Nutrient composition of forage crops : effects of genetic factors and agronomic practices

Burton, Glenn W.; Monson, W. G.

doi:10.5962/bhl.title.119752

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An extensive review of breeding for forage quality was completed recently by Vogel and Sieper (1994). Forage quality can be improved by breeding for enhanced positive quality factors such as digestibility or for reduced negative factors such as alkaloids (Burton, 1981;Marten, 1989). There are no reported problems in big bluestem with any anti-quality factors such as alkaloids or endophytes.…”

Section: Forage Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Warm-Season Forage Grasses Using Selection, Breeding, and Biotechnology

Vogel

2015

Native Warm-Season Grasses: Research Trends and Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Forage Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Warm-Season Forage Grasses Using Selection, Breeding, and Biotechnology

Vogel

2015

Native Warm-Season Grasses: Research Trends and Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…& Barth var. indica on pearl millet made the forage highly unpalatable to livestock (Burton, 1981). Gross et al (1975) reported that IVDMD of smooth bromegrass plants inoculated with either Drechslera bromi (Died.)…”

Section: Diseases and Endophytesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alteration of Plants via Genetics and Plant Breeding

Vogel

Sleper

2015

Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant breeding is man-directed evolution. Plant breeders manipulate the genetic resources of a species, i.e., its germplasm, to produce plants that are of increased value to humanity. The same analogy applies to animal improvement programs. All of our major food crops and all of our domestic animals and their respective breeds, strains, or cultivars were developed by this process. Although humans have successfully manipulated the genetic resources of plants and animals for several thousand years, the science of genetics and breeding was not developed until this century. Breeding work on most forage crops did not began until the 1930's and initial work was focused on developing strains that had good establishment capability, persistence, high forage yields, and had good insect and disease resistance. These are essential attributes of forages (Burton, 1986). This initial breeding work resulted in the development of grasses such as 'Coastal' bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon L.), 'Lincoln' bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.), and 'Kentucky 31' tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.). Limited animal evaluation was involved in the development of these cultivars. Breeding for improved forage quality was not an important research objective of most forage programs until the last 25 yr. Kneebone (1960) published a review of grass breeding and did not discuss breeding for improved forage quality. However, some earlier reviews on grass breeding including the extensive review of Hanson and Carnahan (1956) included minor sections on breeding for improved forage quality. It was not until the pioneering research of Dr. Glenn Burton and his associates at Tifton, GA demonstrated the economic value of improved digestibility in bermudagrass that breeding for forage quality became a major research objective of some grass breeding programs (Burton, 1972a; Chapman et aI., 1972).

show abstract

“…Warm-season (C4) grasses generally are lower in forage quality than temperate-or cool-season grasses (Moore and Mott, 1973;Wilson et al, 1983). Plant geneticists and breeders have made significant improvements in (24 selections for forage quality over the last 20 yr (Utley et al, 1974;Burton and Monson, 1981). Modest improvements in digestibility of (24 forages can increase animal performance greatly (Burton, 1974, Monson et al, 1977.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Grazing Selectivity and In Vivo Digestibility of Switchgrass Strains Selected for Differing Digestibility

Ward

Ward²,

Anderson³

et al. 1989

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal selectivity and digestibility differences among switchgrass strains selected for different in vitro dry matter digestibilities (IVDMD) were measured in a grazing trial with esophageally fistulated steers and a sheep digestion trial. Extrusa selected by esophageally fistulated steers grazing high-IVDMD (Trailblazer), Pathfinder and low-IVDMD strains of switchgrass were compared, as were top and whole plant hand-clipped samples from each strain. Trailblazer extrusa had higher (P less than .1) in vitro organic matter disappearance (IVOMD) and lower (P less than .1) NDF and ADF than Pathfinder extrusa. Extrusa from all three strains appeared to be of higher quality than top or whole plant hand-clipped samples. In vitro organic matter disappearance tended to be highest for Trailblazer top hand-clipped samples. Composition of hand-clipped samples among strains was not significantly different. Mature crossbred wethers were used to compare Trailblazer and Pathfinder switchgrass hay in a digestion trial. No differences (P greater than .1) were detected between strains for DMI or apparent digestibility of DM, NDF, ADF and CP. Extrusa from Trailblazer switchgrass that had been selected for whole plant IVDMD had higher IVOMD; however, there was no indication that steers selected a differentially higher IVOMD for one strain than another.

show abstract

Nutrient composition of forage crops : effects of genetic factors and agronomic practices

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Improving Warm-Season Forage Grasses Using Selection, Breeding, and Biotechnology

Improving Warm-Season Forage Grasses Using Selection, Breeding, and Biotechnology

Alteration of Plants via Genetics and Plant Breeding

Grazing Selectivity and In Vivo Digestibility of Switchgrass Strains Selected for Differing Digestibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About