• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Historic note
 Title Page
 Main
 Tables














Group Title: Agronomy research report - University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences ; AY-93-02
Title: Forage quality and nutrient contents for oat and rye grown in Central Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00056104/00001
 Material Information
Title: Forage quality and nutrient contents for oat and rye grown in Central Florida
Series Title: Agronomy research report
Physical Description: 6, 5 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Henry, George Michael, 1970-
Gallaher, Raymond N
University of Florida -- Agronomy Dept
Publisher: Agronomy Department, IFAS, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1993?]
 Subjects
Subject: Forage plants -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Oats -- Nutrition   ( lcsh )
Rye -- Nutrition   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaf 6).
Statement of Responsibility: G.M. Henry and R.N. Gallaher.
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00056104
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 62591909

Table of Contents
    Historic note
        Unnumbered ( 1 )
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Main
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Tables
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida










q:3-o


Agronomy Research Report
AY-93-02


Forage Quality and Nutrient Contents
For Oat and Rye Grown In Central Florida








G.M. Henry and R.N. Gallaher
Graduate student, Dairy Science, and professor, Agronomy Dept.,
IFAS, Univ. pf Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611


iarston Sc'


cr o8 1993

University of Florida









Agronomy Research Report, AY-93-02

Forage Quality and Nutrient Contents
For Oat and Rye Grown In Central Florida

G.M. Henry and R.N. Gallaher
Graduate student, Dairy Science, and professor, Agronomy Dept.,
IFAS, Univ. of Florida, Gainesville, Fl 32611


ABSTRACT
Little information is available for the yield, quality, and nutrient uptake
of rye (Secale cereal L.) and oat (Avena sativa L.) cultivars harvested for
silage in Florida. The objective of this study was to determine the yield and
quality of rye and oat harvested for silage and the resulting nutrient uptakes.
Information gathered can be used to help make choices among winter annuals in
multicropping systems under dairy nutrient spray fields. Four random samples of
rye and oat were gathered in the early milk stage of maturity. These samples
were analyzed for yield, nutrient concentration, nutrient content, neutral
detergent fiber (NDF) and in-vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD). Oat
out yielded the rye by 2400 Kg DM/ha (1.07 tons DM/acre) and 6660 Kg/ha of 35%
DM forage/acre (2.97 tons 35% DM forage/acre). Oat and rye nutrient
concentrations for N and P were almost identical at the early milk stage.
However, due to the considerable advantage in yield, oat had an advantage in
total nutrient uptake of N and P with 29 Kg/ha (25.8 Ibs/acre) and 4.2 Kg/ha
(3.74 lbs/acre) more uptake, respectively. Oat were of higher digestibility (
oat = 60.3% IVOMD, rye = 52.4% IVOMD) than rye which was more fibrous (rye = 75%
NDF, oat = 65% NDF). Oat provided more forage of higher quality and greater
total nutrient content than rye under the conditions of this research.

KEY WORDS
Rye, oat, nutrient uptake, dairy manure nutrients, winter annuals.

INTRODUCTION
Over the past few years dairymen in Florida have been faced with new
environmental regulations that have forced them to control the nutrients N and
P in manure produced on the farm. One method that dairymen are using to treat
manure is to recycle the nutrients through plants. This is one of the most
economical and efficient systems because crops take up large quantities of N and
P and the forages that are grown under spray fields can be used in rations of
dairy cattle.

Florida and much of the Southeast is unique when compared to other areas
of the country because crops can be grown year round.
Double or triple cropping is a common practice that is used to take up manure
nutrients on dairy spray fields throughout the year. Most double and triple
cropping systems use corn (Zea mays L.), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench),
or bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.) as there spring or summer crop and
rye, oat, wheat (Triticum aestivum L. emend. Thell) or some other winter annual
as there winter crop. Timing is a crucial aspect of multicropping. Because of
timing most of the crops are harvested as forage in the form of grazing, green
chop, silage, or haylage. Winter annuals in the past have been used primarily
for grain production, or cover crops to prevent erosion and to hold nutrients in
the soil. However, with the new environmental regulations for dairy farms winter
annuals are being considered more for their ability to take up nutrients and to
produce high quality forage for dairy animals. Other advantages of winter
annuals in multicropping systems under dairy manure spray fields is their ability
to maximize the use of spray fields, maximize storage facilities, provide high
quality forage in spring when forage supply is low, as well as to increase the
overall output of cows and land.









Only in recent years has research been focused on the forage producing
ability of winter small grains. Cherney, 1982, studied the maturity and the
changes of quality in four small grains harvested at six growth stages. Crude
protein and in vitro DM disappearance decreased as plants matured while DM yield
increased from flag leaf stage to dough stage. Helsel, 1987, evaluated two
cultivars each of four species of cereals- rye, wheat, barley (Hordeum vuloare
L.), and oat, harvested at head, milk, and dough stage over a 2 year study in
East Lansing, MI. Environmental conditions greatly effected the yield of winter
annuals because of large variations from year to year. Rye cultivars were the
fastest, most vigorous, and earliest growing of the cereals and generally
provided the largest yields of DM and IVOMD per hectare the earliest. Quality
of rye, however, decreased dramatically after heading where it was inferior to
the other species studied. Fiber concentrations were higher in the rye cultivars
than the oat cultivars studied, while the oat cultivars tended to be higher in
crude protein (CP) percent (Rye, 9.44 %, oat 11.63%) Quality of the other small
grains were greater in milk stage than dough stage, however there was little
change in DM yield between the two stages. Early harvest may be one of the
greatest advantages of rye because it will allow for earlier planting of spring
crops.

DePeters et al. (1989) evaluated winter cereals harvested at the bloom
stage of maturity for oat and preserved as silage on DM intake and milk yield of
cows during early lactation. Dry matter intake of cows fed diets containing
cereal silage decreased as cereal silage was increased in the diets. This was
believed to be caused-by the high lignin content in the cereal silage. Milk
production for 4% fat corrected milk was not significantly different for the
diets evaluated. However for the diet with the highest percentage cereal silage,
the percent protein in the milk was lower which was believed to be caused by the
low energy content of the diet.

No study specifically looking at the nutrient uptake of different winter
annuals under dairy nutrient spray fields has been done. However, Johnson et al.
(1991) used manure nutrients from dairy animals in a triple cropping system
consisting of 'Wrens Abruzzi' rye, corn, and 'Tifton-44' bermudagrass in a study
done in Tifton, GA. Four application rates of N were evaluated, 381, 532, 740,
and 986 Kg N/ha (340, 440, 660, and 880 Ibs N/acre) with uptakes of the triple
cropping system equal to 423, 507, 589, and 609 Kg N/ha (377, 452, 525, and 543
lbs N/acre), respectively. The N recovery efficiency rate of the multicropping
system for each of the applications were 111, 95, 80, and 62%, respectively. Of
the N recovered under each application, rye accounted for 140, 172, 249, and 246
Kg N/ha (125, 154, 222, and 219 Ibs N/acre). Rye accounted for the N recovery
of 37, 32, 34, and 25% of the total N applied and 33, 34, 42, and 40% of the N
recovered for each of the application rates, respectively. With increases in
applied N, dry matter yield and N recovery increased in the rye.

In Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle (NRC) no information is given on
the quality, and mineral concentrations for oat silage and very little
information is provided for rye silage. Quality and nutrient uptake information
of rye and oat for silage in Florida are also unavailable. Therefore, the
objective of the study was to determine yield, uptake of nutrients, and the
quality of rye and oat for use in a multicropping systems for dairy manure spray
fields.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two cultivars, Florida 501 oat and Wrens Abruzzi rye, were planted at the
Green Acres Agronomy Farm, Gainesville, FL. The cultivars where no-till planted
on November 20; 1992 into two separate plots of soil type Arredondo fine sand
(Sandy siliceous thermic Grossarenic Paleudult). The oat and rye were planted
at the rate of 123.3 Kg/ha (110 Ibs/acre) and 101 Kg/ha (90 Ibs/acre),
respectively. Both plots where fertilized 14 December with 129 Kg/ha (115
lbs/acre) of Sul-Po-Mag and 129 Kg/ha (115 lbs/acre) of Ammonium Nitrate, 20









January with 336 Kg/ha (300 lbs/acre) of 12-4-8, and again on 8 February with 336
Kg/ha (300 Ibs/acre) of ammonium nitrate. Both plots were pretreated with 0.95
L/ha (2 pts/acre) of Gromoxone.

