Detalhes bibliográficos
Ano de defesa: |
1982 |
Autor(a) principal: |
Sales, Francisco Sérgio Moura |
Orientador(a): |
Não Informado pela instituição |
Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
Idioma: |
por |
Instituição de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
Departamento: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
País: |
Não Informado pela instituição
|
Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
Link de acesso: |
http://www.repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/45956
|
Resumo: |
This research aimes to determine the nutritional value of nineteen varieties of elefant grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schum.) in two different times of cutting, under conditions of the Ceará Coast. Chemical and bromatological analises were done for crude proteine, crude fiber, dry matter, organic matter, phosphorus, mineral residue and "in vitro" digestibility. Besides that, it was obtained digestive dry matter production. The elefant grass cultivars used were obtained from an experiment already finished by MACIEL15. The experimental design was entirely random and factorial 2 x 19 (two cut times and nineteen cultivars of elefant grass) with two repplication. It was observed a significant effect (P < 0,05) times of cutting in relation to crude proteine, crude fiber and phosphorus. Statistical significance was found for cultivars, in relation to all of the studied parameters.The interaction time of cutting x varieties was signlficant (P < 0,05) for all of the variables, except mineral residue. The studied cultivars of elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schum.) were evaluated on the basis of digestive dry matter production in tons per hectar, and crude proteine and dry matter as percentages. The obtained results showed that six of the nineteen studied cultivars were better than the others in nutritive potential. These better cultivars were Taiwan-145; Malaia-2247; IRI-381; Uruckwona; Mineiro; e IRI-323 with 2,71 t/ha; 2,45 t/ha; 2,42 t/ha; 2,41 t/ha; 2,27 t/ha; e 2,26 t/ha in digestive dry matter, and 6,69%; 5,64%; 6,69%; 7,34%; 6,34% e 6,48% in crude proteine, respectively. |