Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:41:18.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The chemical composition of the straw and grain of some varieties of spring oats in relation to time of harvesting, nitrogen treatment and environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. W. Dent
J. W. Dent
Affiliation:
National Institute of Agricultural Botany, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Three contrasting varieties of spring oats were grown at six centres in England and Wales for three seasons, at two levels of manuring. They were harvested at two stages of ripeness, and both straw and grain were analysed for all treatments.

2. Varietal differences in composition between samples of straw grown under similar conditions and harvested at comparable stages of ripeness were negligible. In this respect there was no relationship between quality of straw and that of grain.

3. Differences in composition attributable to environment were very large. Crude protein content ranged from 1·9 to 7·6%, and crops grown under cool and wet conditions always yielded a better quality straw than those grown under the warmer and drier conditions in the south of England.

4. The chemical composition of oat straw changed very little between the early ‘binder-ripe’ stage and the fully ripe ‘combine’ stage, although physically it tended to become more brittle and less attractive in appearance. The grain also showed little change in composition between the two times of harvesting.

5. A spring dressing of 2 cwt. per acre of nitrochalk increased the protein content of the straw very considerably, but the response varied widely with conditions. The average increase at all centres over three years was 20%.

6. Under cool and moist conditions the composition of oat straw was comparable with that of meadow hay.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , February 1957 , pp. 336 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ashton, M. W. (1938). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 6, 69.Google Scholar
Balch, C. C. (1955). J. Nat. Inst. Agric. Bot. 7, 410.Google Scholar
Berry, R. A. (1920). J. Agric. Sci. 10, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, S. H. & Thomas, B. (1922). J. Agric. Sci. 12, 280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Development Commission (1953). Survey Agric. Products etc., London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Fagan, T. W. & Watkin, J. E. (1931). Welsh J. Agric. 7, 229.Google Scholar
Fertilizers and Feeding Stuffs Regulations (1932). Reprint 1954 London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. W. & Hutchinson, J. B. (1951). Agriculture, Lond., 58, 208.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. W. (1953). Agriculture, Lond., 60, 328.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, J. B. & Martin, H. F. (1955 a). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, J. B. & Martin, H. F. (1955 b). J. Agric. Sci. 45, 419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institute of Agricultural Botany (1950). Varieties of cereals for spring sowings, recommended lists. Frmrs' Leafl, Nat. Inst. Agric. Bot. no. 2.Google Scholar
Woodman, H. E. (1948). Rations for livestock. Minist. Agric. Bull., Lond., no. 48,Google Scholar
Yates, F. & Cochran, W. G. (1938). J. Agric. Sci. 28, 556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar