Three-Way Top-Cross Hybrids to Enhance Production of Forage with Improved Quality in Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.)
1
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502324, India
2
Department of Plant Breeding & Genetics, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141004, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2022, 12(9), 1508; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12091508
Submission received: 17 August 2022
/
Revised: 9 September 2022
/
Accepted: 11 September 2022
/
Published: 19 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Genotype Evaluation and Breeding)
Abstract
:Three-way top-cross hybrids of pearl millet were evaluated along with a popular single- cross check hybrid (PAC 981) for forage yield and quality traits under a multi-cut (three cuts) system across multiple years, seasons and sites in India. Total green forage yield (TGFY) varied from 36 to 53 t ha−1, and two hybrids outyielded the check hybrid for both total dry forage yield (TDFY) and forage quality (CP; Crude protein, and IVOMD; In vitro organic matter digestibility) traits. A set of promising three-way top-cross hybrids evaluated along with a set of promising open-pollinated varieties (OPVs) and top-cross hybrids for forage-related traits over two years under a multi-cut system revealed that the mean TDFY of three-way top-cross hybrids was higher than the mean TDFY of top-cross hybrids, followed by OPVs. Also, three-way top-cross hybrids had higher/or at par forage quality traits such as CP and IVOMD in comparison to other types of cultivars. TDFY had no correlation with CP and IVOMD across cuts in three-way top-cross hybrids, indicating that forage quantity and quality traits can be improved independently of each other. Overall, three-way top-cross hybrids were found to be a better pearl millet cultivar option than other types of cultivars.
1. Introduction
Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br) is an important climate-resilient cereal food crop that is grown on more than 30 m ha around the globe, especially in the hot and dry areas of Africa and Asia. This crop has high dry matter per day productivity due to a C4 photosynthetic pathway, is a warm season annual and has high tillering with tolerance to drought, salinity and low soil fertility stresses. It has an inherent ability to grow well in harsher climates that other cereal crops such as rice, wheat and sorghum cannot tolerate [1]. This crop is primarily cultivated for grain, but in some parts of the world it is grown exclusively for forage. For instance, pearl millet is grown as summer pasture in the southern USA [2,3], in some parts of northwestern India during the summer season [4,5], in Brazil [6,7] and in some central Asian countries [8].
At present, India is the largest producer of milk in the world and is projected to produce 400 million tons by 2050 [9]. Lives of livestock and smallholder farmers in the marginal environments are affected due to the occurrence of droughts, floods, pests and diseases and poor soil fertility. Such conditions lead to drastic reduction of the productivity of milching animals due to scarcity of fodder and feed. For example, at present, India faces a net deficit of 590 million tons of green fodder and 468 million tons of dry fodder, and it would require around 1013 million tons of green fodder and 631 million tons of dry fodder by 2050 [10]. To fulfil these requirements, the pearl millet crop might be the farmer’s choice, as it has a high forage yielding potential, wider adaptation, rapid regrowth and absence of any anti-nutritional factors such as hydrocyanic and prussic acid. As such, it offers multiple harvests to ensure the regular supply of forages [11].
Efforts are underway to ensure forage productivity through the use of new breeding materials, open-pollinated varieties (OPVs) and single/top-cross hybrids in pearl millet under a single-/multiple-cut system [12,13,14,15,16,17]. Nonetheless, smallholder dairy farmers are now demanding multi-cut forage cultivars to increase forage production from the same area of land. Few studies have been conducted on the multi-cut system in pearl millet for forage yield and quality traits [18,19,20,21]. The higher seeding rate required in forage crops is another challenge that increases the seed cost for the farmers. Under such circumstances, a three-way top-cross hybrid methodology (involvement of three diverse parents: two inbreds and one OPV) has the potential to economize the seed production cost and also might be a good option to improve the forage production efficiency of fields.
Studies conducted to compare the grain yield potential of sterile F1 hybrids (derived from crosses between A-lines and non-isogenic B-lines) and their inbred seed parents in pearl millet found that the F1 sterile hybrids (female parent of three-way hybrid) produce 64 to 107% higher seed yield than their higher-yield inbred seed parents [22,23,24,25]. Few studies have also demonstrated that seed yield of three-way cross hybrids (involvement of three diverse inbred parents) is double as compared to single-cross hybrids in maize [26] and in sunflower [27].
Relatively few studies have been reported on the comparative performance of different type of cultivars for forage-related traits in pearl millet. For instance, it was found that single-cross and three-way cross hybrids had almost the same forage yields [23]. Also, a study conducted on the multi-cut system in pearl millet concluded that top-cross hybrids outyielded OPVs at the first cut, but the forage yields of top-cross hybrids and OPVs were at par at the second cut [18]. Another study conducted by Gupta et al. [16] showed that promising OPVs (17 t ha−1) were higher than top-cross hybrids (14.3 t ha−1) for dry forage yield at 85–90 days in a single cut after planting pearl millet.
The present study aimed at assessing the forage production potential of the three-way top-cross hybrids in comparison to OPVs and top-cross hybrids.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plant Materials
Ten sterile hybrids (A × B) were developed using four A- lines of A5 cms (Cytoplasmic male sterility) crossed to ten different B- lines (A5 cms maintainer) in different combinations. Each one of these ten combinations had A- and B- lines from different genetic backgrounds. These ten F1s (A × B sterile hybrids) were crossed with seven open-pollinated varieties (OPVs) as pollinators to produce 70 three-way top-cross hybrids in a line × tester mating design during the summer season (February to May) of 2015. The OPVs used as pollinators in this study were earlier identified as promising for high biomass traits [16].
2.2. Field Evaluations
2.2.1. Experiment 1: Trials to Evaluate Three-Way Top-Cross Hybrids
A trial comprised of 70 three-way top-cross hybrids along with one commercial popular check hybrid PAC 981 (bred by Advanta Seed Ltd., Hyderabad, India) was evaluated for forage yield and quality traits during the rainy season (July to October) of 2015 at a seed company experimental farm near Hyderabad. The check hybrid PAC 981 (Nutrifeed) is a popular multi-cut, high-biomass-yielding, single-cross pearl millet hybrid, and it has occupied a significant area during the summer and rainy seasons in India for the last 10 years. This trial was evaluated in a randomized complete block design with two replications, each entry was planted in 4 rows of 4 m length and rows were spaced 50 cm apart. Based on green forage yield (GFY: 34 to 63 t ha−1) and quality traits (CP: 8 to 12% and IVOMD: 42 to 50%) data, 29 promising three-way top-cross hybrids were identified (data not provided). These identified hybrids had higher or on par forage yield and forage quality traits in comparison to the check hybrid PAC 981.
These identified twenty-nine three-way top-cross hybrids along with check PAC 981 were evaluated under three environments: the rainy season of 2017, the summer season of 2018 at PAU, Ludhiana, India (30° N, 75° E and 247 m above sea level) and the summer season of 2018 at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India (18° N, 78° E and 545 m above sea level). The rainfall and temperature data for the sites during the experimental period are provided in Table 1.
2.2.2. Experiment 2: Comparison of Three-Way Top-Cross Hybrids, OPVs and Top-Cross Hybrids
One hundred and nineteen top-cross hybrids (derived by crossing seed parents and OPVs as pollinators) evaluated in various breeding trials during 2014–2017 at ICRISAT led to the identification of 18 superior top-cross hybrids. Similarly, 52 OPVs developed as promising forage cultivars evaluated in multilocation and multiyear trials during 2015–2017 at ICRISAT led to the identification of 25 superior OPVs. These identified top-cross hybrids, OPVs and the three-way top-cross hybrids identified from experiment 1 were evaluated in the two multi-cut forage pearl millet trials conducted over two years (2018 and 2019) in the rainy season at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. The number of cultivars evaluated in multi-cut forage pearl millet trial in both the years was different, as poor performing cultivars were discarded and new promising cultivars were added in subsequent trialing. Both of the trials included the hybrid PAC 981 as a check hybrid. The details of the trials are as follows: Trial 1: During the rainy season of 2018, the trial comprising of 25 OPVs, 18 top-cross hybrids and the best 10 three-way top-cross hybrids (identified from Experiment 1) were evaluated for forage quantity and quality traits at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. Trial 2: During the rainy season of 2019, 20 OPVs, the 5 top-cross hybrids and 15 three-way top-cross hybrids were evaluated for forage traits at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. Of these two trials conducted over 2 years, 12 OPVs, 4 top-cross hybrids and 7 three-way top-cross hybrids commonly found were compared further for forage yield and quality traits.
