Chemical composition of Tanganyika grass under tree shading levels in a silvopastoral system

CARVALHO, Carlos Augusto Brandão de; SILVA, Pedro Henrique Ferreira da; ZANELLA, Pablo Giliard

doi:10.1590/S1519-99402122112021

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Saúde e Produção Animal

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Forestry and Grassland • Rev. bras. saúde prod. anim. 22 • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-99402122112021 copy

Chemical composition of Tanganyika grass under tree shading levels in a silvopastoral system

Composição química do capim-tanganica submetido a níveis de sombreamento arbóreo em sistema silvipastoril

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different Clitoria fairchildiana tree shading levels on the Tanganyika grass (Megatyrsus maximus Jacq. cv. Tanganyika) chemical composition, in summer I (2011/2012), spring (2012) and summer II (2012/2013) seasons. For this purpose, an experiment was conducted in a completely randomized design with four treatments (shading levels) and five repetitions at Seropédica, state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The following variables were evaluated: dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), neutral detergent (NDF) and acid detergent (ADF) fiber, neutral (NDIP) and acid (ADIP) detergent insoluble protein, lignin (LIG) and mineral matter (MM) contents. Data were analyzed by PROC MIXED SAS^®, with repeated measures in time, and treatment means compared by Tukey’s test (P<0.05) or by PROC REG (P<0.05 for regression analysis. There was a significant interaction between season and shading level for DM, CP, NDF, ADF, NDIP, ADIP and MM contents (P<0.05). Lignin content was only influenced by shading level (P<0.05). The DM, NDF, ADF and lignin contents were reduced by shading increase while CP, NIDP and MM contents were increased. Higher ADIP contents were found only in the spring. The increase in Clitoria fairchildiana tree shading improves the chemical composition of Tanganyika grass forage during summer season.

Keywords:
crude protein; insoluble protein; Megathyrsus maximus; neutral detergent fiber; shadow

UFBA - Universidade Federal da Bahia Avenida Adhemar de Barros nº 500 - Ondina , CEP 41170-110 Salvador-BA Brasil, Tel. 55 71 32836725, Fax. 55 71 32836718 - Salvador - BA - Brazil
E-mail: rbspa@ufba.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Mail for correspondence: pehenrique1709@gmail.com

Season	Shading level
Season	FS (%)	SS (%)	MS (%)	HS (%)
Summer I	0	26	46	54
Spring	0	27	54	59
Summer II	0	31	47	56

Season	Shading level¹ 1 Values respectively described in Table 1 for each season of year. FS: full sun; SS: slight shading; MS: mild shading; HS: heavy shading. The seasons of year occurred between the following dates: summer I from 12/27/2010 to 03/20/2011; spring occurred from 09/02/2011 to 12/20/2011 and summer II from 12/21/2011 to 03/01/2012. X: percentage of shade. Means followed by different letters in the same column are significantly different by Tukey's test (p<0.05). SEM: standard error of the mean. (%)				SEM	Regression equation	R²
Season	FS	SS	MS	HS	SEM	Regression equation	R²
		DM (g kg^-1)
Summer I	258.0b	214.0ab	207.0a	226.0a	17.3	$\hat{Y} = 226.0$ ^ns	-
Spring	249.0b	247.0a	194.0a	181.0b	3.3	$\hat{Y} = 259.6 - 1.195 X$ ^ (p<0.01) and ns: non-significant.	0.80
Summer II	313.0a	210.0b	188.0a	172.0b	12.9	$\hat{Y} = 298.8 - 2.433 X$ ^ (p<0.01) and ns: non-significant.	0.86
		MM (g kg^-1)
Summer I	91.0a	106.0a	123.0a	122.0a	2.6	$\hat{Y} = 90.69 + 0.449 X$ ^* * (p<0.05),	0.84
Spring	78.0b	72.0b	100.0b	103.0b	2.5	$\hat{Y} = 71.57 + 0.477 X$ ^* * (p<0.05),	0.62
Summer II	68.0c	70.0b	95.0b	103.0b	2.4	$\hat{Y} = 64.51 - 0.697 X$ ^* * (p<0.05),	0.78

