Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias
Agrarias. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Tomo 57(2). ISSN (en línea) 1853-8665.
Año 2025.
Original article
Foxtail
Millet (Setaria italica L.)
Performance under Irrigation. Sowing Dates and Cultivars in the Northern Oasis
of Mendoza
Producción
de moha (Setaria italica L.)
bajo riego: evaluación de fechas de siembra y cultivares en el oasis norte de
Mendoza
Leandra Ibarguren1,
Alejandra Bertona1,
Álvaro López1,
Diego Guerrero1,
Alejo Argumedo1,
José Martín1,
Mariana Savietto1
1Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias.
Almirante Brown 500. Chacras de Coria. M5528AHB. Mendoza. Argentina.
*crebora@fca.uncu.edu.ar
Abstract
Foxtail millet is a
short-season, summer annual forage crop primarily used for haymaking in
Argentina. Valued for its efficient water use, it provides effective fiber for
various milk and meat production systems. This trial evaluated two sowing dates
(mid-November and mid-December) for the three commercially available foxtail
millet cultivars in Argentina (Yaguané Plus INTA, Carapé Plus INTA, and Nará
INTA) across two production cycles (2022/2023 and 2023/2024). The experiment
was conducted at the Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, UNCuyo, in Mendoza
(33°00’38” S and 68°52’28” W). Yields of up to 14,000 kg DM/ha were obtained in
the northern oasis of Mendoza. Significant differences in yield were observed
between sowing dates, with December sowing yielding more than November.
Additionally, Nará INTA was the highest-yielding cultivar.
Keywords: Setaria italica, forage, yield,
arid zone
Resumen
La moha es un
forraje estival anual, cuyo principal destino en Argentina es la henificación.
Este cultivo es valorado por su eficiente uso del recurso hídrico; es muy
utilizado como heno en todos los sistemas productivos de leche y carne. En este
ensayo se contrastan dos fechas de siembra (mediados de noviembre y mediados de
diciembre) de los tres cultivares de moha disponibles en Argentina (Yaguané
Plus INTA, Carapé Plus INTA y Nará INTA), en dos ciclos (2022/2023 y
2023/2024). El ensayo se realizó en la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias de la
Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Mendoza (33°00’38” S y 68°52’28” O). Se
obtuvieron rendimientos superiores a los 14.000 kg MS/ha de moha en el oasis
norte de Mendoza, observándose diferencias significativas de rendimiento entre
fechas de siembra (la siembra de diciembre rindió más que la de noviembre) y
entre cultivares (Nará INTA rindió más que los otros cultivares).
Palabras clave: Setaria italica, forraje,
rendimiento, zona árida
Originales: Recepción: 05/08/2024 - Aceptación: 14/10/2025
Introduction
Foxtail millet Setaria
italica (L.) P. Beauvois is an annual summer forage crop primarily
grown for haymaking in Argentina. Renewed interest in this crop is linked to
climate change and the need for drought-tolerant varieties. Foxtail millet is
known for its efficient use of resources, particularly water (Srikanya et al., 2020). It also helps suppress
weeds within agroecosystems. Furthermore, its short growing season (2-3
months), high photosynthetic efficiency as a C4 plant, and resistance to pests
and diseases make it a suitable forage crop (Shanthi et
al., 2017; Yang et al., 2016).
According to the
Censo Nacional Agropecuario 2018 (INDEC, 2021),
Argentina cultivates approximately 1.6 million hectares of annual summer forage
grasses. Of this total, 60,000 hectares are dedicated to foxtail millet,
primarily in the provinces of Córdoba, Buenos Aires, and Santa Fe, mostly under
rainfed conditions. It ranks third among cultivated summer green crops after
corn and sorghum. Previous trials in the northern Mendoza oasis have shown high
yields of corn and sorghum silage. However, both species require over three
months from sowing to harvest, while consuming over 550 mm of water per cycle (Ibarguren et al., 2020; Rebora et al., 2018).
In contrast, foxtail millet requires less water and has a shorter cycle, making
it potentially suitable as a preceding crop for alfalfa and winter greens (Sardiña and Diez, 2016). Additionally, foxtail millet
is an energy-rich forage mainly providing effective fiber in milk and meat
production systems. Additionally, given its short growing cycle and the
consequent flexible sowing period, this crop also fits rotation plans. As a
megathermic grass, soil temperatures should be approximately 18-20°C for rapid
emergence, subjecting sowing times to regional climatic conditions (Curia, 2018). In Bordenave, southern Buenos Aires, the
recommended sowing period is November to December (Bolletta
et al., 2009). INTA Pergamino suggest the second half of November as
optimal, while Rafaela, in Santa Fe, might benefit from sowing in the first
half of November (Mattera et al., 2016).
Therefore, thermal requirements dictate an environment-dependent sowing period
to ensure optimal forage quality for haymaking.
INTA has developed three improved foxtail millet cultivars of
national origin: a) Yaguané Plus INTA, well-suited for haymaking with high dry
matter production and a plant structure with few tillers and wide blades. It
performs best in high-productivity environments. b) Carapé Plus INTA offers
greater potential and performance stability in less productive environments
while maintaining high forage quality. Its good regrowth capacity makes it
ideal for direct grazing. It is also well-suited for hay production due to its
rapid dry matter accumulation, fine stems, and high leaf proportion. C) Nará
INTA yields 20-30% more than the other Argentine cultivars, primarily due to
its slightly longer growing cycle (10-15 days). This cultivar is tolerant to
lodging and disease. Visually, Nará INTA is distinguished by reddish color in
various plant parts and orange seeds (Carta et al.,
2017; Mich, 2020).
Considering absent
scientific references regarding foxtail millet cultivation in irrigated oases
in Mendoza, this study aims to generate information on suitable sowing dates
for the northern oasis, performance of available cultivars, water requirements,
and potential yields.
We hypothesized
that yield and cycle duration would vary depending on cultivar and sowing dates
under irrigated conditions. Our objectives were to evaluate dry matter (DM)
yield per hectare for three foxtail millet cultivars across different sowing
dates and under irrigated conditions, determine cycle duration for each
cultivar and sowing date combination, quantify water needs, and determine
forage quality during the cycle 2022/2023.
Materials
and Methods
The experiment was
conducted at the Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo,
in Luján de Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina (33°00’38” S and 68°52’28” W). The site
has alluvial soil with a silty loam texture and limited vertical development.
Average annual temperature is 16.5°C, relative humidity is 50%, and
precipitation averages 225 mm per year.
During the spring
seasons of 2022 and 2023, three foxtail millet cultivars (Yaguané Plus INTA,
Carapé Plus INTA, and Nará INTA) were sown on two dates: mid-November and
mid-December. Each experimental plot was 5 m² and consisted of five 5-meter
rows spaced 0.20 m. Sowing density was 700 viable seeds per m² (equivalent to
20 kg/ha). Urea was applied at a rate of 150 kg/ha at sowing time. The
experiment used a completely randomized design (CRD), resulting in 18
experimental plots (3 cultivars x 2 sowing dates x 3 replicates).
The trial was
irrigated using a center pivot sprinkler system, with an average daily sheet of
approximately 5 mm.
Weeds were
controlled manually. Harvest occurred at panicle stage, with a cutting height
of 10 cm above the ground. The three central rows of each experimental plot
were harvested, discarding 0.5 m from each end. Fresh weight of the harvested
material was measured. Then, 200 g samples from each plot were oven-dried at
65°C until constant weight. Forage quality was evaluated in the first year of
sowing (2022) for each treatment combination (cultivar * sowing date) by
spectrophotometry at the FEEDLAB laboratory of Biofarma S.A. Total digestible
nutrients, metabolizable energy, dry matter, crude protein, neutral detergent
fiber, acid detergent fiber, and DM digestibility were determined. The analysis
was performed on combined samples from the three replicates of each
cultivar-sowing date combination in the 2022/2023 cycle.
Forage yield and
kgDM/mm (rain + irrigation) data were subjected to ANOVA using Infostat
software. The model included cultivars, sowing date, and crop cycle as fixed
effects. Tukey’s test was used for means comparison.
Results
An initial General Linear Model (GLM) was fitted, including
second and third-order interactions. In this full model, only the cultivar ×
crop cycle interaction was significant (p < 0.05). A second model adjustment
was performed, iteratively removing non-significant interactions. The cultivar
× crop cycle interaction remained in the simplified model, showing a marginal
significance level (p=0.05). Although this borderline value suggests a possible
genotype × environment interaction over the cycles, its effect was weaker than
the main effects. Significant differences (p=0.0001) were found among
cultivars, with Nará INTA yielding more than Carapé Plus INTA and Yagané Plus
INTA (figure 1).
Figure
1. Average dry matter of foxtail millet cultivars
across two growing cycles and two sowing dates.
Figura
1. Rendimiento de materia seca de
cultivares de moha, promedio de dos ciclos de cultivo y dos fechas de siembra.
Likewise, significant differences (p=0.0112) were observed
between sowing dates, with mid-December showing a higher yield than
mid-November (figure 2).
