Valores nutritivos del pasto cuba om-22 (Pennisetum Purpureum X Pennisetum Glaucum), sometido a cuatro intervalos de corte en el Valle del Río Carrizal.

This research aimed to determine the nutritional value of Cuba OM-22 grass and its productive behavior under different cutting interval. The studied factors were cutting interval at 45, 60, 75 and 90 days. The design was a randomized complete block with five replications. The study was compared usin...

全面介紹

Saved in:
書目詳細資料
主要作者: Barén Párraga, José Ramón (author)
其他作者: Centeno Vera, Luis Alberto (author)
格式: bachelorThesis
語言:spa
出版: 2017
主題:
在線閱讀:http://repositorio.espam.edu.ec/handle/42000/649
標簽: 添加標簽
沒有標簽, 成為第一個標記此記錄!
實物特徵
總結:This research aimed to determine the nutritional value of Cuba OM-22 grass and its productive behavior under different cutting interval. The studied factors were cutting interval at 45, 60, 75 and 90 days. The design was a randomized complete block with five replications. The study was compared using an analysis of variance (ANOVA), the difference among mean values were compared by Tukey at 0.05. The analyzed variables were: bromatological analysis, cutting height at harvest, biomass yield per hectare and number of regrowths after cutting. The results obtained in the bromatological analysis of four cutting periods on the percentage of ash and fat of the Cuba-22 grass showed no significant statistical differences (p≤0.05). The variable crude protein and fiber showed significant statistical differences (p≤0.05), being the cut at 45 days the highest percentage of crude protein content 20.31%, followed by 18.99%, in the cut at 60 days. On the other hand the cut of the Cuba-22 grass at 90 days had the highest fiber content 37.92%; compared to 34.77% and 32.19%, reached in the cuts at 60 and 45 days respectively. The highest number of shoots / plant was given at 45 days with an average of 18.65 shoots / m2, the highest grass height was 3.93 m height of the cut at 90. For Biomass Production at 90 days of cutting, yielded yields of 524,600 kg / Ha. From the economic point of view, the Cost / Benefit ratio of the project was 3.45% for the first year and 9.76% for the second year, a result that makes it economically acceptable.