Behrang, the first forage safflower variety suitable for cold and moderate rainfed conditions of Iran

Document Type : Release of the variety

Authors

1 Professor , Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.

2 Assistsnt professor, Dryland Agricultural Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Kermanshah, Iran.

3 Animal Science Research Institute of Iran, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.

4 Professor, Field and Horticultural Crops Research Department, Azarbaijan gharbi, Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Urmia, Iran.

5 Researcher, Field and Horticultural Crops Research Department, Kordestan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Sanandaj, Iran.

6 Researcher, Dryland Agricultural Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Kermanshah, Iran.

7 Assistsnt professor, Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran.

10.22092/rafhc.2025.367939.1353

Abstract

Forage shortage and severe water lemitation are the most important factors for livestock and poultry production in the Iran. Releasing a forage safflower variety for drylands of Iran not only produce forage but also reduce the pressure on pastures. Behrang a new safflower variety received attention during screening of safflower collection in 2010 and then introduced by selection. Twenty-four selected spinless genotypes elongwith three check varieties were evaluated in Sararood agricultural research station in 2013 and it was revealed that Behrang was higher than average for seed, wet and dry forage yield and forage quality parameters was suitable in Behrang. Fourteen selected superior genotypes were evaluated during 2015 to 2018 for yield stability and adaptation. Results showed that Behrang with 18345 and 6811 kgha-1 had the highest wet and dry forage yield, respectively, and its rank was the best among all genotypes and results of some stability parameters revealed that Behrang was a stable genotype for wet and dry forage yield. GGE Biplot also showed that Behrang was the closest genotype to ideal genotype with the highest wet and dry forage yield. On-farm trials conducted in Ravansar and Dinavar regions (Kermanshah province) under rainfed condition revealed that Behrang’s wet and dry forage mean yield were 9778 and 5022 kgha-1, respectively, that was higer than Faraman’s wet and dry forage mean yield (8004 and 4269 kgha-1, respectively). Relative feed value (RFV) for Framan and Behrang were 172 and 160, respectively, so both of them determined as high quality for forage use. Behrang reaction against safflower fusarium wilt disease was moderate resistant. Overall, Behrang variety with high wet and dry forage yield and high forage nutrition quality was suitable for fall planting in semi-cold and early spring planting in the cold drylands of Iran.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Alavi, M. 2000. Evaluation of data related to the nutritional value of the country's livestock feed sources (forage and wood). Final thesis of the Msc. degree in animal science, Imam Khomeini Higher Education Center. 105 pp. (in Persian).
 
 
Alipour, S. 2008. Important Safflower deseasis in Kermanshah provience. Proceeding of 18th Iranian plant patology. Boali University, Hamadan Iran. Vol2: pp. 230. (in Persian).
 
 
Anonymous, 2022. Statistical Year Book of Agricultural Crops. 1st Volume: Filed Crops.Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture, Tehran, Iran.165 pp. (in Persian).
 
 
Arslan, B., Ates, E., Tekeli, A. S., and Esendal, E. 2008. Feeding and agronomic value of field pea (Pisum arvense L.) safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) mixtures. Proceedings of the 7th International Safflower Conference, Wagga Wagga, Australia, November 3-6:18.
 
 
Becker, H. C. 1981. Correlations among some statistical measures of phenotypic stability. Euphytica 30: 835–840. Doi.org/10.1007/BF00038812.
 
 
Bar-Tal, A., Landau, S., Li-Xin, Z., Markovitz, T., Keinan, M., Dvash, L., Brener, S., and Weinberg, Z. G. 2008. Fodder quality of safflower across an irrigation gradient and with varied nitrogen rates. Agron. J., 100: 1499-1505. Doi.org/10.2134/agronj2007.0353.
 
 
Bergland, D. R., Riveland, N., and Bergman, J. 2007. Safflower production. Dacota State University, South Dakota, 67 pp.
 