On April 5, 1993, four random samples of one square meter were taken from
each of the two plots with oat and rye in the early milk stage of maturity. The
samples were dried in a forced air oven at 70 degrees C for 48 hours until dry.
They were weighed for DM, and then chopped, ground in a Wiley mill to pass a 2mm
stainless steel screen, mixed, subsampled, and stored into sterile air-tight
bags. Nitrogen analysis was done by weighing a 100 mg sample in a 100 ml test
tube, adding 3.2 g salt-catalyst mixture (KSO4-CuSO4, in a ratio 9:1), and 10 ml
concentrated H2SO4, and mixing on a vortex mixer. The samples were then digested
on a aluminum digestion block for 4 hours (Gallaher, et al., 1975), brought to
75 ml volume, transferred to nalgene storage bottles, and analyzed on a
Autoanalyzer (Agronomy Lab, UF).

In order to analyze samples for other nutrients, a 1.0 g subsample was
placed into a 50 ml beaker and ashed in a muffle furnace for 4 hours at 480
degrees C. The ashes were digested on a hot plate using water and concentrated
HC1 until beakers were dry to precipitate Si. The samples were brought to a boil
again with water and concentrated HC1 using watch glasses over the beakers for
good reflux action, cooled and brought to a 100 ml volume, and transferred to
plastic storage bottles until analyzed. This resulted in a 0.1 N HCl solution.
Mineral analysis for K, P, Ca, Mg, Cu, Mn, Zn, and Fe were done by using a
inductively coupled argon plasma instrument (University of Florida Soil Testing
Laboratory).

In vitro dry matter digestibility (IVOMD), and neutral detergent fiber
(NDF) were analyzed at the University of Florida Forage Evaluation Support
Laboratory. The lab can be contacted for analytical method used.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

RYE
Yield The mean yield for the four rye samples was 5293 Kg/ha of DM or 15,080
Kg/ha of 35% DM forage (Table 1). This converted into 2.355 tons of DM per acre
or 6.729 tons of 35% DM forage. The standard deviations were 218.2 and 616.0
Kg/ha and .097 and '.278 lbs/acre, respectively. Average DM of harvested plants
was 13.73%, which means that in order to ensile the plants they must first go
through a wilt.

Nutrient Content Plant nutrient uptake (content) of the macronutrients (Table
2) was determined by multiplying the yield of the crop (Table 1) by the
concentration of that nutrient in the plant material (Table 3). For the main two
environmentally controlled nutrients, N and P, rye content averaged 72.91 and
12.07 Kg/ha, respectively. For the other macronutrients, K, Ca, and Mg, results
showed that average rye uptake was 77.92, 12.59, and 6.565 Kg/ha, respectively
(Table 2). Micronutrients were determined the same way as macronutrients (Tables
4 and 5). For the micronutrients, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu, results showed that on
average rye took up 468.5, 180.8, 135.3, and 10.52 g/ha, respectively (Table 4).

Quality In order to determine the quality of the plant NDF and IVOMD were
chosen. The four samples of rye average NDFaf was 75%, while there average IVOMD
was 52.4% (Table 11).

OAT
Yield The mean yield for the four oat samples was 7683 Kg/ha of DM and 21,904
Kg/ha of 35% DM forage (Table 1). This converted into 3.42 tons/acre of DM or
9.77 tons/acre of 35% DM forage. The standard deviations were 522.0 and
1486.3 Kg/ha and .23 and .66 Ibs/acre, respectively. Average DM of harvested









plants was 13.18%, which like the rye shows that the plants must go through a
wilt before ensiling.

