Field Drying-Rate Differences Among Three Cool-Season Grasses

Geoffrey Brink, Matthew F. Digman, Richard E. Muck
{"title":"Field Drying-Rate Differences Among Three Cool-Season Grasses","authors":"Geoffrey Brink,&nbsp;Matthew F. Digman,&nbsp;Richard E. Muck","doi":"10.2134/FG-2013-0104-RS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Conserving cool-season grasses as silage or hay remains a challenge due to the time required for field curing and the unpredictability of the weather. We compared the drying rates of three grasses with differing yield potential, morphology, and physical characteristics. Inflorescence-stage meadow fescue (<i>Festuca pratensis</i> Huds. subsp. <i>pratensis</i> [syn. <i>Schedonorus pratensis</i> (Huds.) P. Beauv.]), orchardgrass (<i>Dactylis glomerata</i> L.), and reed canarygrass (<i>Phalaris arundinacea</i> L.) were cut and swathed with field-scale equipment at 1100 h on three consecutive days of early June in each of 2 years. Moisture, drying rate, and nutritive value were measured hourly until 1600 h and over the same time frame during the following 2 days. Despite differences in leaf-to-stem ratio and windrow density, there were few differences in drying rate (mean of 0.229, 0.150, and 0.119/h on the first, second, and third days, respectively). In one year, meadow fescue had lower initial moisture content at harvest than the other grasses, potentially allowing earlier processing into silage on the first day of curing. Species will probably not have an impact on drying rate of cool-season grasses harvested at the same relative maturity.</p>","PeriodicalId":100549,"journal":{"name":"Forage & Grazinglands","volume":"12 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2134/FG-2013-0104-RS","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forage & Grazinglands","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2134/FG-2013-0104-RS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Conserving cool-season grasses as silage or hay remains a challenge due to the time required for field curing and the unpredictability of the weather. We compared the drying rates of three grasses with differing yield potential, morphology, and physical characteristics. Inflorescence-stage meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis Huds. subsp. pratensis [syn. Schedonorus pratensis (Huds.) P. Beauv.]), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.) were cut and swathed with field-scale equipment at 1100 h on three consecutive days of early June in each of 2 years. Moisture, drying rate, and nutritive value were measured hourly until 1600 h and over the same time frame during the following 2 days. Despite differences in leaf-to-stem ratio and windrow density, there were few differences in drying rate (mean of 0.229, 0.150, and 0.119/h on the first, second, and third days, respectively). In one year, meadow fescue had lower initial moisture content at harvest than the other grasses, potentially allowing earlier processing into silage on the first day of curing. Species will probably not have an impact on drying rate of cool-season grasses harvested at the same relative maturity.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
三种冷季牧草的田间干旱率差异
保存冷季草作为青贮或干草仍然是一个挑战,因为田间养护需要时间和天气的不可预测性。我们比较了具有不同产量潜力、形态和物理特性的三种草的干燥速率。花序期草甸羊茅(Festuca pratensis)。无性系种群。pratensis的词源:pratensis的词源:(P. Beauv.])、果园草(Dactylis glomerata L.)和芦苇金丝雀草(Phalaris arundinacea L.)在连续2年6月初的3天,于1100 h用田间规模的设备进行刈割和覆盖。每小时测量水分、干燥率和营养价值,直到1600小时,并在随后的2天内测量相同的时间框架。尽管叶柄比和窗密度存在差异,但干燥速率差异不大(第1天、第2天和第3天分别为0.229、0.150和0.119/h)。在一年内,草甸羊茅收获时的初始水分含量低于其他禾草,这可能使其在养护的第一天更早地加工成青贮饲料。物种可能不会对相同相对成熟度收获的冷季草的干燥速率产生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Measuring Legume Content in Pastures Using Digital Photographs Hairy Buttercup Control and White Clover Tolerance to Pasture Herbicides Field Drying-Rate Differences Among Three Cool-Season Grasses Fall Harvest Management of Eastern Gamagrass in Central Wisconsin Winter Annual Legumes Overseeded into Seeded Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon): Productivity, Forage Composition, and Reseeding Capability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1