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 Forage Yield and Feed Value of Millet Varieties in the Reclaimed Tidelands

간척지에서 사료용 피 품종들의 건물수량 및 사료가치 비교

  • Shin, Jae-Soon (Grassland and Forage crops Division, National Livestock Research Institute) ;
  • Kim, Won-Ho (Grassland and Forage crops Division, National Livestock Research Institute) ;
  • Lee, Seung-Heon (Korea Agricultural & Rural Infrastructure Corporation) ;
  • Shin, Ha-Yong (ABS Korea Co., Ltd.)
  • Published : 2006.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

To select the forage millet variety suitable for cultivation in the reclaimed tideland, forage yield and feed value were compared for six millet cultivars grown at the Dae-Ho reclaimed tideland, Korea, from March to October in 2004. The emergency rate of summer green was 95.0% which was more than those of any other vatieties. Fresh and dry matter yield of summer green were 21,444 and 5,296 kg/ha that were more than those of any other vatieties. respectively. The content of crude protein was the highest in Shirohie variety as 18.22%. TDN (total digestible nutrient) content was the highest in Siberian variety and the lowest in Panorama variety. Considering the emergency rate, forage production and feed value, Summer green was the most suitable variety in reclaimed tidelands.

본 시험은 제주도에서 재배되고 있는 제주재래 등 총 6품종을 공시하여 피 품종 간의 생초 및 건물수량과 사료가치 등을 조사 분석하여 간척지에서 최적 사료용 피 품종 선발을 위한 기초 자료를 얻기 위해 충청남도 당진군에 소재한 대호간척지에서 1년간 수행하였다. 출현율은 겸용인 Summer green 품종이 95.0%로 가장 높았다. 생초 및 건물수량은 Summer green 품종ol 각각 21,444kg/ha와 5,296.5kg/ha으로 가장 높았다. 조단백질 함량은 Shirohie(18.22%) 품종이 가장 높았다. TDN 함량은 Siberian 품종이 가장 높았으며 Panorama 품종이 가장 낮았다. 결과적으로 간척지 토양에서 사료용 피 재배 시 출현률, 생초 및 건물생산성 그리고 사료가치 등을 종합하여 고려할 때 겸용인 Summer green 품종이 가장 우수하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김원호, 신재순, 임영철, 박근제, 서 성, 이주삼. 2004. 논을 이용한 사료작물 작부체계 연구. 축산연구소 연구보고서
  2. 농촌진흥청. 2003. 농사시험연구조사기준
  3. 송진달, 이기종, 이종열. 1981. 간척지 내염성 사료작물 선발시험. 축산시험장 시험연구보고서. pp : 782-789
  4. 신재순, 이승헌, 김원호, 윤세형, 정의수, 임영철. 2004. 간척지에서 주요 여름사료작물의 건물생산성 및 사료가치 비교. 한국초지학회지. 24(4):335-340 https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2004.24.4.335
  5. AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association(15th ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, D.C
  6. Baker, R.D. 2003. Millet production. GuideA-414. College of Agriculture and Home Economics on the World Wide Web at www.cahe.nmsu.edu
  7. Ball, D.M., C.S. Hoveland and G.D. Lacefield. 2004. Forage Crop Pocket Guide. Potash & phosphate Institute(PPI). pp. 16
  8. Goering, H.K. and P.J. Van Soest. 1970. forage fiber analysis. Agricultural Handbook. No. 379. ARS, USDA, Washington, D.C
  9. Gill, G.R.H. 1979. Leaflet of 'Millets for Grain and Grazing'. Heritage Seeds Agriculture Branch
  10. Lucy, M., K. Bullen and R. Fletcher. 2004. Millet and Panicum varieties. Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries of Queensland Government, Australia. www.dip.qld.gov.au/fieldcrops/10955.html
  11. SAS Institute Inc. 2002-2003. SAS Enterprise Guide 3.0
  12. 日本農林水産省. 2000. 水田を利用した飼料作物栽培. 水田農業技術資料集

Cited by

  1. Comparison of Growth Characteristics, Forage Production and Feed Values of Bermudagrass, Teffgrass and Kleingrass as Annual Forage Crop in Summer vol.35, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2015.35.1.36
  2. Comparison of Forage Yields and Growth of Summer Forage Sorghum, Proso millet and Japanese millet according to Cropping System with Winter Forage Barley vol.38, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2018.38.4.286