Abstract
The semi-arid region of Tunisia is characterized by a low and erratic rainfall. This makes year-round maintenance of pasture and forage production under non-irrigated conditions both costly and difficult. In order to fill the winter feed gap in the livestock cycle; some cereals can be used as dual-purpose. This study aimed at evaluating agronomic performances and grain quality of two dual-purposes cereal crops, Barley and Triticale, cut at the pseudo stem erect stage (C30). The trial was conducted during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 seasons under a semi-arid environment. Yields did not significantly differ between years and although barley yielded more forage crop than triticale the yield was not significantly different. Crude protein in the plant was significantly higher in barley (18.2%) compared to triticale (17.4%). Defoliation has caused a significant grain yield reduction for both cereals and was about 22% for triticale and 28% for barley; grain yield after forage removal was statistically higher for triticale (3.47 T/ha) than barley (2.85 T/ha). As average for the two seasons of the trial, grain protein was significantly higher after clipping for barley (11.35% for dual purpose and 10.17% for grain production only) and was not affected for triticale (9.38% versus 9.55%). Under Tunisian semi-arid environment, triticale and barley have comparable yields with a small superiority for triticale in grain yield after forage use and higher plant and grain protein contents in barley. Key words: Cereals defoliation, forage, protein, grain.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Yields did not differ significantly between years.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Yields did not significantly differ between years”
Claim · model-written summary
Barley forage yield exceeded triticale nonsignificantly.
- Taxon
- barley
.jpg?width=60)
Hordeum vulgaree0 - Outcome
- forage crope0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- triticalee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“barley yielded more forage crop than triticale the yield was not significantly different”
Claim · model-written summary
Barley plant crude protein was higher than triticale, 18.2% versus 17.4%.
- Taxon
- barleyHordeum vulgaree0
- Outcome
- Crude protein in the plante0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 18.2%e0
- Qualifier
- 17.4%e0
- Comparator
- triticalee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crude protein in the plant was significantly higher in barley (18.2%) compared to triticale (17.4%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation reduced triticale grain yield by about 22%.
- Taxon
- triticale
×Triticosecalee0 - Treatment
- Defoliatione0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 22%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Defoliation has caused a significant grain yield reduction for both cereals and was about 22% for triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation reduced barley grain yield by about 28%.
- Taxon
- barleyHordeum vulgaree0
- Treatment
- Defoliatione0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 28%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Defoliation has caused a significant grain yield reduction for both cereals and was about 22% for triticale and 28% for barley”
Claim · model-written summary
After forage removal, triticale grain yield exceeded barley, 3.47 versus 2.85 T/ha.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 3.47 T/hae0
- Qualifier
- 2.85 T/hae0
- Comparator
- barleye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield after forage removal was statistically higher for triticale (3.47 T/ha) than barley (2.85 T/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Clipping raised barley grain protein from 10.17% to 11.35%.
- Taxon
- barleyHordeum vulgaree0
- Treatment
- clippinge0
- Outcome
- grain proteine0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 11.35%e0
- Qualifier
- 10.17%e0
- Comparator
- grain production onlye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain protein was significantly higher after clipping for barley (11.35% for dual purpose and 10.17% for grain production only)”
Claim · model-written summary
Clipping did not significantly affect triticale grain protein, 9.38% versus 9.55%.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- clippinge1
- Outcome
- grain proteine1
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Value
- 9.38%e0
- Qualifier
- 9.55%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“was not affected for triticale (9.38% versus 9.55%)”
e1“grain protein was significantly higher after clipping for barley”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Results differ
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →pruning · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.