Season	Shading level¹ 1 Values described in Table 1 for each season of the year. FS: full sun; SS: soft shading; MS: moderate shading; SS: strong shading. The seasons of year occurred between the following dates: summer I from 12/27/2010 to 03/20/2011; spring occurred from 09/02/2011 to 12/20/2011 and summer II from 12/21/2011 to 03/01/2012. X: percentage of shade. Means followed by equal letters in the same column do not differ each other by the Tukey test (p<0.05). SEM: standard error of mean. *(p<0.05), (%)				SEM	Regression equation	R²
Season	FS	SS	MS	SS	SEM	Regression equation	R²
		NDF (g kg^-1)
Summer I	649.0b	665.0a	645.0a	650.0a	8.4	$\hat{Y} = 653.0$ ^ns	-
Spring	668.0a	666.0a	588.0b	618.0b	4.0	$\hat{Y} = 675, 74 - 1, 238 X$ ^ (p<0.01) and ns: not significant.	0,80
Summer II	669.0a	636.0b	639.0a	662.0a	4.8	$Y = 651.0$ ^ns	-
		ADF (g kg^-1)
Summer I	350.0b	346.0a	334.0a	340.0ab	5.4	$\hat{Y} = 342.0$ ^ns	-
Spring	378.0a	346.0a	327.0b	348.0a	3.9	$\hat{Y} = 377, 78 - 01.132 X$ ^ (p<0.01) and ns: not significant.	0,86
Summer II	367.0a	344.0a	353.0a	348.0a	4.3	$Y = 353.0$ ^ns	-

Season	Shading level¹ 1 Values respectively described in Table 1 for each season of year. FS: full sun; SS: soft shading; MS: moderate shading; SS: strong shading. The seasons of year occurred between the following dates: summer I from 12/27/2010 to 03/20/2011; spring occurred from 09/02/2011 to 12/20/2011 and summer II from 12/21/2011 to 03/01/2012. X: percentage of shade. Means followed by different letters in the same column are significantly different by Tukey's test (p<0.05). SEM: standard error of the mean. (%)				SEM	Regression equation	R²
Season	FS	SS	MS	SS	SEM	Regression equation	R²
		CP (g kg^-1)
Summer I	60.0a	83.0b	108.0a	123.0a	3.7	$\hat{Y} = 56.92 + 0.822 X$ ^ (p<0.01) and ns: non-significant.	0.83
Spring	69.0a	72.0c	94.0b	104.0b	3.7	$\hat{Y} = 64.65 + 0.583 X$ ^ (p<0.01) and ns: non-significant.	0.67
Summer II	70.0a	99.0a	98.0ab	110.0b	3.7	$\hat{Y} = 77.84 + 0.573 X$ ^ (p<0.01) and ns: non-significant.	0.57
		NDIP (g kg^-1)
Summer I	34.0a	48.0a	64.0b	85.0a	2.1	$\hat{Y} = 30.67 + 0, 607 X$ ^ (p<0.01) and ns: non-significant.	0.80
Spring	31.0a	32.0b	62.0a	65.0b	3.9	$\hat{Y} = 50.13 + 0, 634 X$ ^ (p<0.01) and ns: non-significant.	0.65
Summer II	28.0a	51.0a	53.0b	56.0c	2.8	$\hat{Y} = 34.56 + 0.423 X$ ^ (p<0.01) and ns: non-significant.	0.54
		ADIP (g kg^-1)
Summer I	21.0a	22.0a	24.0a	24.0a	1.2	$\hat{Y} = 23, 0$ ^ns	-
Spring	12.0b	13.0b	21.0a	22.0a	1.2	$\hat{Y} = 11, 22 + 0, 156 X$ ^* * (p<0.05),	0.76
Summer II	13.0b	18.0ab	15.0b	20.0b	1.3	$\hat{Y} = 17, 0$ ^ns	-