Comparative economic analysis for production of naked vs. conventional oat

Abstract

The greatest barrier to the use of oat as an animal feed is its high hull content. In spite of its excellent fat and amino acid composition in animal feed use, as far as nutritional value is concerned, the total energy yield of oat is weaker than that of other cereals because of the hulls which have an energy yield like that of straw, so the use and cultivation of oat has remained behind that of plants richer in energy. There are two ways to improve the low energy yield from the cultivation of oat: one is to cultivate naked oat (naked oat, also referred to as hulless oat, describes a variety of oat that with a caryopsis threshes free from maternal lemma and palea under normal mechanical harvest) and the other way is to cultivate high-yielding conventional oat and dehull it mechanically after threshing.The analysis in this paper is based on economic comparisons related to cultivation, dehulling, and crop value. The results show that the main differences in cultivation costs between naked and conventional oat lie in the amount of seeds required and the drying costs. The main differences affecting the economic result lie in market prices, yield level, and feed value. The results indicate that naked oat is financially more profitable than conventional oat, when the crop is sold at a specific price at all yield levels, when the crop is used as feed at the highest yield level. At lower yield levels, conventional oat is, in spite of its lower feed value, the more profitable option for feed use. Dehulled oat, however, did not achieve the same economic result as naked oat at any yield level, as the cost of dehulling, including disposing of the hull waste, was considerable.

Effects of toasting and decortication of oat on nutrient digestibility in the rumen and small intestine and on amino acid supply in dairy cows

“…This outcome could be due to the removal of the low digestible hull and its negative effect on intestinal digestibility (Welch et al, 1983). On the other hand, the lower digestibility of whole oat grain was attributed to the extensive ester cross-link bonds between polysaccharides and lignin in oat hull and its high fiber content (Yu et al, 2005;Kirkkari, 2008). The results of the mobile bag study showed that lower TTD of CP in the intact oat could be related to the low digestibility of hull protein in addition to its negligible CP concentration.…”

Genetic Similarity Assessment among Selected Naked Oat Cultivars and Breeding Lines Using ISSR Markers

“…Genomic DNA was extracted from 15-20 coleoptiles of several day old seedlings of each breeding form following the CTAB procedure (Doyle and Doyle, 1987). grain quality could be achieved by breeding for reduced husk content or breeding high yielding naked oat cultivars (Kirkkari, 2008). Naked oat refers to a variety with lemma and palea separating from the grains during threshing.…”

“…Moreover, the husk plays a crucial role in protecting the groat from damage (Burrows, 1986) and pathogenic attack (Ronald et al, 1999). Nevertheless, dehusked conventional oat, does not achieve comparable economic result as naked one, as dehusking costs and disposition of the husk waste is considerably large (Kirkkari, 2008). Naked oat could be a suitable alternative to conventional oat.…”

“…Due to the husk, the yield of total energy is weaker in oat than in case of other cereals. Thus, the cultivation and use of oat is behind other plants rich in energy (Kirkkari, 2008). Moreover, husk decreases bulk density, reducing storage and transport efficiency (Burrows, 1986).…”