The principal use of soyabean in the US in the early 1900s was as livestock forage. Soyabeans are less expensive to establish than small seeded perennial legume forages and can provide legume protein after winter killing of perennial legumes. Soyabean can improve production distribution by vigorous growth during the hot summer season when traditional perennial legumes are less productive

Devine, T. E.

English

University of Kentucky

Offered papers 453Breeding and evaluation of forage soyabeans T.E. Devine Sustainable Agricultural Systems Laboratory, Building 001, BARC-West, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, 10300 Baltimore Ave., Beltsville, MD 20705, USA, Email: DevineT@ba.ars.usda.gov Keywords: forage soybeans, plant protein Introduction  The principal use of soyabean in the US in the early 1900s was as livestock forage. Soyabeans are less expensive to establish than small seeded perennial legume forages and can provide legume protein after winter killing of perennial legumes.  Soyabean can improve production distribution by vigorous growth during the hot summer season when traditional perennial legumes are less productive. Materials and methods  Three soyabean cultivars were bred for forage production: Donegal, Derry and Tyrone. At Orange, VA, Tyrone and the grain-type cultivar Hutcheson were interplanted with pearl millet and sorghum and tested for height and forage yield.  At Ames, IA, Derry and Donegal were tested with Hutcheson in four replications for yield and forage quality (Darmosarkoro, 2001). Results  At Orange the forage soyabean cultivar grew taller than Hutcheson and was more competitive with pearl millet than Hutcheson (Table 1).  All soyabeans were overgrown by the sorghum.  At Ames the forage lines showed a yield advantage over Hutcheson (Table 2). For the earlier-maturing cultivars Donegal and Hutcheson crude protein declined in mid-season and then increased.  For all cultivars, IVDMD decreased over the growing season. Table 2 Yield, in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) and crude protein (CP), g /kg, Ames, IA, 1994 Forage yield Days after planting Cultivar t/ha 46 60 74 88 102 116 130 144 Derry 11.5 702 644 590 558 566 550 537 564 IVDMD 260 219 180 154 158 157 155 150 CP Donegal 10.2 698 634 595 581 574 618 597 626 IVDMD 243 198 168 142 160 184 184 197 CP Hutcheson 8.1 703 666 625 608 596 595 598 609 IVDMD 260 229 195 177 171 169 190 183 CP LSD (0.05) 1.7 13.2 17.2 20.0 17.5 19.9 19.2 43.5 27.0 IVDMD 12.4 14.3 11.6 12.5 9.9 11.4 20.2 12.9 CP Conclusions  The forage cultivars grew significantly taller than conventional grain-type soyabean cultivars, suggesting their ability to better compete in the sward with other tall growing species such as pearl millet. Yields of the forage soyabeans were higher than yields of conventional grain cultivars. Reference Darmosarkoro, M., M.M. Harbur, D.R. Buxton, K.J. Moore, T.E. Devine & I.C. Anderson (2001). Growth, development, and yield of soybean lines developed for forage. Agronomy Journal, 93, 1028-1034. Table 1  Height and yield at Orange, VA, 1996 Height (cm) Yield Soyabean lines and associated species Grass Soybean  t/ha Sorgo 10 231 0 9.34 P. Millet 137 0 6.94 Hutcheson 0 91 6.25 Hutcheson & Sorgo 10 236 106 8.74 Hutcheson & P. Millet 142 99 8.56 Tyrone 0 180 8.00 Tyrone & Sorgo 10 239 147 9.68 Tyrone & P. Millet 150 168 9.79 

Breeding and Evaluation of Forage Soyabeans

https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5837&context=igc

Breeding and Evaluation of Forage Soyabeans

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Kentucky