All of the trials in this experiment were evaluated in a randomized complete block design with two replications. Each entry was planted in 4 rows of 4 m length, except at PAU, Ludhiana, India where 6 rows of 4 m length were planted. Rows were spaced 30 cm apart during the summer season of 2018 at PAU, Ludhiana, India, whereas rows were spaced 60 cm apart in the summer season of 2018, and 75 cm in the rainy seasons of 2018 and 2019 at ICRISAT, Patancheru. At PAU, Ludhiana, India, the experimental area was fertilized with 50 kg N ha−1 and 60 kg P ha−1 at the time of crop establishment. The entire experimental plot was top-dressed thrice with the rate of 25 kg N ha−1 when plants were about knee-high (30 days after planting) before the first harvest, immediately after the first cut at 50 days after planting and after the second harvest (30 days after first cut) at PAU, Ludhiana, India. At ICRISAT, Patancheru, India, 18 kg N ha−1 and 46 kg P ha−1 of Diammonium phosphate were applied at the time of field preparation, and the field was fertilized thrice with a dosage rate of 100 kg ha−1 of urea (46% N) as top-dressing (30 days after planting), immediately after the first cut (50 days after planting) and after the second cut (30 days after first cut) at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. Trials were irrigated at a 12- to 15- day interval, and the crop was protected from diseases and pests during the whole cropping period.
2.3. Estimation of Forage Traits
2.3.1. Biomass Related Traits
Three forage-cutting intervals were followed in Experiment 1 across locations and also in Experiment 2 (Trial 2), conducted during the rainy season of 2019. The following schedule of cuts was followed: first cut (50 days after sowing), second cut (30 days after first cut) and third cut (30 days after second cut). By contrast, only two cuts (first and second cuts, respectively) were taken in Experiment 2 (Trial 1), conducted during the rainy season of 2018 at ICRISAT, Patancheru. A plot of four rows of each entry was harvested manually at 10 to 12 cm height (leaving at least 2 nodes) from the ground level at the first cut. At the time of harvest (at each cut), plant height (PH, cm) was measured on 5 random plants from the base of the stem to the tip of a panicle of the main tiller. The fresh weight of the green forage was recorded (kg) on a plot basis (PAU: Summer (7.2 m2) and Rainy (4.8 m2); ICRISAT: Summer (9 m2) and Rainy (12 m2)). A subsample (10–15 plants) of about 1 kg was collected per entry at the time of harvest and recorded for green forage weight, oven dried for 8 h daily for three to four days at 60 °C in a Campbell dryer (Campbell Industries, Inc., 3201 Dean Avenue, Des Moines, IA, USA) and reweighed (dry forage weight in kg). The dry matter (DM) concentration was determined by the ratio between the dry forage weight and the green forage weight, and also the dry forage yield (DFY) of each entry was calculated by multiplying the green forage weight and the dry matter concentration. The green forage yield (GFY) and DFY were converted into t ha−1. The second (at 80 days) and third (at 110 days) cuts of forage were harvested from the same plot of four rows after 30 days after the first and second cuts, respectively. The PH, GFY, DFY and forage quality traits were also recorded in the second and third cuts, as described in the first cut. The total green forage yield (TGFY) and total dry forage yield (TDFY) in t ha−1 were calculated as the sum of all the cuts for each entry in these trials.
2.3.2. Forage Quality Traits
Forage quality traits were analysed for entries planted in trial only at the ICRISAT, Patancheru location in both of the experiments, as it was not possible to procure forage samples from other locations. The dried subsamples of the whole plant (10–15 plants) of each entry were chopped into 10 to 15 mm pieces using a chaff cutter (Model # 230, Jyoti Ltd., Vadodara, India) and ground in a Thomas Wiley mill (Model # 4, Philadephia, PA, USA) through a 1-mm screen for chemical analysis. Ground stover samples (approximately 40 g of sample/entry) were analyzed by Near-Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy (NIRS) for stover nitrogen concentration (N%), crude protein (calculated using N% × 6.25) and IVOMD, as described by Bidinger and Blummel [28] and Blummel et al. [14].
2.4. Data Analysis
Data collected from the three cuts for forage-related traits in Experiment 1 and 2 were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using GenStat® 18th edition (VSN International Limited, Hemel Hempstead, UK). The mean data of forage-related traits were used for simple Pearson’s correlation coefficients using GraphPad Prism 5.0 (GraphPad Software, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA).
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. ANOVA of Forage-Related Traits for Multilocation Trial (Experiment 1)
The combined ANOVA indicated significant differences among genotypes for PH, GFY, DFY, TGFY and TDFY across all cuts and CP and IVOMD for the third cut (except CP and IVOMD at the first and second cuts, respectively) (Table 2). Environment and genotype × environment interactions were significant for all the traits, indicating hybrids significantly varied at different locations for forage-related traits. This result was in accordance with those of earlier reported studies in pearl millet hybrid parents/single-cross hybrids for GFY and DFY [17,29].
The mean performance of three-way top-cross hybrids over three locations are presented in Table 3. The TGFY and TDFY among hybrids varied from 36 to 53 t ha−1 and 7 to 12 t ha−1, respectively. Forage yields reported in the current study are comparable with forage yields reported by earlier studies in pearl millet [16,17,18,19]. The check hybrid PAC 981 had 42 t ha−1 TGFY and 9.6 t ha−1 TDFY, respectively. Ten and three hybrids were superior to the best check hybrid PAC 981 by ≥15% for TGFY and TDFY, respectively. Among these hybrids, three were found superior for both TGFY and TDFY, respectively, over the best check hybrid PAC 981.
One unit increase in IVOMD in stover sorghum and pearl millet can result in an increase in livestock productivity of 6 to 8% [30]. Across cuts, CP and IVOMD in these experiments varied from 5.8 to 16% and 48 to 62%, respectively, indicating the existence of large variability among the hybrids studied in comparison to the earlier studies [12,13,14,15,16,18]. Most hybrids exceeded the minimum requirement (7%) of CP for rumen microbes [31]. The check hybrid PAC 981 had 10%, 7% and 13% of CP and 57%, 49% and 59% IVOMD at the first, second and third cuts, respectively. Among 29 three-way top-cross hybrids, none, 15 and 4 were found to be superior to the check hybrid PAC 981 for CP at the first, second and third cuts, respectively. In addition, 3, 27 and 2 three-way top-cross hybrids performed better than the check hybrid PAC 981 for IVOMD at the first, second and third cuts, respectively. Two of the three-way top-cross hybrids were identified as superior for both forage yield (≥15% TGFY and TDFY) and for important forage quality traits (27% and 11% CP and 6% and 4% IVOMD at the second cut, and comparable percentages for the first and third cuts) over PAC 981.
3.2. Correlations among Forage Yield and Quality Traits
The TDFY was found significantly positively correlated with TGFY (r = 0.86, p < 0.0001) (Figure 1a), and also with GFY (r = 0.78, p < 0.0001 at first cut and r = 0.52, p < 0.01 at second cut) and DFY (r = 0.83, p < 0.0001 and r = 0.65, p < 0.0005, for first and second cuts, respectively) (data not shown). Similar correlations between forage quantity traits were also reported earlier by Imran et al. [32] and Govintharaj et al. [33] in pearl millet. Similarly, for the forage quality trait, IVOMD had a significant positive correlation with CP (r = 0.41, p < 0.05 and r = 0.72, p < 0.0001 for the first and third cuts, respectively) (data not shown). The TDFY had no correlation with CP and IVOMD across cuts (Figure 1b,c), indicating that forage quantity and quality traits can be improved independently. Such results have also been earlier reported in sorghum [34].