Nutrient Uptake Plant uptakes for the macro and micronutrients of oat were
obtained by the same method as the rye nutrient uptakes (Tables 6, 7, 8 and
9). Nutrient uptake for N and P were 102.1 and 16.32 Kg/ha, respectively
(Table 6). For the other macronutrients, K, Ca, and Mg, results showed that
on average oat took up 101.7, 16.46, and 14.90 Kg/ha, respectively. The oat
micronutrients uptake for the nutrients, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu, where 1315,
740.1, 235.1, and 30.79 g/ha, respectively (Table 8).

Oualitv Results for quality showed that the four oat samples average 65.4%
NDFaf and 60.3% IVOMD (Table 11).

COMPARISON

Although this study was not set up with rye and oat as treatments they
were planted and grown with similar management and soil type in experiments
within 10 m of each other. Because of this we feel that some comparisons are
obvious and can be made between the two winter small grains. Table 10 shows a
comparison of the average of the oat and rye samples concentrations, content,
and yield. Concentrations of nutrients in the two plants were very similar
and almost equal in the two environmentally controlled nutrients, N and P.
The ability to take up nutrients by the crops did not seem to differ at the
early milk stage of maturity based on the nutrient concentrations.

The main difference between oat and rye was the DM and 35% DM forage
yield. Oat yielded almost 2400 Kg more of DM/ha and 2.97 tons/acre more 35%
DM forage. Because of the yield advantage, oats had higher nutrient uptake
per unit. For N and P, oat had a 29 Kg and a 4.2 Kg/ha uptake advantage over
rye.

As expected the oat samples were of higher quality than the rye samples.
Neutral detergent fiber was 10% lower in the oats than rye (rye = 75% NDF, oat
= 65.4% NDF)'and the IVOMD was 8% higher in the oat than rye (oat = 60.3%, rye
= 52.4%). This substantiates the previous findings (Helsel, 1986) which
concluded that rye is higher in fiber than other winter annuals.

Both oultivarb have the potential to be used in a multicropping system
to take up nutrients under dairy nutrient spray fields. Both can produce high
quality forages that can be used in rations of dairy cattle. However, based
on the results in this study, oat have an advantage over rye in nutrient
uptake, forage yield, and quality (NDF and IVOMD). For maximum yield and
uptake of nutrients oat should be used based on the findings of this study.
However, careful consideration needs to be made on the quantity of forage
needed, the availability of dairy manure nutrients, and expected planting date
of the spring crop of corn or sorghum before deciding which winter annual to
plant. Rye, because it can be harvested earlier than oat may have an
advantage when used in a multicropping system when the winter annual is
followed by two crops of corn or some other multicropping system that requires
early planting of the spring crop.

CONCLUSIONS

1. In order to achieve good silage quality both small grains, due to high
moisture content at early milk stage, must be cut and allowed to partially dry
before ensiling.

2. Oat out yielded rye by 2400 Kg DM/ha and 6660 Kg 35% DM/ha forage.

3. Nutrient concentrations were very similar for the two cultivars with no
major differences in the two environmentally controlled nutrients N and P.









Nutrient content was greater in oat than rye. Oat had an advantage in
N and P content compared to rye with 29 and 4.2 Kg/ha more, respectively.
was due to the greater yield of the oat.


5. Quality differences between the two cultivars were
more fibrous with 75% NDF compared to 65.4% NDF for oat.
a higher digestibility with a 60.3% IVOMD, while rye had


as expected. Rye was
Furthermore oat had
only 52.4% IVOMD.


LITERATURE CITED

Cherney, J. H., and G. C. Marten. 1982. Small grain crop forage potential.
Crop Sci. 22:227.

DePeters, E. J., J. F. Medrano, and D. L. Bath. 1989. J Dairy Sci. 72:3247-
3254.

Gallaher, R. N. C. O. Weldon, and J. G. Futral. 1975. An Aluminum Block
Digester for Plant and Soil Analysis. Soil Sci. Soc. of America Proc., 39:803-
806.

Helsel, Z. R., and J. W. Thomas. 1986. Small grains for forage. J Dairy Sci.
70t2330-2338.


Johnson, J. C., G. L. Newton, and J. L. Butler. 1991. Recycling
waste to sustain annual triple crop production of forages. Proc.
Dairy Production Cong., Dairy Science Dept., Univ. Fl. Coop. Ext.
Gainesville, FL.


liquid dairy
Florida
Ser.,


NRC. 1989. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle (6th revised Ed.). National
Academy Press, Washington, DC.

Van Horn, H. H., R. A. Nordstedt, A. V. Bottcher, E. A. Hanlon, D. A.
Graetz, and C. F. Chambliss. 1991. Dairy Manure Management: Strategies for
Recycling Nutrients to Recover Fertilizer Value and Avoid Environmental
Pollution. 'FL. Coop. Ext. Ser., IFAS, University of Florida. Circular 1016.


4.
both
This







Table 1. Yield of Oat and Rye
Crop Rep DM Water
------ ------


Rye 1
2
3
4

Avg
St.dev

Oat 1
2
3
4


13.80
14.55
13.38
13.20


86.20
85.45
86.62
86.80


13.73 86.27


12.74
16.65
12.00
11.33


Avg 13
St.dev
DM = Dry matter


87.26
83.35
88.00
88.67


.18 86.82


forage at early milk stage.


DM 35% DM
------ Kg/ha ------


5000
5270
5390
5510

5293
218

7560
8380
7120
7670

7683
522


14260
15020
15360
15700

15080
616

21546
23877
20290
21860

21904
1486


DM 35% DM
----- tons/ac -----
2.23 6.36
2.35 6.70
2.40 6.85
2.45 7.01


2.36
0.097

3.36
3.73
3.17
3.41

3.42
0.23


6.73
0.278

9.61
10.65
9.05
9.75

9.77
0.66


35% DM = forage dryed to 35% dry matter


Table 2 Rye forage nutreint content at early milk
stage.
Rep DM N P K Ca Mg
.------------------- Kg/ha ----------------------
1 5000 73.65 11.90 80.00 12.25 6.05
2 5270 75.52 12.17 75.36 12.07 6.69
3 5390 69.96 11.97 8247 13.69 6.63
4 5510 72.51 12.23 73.83 1234 6.89
Avg 5293 72.91 1207 77.92 12.59 6.57
St.dev 218 2.33 0.16 4.01 0.743 0.36
DM = Dry Matter
St.dev





Table 3. Rye forage nutreint concentration at early milk
stage.
Rep DM N P K Ca Mg
Kg ----------------------. g/kg --------- -----.
1 1.0 14.73 2.38 16.00 2.45 1.21
2 1.0 14.33 2.31 14.30 2.29 1.27
3 1.0 12.98 2.22 15.30 2.40 1.23
4 1.0 13.16 2.22 13.40 2.24 1.25
Avg 1.0 13.80 2.28 14.75 2.38 1.24
St.dev 0.860 0.078 1.139 0.139 0.026
DM = Dry Matter

Table 4. Rye forage micronutrient content at early
milk stage.
Rep DM Fe Mn Zn Cu
Kg ------------------- g/ha ---------
1 5000 850.0 250.0 180.0 15.0
2 5270 263.5 195.0 115.9 5.3
3 5390 485.1 118.6 118.6 10.8
4 5510 275.5 159.8 126.7 11.0
Avg 5293 468.5 180.8 135.3 10.5
St.dev 218 273.9 55.7 30.2 4.0
DM = Dry matter

Table 5. Rye forage micronutrient concentration at
early milk stage.
Rep ,DM Fe Mn Zn Cu


N-g
1 1.0
2 1.0
3 1.0
4 1.0
Avg 1.0
Stdev
DM = Dry Matter


---------------- Sol m97 ------------
-...... sol mg/Kg-------
1.70 0.50 0.36 0.03
0.50 0.37 0.22 0.01
0.90 0.22 0.22 0.02
0.50 0.29 0.23 0.02
0.90 0.35 0.26 0.02
0.570 0.120 0.068 0.008


Table 6. Oat forage nutreint content at early milk
stage.
Rep DM N P K Ca Mg
-------------------- Kg/ha ----------------------
1 7560 93.67 14.44 100.55 12.55 12.63
2 8380 85.98 19.61 89.67 19.69 18.94
3 7120 100.75 16.80 94.70 16.95 15,02
4 7670 127.86 14.42 121.95 16.64 12.96
Avg 7683 102.06 16.32 101.72 16.46 14.89
St.dev 522 18.20 2.46 14.20 2.90 2.90
DM = Dry Matter







Table 7. Oat forage nutreint concentration at early milk
stage.
Rep DM N P K Ca Mg
Kg ---------------------g/kg----------------
1 1.0 12.39 1.91 13.30 1.66 1.67
2 1.0 10.26 2.34 10.70 2.35 2.26
3 1.0 14.15 2.36 13.30 2.38 2.11
4 1.0 16.67 1.88 15.90 2.17 1.69
Avg 1.0 13.37 2.12 13.30 2.14 1.93
St.dev 2.720 0.263 2.123 0.333 0.298
DM = Dry Matter


Table 8. Oat forage micronutrient content at early
milk stage.
Rep DM Fe Mn Zn Cu
Kg --------------------- g/ha ---------
1 7560 2872.8 688.0 219.2 52.9
,2 8380 838.0 628.5 276.5 33.5
3 7120 783.2 761.8 199.4 21.4
4 7670 767.0 882.1 245.4 15.3
Avg '7683 1315.3 740.1 235.1 30.8
Stdev 522 1038.8 109.2 33.4 16.6
DM = Dry matter






Table 9. Oat forage micronutrient concentration at
early milk stage.
Rep DM Fe Mn Zn Cu
Kg ---------------- sol mg/Kg ------------
1 1.0 3.80 0.91 0.29 0.07
2 1.0 1.00 0.75 0.33 0.04
3 1.0 1.10 1.07 0.28 0.03
4 1.0 1.00 1.15 0.32 0.02
Avg 1.0 1.73 0.97 0.31 0.04
St.dev 1.380 0.177 0.024 0.022
DM = Dry Matter










Table 10. Comparing oat and rye forage data
at early milk stage.


Standard
Concentrations
N
P
K
Ca
Mg
Fe
Mn
Zn
Cu


Contents
N
P
K
Ca
Mg
Fe
Mn
Zn
Cu
Yield
DM
35%DM
DM
35%DM
Quality
DM
OM
NDFt
NDFaf
IVOMD


Units RYE OATS


g/kg
g/kg
g/kg
g/kg
g/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg


kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha
kg/ha
g/ha
g/ha
g/ha
g/ha"

kg/ha
Kg/ha
tons/ac
tons/ac


13.80
2.28
14.80
2.38
1.24
0.90
0.35
0.26
0.02


72.90
12.10
77.90
12.60
6.57
469.00
181.00
135.00
10.50

5293
15080
2.36
6.73

93.50
95.00
77.10
75.00
52.40


13.40
2.12
13.30
2.44
1.93
1.73
0.97
0.31
0.04


102.00
16.30
102.00
16.50
14.90
1315.00
740.00
235.00
30.80

7683
9.77
3.42
9.77

93.40
95.50
67.00
65.40
60.30


DM = Dry Matter
OM = Organic Matter
NDF = Neutral Detergent Fiber
IVOMD = In vitro organic matter digestibility


















Table 11. Quality data for Rye and Oat forage samples
collected at early milk stage.
Crop Rep DM OM NDFt NDFaf IVOMD
---------------------------------%---------------------------
Rye 1 93.7 94.6 77.3 75.1 52.0
2 93.2 94.9 77.0 74.6 53.1
3 93.8 94.9 77.3 75.3 51.2
4 '93.3 95.5 76.8 75.0 53.1
Average 93.5 95.0 77.1 75.0 52.4

Oat 5 93.2 95.5 69.4 67.4 56.9
6 93.5 96.1 66.7 65.0 60.2
7 93.4 95.3 66.7 65.2 62.0
8 93.3 94.9 65.0 63.8 62.0
Average 93.4 95.5 67.0 65.4 60.3
DM = Dry Matter
OM = Orgahic Mater
NDF = Neutral Detergent Fiber
IVOMD = In Vitro Organic Matter Digestibility




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs