Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T20:54:14.792Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences between grass species and varieties in rate of drying at 25 °C

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

I. G. Owen  and
D. Wilman
I. G. Owen
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
D. Wilman
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

One hundred and forty different varieties of grass, from seven species, were harvested in spring, in 1, 2 or 3 years, at a D-value of 67 and dried at 25 °C. Moisture content was determined every 3 h for at least the first 48 h and less frequently thereafter until the grass was about dry enough to store as hay.

Rate of drying was in the order tall fescue > Italian ryegrass = meadow fescue > timothy = cocksfoot > perennial and hybrid ryegrass. The perennial and hybrid ryegrass took twice as long to dry as did tall fescue. Tetraploid varieties of the ryegrasses took appreciably longer to dry than the diploid varieties. Apart from this there were some differences between varieties within a species in rate of drying. Differences in moisture content at cutting, in the proportion of leaf blade and in the number of leaf sheaths per ‘stem’ may have accounted for some of the differences between species and varieties in rate of drying. Further research is suggested.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 100 , Issue 3 , June 1983 , pp. 629 - 636
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Harris, C. E. & Tullberg, J. N. (1980). Pathways of water loss from legumes and grasses cut for conservation. Grass and Forage Science 35, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hübner, R. & Wagner, F. (1975). Untersuchungen über den Trocknungsverlauf von Gräsern und Kleearten. (Investigations on the course of drying of grass and clover species.) Wirtschaftseigene Fuller 21, 247–263.Google Scholar
Jones, L. & Prickett, J. (1981). The rate of water loss from cut grass of different species dried at 20 °C. Grass and Forage Science 36, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, C. D. (1960). Methods of estimating the leaf area of grasses from linear measurements. Annals of Botany New Series 24, 491–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, R. M. (1972). The rate of water loss from grass samples during hay-type conservation. Journal of the British Grassland Society 27, 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institute of Agricultural Botany (1978). Varieties in Trials 1978. Cambridge.Google Scholar
National Institute of Agricultural Botany (1979). Varieties in Trials 1979. Cambridge.Google Scholar
National Institure of Agricultural Botany (1980). Varieties in Trials 1980. Cambridge.Google Scholar
National Institure of Agricultural Botany (1982–1983). Recommended varieties of grasses. Farmers Leaflet no. 16. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Owen, I. G. (1981). Studies relating to the field drying of herbage. Ph.D. thesis, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
Rudeforth, C. C. (1970). Soils of North Cardiganshire, Harpenden: Soil Survey of England and Wales.Google Scholar