3.3. Performances of Different Forage Type Cultivars: OPVs, Top-Cross Hybrids and Three-Way Top-Cross Hybrids (Experiment 2)
Overall mean performance of the promising 23 (12 OPVs, 4 top-cross and 7 three-way top-cross hybrids) cultivars for forage related traits is shown in Table 4. Three-way top-cross and top-cross hybrids matured six to thirteen days earlier than OPVs, and they yielded significantly higher green forage, suggesting that hybrid cultivars can save a minimum of about two irrigations, labour and field management costs in comparison to OPVs. These results are in agreement with the results of Rai et al. [18], who found top-cross hybrids were relatively early maturing and produced higher biomass at the 50-day harvest as compared to OPVs in pearl millet.
The TDFY ranged from 5 to 9 t ha−1 in OPVs, 8 to 9 t ha−1 in top-cross hybrids and 8 to 10 t ha−1 in three-way top-cross hybrids. Also, the highest yielding three-way top-cross hybrid, OPV and top-cross hybrid had 43, 37 and 33% higher TDFY than the check hybrid PAC 981, respectively. Furthermore, the four best three-way top-cross hybrids when compared with the best four of each the OPVs and top-cross hybrids for mean TDFY revealed that the three-way top-cross hybrids had higher TDFY than other cultivars (Table 5a). Similarly, the average TDFY of the seven best three-way top-cross hybrids had higher-than-average TDFY than the seven best OPVs (Table 5b). Furthermore, four OPVs, two top-cross hybrids and five three-way top-cross hybrids significantly outyielded the check hybrid PAC 981 by ≥20% of TDFY.
Forage quality traits CP and IVOMD varied from 8 to 13% and 49 to 55% in OPVs, 8 to 13% and 49 to 56% in top-cross hybrids and 9 to 12% and 51 to 54% in three-way top-cross hybrids, respectively, across cuts. The reported mean values of CP and IVOMD in this study were found to be higher than those in the earlier studies in pearl millet [13,14]. Three-way top-cross hybrids had superior forage quality at any of the two cuts (out of 3 cuts) than other cultivars when compared with the four best cultivars among OPVs, top-cross hybrids and three-way top-cross hybrids. One each of OPV and three-way top-cross hybrids had a high forage yield combined with better forage quality traits across cuts over the best check hybrid PAC 981. None of the top-cross hybrid was found superior for both forage yield and quality traits across cuts over the check hybrid PAC 981.
In the present study, the mean values of all of the three-way top-cross hybrids for TDFY were slightly higher than those of the OPVs and top-cross hybrids, whereas forage quality traits were comparable with those of the OPVs (except IVOMD at third cut) and slightly higher than those of the top-cross hybrids (except CP at third cut). However, when we compared the performance of the four best three-way top-cross hybrids and/or individually with other cultivars, we found three-way top-cross hybrids to be better in forage yield and quality traits than OPVs and top-cross hybrids. It was observed that the F1 sterile hybrids (female parent of the three-way top-cross hybrid) produce 40 to 70% higher seed yield than the female inbred parent of a single-cross-forage hybrid (Dr Aditya Sharma, Advanta India, Personal communication, 2022). Also, three-way top-cross hybrids have an advantage in maintaining the confidentiality (that allows seed companies to commercialize them with confidence) of parental lines (F1 sterile used as a seed parent (female parent)) in seed production plots, whereas parental lines of single-cross hybrids can be infiltrated by competitors from seed production fields, as is routinely found in the case of single-cross hybrids. Considering the various factors—such as higher forage yield and better/comparable quality traits in three-way top-cross hybrids, their better performances than the other type of cultivars (OPVs and top-cross hybrids) for forage traits, their higher seed yielding potential due to male sterile F1 as a female parent, the better opportunity to combine traits in a single cultivar due to involvement of three diverse parents, and finally their protection from infiltration—we conclude that three-way top-cross hybrids seem to be the most preferable cultivar for smallholder farmers and seed companies.
4. Conclusions
The present study indicated the existence of large variability among pearl millet OPVs, top-cross and three-way top-cross hybrids for forage yield and quality traits. Higher and/comparable forage yield with better forage quality in three-way top-cross hybrids, better opportunities to broaden the genetic base of hybrids, higher adaptive potential to diverse agro−climatic conditions and lower hybrid seed production cost as compared to single-cross and top-cross hybrids suggested three-way top-cross hybrids to be the better pearl millet cultivar option for forage in arid and semi-arid conditions to feed livestock.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.K.G.; methodology, S.K.G. and P.G.; software, S.K.G. and P.G.; validation, S.K.G. and P.G.; formal analysis, P.G.; investigation, S.K.G., P.G. and R.B.; resources, S.K.G.; data curation, P.G.; writing—original draft preparation, P.G. and S.K.G.; writing—review and editing, P.G., S.K.G. and R.B.; visualization, P.G. and S.K.G.; supervision, S.K.G.; project administration, S.K.G.; funding acquisition, S.K.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
Financial support for this project was provided by the ICRISAT−Pearl Millet Hybrid Parents Research Consortium (PMHPRC) and conducted under CGIAR, Research Program on Dryland Cereals.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by the ICRISAT−Pearl Millet Hybrid Parents Research Consortium (PMHPRC).
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Baltensperger, D.D. Progress with Proso, Pearl and Other Millets. In Trends in New Crops and New Uses; Janick, J., Whipley, A., Eds.; ASHS Press: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2002; pp. 100–103. [Google Scholar]
- Burton, G. History of Hybrid Development in Pearl Millet in Tifton. In Proceedings of the First Grain Pearl Millet Symposium, Tifton, GA, USA, 17–18 January 1995; pp. 5–8. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, A.; Dale, N.; Ferreira, F. Pearl Millet as an Alternative Feed Ingredient in Broiler Diets. J. Appl. Poultry Res. 2003, 12, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reddy, A.; Dharmpal, M.; Singh, I.; Kundu, K.; Rao, P.; Gupta, S.; Rajan, S. Demand and Supply for Pearl Millet Grain and Fodder by 2020 in Western India. Agric. Situat. India 2012, 68, 635–646. [Google Scholar]
- Amarender Reddy, A.; Yadav, O.; Dharm Pal Malik, S.I.; Ardeshna, N.; Kundu, K.; Gupta, S.; Rajan Sharma, S.G.; Moses Shyam, D.; Sammi Reddy, K. Utilization Pattern, Demand and Supply of Pearl Millet Grain and Fodder in Western India; Working Paper Series No 37; ICRISAT: Patancheru, India, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- De Assis, R.L.; De Freitas, R.S.; Mason, S.C. Pearl Millet Production Practices in Brazil: A Review. Exp. Agric. 2018, 54, 699–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dias-Martins, A.M.; Pessanha, K.L.F.; Pacheco, S.; Rodrigues, J.A.S.; Carvalho, C.W.P. Potential Use of Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) in Brazil: Food Security, Processing, Health Benefits and Nutritional Products. Food Res. Int. 2018, 109, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anonymous. Sorghum, Pearl Millet Show Promise as Alternative Crops in Kazakhstan. 2018. Available online: https://www.biosaline.org/news/2018-12-09-6714 (accessed on 28 July 2022).
- Sharma, T.R. Forage Security for Sustainable Livestock Development, 60th Foundation day lecture, (1 November 2021), ICAR-Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute. Available online: https://igfri.icar.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/60th-Foundation-Day-Lecture-delivered-by-Dr.-T.R.-Sharma-DDG-CS-ICAR-on-01-Nov.-2021.pdf (accessed on 28 July 2022).
- NITI Aayog. Demand & Supply Projections towards 2033: Crops, Livestock, Fisheries and Agricultural Inputs; The Working Group Report February, NITI Aayog, Government of India. 2018. Available online: https://www.niti.gov.in/node/1558 (accessed on 28 July 2022).
- Arya, R.; Kumar, S.; Yadav, A.K.; Kumar, A. Grain Quality Improvement in Pearlmillet: A Review. Forage Res. 2013, 38, 189–201. [Google Scholar]
- Blümmel, M.; Rai, K.N. Stover quality and grain yield relationships and heterosis effects in pearl millet. Int. Sorghum Millets Newsl. 2003, 44, 141–145. [Google Scholar]
- Hash, C.; Blümmel, M.; Bidinger, F. Genotype x environment interactions in food-feed traits in pearl millet cultivars. Int. Sorghum Millets Newsl. 2006, 47, 153–157. [Google Scholar]
- Blümmel, M.; Bidinger, F.; Hash, C. Management and Cultivar Effects on Ruminant Nutritional Quality of Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) Stover: II. Effects of Cultivar Choice on Stover Quality and Productivity. Field Crops Res. 2007, 103, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bidinger, F.; Blummel, M.; Hash, C.; Choudhary, S. Genetic Enhancement for Superior Food-Feed Traits in a Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) Variety by Recurrent Selection. Anim. Nutr. Feed Technol. 2010, 10, 61–68. [Google Scholar]
- Gupta, S.; Ghouse, S.; Atkari, D.; Blümmel, M. Pearl Millet with Higher Stover Yield and Better Forage Quality: Identification of New Germplasm and Cultivars. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of Cereal Biotechnology and Breeding/CBB3, Berlin, Germany, 2–4 November 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Gupta, S.K.; Nepolean, T.; Shaikh, C.G.; Rai, K.; Hash, C.T.; Das, R.R.; Rathore, A. Phenotypic and Molecular Diversity-Based Prediction of Heterosis in Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum L. (R.) Br.). Crop J. 2018, 6, 271–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rai, K.N.; Blummel, M.; Singh, A.K.; Rao, A.S. Variability and Relationships among Forage Yield and Quality Traits in Pearl Millet. Eur. J. Plant Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 6, 118–124. [Google Scholar]
- Govintharaj, P.; Gupta, S.; Blummel, M.; Maheswaran, M.; Sumathi, P.; Atkari, D.; Kumar, V.A.; Rathore, A.; Raveendran, M.; Duraisami, V. Genotypic Variation in Forage Linked Morphological and Biochemical Traits in Hybrid Parents of Pearl Millet. Anim. Nutr. Feed Technol. 2018, 18, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govintharaj, P.; Maheswaran, M.; Blümmel, M.; Sumathi, P.; Vemula, A.K.; Rathore, A.; Sivasubramani, S.; Kale, S.M.; Varshney, R.K.; Gupta, S.K. Understanding Heterosis, Genetic Effects, and Genome Wide Associations for Forage Quantity and Quality Traits in Multi-Cut Pearl Millet. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ponnaiah, G.; Gupta, S.K.; Blümmel, M.; Marappa, M.; Pichaikannu, S.; Das, R.R.; Rathore, A. Utilization of Molecular Marker Based Genetic Diversity Patterns in Hybrid Parents to Develop Better Forage Quality Multi-Cut Hybrids in Pearl Millet. Agriculture 2019, 9, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, J.; Hanna, W.; Bondari, K. Directed Use of Germplasm Resources for Breeding Rust Resistant Pearl Millet. Plant Pathol. Trends in Agri. Sci. 1993, 1, 67–74. [Google Scholar]
- Hanna, W.; Hill, G.; Gates, R.; Wilson, J.; Burton, G. Registration of ’Tifleaf 3’ pearl Millet. Crop Sci. 1997, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witcombe, J.R.; Hash, C.T. Resistance Gene Deployment Strategies in Cereal Hybrids Using Marker-Assisted Selection: Gene Pyramiding, Three-Way Hybrids, and Synthetic Parent Populations. Euphytica 2000, 112, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rai, K.; Chandra, S.; Rao, A. Potential Advantages of Male-Sterile F1 Hybrids for Use as Seed Parents of Three-Way Hybrids in Pearl Millet. Field Crops Res. 2000, 68, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arief, R.; Ratule, M.T. Strategi Penguatan Penangkaran Benih Jagung Berbasis Komunitas; Balitsereal: South Sulawesi, Indonesia, 2015; pp. 516–524. [Google Scholar]
- Jayalakshmi, V.; Narendra, B. Evaluation of Three Way Cross Hybrids in Sunflower. Agric. Sci. Dig. 2004, 24, 286–288. [Google Scholar]
- Bidinger, F.; Blümmel, M. Determinants of Ruminant Nutritional Quality of Pearl Millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] Stover: I. Effects of Management Alternatives on Stover Quality and Productivity. Field Crops Res. 2007, 103, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Govintharaj, P.; Gupta, S.; Maheswaran, M.; Sumathi, P. Genetic Variability Studies in Forage Type Hybrid Parents of Pearl Millet. Electron. J. Plant Breed. 2017, 8, 1265–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristjanson, P.; Zerbini, E.; Rao, K. Genetic Enhancement of Sorghum and Millet Residues Fed to Ruminants: An Ex Ante Assessment of Returns to Research; International Livestock Research Institute (aka ILCA and ILRAD): Nairobi, Kenya, 1999; Volume 3, ISBN 92-9146-053-2. [Google Scholar]
- Van Soest, P.J. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1994; ISBN 0-8014-2772-X. [Google Scholar]
- Imran, M.; Hussain, A.; Khalid, R.; Khan, S.; Zahid, M.; Gurmani, Z.; Bakhsh, A.; Baig, D. Study of Correlation among Yield Contributing and Quality Parameters in Different Millet Varieties Grown under and Hwar Conditions. Sarhad J. Agric. 2010, 26, 365–368. [Google Scholar]
- Govintharaj, P.; Gupta, S.; Maheswaran, M.; Sumathi, P.; Atkari, D. Correlation and Path Coefficient Analysis of Biomass Yield and Quality Traits in Forage Type Hybrid Parents of Pearl Millet. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2018, 6, 1056–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aruna, C.; Swarnalatha, M.; Kumar, P.P.; Devender, V.; Suguna, M.; Blümmel, M.; Patil, J. Genetic Options for Improving Fodder Yield and Quality in Forage Sorghum. Trop. Grassl. Forrajes Trop. 2015, 3, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1.
Correlations between (a) Total green forage yield (TGFY) and total dry forage yield (TDFY); (b) Total dry forage yield (TDFY) and crude protein (CP) and (c) Total dry forage yield (TDFY) and in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) in 29 three-way top-cross hybrids in pearl millet.
Figure 1.
Correlations between (a) Total green forage yield (TGFY) and total dry forage yield (TDFY); (b) Total dry forage yield (TDFY) and crude protein (CP) and (c) Total dry forage yield (TDFY) and in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) in 29 three-way top-cross hybrids in pearl millet.
Table 1.
Characteristics of weather parameters at the experimental sites.
| Experiment | Location | Year | Crop Season | Overall Rainfall (mm) | Temperature (°C) (Mean Values over the Crop Season) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum | Minimum | |||||
| Experiment 1 | PAU, Ludhiana | 2017 | Rainy (July to October) | 177.8 | 38.0 | 26.5 |
| Experiment 1 | PAU, Ludhiana | 2018 | Summer (February to May) | 122.6 | 34.8 | 21.0 |
| Experiment 1 | ICRISAT, Patancheru | 2018 | Summer (February to May) | 49.4 | 36.1 | 19.8 |
| Experiment 2 (Trial 1) | ICRISAT, Patancheru | 2018 | Rainy (July to October) | 336.2 | 30.8 | 21.6 |
| Experiment 2 (Trial 2) | ICRISAT, Patancheru | 2019 | Rainy (July to October) | 679.4 | 30.4 | 21.8 |
Table 2.