Figure
2. Average dry matter of foxtail millet considering two
productive cycles and three cultivars at different sowing dates.
Figura
2. Rendimiento de materia seca de
moha, en distintas fechas de siembra, promedio de dos ciclos productivos y tres
cultivares.
Tables 1 and 2, show yield information for the two crop cycles (2022/2023 and
2023/2024).
Table 1. Sowing
date, harvest date, days from sowing to harvest, forage production (kg DM/ha),
rainwater and irrigation during the cycle, DM production per mm of water (rain
plus irrigation) for each cultivar and sowing date combination in the 2022/2023
crop cycle, Luján de Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina.
Tabla
1. Fecha de siembra, fecha de cosecha,
días desde siembra hasta cosecha, producción de forraje (kg MS/ha), mm de agua
de lluvia y mm de agua aplicada por riego durante el ciclo, producción de MS
por mm de agua (lluvia más riego), para cada combinación de cultivar de moha y
fecha de siembra, ciclo productivo 2022/2023, Luján de Cuyo, Mendoza,
Argentina.
*
kg DM/mm (rain + irrigation).
* kg
MS/mm (lluvia + riego).
Table 2. Sowing
date, harvest date, days from sowing to harvest, forage production (kg DM/ha),
rainwater and irrigation during the cycle, DM production per mm of water (rain
plus irrigation) for each cultivar and sowing date combination in 2023/2024,
Luján de Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina.
Tabla
2. Fecha de siembra, fecha de cosecha,
días desde siembra hasta cosecha, producción de forraje (kg MS/ha), mm de agua
de lluvia y mm de agua aplicada por riego durante el ciclo, producción de MS
por mm de agua (lluvia más riego) para cada combinación de cultivar de moha y
fecha de siembra, ciclo productivo 2023/2024, Luján de Cuyo, Mendoza,
Argentina.
*
kg DM/mm (rain + irrigation).
* kg
MS/mm (lluvia + riego).
Yields in our oasis exceeded those obtained in some dryland
environments in Argentina. Nará standed as the most productive cultivar across
these contrasting environments. Trials in various sites of the Argentine Pampas
region (Bolivar, Pergamino, Concepción del Uruguay, Rafaela, Manfredi)
indicated Nará INTA yields the highest values, from 7.92 to 10.97 T DM/ ha.
Yaguané Plus INTA yielded between 6.05 and 8.25 T DM/ha, ranking second in
Bolivar, Pergamino, and Rafaela. Carapé Plus INTA yielded between 6.38 and 8.10
T DM/ha in the mentioned places, but exceeded Yaguané Plus INTA in Concepción
del Uruguay and Manfredi (Velazco, 2020).
Table
3, shows quality data for each cultivar by sowing date combination, during
the 2022-2023 cycle.
Table 3. Forage
quality variables for each cultivar combination by sowing date (1=mid-November
and 2=mid-December) in the 2022/2023 cycle.
Tabla
3. Variables de calidad de forraje
para cada combinación de cultivar y fecha de siembra (1=mediados de noviembre y
2=mediados de diciembre) en el ciclo 2022/2023.
Total
digestible nutrients (TDN), metabolizable energy (Energy), dry matter (DM),
crude protein, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and
DM digestibility (%)= 88.9 - (%FDA * 0.779).
Nutrientes
digestibles totales (NDT), energía metabolizable (Energía), materia seca (MS),
proteína cruda, fibra detergente neutro (FDN), fibra detergente ácido (FDA) y
digestibilidad de MS (digestibilidad (%) = 88,9 - (%FDA * 0,779).
Foxtail millet is a highly palatable crop with good
nutritional value. The literature reports crude protein (CP) values of 10-12%
and digestibility exceeding 60% for cuts made between flowering and milky/pasty
grain stages (Fernández Mayer et al., 2009).
Field trials across
several locations and cycles found average digestibility of 65.2% for Carapé
Plus INTA, 64.8% for Nará INTA, and 63.5% for Yaguané Plus INTA (Velazco, 2020). In our study, however, CP values ranged
from 5.15 to 10.03% and digestibility fell between 47% and 58%. These lower
values could be explained by the phenological state at the time of cutting,
which in our case occurred at panicle stage. Anticipating harvest could improve
forage quality.
Conclusions
High yields of foxtail millet were obtained in the northern
oasis of Mendoza. Sowing in December produced more forage than in November for
three cultivars tested. Nará INTA was the most productive cultivar on both
sowing dates. Additionally, December sowing resulted in the highest water use
efficiency (yield vs. water). Therefore, sowing foxtail millet in
mid-December is recommended for the study area.
Acknowledgments
To the company CEREAGRO for providing the seed of the cultivars
used in the Project, to the FCA field staff, and to the Agr. Engineer. Juan
Manuel Moreno (Salto de las Rosas S.A.) for his support in forage quality
determinations.
Bolletta, A.,
Venanzi, S., Kruger, H., Lagrande, S., & Larrea, D. (2009). Mijo y Moha:
Generalidades, Producción y Calidad. Producción Animal.
https://www.produccion-animal.com.ar/
produccion_y_manejo_pasturas/pasturas%20artificiales/182-Mijo_y_ Moha.pdf
Carta, H.,
Richmond, P., Perez, G., Torrens Baudrix, L., & Camarasa, J. (2017). Moha,
una forrajera versátil. Experiencias en el centro oeste de Buenos Aires. Revista
Técnica Agropecuaria, 10(35), 36-38.
Curia, J. (2018).
Moha, una muy buena opción. Producción Animal. https://www.produccion-animal.
com.ar/produccion_y_manejo_pasturas/pasturas%20 artificiales/229-Moha.pdf
Fernández Mayer,
A., Lagrange, S., Bolletta, A., Tulesi, M. (2009). Calidad nutricional en
diferentes estados de madurez de moha y mijo para heno o silaje de planta
entera. https://www. produccion-animal.com.ar/produccion_y_manejo_reservas/reservas_
henos/37-calidad_ nutricional_moha_mijo.pdf
Ibarguren, L.,
Rebora, C., Bertona, A., & Antonini, C. (2020). Sorghum silage production
in the northern oasis of Mendoza, Argentina. Revista de la Facultad de
Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, 52(1), 121–127.
https://revistas.uncu.edu.ar/ojs3/index.php/RFCA/ article/view/2983/2614
INDEC. (2021). Censo
Nacional Agropecuario 2018. Resultados definitivos. Ministerio de Economía
Argentina. 747 p. https://www. indec.gob.ar/ftp/cuadros/economia/cna2018_resultados_definitivos.pdf
Mattera, J., Martinez, E., Romero, L., & Velazco, J. (2016).
Evaluación productiva de moha bajo diferentes manejos agronómicos en dos
ambientes de la región pampeana. Revista Técnica Agropecuaria, 10(32),
44-46.
Mich, L. (2020).
Moha forrajera, un cultivo de verano estratégico ante la incertidumbre
climática. Repositorio INTA. https://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/bitstream/
handle/20.500.12123/8127/ INTA_CRBsAsNorte_EEAPergamino_Velazco_Julio_
Moha_forrajera_un_cultivo_de_verano_ estrategico_ante_incertidumbre_climatica. pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Rebora, C.,
Ibarguren, L., Barros, A., Bertona, A., Antonini, C., Arenas, F., Calderón, M.,
& Guerrero, D. (2018). Producción de maíces sileros en el oasis norte de
Mendoza, Argentina. Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad
Nacional de Cuyo, 50(2), 369–375. https:// revistas.uncu.edu.ar/
ojs3/index.php/RFCA/article/view/2969/2121
Sardiña, C., &
Diez, M. (2016). Evaluación de moha (Setaria italica) con y sin fertilización
nitrogenada en siembra tardía. En Memoria Técnica 2015-2016, (p. 72-73).
INTA.
Shanthi, P., Radha
Kumari, C., Niveditha, M., Pavan Kumar Reddy, P., & Sahadeva Reddy, B.
(2017). Genetic Variability Studies in Italian Millet (Setaria italica (L.)
Beauv) cultivars under Rainfed conditions in Scarce Rainfall Zone of Andhra
Pradesh. The Andhra Agricultural Journal, 64(2), 330-334.
Srikanya, B.,
Revathi, P., Malla Reddy, M., & Chandrashaker, K. (2020). Effect of Sowing
Dates on Growth and Yield of Foxtail Millet (Setaria italica L.)
cultivars. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied
Sciences, 9(4).
Velazco, J. (2020).
El tiempo de la moha. En ON24 | Información Precisa. Periodismo en serio.
Agroempresario. Recuperado de https://agroempresario.com/publicacion/25833/el-tiempo-de-la-moha/
Yang, Q., Yu, Z., Guimei, C., Panpan, Z., Hui, S., & Baili,
F. (2016). Water use efficiency of foxtail millet (Panicum italicum L.)
under climate change conditions in northwest regions of China. Agrociencia,
50, 665-676.