scholarly journals Influence of Harvesting Methods and Timings on Yield and Quality of Selected Bread Wheat Varieties

Author(s):  
Muhammad Mithal Lund ◽  
Muhammad Ibrahim Keerio ◽  
Shamsuddin Tunio ◽  
Allah Wadhayo Gandahi ◽  
Inayatullah Rajpar

An experiment was executed at experimental farm of Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam to quantify the losses in grain yield and quality of wheat in relation to time and method of harvesting. The experiment involved three bread wheat varieties (Kiran-95, Mehran-89 and TD-1) and two harvesting methods; conventional method using Sickle and mechanized method using Reaper. The harvesting times considered were: 5-days-before-maturity (DBM), 5-Days-after-maturity (DAM), 10 DAM, and 15 DAM. The data were recorded for grain yield, yield components (harvest index, seed index, etc.) and some grain quality traits (shriveled & broken grain losses). The results highlighted that, harvesting with reaper was most effective and economical in terms of losses to grain yield and quality over sickle (manual) method of harvesting. Compared to the other harvesting times tested in this study, the wheat crop harvested at proper physiological maturity (5 DAM) was found to be most effective and beneficial to maintain quality and obtain maximum grain yield. Generally, wheat crop harvested through conventional method using sickle showed more harvesting losses at different harvesting intervals. Among three wheat cultivars, the cultivar TD-1 harvested with sickle (manual method) at proper maturity, 5 DBM and 5, 10 and 15 DAM showed 5.55%, 6.54%, 7.09%, 8.06% and 9.45% harvesting losses; and 8.79%, 10.46%, 10.67%, 11.76% and 13.25% hauling losses, respectively. Contrarily, when same cultivar TD-1 was harvested through mechanized method using reaper, the respective treatment plots showed 5.35%, 6.09%, 6.21%, 7.07% and 8.49% harvesting losses, and 8.57%, 9.89%, 9.54%, 10.45% and 11.99% hauling losses to grain yield, respectively. This study suggests that wheat crop should be harvested with reaper at proper physiological maturity. Among the three bread wheat varieties included in the study, the variety Kiran-95 proved to be the most resistant to grain yield and quality losses.

2013 ◽  
Vol 93 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexey I. Morgounov ◽  
Igor Belan ◽  
Yuriy Zelenskiy ◽  
Lyudmila Roseeva ◽  
Sandor Tömösközi ◽  
...  

Morgounov, A. I., Belan, I., Zelenskiy, Y., Roseeva, L., Tömösközi, S., Békés, F., Abugalieva, A., Cakmak, I., Vargas, M. and Crossa, J. 2013. Historical changes in grain yield and quality of spring wheat varieties cultivated in Siberia from 1900 to 2010. Can. J. Plant Sci. 93: 425–433. This study focusses on changes in yield, protein content, micronutrient composition and bread-making quality of 32 historical bread wheat varieties. The germplasm was divided into four groups: viz. 1: bred before 1935; 2: bred 1955–1975; 3: bred 1976–1985; 4: bred after 1985. Yield genetic gain was 0.59% per year. The last three periods scored significantly higher for protein, gluten content and alveograph W values, compared with the first group, but did not differ significantly from each other. The physical dough properties of varieties developed between 1976 and 1985 were superior, as reflected by the W value, farinograph mixing time and degree of softening. Loaf volume was highest for the 1950–1975 group, representing a 15.6% superiority. There were significant and gradual reductions between the earliest and latest groups for protein (7.6%) and wet gluten (7.7%) contents. No changes in zinc and iron contents, important in determining grain nutritional value, were detected. Generally, modern germplasm had superior physical dough quality and stability. This improvement was not clearly associated with changes in the frequencies of high- and low-molecular weight glutenin alleles. Sustaining the genetic gains for yield and quality will require investigation of the effects and interactions of genes controlling adaptation and end-use quality of spring wheat in Siberia.


2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (10) ◽  
pp. 1809-1818
Author(s):  
Zi-Chang ZHANG ◽  
Hong-Wei LI ◽  
Xue-Ming WANG ◽  
Li-Min YUAN ◽  
Zhi-Qin WANG ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document