Combined analysis of variance for forage traits of 29 three-way top-cross hybrids along with check hybrid in pearl millet, evaluated at PAU, Ludhiana in rainy 2017 and summer 2018; and at ICRISAT, Patancheru in summer 2018.
Table 2.
Combined analysis of variance for forage traits of 29 three-way top-cross hybrids along with check hybrid in pearl millet, evaluated at PAU, Ludhiana in rainy 2017 and summer 2018; and at ICRISAT, Patancheru in summer 2018.
| Source of Variation | d.f. | Forage Quantity Related Traits (Three Environments) | Forage Quality Traits (Only for ICRISAT Location) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PH | GFY | DFY | TGFY | TDFY | CP | IVOMD | ||||||||||||
| FC ‡ | SC † | TC ǂ | FC | SC | TC | FC | SC | TC | All Cuts | All Cuts | FC | SC | TC | FC | SC | TC | ||
| Environment | 2 | 241405 *** | 119974.3 *** | 106008.75 *** | 6874.73 *** | 220.85 * | 722.32 *** | 411.50 *** | 4.7224 | 39.77 *** | 2030.56 *** | 350.86 *** | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Replication (Env.) | 3 (1) آ | 287.90 | 261 | 775.04 ** | 24.84 | 18.372 | 1.4673 | 2.20 | 1.431 | 0.31 ** | 66.6 | 1.25 | 0.5 | 9.57 ** | 17.46 * | 22.82 ** | 0.43 | 9.90 * |
| Genotype | 29 | 554 *** | 475.4 *** | 398.54 *** | 47.5 ** | 36.79 *** | 2.99 *** | 4.21 *** | 1.82 *** | 0.17 *** | 132.2 *** | 8.27 * | 1.53 | 0.87 | 5.44 * | 2.29 | 5.56 | 6.49 ** |
| Genotype × Environment | 58 | 359.9 *** | 462.3 *** | 214.91 *** | 49.24 *** | 21.66 *** | 2.99 *** | 3.26 *** | 2.10 *** | 0.16 *** | 104.52 *** | 9.07 *** | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Error | 87 (29) | 118 | 126 | 92.41 | 24.7 | 7.36 | 0.89 | 1.83 | 0.80 | 0.48 | 56.37 | 4.98 | 0.61 | 0.66 | 2.49 | 2.26 | 6.99 | 2.01 |
Note: df-Degrees of freedom, PH (cm)-Plant height, GFY (t ha−1)-Green forage yield, DFY (t ha−1)-Dry forage yield, TGFY (t ha−1)-Total green forage yield, TDFY (t ha−1)-Total dry forage yield, CP (%)-Crude protein and IVOMD (%)-In vitro organic matter digestibility. *, ** and *** indicated significant at 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 level, respectively. FC ‡-First cut, SC †-Second cut and TC ǂ-Third cut. NA-Not available. آ Values mentioned in the parenthesis are degrees of freedom for forage quality traits.
Table 3.
Mean performances of 29 three–way top-cross hybrids along with the check for forage related traits in pearl millet, evaluated at PAU, Ludhiana in rainy 2017 and summer 2018, and at ICRISAT, Patancheru in summer 2018.
Table 3.
Mean performances of 29 three–way top-cross hybrids along with the check for forage related traits in pearl millet, evaluated at PAU, Ludhiana in rainy 2017 and summer 2018, and at ICRISAT, Patancheru in summer 2018.
| S. No. | Entry | Forage Quantity Related Traits (Three Environments) | Forage Quality Traits (at ICRISAT) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Cut | Second Cut | Third Cut | Combined of All Three Cuts | % Over PAC 981 for TDFY | First Cut | Second Cut | Third Cut | ||||||||||||
| PH (cm) | GFY (t ha−1) | DFY (t ha−1) | PH (cm) | GFY (t ha−1) | DFY (t ha−1) | PH (cm) | GFY (t ha−1) | DFY (t ha−1) | TGFY (t ha−1) | TDFY (t ha−1) | CP (%) | IVOMD (%) | CP (%) | IVOMD (%) | CP (%) | IVOMD (%) | |||
| 1 | † TWTCH 01 | 119.0 | 19.9 | 3.7 | 146.0 | 21.1 | 4.9 | 104.0 | 6.8 | 1.4 | 47.8 | 10.0 | 4.2 | 8.3 | 54.6 | 7.1 | 50.3 | 12.9 | 58.4 |
| 2 | TWTCH 02 | 128.0 | 25.2 | 5.7 | 163.0 | 18.3 | 4.2 | 103.0 | 5.7 | 1.1 | 49.2 | 11.0 | 14.6 | 7.1 | 55.2 | 5.9 | 48.9 | 11.2 | 54.3 |
| 3 | TWTCH 03 | 131.0 | 19.8 | 4.8 | 159.0 | 18.5 | 4.3 | 92.0 | 5.2 | 1.2 | 43.5 | 10.3 | 7.3 | 7.1 | 54.0 | 5.8 | 54.0 | 10.0 | 56.0 |
| 4 | TWTCH 04 | 118.0 | 17.7 | 3.4 | 153.0 | 17.5 | 3.7 | 82.0 | 5.3 | 1.0 | 40.4 | 8.1 | −15.6 | 7.8 | 55.6 | 6.8 | 51.1 | 10.5 | 56.4 |
| 5 | TWTCH 05 | 110.0 | 21.3 | 5.9 | 140.0 | 22.2 | 4.9 | 82.0 | 5.2 | 1.2 | 48.7 | 12.0 | 25.0 | 8.3 | 55.5 | 8.5 | 51.4 | 9.6 | 56.5 |
| 6 | TWTCH 06 | 113.0 | 19.1 | 3.7 | 150.0 | 16.5 | 3.7 | 87.0 | 5.1 | 1.0 | 40.7 | 8.5 | −11.5 | 8.5 | 56.3 | 8.6 | 51.8 | 12.6 | 56.9 |
| 7 | TWTCH 07 | 115.0 | 18.6 | 3.8 | 136.0 | 17.4 | 4.5 | 89.0 | 6.3 | 1.2 | 42.3 | 9.5 | −1.0 | 6.5 | 55.7 | 6.4 | 49.3 | 9.9 | 54.1 |
