelley, C., Navem, R.L.G. and Bates, G. 2016. Forage Nutritive Value and Herbage Mass Relationship of Four Warm-Season Grasses. Agronomy Journal. 108:1063-1613.
  11. Givens, D.I., Moss, A.R. and Adamson, A.H. 1992. The chemical composition and energy value of high temperature dried grass produced in England. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 36:215-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(92)90058-E
  12. Jones, C.A. 1985. C4 Grasses and Cereals. Growth, Development and Stress Response. John Wiley and Sons, New York. p. 419.
  13. Moore, K.J., Moser, L.E., Vogel, K.P., Waller, S.S., Johnson, B.E. and Pederson, J.F. 1991. Describing and quantifying growth stages of perennial forage grasses. Agronomy Journal. 83:1073-1077. doi:10.2134/agronj1991.00021962008 300060027x.
  14. Nave, R.L.G., Sulc, R.M. and Barker, D.J. 2013. Relationships of forage nutritive value to cool-season grass canopy characteristics. Crop Science. 53:341-348. doi:10.2135/cropsci2012.04.0236.
  15. Nave, R.L.G., Sulc, R.M., Barker, D.J. and St-Pierre, N. 2014. Changes in forage nutritive value among vertical strata of a cool-season grass canopy. Crop Science. 54:2837-2845. doi:10.2135/cropsci2014.01.0018.
  16. NIER (National Institute of Environmental Research). 2011. Korean Climate Change Assessment Report 2010 [technical summary]. National Institute of Environmental Research, Climate Change Reserch Division., Climate and Air Quality Research Department. p449.
  17. Park, H.S., Choi, K.C., Kim, J.H., Lee, S.H. and Jung, J.S. 2015. Comparison of Growth Characteristics, Forage Production and Feed Values of Bermudagrass, Teffgrass and Kleingrass as Annual Forage Crop in Summer. Journal of the Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science. 35:36-42. https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2015.35.1.36
  18. Reid, 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. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1988.6651275x
  19. Richner, J.M., Kallenbach, R.L. and Roberts, C.A. 2014. Dual use switchgrass: Managing switchgrass for biomass production and summer forage. Agronomy Journal. 106:1438-1444. doi:10.2134/agronj13.0415.
  20. Rusland, G.A., Sollenberger, L.E., Albrecht, K.A., Jones Jr, C.S. and Crowder, L.V. 1988. Animal performance on limpograss-aeschynomene and nitrogen-fertilized limpograss pastures. Agronomy Journal. 80:957-962. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1988.00021962008000060024x
  21. SAS. 2009. Statistical Analytical Systems Institute. SAS/STAT user's guide release 9.4. Statistical analysis systems Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
  22. Sollenberger, L.E. and Jones Jr, C.S. 1989. Beef production from nitrogen-fertilized Mott dwarf elephantgrass and Pensacola bahiagrass pastures. Tropical Grasslands. 23:129-134.
  23. Sollenberger, L.E., Ocumpaugh, W.R., Euclides, V.P.B., Moore, J.E., Quesenberry, K.H. and Jones Jr, C.S. 1988. Animal performance on continuously stocked ''Pensacola'' bahiagrass and ''Floralta'' limpograss pasture. Journal of Production Agriculture. 1:216-220. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1988.0216
  24. Sollenberger, L.E., Rusland, G.A., Jones Jr, C.S., Albrecht, K.A. and Gieger, K.L. 1989. Animal and forage responses on rotationally grazed ''Floralta'' limpograss and ''Pensacola'' bahiagrass pastures. Agronomy Journal. 81:760-764. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1989.00021962008100050013x
  25. Wilson, J.R., Deinum, B. and Engels, F.M. 1991. Temperature effects on anatomy and digestibility of leaf and stem of tropical and temperate forage species. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science. 39:31-48.
  26. Woolfolk, J.S., Smith, E.F., Shcalla, R.R., Brent, B.E., Harbers, L.H. and Owensby, C.E. 1975. Effects of nitrogen fertilization and late spring burning of bluestem range on diet and performance of steers. Journal of Range Management. 28:190-193. https://doi.org/10.2307/3897523