1 / 1

Variation in cell wall digestibility of perennial ryegrass at heading stage Frederik van Parijs

Table 1. Summary table of genotype means and variation. “95% range” is the range within which 95% of genotypes lie, assuming a normal distribution (2*1.96*SD). . Variation in cell wall digestibility of perennial ryegrass at heading stage Frederik van Parijs.

marinel
Télécharger la présentation

Variation in cell wall digestibility of perennial ryegrass at heading stage Frederik van Parijs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Table 1. Summary table of genotype means and variation. “95% range” is the range within which 95% of genotypes lie, assuming a normal distribution (2*1.96*SD). Variation in cell wall digestibility of perennial ryegrass at heading stageFrederik van Parijs Frederik van Parijs, Chris Van Waes, Erik Van Bockstaele, Geert Haesaert, Isabel Roldán-Ruiz, Hilde Muylle Introduction Results and discussion • Inter-genotypicvariation in NDFD • More variation in NDFD forsheath and stem thanfor plant • Plant level: significant genotype effects (R² = 68%) • Organ level: significant genotype effects (R² = 76-80%) • => More varianceexplainedbyseparatingorgans • Difference in blade, sheath and stem NDFD • On average: blade NDFD > sheath NDFD > stem NDFD • But: significant genotype-by-organ interaction • => Selecting higher blade fractions is another option to increase plant NDFD • Variation in weight fractions of blade, sheath and stem • Blade: 58%, significant genotype effects (R² = 83%) • Sheath: 26%, significant genotype effects (R² = 83%) • Stem: 12%, significant genotype effects (R² = 68%) • High correlationbetweensheath and stem fractions • Strategies to increase plant NDFD • Increasebladefraction? No (small effect) • Increase NDFD forblade? No (notenoughvariation) • Increase NDFD forsheath/stem? Yes (large effect) • Whyimprovingtotaldigestibility? • Increase dry matter intake • Increaseenergy release duringdigestion • Reduce release of nitrogeninto the environment • Improvemilkproduction and quality • Whyimprovingcellwalldigestibility (NDFD)? • Lessenvironmentalvariationthan WSC • High concentration of WSC leads to acidosis • How to increaseselection response? • Assessindividualgenotypes • Harvest at heading stage • Separate organs Material and methods VEGETATIVE HEADING FLOWERING BLADE SHEATH STEM Plant material 13 diverse diploidgenotypes Harvested at heading (3 spikes) in spring 2011 Organsseparated and weighed Wet-chemicalanalysis NDFD withruminalfluid (Goering & Van Soest 1970) NIRS Separate calibration model forblade and sheath/stem Statisticalanalysis Plant valuescalculatedfromorganfractions ANOVA and MLR (fixedeffects) Post-hoc: Tukey

More Related