| 8 | TWTCH 08 | 118.0 | 22.5 | 5.5 | 149.0 | 21.1 | 4.0 | 94.0 | 6.0 | 1.1 | 49.7 | 10.6 | 10.4 | 7.4 | 53.2 | 6.8 | 51.1 | 12.9 | 58.1 |
| 9 | TWTCH 09 | 129.0 | 21.5 | 4.5 | 154.0 | 20.6 | 5.0 | 99.0 | 6.8 | 1.1 | 49.0 | 10.6 | 10.4 | 7.6 | 57.7 | 7.4 | 52.9 | 11.1 | 56.5 |
| 10 | TWTCH 10 | 134.0 | 20.8 | 4.8 | 162.0 | 23.5 | 5.4 | 99.0 | 6.4 | 1.2 | 50.8 | 11.5 | 19.8 | 5.8 | 54.4 | 7.4 | 50.6 | 11.5 | 56.6 |
| 11 | TWTCH 11 | 119.0 | 20.2 | 4.6 | 168.0 | 21.2 | 4.8 | 106.0 | 6.9 | 1.3 | 48.3 | 10.7 | 11.5 | 7.7 | 55.1 | 7.0 | 51.4 | 10.6 | 55.9 |
| 12 | TWTCH 12 | 127.0 | 20.6 | 4.3 | 157.0 | 23.0 | 5.3 | 92.0 | 6.6 | 1.1 | 50.2 | 10.7 | 11.5 | 7.5 | 55.1 | 7.2 | 48.2 | 11.8 | 54.6 |
| 13 | TWTCH 13 | 120.0 | 22.5 | 4.8 | 153.0 | 24.1 | 4.4 | 110.0 | 6.2 | 1.0 | 52.8 | 10.1 | 5.2 | 8.9 | 56.7 | 7.6 | 50.6 | 14.2 | 57.4 |
| 14 | TWTCH 14 | 110.0 | 20.8 | 3.7 | 150.0 | 19.4 | 3.7 | 101.0 | 6.0 | 1.1 | 46.3 | 8.5 | −11.5 | 7.2 | 55.1 | 6.2 | 52.2 | 10.6 | 57.3 |
| 15 | TWTCH 15 | 111.0 | 19.8 | 4.3 | 142.0 | 18.7 | 4.7 | 96.0 | 5.5 | 1.0 | 44.0 | 10.0 | 4.2 | 8.5 | 56.0 | 6.4 | 51.6 | 12.5 | 57.8 |
| 16 | TWTCH 16 | 123.0 | 18.1 | 4.4 | 142.0 | 22.3 | 4.7 | 96.0 | 4.6 | 0.9 | 45.0 | 10.0 | 4.2 | 8.5 | 55.6 | 6.5 | 49.8 | 11.6 | 58.1 |
| 17 | TWTCH 17 | 120.0 | 17.5 | 3.9 | 144.0 | 19.4 | 4.0 | 81.0 | 4.7 | 0.7 | 41.6 | 8.7 | −9.4 | 8.8 | 56.3 | 6.2 | 52.4 | 12.4 | 56.7 |
| 18 | TWTCH 18 | 115.0 | 15.7 | 3.3 | 143.0 | 15.2 | 3.9 | 83.0 | 4.6 | 0.9 | 35.6 | 8.2 | −14.6 | 6.9 | 54.8 | 7.2 | 53.1 | 10.3 | 56.0 |
| 19 | TWTCH 19 | 134.0 | 13.7 | 2.5 | 161.0 | 19.2 | 4.7 | 86.0 | 5.6 | 1.3 | 38.5 | 8.5 | −11.5 | 8.0 | 56.6 | 6.5 | 50.8 | 10.5 | 53.7 |
| 20 | TWTCH 20 | 129.0 | 15.4 | 3.0 | 145.0 | 18.1 | 3.8 | 110.0 | 5.0 | 0.9 | 38.6 | 7.7 | −19.8 | 7.8 | 55.0 | 6.3 | 49.8 | 8.5 | 55.1 |
| 21 | TWTCH 21 | 114.0 | 15.7 | 3.6 | 154.0 | 15.7 | 3.7 | 97.0 | 5.3 | 1.0 | 36.6 | 8.3 | −13.5 | 7.8 | 54.6 | 6.8 | 51.8 | 10.3 | 56.3 |
| 22 | TWTCH 22 | 134.0 | 14.5 | 3.1 | 160.0 | 16.2 | 3.2 | 94.0 | 5.4 | 1.0 | 36.1 | 7.3 | −24.0 | 7.5 | 57.2 | 6.5 | 50.3 | 10.2 | 54.9 |
| 23 | TWTCH 23 | 126.0 | 16.8 | 3.5 | 156.0 | 19.7 | 4.1 | 89.0 | 5.5 | 1.0 | 42.0 | 8.7 | −9.4 | 7.2 | 56.7 | 6.5 | 53.6 | 11.9 | 55.4 |
| 24 | TWTCH 24 | 128.0 | 15.7 | 3.8 | 157.0 | 16.6 | 3.6 | 99.0 | 6.1 | 1.4 | 38.5 | 8.7 | −9.4 | 7.2 | 54.8 | 6.8 | 49.8 | 13.2 | 58.0 |
| 25 | TWTCH 25 | 110.0 | 15.7 | 3.1 | 155.0 | 16.3 | 3.8 | 88.0 | 4.7 | 0.9 | 36.7 | 7.9 | −17.7 | 7.5 | 54.2 | 6.7 | 52.6 | 14.5 | 59.4 |
| 26 | TWTCH 26 | 119.0 | 15.6 | 3.6 | 149.0 | 15.5 | 3.7 | 98.0 | 5.8 | 1.2 | 36.9 | 8.4 | −12.5 | 8.2 | 55.9 | 7.0 | 54.5 | 12.2 | 54.5 |
| 27 | TWTCH 27 | 116.0 | 21.7 | 4.9 | 143.0 | 17.0 | 4.3 | 107.0 | 6.3 | 1.2 | 44.9 | 10.4 | 8.3 | 8.4 | 57.2 | 5.8 | 48.5 | 9.9 | 56.7 |
| 28 | TWTCH 28 | 134.0 | 21.8 | 5.0 | 154.0 | 17.6 | 4.0 | 90.0 | 5.3 | 1.0 | 44.8 | 10.1 | 5.2 | 7.3 | 54.6 | 6.3 | 52.9 | 9.9 | 55.2 |
| 29 | TWTCH 29 | 109.0 | 18.2 | 4.5 | 151.0 | 19.3 | 3.6 | 92.0 | 5.9 | 0.9 | 43.4 | 9.1 | −5.2 | 8.9 | 55.7 | 6.8 | 50.0 | 15.8 | 62.1 |
| 30 | Check (PAC 981) | 93.0 | 19.5 | 4.6 | 127.0 | 17.9 | 4.3 | 93.0 | 4.3 | 0.7 | 41.7 | 9.6 | 10.5 | 56.9 | 6.7 | 48.6 | 13.2 | 59.0 | |
| Grand mean | 120.0 | 18.9 | 4.1 | 151.0 | 19.0 | 4.2 | 10.1 | 5.6 | 1.1 | 42.5 | 12 | 7.8 | 55.5 | 6.8 | 51.1 | 11.5 | 56.6 | ||
| Coefficient of variation (%) | 9.0 | 26.3 | 32.6 | 7.4 | 14.3 | 21.2 | 9.6 | 16.7 | 20.5 | 17.7 | 25.4 | 11.5 | 2.7 | 12.0 | 5.2 | 13.7 | 2.5 | ||
| Standard error | 10.9 | 5.0 | 1.4 | 11.2 | 2.7 | 0.9 | 9.6 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 7.5 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 1.4 | ||
Note: † TWTCH: Three-way top-cross hybrids. PH−Plant height, GFY−Green forage yield, DFY−Dry forage yield, TGFY−Total green forage yield, TDFY−Total dry forage yield, CP−Crude protein and IVOMD−In vitro organic matter digestibility.
Table 4.
Mean performances of forage yield and quality traits for OPVs, top-cross and three-way top-cross hybrids, evaluated at ICRISAT in rainy seasons of 2018 and 2019.
Table 4.
Mean performances of forage yield and quality traits for OPVs, top-cross and three-way top-cross hybrids, evaluated at ICRISAT in rainy seasons of 2018 and 2019.
| S. No. | Entry | Days to 50% Bloom | Forage Quantity Related Traits | Forage Quality Traits | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rainy 2018 | Rainy 2019 | Across Years | CP (%) | IVOMD (%) | ||||||||||||||||
| PH (cm) | PH (cm) | TGFY (t/ha) | TDFY (t/ha) | PH (cm) | PH (cm) | PH (cm) | TGFY (t/ha) | TDFY (t/ha) | TGFY (t/ha) | TDFY (t/ha) | % Over PAC 981 for TDFY | Across Years | Rainy 2019 | Across Years | Rainy 2019 | |||||
| First Cut | Second Cut | All Two Cuts | All Two Cuts | First Cut | Second Cut | Third Cut | All Three Cuts | All Three Cuts | First Cut | Second Cut | Third Cut | First Cut | Second Cut | Third Cut | ||||||
| Open-pollinated varieties | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 1 | ‡ ICMV 05222 | 89 | 111.9 | 226.8 | 33.7 | 6.9 | 190.5 | 136.0 | 129.0 | 55.5 | 3.0 | 44.6 | 4.9 | −26.9 | 11.7 | 11.0 | 8.8 | 51.1 | 54.0 | 49.2 |
| 2 | ICMV 05555 | 68 | 117.8 | 224.5 | 35.6 | 8.2 | 219.0 | 147.0 | 124.0 | 53.6 | 8.0 | 44.6 | 8.1 | 20.9 | 10.0 | 10.3 | 9.5 | 51.7 | 52.6 | 51.4 |
| 3 | ICMV 05777 | 88 | 142.2 | 247.0 | 42.3 | 8.1 | 203.0 | 143.0 | 132.0 | 66.1 | 6.6 | 54.2 | 7.3 | 9.0 | 10.8 | 9.7 | 8.9 | 51.0 | 53.3 | 49.3 |
| 4 | ICMV 15111 | 58 | 199.0 | 186.5 | 48.6 | 5.4 | 249.5 | 155.0 | 120.5 | 38.2 | 5.4 | 43.4 | 5.4 | −19.4 | 9.6 | 10.4 | 11.3 | 52.4 | 53.7 | 55.0 |
| 5 | ICMV 1602 | 77 | 153.5 | 235.0 | 37.8 | 8.0 | 213.0 | 146.5 | 123.0 | 33.3 | 7.5 | 35.6 | 7.7 | 14.9 | 10.4 | 11.1 | 9.4 | 51.6 | 52.2 | 50.9 |
| 6 | ICMV 1605 | 82 | 144.0 | 218.0 | 39.3 | 8.8 | 206.0 | 138.0 | 135.0 | 47.5 | 6.5 | 43.4 | 7.7 | 14.9 | 10.1 | 11.4 | 9.9 | 51.3 | 53.8 | 49.9 |
| 7 | ICMV 1608 | 79 | 140.5 | 248.0 | 45.5 | 9.5 | 215.0 | 137.0 | 129.5 | 62.6 | 6.0 | 54.1 | 7.7 | 14.9 | 11.2 | 11.1 | 9.6 | 51.7 | 54.9 | 53.5 |
| 8 | ICMV 1613 | 88 | 145.0 | 224.5 | 40.5 | 8.9 | 196.0 | 156.0 | 120.0 | 51.6 | 5.6 | 46.1 | 7.3 | 9.0 | 11.5 | 9.8 | 8.0 | 50.7 | 54.8 | 49.7 |
| 9 | ICMV 1617 | 70 | 146.0 | 233.8 | 38.2 | 10.0 | 214.0 | 150.0 | 139.5 | 56.3 | 6.7 | 47.2 | 8.3 | 23.9 | 10.1 | 10.4 | 12.5 | 51.6 | 54.2 | 54.9 |
| 10 | ICMV 1701 | 74 | 134.0 | 237.5 | 37.8 | 9.6 | 224.0 | 151.5 | 134.5 | 57.8 | 6.9 | 47.8 | 8.3 | 23.9 | 11.4 | 10.8 | 11.2 | 51.0 | 53.0 | 50.6 |
| 11 | ICMV 1707 | 69 | 145.0 | 251.0 | 43.2 | 8.8 | 245.0 | 142.0 | 126.0 | 68.0 | 7.0 | 55.6 | 7.9 | 17.9 | 11.7 | 9.7 | 8.5 | 52.1 | 54.0 | 49.8 |
| 12 | ICMV 1708 | 87 | 149.5 | 260.0 | 45.7 | 12.2 | 207.0 | 174.0 | 128.5 | 53.6 | 6.2 | 49.6 | 9.2 | 37.3 | 11.4 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 51.7 | 51.9 | 50.1 |
| Mean | 77 | 144.0 | 232.7 | 40.7 | 8.7 | 215.2 | 148 | 128.5 | 53.7 | 6.3 | 47.2 | 7.5 | 11.0 | 10.4 | 9.8 | 51.5 | 53.5 | 51.2 | ||
| Top-cross hybrids | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 13 | ǂ TCH 01 | 89 | 216.0 | 225.0 | 44.5 | 10.7 | 245.0 | 167.0 | 122.0 | 67.0 | 7.2 | 55.7 | 8.9 | 32.8 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 8.9 | 50.7 | 51.1 | 50.3 |
| 14 | TCH 02 | 47 | 219.0 | 189.5 | 45.3 | 11.7 | 227.0 | 162.5 | 126.0 | 51.2 | 6.1 | 48.3 | 8.9 | 32.8 | 9.1 | 10.0 | 12.6 | 51.2 | 52.0 | 55.6 |
| 15 | TCH 03 | 77 | 191.0 | 252.0 | 43.8 | 10.2 | 238.0 | 161.0 | 125.5 | 54.0 | 5.6 | 48.9 | 7.9 | 17.9 | 10.4 | 9.7 | 8.3 | 50.9 | 52.2 | 49.5 |
| 16 | TCH 04 | 71 | 200.5 | 223.0 | 48.3 | 10.1 | 244.5 | 176.5 | 136.0 | 64.4 | 5.0 | 56.3 | 7.6 | 13.4 | 8.1 | 9.5 | 10.3 | 49.1 | 52.3 | 52.2 |
| Mean | 71 | 206.6 | 222.4 | 45.5 | 10.7 | 238.6 | 166.8 | 127.4 | 59.2 | 6.0 | 52.3 | 8.3 | 9.3 | 9.7 | 10.0 | 50.5 | 51.9 | 51.9 | ||
| Three−way top-cross hybrids | ||||||||||||||||||||
| 17 | † TWTCH 01 | 63 | 176.5 | 209.0 | 41.8 | 10.1 | 255.5 | 147.0 | 128.5 | 61.8 | 5.5 | 51.8 | 7.8 | 16.4 | 10.2 | 11.7 | 11.4 | 52.7 | 53.6 | 53.1 |
| 18 | TWTCH 02 | 63 | 179.5 | 227.5 | 38.0 | 8.0 | 259.5 | 164.5 | 128.0 | 47.9 | 9.6 | 43.0 | 8.8 | 31.3 | 10.7 | 10.2 | 10.6 | 50.7 | 53.6 | 53.6 |
| 19 | TWTCH 03 | 64 | 214.0 | 220.5 | 46.0 | 8.5 | 253.0 | 166.0 | 132.0 | 55.6 | 10.6 | 50.8 | 9.5 | 41.8 | 11.3 | 10.2 | 9.4 | 50.8 | 54.3 | 53.3 |
| 20 | TWTCH 04 | 64 | 181.0 | 252.5 | 42.8 | 9.6 | 236.0 | 158.0 | 143.0 | 64.5 | 6.2 | 53.6 | 7.9 | 17.9 | 11.3 | 10.1 | 10.6 | 52.2 | 52.7 | 52.9 |
| 21 | TWTCH 05 | 58 | 191.0 | 213.5 | 38.1 | 8.4 | 252.0 | 158.5 | 114.5 | 51.5 | 10.0 | 44.8 | 9.2 | 37.3 | 10.8 | 11.2 | 9.1 | 52.6 | 54.1 | 50.1 |
| 22 | TWTCH 06 | 73 | 178.0 | 229.0 | 39.7 | 10.0 | 235.0 | 144.5 | 121.0 | 55.0 | 6.8 | 47.4 | 8.4 | 25.4 | 10.5 | 9.2 | 11.0 | 51.9 | 52.0 | 54.1 |
| 23 | TWTCH 07 | 61 | 185.0 | 242.0 | 42.2 | 9.3 | 253.0 | 175.0 | 133.5 | 66.0 | 10.0 | 54.1 | 9.6 | 43.3 | 10.6 | 12.2 | 10.8 | 51.4 | 53.8 | 53.8 |
| Mean | 64 | 186.4 | 227.7 | 41.2 | 9.1 | 249.1 | 159.1 | 128.6 | 57.5 | 8.4 | 49.4 | 8.8 | 10.8 | 10.7 | 10.4 | 51.8 | 53.5 | 53.0 | ||
| 24 | PAC 981 | 71 | 116.6 | 239.9 | 36.6 | 8.2 | 207.0 | 162.0 | 127.0 | 56.5 | 5.5 | 46.5 | 6.7 | 9.6 | 10.5 | 9.4 | 49.6 | 52.7 | 49.1 | |
Note: PH−Plant height, TGFY−Total green forage yield, TDFY−Total dry forage yield, CP−Crude protein and IVOMD−In vitro organic matter digestibility. ‡ ICMV−ICRISAT Millet variety, ǂ TCHs−top-cross hybrids and † TWCHs−three-way top-cross hybrids.
Table 5.
(a) Four best OPVs, top-cross and three-way top-cross hybrids compared for total dry forage yield (TDFY) and forage quality traits, evaluated during rainy seasons of 2018 and 2019 at ICRISAT, Patancheru; (b) Seven best selected cultivars of OPVs and three-way top-cross hybrids compared for total dry forage yield (TDFY) and forage quality traits, evaluated during rainy seasons of 2018 and 2019 at ICRISAT, Patancheru.
Table 5.
(a) Four best OPVs, top-cross and three-way top-cross hybrids compared for total dry forage yield (TDFY) and forage quality traits, evaluated during rainy seasons of 2018 and 2019 at ICRISAT, Patancheru; (b) Seven best selected cultivars of OPVs and three-way top-cross hybrids compared for total dry forage yield (TDFY) and forage quality traits, evaluated during rainy seasons of 2018 and 2019 at ICRISAT, Patancheru.
| S. No. | Cultivars | Total Dry Forage Yield (t ha−1) | Crude Protein (CP, %) | In Vitro Organic Matter Digestibility (IVOMD, %) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Across Two Years (Rainy Seasons of 2018 and 2019) | % Over PAC 981 for TDFY | Across Two Years (Rainy Seasons of 2018 and 2019) | Rainy 2019 | Across Two Years (Rainy Seasons of 2018 and 2019) | Rainy 2019 | ||||
| First Cut | Second Cut | Third Cut | First Cut | Second Cut | Third Cut | ||||
| (a) | |||||||||
| Open-pollinated varieties | |||||||||
| 1 | ICMV † 1708 | 9.2 | 37.6 | 11.4 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 51.7 | 51.9 | 50.1 |
| 2 | ICMV 1617 | 8.3 | 23.9 | 10.1 | 10.4 | 12.5 | 51.6 | 54.2 | 54.9 |
| 3 | ICMV 1701 | 8.3 | 23.9 | 11.4 | 10.8 | 11.2 | 51.0 | 53.0 | 50.6 |
| 4 | ICMV 05555 | 8.1 | 20.9 | 10.0 | 10.3 | 9.5 | 51.7 | 52.6 | 51.4 |
| Mean | 8.5 | 10.7 | 10.2 | 10.6 | 51.5 | 53.0 | 51.7 | ||
| Top-cross hybrids | |||||||||
| 5 | TCH ǂ 01 | 8.9 | 32.8 | 9.6 | 9.7 | 8.9 | 50.7 | 51.1 | 50.3 |
| 6 | TCH 02 | 8.9 | 32.8 | 9.1 | 10.0 | 12.6 | 51.2 | 52.0 | 55.6 |
| 7 | TCH 03 | 7.9 | 17.9 | 10.4 | 9.7 | 8.3 | 50.9 | 52.2 | 49.5 |
| 8 | TCH 04 | 7.6 | 13.4 | 8.1 | 9.5 | 10.3 | 49.1 | 52.3 | 52.2 |
| Mean | 8.3 | 9.3 | 9.7 | 10.0 | 50.5 | 51.9 | 51.9 | ||
| Three−way top-cross hybrids | |||||||||
| 9 | TWTCH ‡ 07 | 9.6 | 43.3 | 10.6 | 12.2 | 10.8 | 51.4 | 53.8 | 53.8 |
| 10 | TWTCH 03 | 9.5 | 41.8 | 11.3 | 10.2 | 9.4 | 50.8 | 54.3 | 53.3 |
| 11 | TWTCH 05 | 9.2 | 37.3 | 10.8 | 11.2 | 9.1 | 52.6 | 54.1 | 50.1 |
| 12 | TWTCH 02 | 8.8 | 31.3 | 10.7 | 10.2 | 10.6 | 50.7 | 53.6 | 53.6 |
| Mean | 9.3 | 10.9 | 11.0 | 10.0 | 51.4 | 54.0 | 52.7 | ||
| Check (PAC 981) | 6.7 | 9.6 | 10.5 | 9.4 | 49.6 | 52.7 | 49.1 | ||
| (b) | |||||||||
| Open-pollinated varieties | |||||||||
| 1 | † ICMV 1708 | 9.2 | 37.3 | 11.4 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 51.7 | 51.9 | 50.1 |
| 2 | ICMV 1617 | 8.3 | 23.9 | 10.1 | 10.4 | 12.5 | 51.6 | 54.2 | 54.9 |
| 3 | ICMV 1701 | 8.3 | 23.9 | 11.4 | 10.8 | 11.2 | 51.0 | 53.0 | 50.6 |
| 4 | ICMV 05555 | 8.1 | 20.9 | 10.0 | 10.3 | 9.5 | 51.7 | 52.6 | 51.4 |
| 5 | ICMV 1707 | 7.9 | 17.9 | 11.7 | 9.7 | 8.5 | 52.1 | 54.0 | 49.8 |
| 6 | ICMV 1602 | 7.7 | 14.9 | 10.4 | 11.1 | 9.4 | 51.6 | 52.2 | 50.9 |
| 7 | ICMV 1605 | 7.7 | 14.9 | 10.2 | 11.4 | 9.9 | 51.3 | 53.8 | 49.9 |
| Mean | 8.2 | 10.7 | 10.4 | 10.0 | 51.6 | 53.1 | 51.1 | ||
| Three−way top-cross hybrids | |||||||||
| 8 | ‡ TWTCH 07 | 9.6 | 43.3 | 10.6 | 12.2 | 10.8 | 51.4 | 53.8 | 53.8 |
| 9 | TWTCH 03 | 9.5 | 41.8 | 11.3 | 10.2 | 9.4 | 50.8 | 54.3 | 53.3 |
| 10 | TWTCH 05 | 9.2 | 37.3 | 10.8 | 11.2 | 9.1 | 52.6 | 54.1 | 50.1 |
| 11 | TWTCH 02 | 8.8 | 31.3 | 10.7 | 10.2 | 10.6 | 50.7 | 53.6 | 53.6 |
| 12 | TWTCH 06 | 8.4 | 25.4 | 10.5 | 9.2 | 11.0 | 51.9 | 52.0 | 54.1 |
| 13 | TWTCH 04 | 7.9 | 17.9 | 11.3 | 10.1 | 10.6 | 52.2 | 52.7 | 52.9 |
| 14 | TWTCH 01 | 7.8 | 16.4 | 10.2 | 11.7 | 11.4 | 52.7 | 53.6 | 53.1 |
| Mean | 8.8 | 10.8 | 10.7 | 10.4 | 51.8 | 53.5 | 53.0 | ||
| Check (PAC 981) | 6.7 | 9.6 | 10.5 | 9.4 | 49.6 | 52.7 | 49.1 | ||
Note: † ICMV−ICRISAT millet variety, ǂ TCH−top-cross hybrid, and ‡ TWTCH−three-way top-cross hybrid.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Gupta, S.K.; Govintharaj, P.; Bhardwaj, R. Three-Way Top-Cross Hybrids to Enhance Production of Forage with Improved Quality in Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.). Agriculture 2022, 12, 1508. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12091508
AMA Style
Gupta SK, Govintharaj P, Bhardwaj R. Three-Way Top-Cross Hybrids to Enhance Production of Forage with Improved Quality in Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.). Agriculture. 2022; 12(9):1508. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12091508
Chicago/Turabian StyleGupta, Shashi Kumar, Ponnaiah Govintharaj, and Ruchika Bhardwaj. 2022. "Three-Way Top-Cross Hybrids to Enhance Production of Forage with Improved Quality in Pearl Millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.)" Agriculture 12, no. 9: 1508. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12091508
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
