Chemical composition of whole plant and grain and yield of nutrients in grain of five barley cultivars
- 69 Downloads
twenty seven field experiments were conducted to determine if there were differences between five barley cultivars in their ability to utilize soil nutrients. There were significant differences among cultivars in yield of grain and in concentration of all macro and micro nutrients examined in both the whole plant and grain.
Gateway ranked the highest for the concentration of Na, Mn, and Cu in the whole plant and was among the cultivars with highest concentration of Ca, Fe, and Zn. Centennial had generally the lowest concentration of all the nutrients determined in the whole plant. For the concentrations of Na, Mg, and Cu in grain Gateway ranked highest, but ranked third for the concentrations of K, Ca, Fe, Mn, and Zn in grain. Galt had the highest K and Mg concentration and lowest Mn, Cu and Zn concentration in grain. Except for K concentration in grain, Centennial had the lowest concentrations of all other cationic nutrients in grain.
Yield of grain rather than nutrient concentration was the most important criteria in determining the ranking of nutrient yields per hectare. Because of its high grain yield, Bonanza produced the largest yield of micronutrient cations and was second to Galt in production of macronutrient cations, although it was lowest in macronutrient cation concentration. Similarly, Bonanza and Galt had the lowest protein concentration, but produced the highest yield of protein per hectare.
The implications for animal nutrition of different levels of nutrients between cultivars are discussed.
Key wordsBarley cultivars Chemical composition Macronutrients Micronutrients Protein
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Bremner J M 1965 Total nitrogen.In Methods of Soil Analysis, part 2, Eds. C A Black et al. Agronomy 9, pp 1149–1178. Am. Soc. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin, USA.Google Scholar
- 2.Kitson R E and Mellon M G 1944 Colorimetric determination of phosphorus as Molybdivenadophosphoric acid. Ind. Eng. Chem. Anal. Ed. 16, 379–383.Google Scholar
- 3.Lindsay W L and Norvell W A 1969 Equilibrium relationships of Zn2+ Fe3+ Ca2+ and H+ with EDTA and DPTA in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 33, 62–68.Google Scholar
- 4.Miller J R and Axley J H 1956 Correlation of chemical soil tests for available phosphorus with crop response, including a proposed method. Soil Sci. 82, 117–127.Google Scholar
- 5.Miltimore J E, Mason J R and Ashby D L 1970 Copper, Zinc, Manganese and iron variation of five feeds for ruminants. Can. J. Am. Sci. 50, 293–300.Google Scholar
- 6.Nambiar K K M and Motiramani D P 1981 Tissue Fe/Zn ratio as diagnostic tool for prediction of Zn deficiency in crop plants. I. Critical Fe/Zn ratio in maze plants. Plant and Soil 60, 335–368.Google Scholar
- 7.National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 1978 National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
- 8.Orabi A A, Abdallah A, Mashadi H and Barakat A H 1981 Zinc-phosphorus relationship in nutrition of corn plants (Zea mays L.) grown on some calcareous soils. Plant and Soil 59, 51–59.Google Scholar
- 9.Prince A L 1945 Determination of total nitrogen, ammonia, nitrates, and nitrites in soils. Soil Sci. 59, 47–52.Google Scholar
- 10.Szukalski H and Sikora H 1981 The correlation between the copper content in grain of cereal cultivars and its content in soil. Soils Fertil. 44, 1461.Google Scholar
- 11.Wilkins C 1979 The distribution of Mn, Fe, Cu and Zn in topsoils and herbage in North West Pembrokeshire. J. Agric. Sci. 92, 61–68.Google Scholar
- 12.Williams C H and Moore C W E 1952 The effect of stage of growth on the copper, zinc, manganese and molybdenum contents of Algerian Oats grown on thirteen soils. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 3, 343–361.Google Scholar