 
Delfani, M., Hatami, A., Pourdad, S. S., Tahmasebi, Z., Fattahnia, F., and Jahansooz, M. R. 2018. Effect of planting density and supplementary irrigation on quality and quantity of forage yield of two safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) cultivars. Iranian Dryland Agron. J., 6(2):147-164. (in Persian). Doi.org/10.22092/idaj.2018.116304.
 
 
 Horrocks, R. D., and Vallentine, J. F. 1999. Harvested Forages. Academic Press, London, UK. 426 pp.
 
 
Jabbari, H., Golzardi, F., Shariati, F., and Asadi, H. 2023. Effect of harvesting time on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of safflower cultivars forage in autumn planting. J. Crop Improv., 25 (1), 65-81. DOI: org/10.22059/jci.2022.335529.2654.
 
 
Jamshid moghadam, M., and Pourdad, S. S. 2009. Comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods for analysing genotype × environment interactions in safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). J. of Agri. Sci. 147: 601-612. Doi:10.1017/S0021859609990050.
 
 
Jamshid Moghadam, M., and Pourdad, S. S. 2013. Genotype × environment interactions for seed yield in rainfed winter safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) multi-environmental trials in Iran. Euphytica.190:357-369. DOI:10.1007/s10681-012-0776-z.
 
 
Landau, S. L., Friedman, S., Brenner, S., Bruckental, I., Weinberg, Z. G., Ashbell, G., Hen, Y., Dvash, L., and Leshem, Y. 2004. The value of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L) hay and silage grown under Mediterranean conditions as forage for dairy cattle. Livest. Prod. Sci., 88:(3):263-271. DOI: 10.1016/j.livprodsci.2003.11.011.
 
 
Lin, C. S., and Binns, M. R. 1988. A method of analyzing cultivar× location× year experiments: A new stability parameter. Theor. Appl. Genet. 75:425-430. Doi: 10.1007/BF00265344.  
 
 
Pourdad, S. S. 2006. Safflower. Sepehr publication. 123 pp. (in Persian).
 
 
Pourdad, S. S., and Jamshid Moghaddam, M. 2013. Study on genotype×environment interaction through GGE biplot in spring Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). J. of Crop Prod. and Procss. 2 (6):99-108. (in Persian). 20.1001.1.22518517.1391.2.6.10.0.
 
 
Saremi, H. 1998. Ecology and taxonomy of fusarum species. Jihad-e-Daneshgahi of Mashhad University Publications. Mashhad, Iran.132 p. (in Persian).
 
 
Shukla, G. K. 1972. Some statistical aspects of partitioning genotype × environmental components of variability. Heredity 29: 237-242. DOI: 10.1038/hdy.1972.87.
 
 
Smith, J. R. 1996. Safflower. 1st Edn., AOCS Press, USA., 624 pp.
 
 
Wichman, D. 1996. Safflower for forage. Proceedings of North American Safflower Conference, Jan. 17-18, Great Falls, Montana, Lethbridge, Canada, pp: 56-60.
 
 
Wichman, D., Welty, L. E., Strang, L. M., Bergman, J. W., Westcott, M. P., Stallknecht, G. F.,  Riveland, N. R., and Ditterline, R. L. 2001. Assessing the forage production potential of safflower in the Northern Great Plains and Inter-Mountain Regions. In Proceedings of the 5th International Safflower Conference, Williston, North Dakota and Sidney, Montana, USA.
 
 
Wricke, G. 1962. Über eine Methode zur Erfassung der ökologischen Streubreite in Feldversuchen. Z. Pflanzenzüchtg. 47: 92–96. DOI: 10.1007/BF01177596.
 
 
Yan, W., M. S. Kang, B. Ma, S. woods and P.L. Cornelius. 2007. GGE biplot vs. AMMI analysis of genotype by environment data. Crop Sci., 47: 643-655. Doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.06.0374.
 
 
Research Achievements for Field and Horticulture Crops
Volume 14, Issue 1
December 2025
Pages 121-143

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 12 May 2023
  • Revise Date: 23 March 0621
  • Accept Date: 20 September 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics