<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.1 20151215//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/1.1/JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.1" specific-use="sps-1.9" xml:lang="en" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
	<front>
		<journal-meta>
			<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">cjas</journal-id>
			<journal-title-group>
				<journal-title>Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science</journal-title>
				<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">Cuban J. Agric. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
			</journal-title-group>
			<issn pub-type="epub">2079-3480</issn>
			<publisher>
				<publisher-name>Ediciones ICA</publisher-name>
			</publisher>
		</journal-meta>
		<article-meta>
			<article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">00010</article-id>
			<article-categories>
				<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
					<subject>PASTURE SCIENCE</subject>
				</subj-group>
			</article-categories>
			<title-group>
				<article-title>Yield components and bromatological composition of three <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> cultivars in Guayas area, Ecuador</article-title>
			</title-group>
			<contrib-group>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Méndez-Martínez</surname>
						<given-names>Y.</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Reyes-Pérez</surname>
						<given-names>J. J.</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Luna-Murillo</surname>
						<given-names>R. A.</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Verdecia</surname>
						<given-names>D.M.</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref>
					<xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c1">*</xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Rivero-Herrada</surname>
						<given-names>Marisol</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Montenegro-Vivas</surname>
						<given-names>L.B.</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Herrera</surname>
						<given-names>R.S.</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
			</contrib-group>
			<aff id="aff1">
				<label>1</label>
				<institution content-type="original">Facultad Ciencias Pecuarias, Universidad Técnica Estatal de Quevedo (UTEQ), Quevedo, Los Ríos, Ecuador</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgdiv1">Facultad Ciencias Pecuarias</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgname">Universidad Técnica Estatal de Quevedo (UTEQ)</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<city>Quevedo</city>
					<state>Los Ríos</state>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="EC">Ecuador</country>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff2">
				<label>2</label>
				<institution content-type="original">Universidad Técnica de Cotopaxi (UTC), Extención La Maná, La Maná, Los Ríos, Ecuador</institution>
				<institution content-type="normalized">Universidad Técnica de Cotopaxi</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgname">Universidad Técnica de Cotopaxi (UTC)</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgdiv1">Extención La Maná</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<city>La Maná</city>
					<state>Los Ríos</state>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="EC">Ecuador</country>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff3">
				<label>3</label>
				<institution content-type="original">Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad de Granma, Apartado Postal 21, Bayamo, C.P. 85 100, Granma, Cuba</institution>
				<institution content-type="normalized">Universidad de Granma</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgdiv1">Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgname">Universidad de Granma</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<city>Bayamo</city>
					<postal-code>85 100</postal-code>
					<state>Granma</state>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="CU">Cuba</country>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff4">
				<label>4</label>
				<institution content-type="original">Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Apartado Postal 24, San José de las Lajas, Mayabeque, Cuba</institution>
				<institution content-type="normalized">Instituto de Ciencia Animal</institution>
				<institution content-type="orgname">Instituto de Ciencia Animal</institution>
				<addr-line>
					<city>San José de las Lajas</city>
					<state>Mayabeque</state>
				</addr-line>
				<country country="CU">Cuba</country>
			</aff>
			<author-notes>
				<corresp id="c1">
					<label>*</label>Email: <email>dverdeciaa@udg.co.cu</email>
				</corresp>
			</author-notes>
			<pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic">
				<day>05</day>
				<month>12</month>
				<year>2019</year>
			</pub-date>
			<pub-date date-type="collection" publication-format="electronic">
				<month>12</month>
				<year>2019</year>
			</pub-date>
			<volume>53</volume>
			<issue>4</issue>
			<fpage>437</fpage>
			<lpage>446</lpage>
			<history>
				<date date-type="received">
					<day>06</day>
					<month>06</month>
					<year>2019</year>
				</date>
				<date date-type="accepted">
					<day>20</day>
					<month>06</month>
					<year>2019</year>
				</date>
			</history>
			<permissions>
				<license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" xml:lang="en">
					<license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License</license-p>
				</license>
			</permissions>
			<abstract>
				<title>ABSTRACT</title>
				<p>With the objective of evaluating the yield components and bromatological composition of three <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> cultivars in Guayas area, Ecuador at different regrowth ages, the research was carried out, following a random block design with factorial arrangement (3x3) with five replications. The productivity (yields of total dry matter, leaves, stem and biomass), morphological components (plant height, length and width of leaves, number of leaves and stems) were studied; as well as the contents of DM, CP, NDF, ADF, ADL, cellulose (Cel), hemicellulose (Hcel), cellular content (CC), P, Ca, ash, OM, DMD, OMD, ME, LNE and the relations NDF-N and ADF-N at the ages of 21, 42 and 63 days. Analysis of variance was performed according to experimental design. The highest yields of DM and biomass were obtained in Tanzania at 63 days of regrowth (2.74 and 8.25 t/ha, respectively). The highest DM and biomass yields were obtained in Tanzania at 63 days of regrowth (4.18 and 12 t/ha, respectively). The CP and CC decreased with the maturity of the plant and the best values were obtained in Tanzania at 21 days of regrowth (15.67 and 62.16 %, respectively), while the components of the cell wall increased with age and Tanzania showed the best values. There was significant interaction between varieties and maturity (P &lt;0.0001) for all indicators. It is concluded that the studied varieties show adequate productive performance under conditions of low rainfalls. The Tanzania and Tobiata cultivars are a good option to replace the food deficit during the dry period due to its higher proportion of leaves, better relations NDF-N and ADF-N that give it higher quality.</p>
			</abstract>
			<kwd-group xml:lang="en">
				<title>Key words:</title>
				<kwd><italic>yield</italic></kwd>
				<kwd><italic>regrowth age</italic></kwd>
				<kwd><italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic></kwd>
				<kwd><italic>chemical composition</italic></kwd>
				<kwd><italic>digestibility</italic></kwd>
				<kwd><italic>energy</italic></kwd>
			</kwd-group>
			<counts>
				<fig-count count="0"/>
				<table-count count="12"/>
				<equation-count count="0"/>
				<ref-count count="27"/>
				<page-count count="10"/>
			</counts>
		</article-meta>
	</front>
	<body>
		<sec sec-type="intro">
			<title>INTRODUCTION</title>
			<p>Grasses are an appropriate source of nutrients, mainly in tropical countries; due to the number of species that can be used for this purpose, possibility of growing them all year, the ruminant ability to use forages; as well as non-competition as food for human. However, its low quality affects the obtaining of adequate productive results and its adaptability to prevailing environmental conditions in the various ecosystems, are some of the causes that limit the development of livestock (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Abril <italic>et al.</italic> 2017</xref>).</p>
			<p>To mitigate this situation, great efforts have been made in the introduction of new species and varieties with better performances. However, its growth, productivity and quality are unknown as the age of the plant increases in the current climatic conditions of Ecuador (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">Méndez-Martínez <italic>et al</italic>. 2018</xref>).</p>
			<p><italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> is a plant perfectly adapted to tropical conditions, although its production potential is affected by the prevailing environmental factors, when it is subjected to repeated cuts and nutrients that are extracted based on biomass production are not restored (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">Brant <italic>et al.</italic> 2017</xref>).</p>
			<p>The study of the agro-productive and nutritive potentials of three <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> cultivars (v. Common, Tanzania and Tobiata) introduced in Guayas area, Ecuador, in various edaphoclimatic conditions is of great importance, especially because of the great expectations that have been created by its greater agro- productivity and wide range of adaptation to different climatic regions, drought tolerance and its adaptability to a wide range of soils. These elements are very useful for the different specialists of the livestock branch of the region where these species are extended for its use in forage balances. Hence the objective of this study was to evaluate the yield components and bromatological composition of three <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> cultivars in Guayas area, Ecuador at different regrowth ages.</p>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="materials|methods">
			<title>MATERIALS AND METHODS</title>
			<p><italic>Location.</italic> This research was carried out at the El Mamey farm, located in El Ají sector, Guayas Parish, Guayas province. Ecuador. It is located between the geographical coordinates 01 ° 00´ of south latitude and 79° 30 of west longitude at 75 m o.s.l. The study was developed in the period between July-September (dry season) of 2015.</p>
			<p><italic>Agrometeorological conditions.</italic> The climate of the territory is classified as humid subtropical (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">García 2004</xref>), with rainfalls of 117.2mm during the experimental period. The average, maximum and minimum temperature was: 23.87; 29.17 and 21.03°C; relative humidity 79 %, indicators that are within the range of the historical average until 2014 (116.32 mm; 22.4; 29.52; 21.1°C for the average, maximum and minimum temperature, respectively and 75.6 % relative humidity) the soil in the area is Inceptisol (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Soil Survey Staff 2003</xref>) and its chemical composition is in <xref ref-type="table" rid="t1">table 1</xref>.</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t1">
					<label>Table 1</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Characteristics of the soil</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="justify">Indicator</th>
								<th align="center">Value</th>
								<th align="center">SD±</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">pH</td>
								<td align="center">5.47</td>
								<td align="center">0.03</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">N, cmolc kg<sup>-1</sup></td>
								<td align="center">1.50</td>
								<td align="center">0.05</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">P, cmolc kg<sup>-1</sup></td>
								<td align="center">5.1</td>
								<td align="center">0.2</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">K, cmolc kg<sup>-1</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.54</td>
								<td align="center">0.01</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Ca, cmolc kg<sup>-1</sup></td>
								<td align="center">1.50</td>
								<td align="center">0.05</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Mg, cmolc kg<sup>-1</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.80</td>
								<td align="center">0.046</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Sand, %</td>
								<td align="center">24.00</td>
								<td align="center">2.646</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Loam, %</td>
								<td align="center">56.00</td>
								<td align="center">2.65</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">Clay,%</td>
								<td align="center">20.00</td>
								<td align="center">3.46</td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
			<p><italic>Treatment and experimental design.</italic> A randomized block design with factorial arrangement (3x3) was used: three <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> cultivars (Common, Tanzania and Tobiata) and three regrowth ages (21, 42 and 63 days) and five replications.</p>
			<p><italic>Procedure.</italic> The experimental plots (5x5 = 25m<sup>2</sup>) were sowing in February 2015 of <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> cultivars Common, Tanzania and Tobiata at a distance of 50 cm between rows and 20 cm between plants. The plants had a period of establishment until July, where the uniformity cut was made. From there, samplings at 21, 42 and 63 days of regrowth were made, eliminating 50 cm of border effect and cutting all the material from the harvestable area at 10 cm above soil level. The biomass production, yield in total dry matter, leaves and stems, number of leaves and stems (by bunch), as well as the length and width of leaves were evaluated (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Herrera 2006</xref>). Then two kilograms (two samples) were taken for each of the treatments and for replication for further analysis in the laboratory. </p>
			<p>Only irrigation was used to facilitate germination and establishment, and no fertilization or chemical treatment was used to eliminate weeds. At the beginning of the experiment, the population of the varieties in the plots was 97 %.</p>
			<p><italic>Determination of chemical composition</italic>. The DM, CP, ash, OM, P, Ca were determined according to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">AOAC (2016)</xref>; NDF, ADF, ADL, cellulose (Cel), hemicellulose (Hcel) and cellular content (CC) according to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Goering and Van Soest (1970)</xref>; the digestibility of dry matter was quantified by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">Aumont <italic>et al.</italic> (1995</xref>) and the metabolizable energy and net lactation energy were established according to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">Cáceres and González (2000)</xref>. All analyzes were performed in duplicate and by replication.</p>
			<p><italic>Statistical analyais and calculations</italic>. Analysis of variance was performed according to the experimental design and mean values were compared using <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Duncan (1955)</xref> multiple range test. For the normal distribution of the data the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Massey 1951</xref>) test was used and for the variances the <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Bartlett (1937)</xref> test.</p>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="results">
			<title>RESULTS</title>
			<p>The best results of the productive indicators (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t2">table 2</xref>) were for Tanzania cultivar at 63 days with 2.74; 1.51; 1.23 and 8.25 t/ha for the total yield of leaves, stems and biomass, respectively. With interaction variety x regrowth age (P &lt;0.0001) in all the studied indicators.</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t2">
					<label>Table 2</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Yield indicators of three <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> varieties</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col span="3"/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="justify" rowspan="2">Age, days</th>
								<th align="center" colspan="3">Varieties </th>
								<th align="center" rowspan="2">SE<sup>1</sup> ±</th>
								<th align="center" rowspan="2">P</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="center">Common</th>
								<th align="center">Tanzania</th>
								<th align="center">Tobiata</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Dry matter , t/ha </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">0.16<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.24<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.15<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.008</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">0.50<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">1.25<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.61<sup>e</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">1.05<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">2.74<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">1.48<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Biomass, t/ha </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">0.95<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center">1.06<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.96<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.011</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">2.07<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">4.26<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">3.68<sup>d</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">3.67<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">8.25<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">5.25<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Leaves, t/ha </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">0.12<sup>h</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.19<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.11<sup>h</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.005</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify"> </td>
								<td align="center">0.30<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.83<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.37<sup>e</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">0.50<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">1.51<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.77<sup>c</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Stems, t/ha </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">0.04<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.05<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.04<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.004</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">0.20<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.42<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.24<sup>e</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">0.55<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">1.23<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.71<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN1">
							<p><sup>abcdefg</sup>Values with different letters differ at P&lt;0.05 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Duncan 1955</xref>)</p>
						</fn>
						<fn id="TFN2">
							<p><sup>1</sup>SE, standard error of the interaction variety x age</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
			<p>There were variety x regrowth age interactions for all morphological indicators (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t3">table 3</xref>). Where with 1.17m; 125.50; 75.50; 0.99 and 0.042m, Tanzania at 63 days showed the highest results for height, number of leaves, number of stems, leaf length and leaf width, respectively.</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t3">
					<label>Table 3</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Morphological components of three <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> varieties</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col span="3"/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="justify" rowspan="2">Age, days</th>
								<th align="center" colspan="3">Varieties </th>
								<th align="center" rowspan="2">SE<sup>1</sup> ±</th>
								<th align="center" rowspan="2">P</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="center">Common</th>
								<th align="center">Tanzania</th>
								<th align="center">Tobiata</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Height, m </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">0.74<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.78<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.75<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.010</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">0.83<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.96<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.86<sup>c</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">0.94<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">1.17<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.98<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Number of leaves </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">27.25<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center">26.50<sup>h</sup></td>
								<td align="center">25.50<sup>h</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.057</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">52.75<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">58.25<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">56.00<sup>e</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">77.00<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">125.50<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">106.00<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Number of stems </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">12.50<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">17.50e</td>
								<td align="center">16.50e</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.692</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">27.25<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">39.00c</td>
								<td align="center">29.50d</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">35.50<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">75.50a</td>
								<td align="center">66.50b</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Leaf lenght , m </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">0.37<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.43<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.39<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.007</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">0.43<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.58<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.53<sup>d</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">0.86<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.99<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.93<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Leaf width , m </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">0.021<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.027<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.027<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.001</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.044</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">0.028<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.035<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.034<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">0.033<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.042<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.038<sup>a</sup></td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN3">
							<p><sup>abcdefgh</sup>Values with different letters differ at P&lt;0.05 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Duncan 1955</xref>)</p>
						</fn>
						<fn id="TFN4">
							<p><sup>1</sup>SE, standard error of the interaction variety x age</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
			<p>The crude protein and cell content at 21 days with 15.67 and 62.16 % showed the best results for Tanzanian and Common cultivars. While for the latter variety the cell wall components (NDF, ADF, ADL and Cel) were increased with the regrowth age with 69.35; 35.74; 5.63 and 30.10 %, respectively. The highest hemicellulose content (33.96 %) was recorded at 63 days in Tobiata (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t4">table 4</xref>)</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t4">
					<label>Table 4</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Protein content and fibrous fractionation of three <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> varieties </title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col span="3"/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="justify" rowspan="2">Age, days</th>
								<th align="center" colspan="3">Varieties </th>
								<th align="center" rowspan="2">SE<sup>1</sup> ±</th>
								<th align="center" rowspan="2">P</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="center">Common</th>
								<th align="center">Tanzania</th>
								<th align="center">Tobiata</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Dry matter, % </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">19.66<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center">21.54<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">23.76<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.012</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">27.24<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">28.35<sup>cd</sup></td>
								<td align="center">29.16<sup>c</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">31.87<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">30.46<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">33.64<sup>a</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Crude protein , % </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">11.87<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">15.67<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">11.48<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.008</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">10.33<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">12.52<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">10.83<sup>d</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">9.13<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center">9.37<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">9.23<sup>g</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Neutral detergent fiber , % </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">37.84<sup>h</sup></td>
								<td align="center">43.48<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">39.66<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.014</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">55.16<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">53.54<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">55.77<sup>d</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">69.35<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">65.25<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">67.33<sup>c</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Acid detergent fiber , % </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">19.27<sup>h</sup></td>
								<td align="center">22.66<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center">25.53<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.009</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">30.56<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">29.36<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">30.83<sup>d</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">35.74<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">32.74<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">33.37<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Acid detergent lignin, % </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">2.43<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center">2.14<sup>h</sup></td>
								<td align="center">2.33<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.011</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">4.13<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">3.78<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">4.55<sup>d</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">5.63<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">4.67<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">5.26<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Cellulose, % </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">16.85<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center">20.53<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">23.19<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.014</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">26.43<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">25.58<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">26.28<sup>c</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">30.10<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">28.07<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">28.12<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Hemicellulose, % </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">18.57<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">20.81<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">14.14<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.016</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">24.60<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">24.18<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">24.94<sup>c</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">33.61<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">32.52<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">33.96<sup>a</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Cell content , % </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">62.16<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">56.62<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">60.34<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.014</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">44.84<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">46.46<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">44.23<sup>e</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">30.65<sup>h</sup></td>
								<td align="center">34.75<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">32.67<sup>g</sup></td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN5">
							<p><sup>abcdefgh</sup>Values with different letters differ at P&lt;0.05 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Duncan 1955</xref>)</p>
						</fn>
						<fn id="TFN6">
							<p><sup>1</sup>SE, standard error of the interaction variety x age</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
			<p>For the content of ash, minerals and organic matter (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t5">table 5</xref>) there was interaction (P &lt;0.0001) variety x regrowth age. With the highest percentages of ashes at 63 days (16.84) and 42 d P (0.37%) for Tobiata variety; while Ca (0.78 %) corresponded to Tanzania with 63 d and for Common with 21 days of regrowth OM (89.67 %).</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t5">
					<label>Table 5</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Minerals and organic matter of three Megathyrsus <italic>maximus</italic> varieties</title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col span="3"/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="justify" rowspan="2">Age, days</th>
								<th align="center" colspan="3">Varieties </th>
								<th align="center" rowspan="2">SE<sup>1</sup> ±</th>
								<th align="center" rowspan="2">P</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="center">Common</th>
								<th align="center">Tanzania</th>
								<th align="center">Tobiata</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Ashes, % </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">10.33<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">12.50<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">12.63<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.01</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">13.14<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">13.55<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">14.39<sup>c</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">15.45<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">15.75<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">16.84<sup>a</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Calcium, % </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">0.47<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.57<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.56<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.01</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">0.73<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.63<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.72<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">0.67<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.78<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.69<sup>c</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Phosphorus, % </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">0.023<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.027<sup>cd</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.026<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.001</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">0.033<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.028<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.037<sup>a</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">0.036<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.033<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">0.034<sup>b</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Organic matter , % </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">89.67<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">87.50<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">87.37<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.01</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">86.86<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">86.46<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">85.61<sup>d</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">84.55<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">84.24<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">83.16<sup>f</sup></td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN7">
							<p><sup>abcdef</sup>Values with different letters differ at P&lt;0.05 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Duncan 1955</xref>)</p>
						</fn>
						<fn id="TFN8">
							<p><sup>1</sup>SE, standard error of the interaction variety x age</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
			<p>For the quality indicators (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t6">table 6</xref>) there was variability between cultivars as forage maturity advanced for NDF/N, ADF/N advanced, DMD, OMD, ME and FNE relations. The best results were for Tanzania variety of 17.35 and 9.04 % at 21 days in NDF/N and ADF/N relations, the DMD and OMD (53.83; 54.32 %) at 21 days for Common and Tobiata cultivars, the energy contribution 7.97 and 4.55 MJ/kg (ME, FNE) at 21 days was better for the Common.</p>
			<p>
				<table-wrap id="t6">
					<label>Table 6</label>
					<caption>
						<title>Quality indicators of three <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> varieties </title>
					</caption>
					<table>
						<colgroup>
							<col/>
							<col span="3"/>
							<col/>
							<col/>
						</colgroup>
						<thead>
							<tr>
								<th align="justify" rowspan="2">Age, days</th>
								<th align="center" colspan="3">Varieties </th>
								<th align="center" rowspan="2">SE<sup>1</sup> ±</th>
								<th align="center" rowspan="2">P</th>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<th align="center">Common</th>
								<th align="center">Tanzania</th>
								<th align="center">Tobiata</th>
							</tr>
						</thead>
						<tbody>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">NDF/N relation </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">19.52<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">17.35<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">21.60<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.029</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">33.36<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">26.72<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">32.19<sup>e</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">47.50<sup>i</sup></td>
								<td align="center">43.52<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center">45.60<sup>h</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">ADF/N relation </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">10.15<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">9.04<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">13.90<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.015</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">18.48<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">14.65<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">17.79<sup>e</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">24.46<sup>i</sup></td>
								<td align="center">21.84<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center">22.60<sup>h</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">DM digestibility, % </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">53.83<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">51.35<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">53.03<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.006</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">46.22<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">46.93<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">45.95<sup>d</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">39.97<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center">41.78<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">40.86<sup>f</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">OM digestibility , % </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">55.11<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">52.93<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">54.32<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.005</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">47.63<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">48.48<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">47.40<sup>e</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">41.43<sup>h</sup></td>
								<td align="center">43.21<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">42.31<sup>g</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Metabolizable energy, MJ/kg </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">7.97<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">7.63<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">7.84<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.001</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">6.80<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">6.93<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">6.76<sup>e</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">5.83<sup>g</sup></td>
								<td align="center">6.11<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">5.97<sup>g</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="center" colspan="6">Net lactation energy, MJ/kg </td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">21</td>
								<td align="center">4.55<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center">4.31<sup>b</sup></td>
								<td align="center">4.47<sup>a</sup></td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.001</td>
								<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">42</td>
								<td align="center">3.73<sup>d</sup></td>
								<td align="center">3.83<sup>c</sup></td>
								<td align="center">3.71<sup>d</sup></td>
							</tr>
							<tr>
								<td align="justify">63</td>
								<td align="center">3.05<sup>f</sup></td>
								<td align="center">3.25<sup>e</sup></td>
								<td align="center">3.15<sup>ef</sup></td>
							</tr>
						</tbody>
					</table>
					<table-wrap-foot>
						<fn id="TFN9">
							<p><sup>abcdefgh</sup>Values with different letters differ at P&lt;0.05 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Duncan 1955</xref>)</p>
						</fn>
						<fn id="TFN10">
							<p><sup>1</sup>SE, standard error of the interaction variety x age</p>
						</fn>
					</table-wrap-foot>
				</table-wrap>
			</p>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="discussion">
			<title>DISCUSSION</title>
			<p>The productivity (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t2">table 2</xref>) had a marked effect of the regrowth age. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">Brant <italic>et al.</italic> (2017)</xref> when evaluating the Tanzania cultivar found biomass and dry matter yields of 23 and 8t/ha, respectively, results superior to those obtained in this study. According to <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">Reis <italic>et al.</italic> (2013)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">Bosi <italic>et al</italic>. (2014)</xref> the dry matter production is important to determine the adaptability of the species to the edaphoclimatic conditions. As stated by these authors, the plants depending on their characteristics have different levels of tolerance to these scenarios. However, in other studies where the species were subjected to shade levels up to 50 % show the drastic reduction in forage yield (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Fernández <italic>et al.</italic> 2016</xref>).</p>
			<p>
				<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Velasco <italic>et al.</italic> (2018)</xref>, in Chiapas region, Mexico, reported when evaluating the effect of the regrowth age and the seasonal climatic effect on the yield of Mombasa cultivar higher productions in spring-summer than in autumn-winter (10; 12; 6 and 2 t/ha at 80 days of regrowth), stating that this seasonal performance had a direct relation with the accumulated rainfalls (59.6 mm) and the variations of maximum (32.8°C) and minimum (21.6°C) temperatures. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Lemos <italic>et al.</italic> (2014)</xref>, found in Tanzania cultivar 4.83; 2.33 and 1.52 tDM/ha for total yield, leaves and stems.</p>
			<p>Seasonal and annual growth of morphological components in grass (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t3">table 3</xref>) is directly related to climatic conditions, soil fertility and management practices. The proportion of leaves, stems and roots that are generated by the genotype-environment interaction; these indicators result in forage yield. The knowledge of the influence of seasonality on the growth of species of interest, allows to identify the availability and, consequently, to adopt management strategies (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Ojeda-Quintana <italic>et al.</italic> 2016</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Velasco <italic>et al.</italic> 2018</xref>).</p>
			<p>
				<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Murillo et al. (2014)</xref>, notified for cv. Mombasa increases in height at ages higher than 50 days of regrowth in all seasons of the year, which is related to the restriction of light that occurs in the canopy, when it is higher than 95 % of light interception, shading and basal leaves senescence causes an increase in the proportion of stems and dead material in the meadow. Aspects that coincide with the results obtained by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">Patiño <italic>et al.</italic> (2018)</xref> in Sucre, Colombia. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">Pereira <italic>et al.</italic> (2017)</xref>, found heights for Tanzania and Aries cultivars of 2.66 and 2.62 m and the differences found between this study and the present research are due to the characteristics inherent to each hybrid.</p>
			<p>The chemical composition (table 4) decreased with maturity, with variability among the evaluated varieties. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Fernandes <italic>et al.</italic> (2016)</xref> reported for <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> cv Tanzania fibrous component values (NDF, ADF, ADL) of 73; 37 and 6 % with the increase in the regrowth age, which associated this performance with the increase in the proportion of supportive tissue (stems). While, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Fernandes <italic>et al.</italic> (2014)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">Antonio <italic>et al.</italic> (2018)</xref> in Tanzania and Mombasa found concentrations of DM (15.5-18.8 %); CP (13.9-17.1 %); NDF (71.1-73.6 %); ADF (31.4-34.2 %); Lignin (3.5-5.2 %); Ash (7.9-8.1 %) and OM (85.6-88.4 %), which were influenced by increases on the physiological age of the plant and the levels of structural components of the cell wall.</p>
			<p>On the other hand, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Montalvão <italic>et al.</italic> (2018)</xref> reported contents of CP, NDF, ADF, ADL, HCEL and CEL of 10.2; 70.8; 46.6; 5.8; 24.2 and 40.7 %, respectively. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Mojica-Rodríguez <italic>et al.</italic> (2017)</xref> when evaluating the effect of the regrowth age on the quality of Mombasa and Tanzania cultivars found from 21 to 63 days decrease of the CP from 5.5 to 5.9 percentage units, while for the cell wall there were increases for the NDF and ADF from 9 to 10.5 and 8.2 to 6.4 percentage units.</p>
			<p>Although there was interaction variety x regrowth age for minerals and organic matter (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t5">table 5</xref>), the low values found in this study may be the product of the effect of low rainfalls during the study period (117.2mm) that allow minerals be unavailable to be absorbed by the roots of the plants (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">De Barros <italic>et al.</italic> 2017</xref>). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">Méndez-Martínez <italic>et al.</italic> (2018)</xref> and <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Montalvão <italic>et al.</italic> (2018)</xref> reported similar results with ash percentages (9-14) and OM (85-90) for this species. Concluding that the variability of these indicators depends on the characteristics of each species and the effect of edaphoclimatic conditions.</p>
			<p>The quality (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t6">table 6</xref>) was affected by the increase in the maturity of forages, with decrease in DMD, OMD, ME and LNE; with increases in the relation NDF-N and ADF-N. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Montalvão <italic>et al</italic>. (2018)</xref>, obtained similar results in the relation between the fibrous fraction and nitrogen, stating that at a higher regrowth age there is a decrease in the percentage of leaves and increase in stems, and therefore low CP levels and high components of the cell wall affects the degradation of organic matter and energy contribution due to the lower efficiency of rumen microorganisms. In studies by <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Fernandes <italic>et al.</italic> (2016)</xref> there was a decrease in the dry matter digestibility, influenced by the increase in the fibrous faction and decrease in foliage and, consequently, the quality of biomass. On the other hand, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">Fernandes <italic>et al.</italic> (2014)</xref>, reported for cv Tanzania digestibility of the dry matter and crude protein from 63.66 to 58.04 % and 54.1 to 56.31 %, respectively.</p>
			<p>
				<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">Antonio <italic>et al.</italic> (2018)</xref> reported increases in digestibility of DM, NDF, ADF, ADL, hemicellulose and cellulose of 1.7; 3.1; 4.7; 2.1; 2.3 and 4.6 % when using fibrolytic enzymes in <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> vc Mombasa, stating that cellulose and hemicellulose are fermented by rumen microorganisms easily. However, as the lignin content increases, it joins to carbohydrates and the fermentation degree decreases, which can reach zero, depending on the intensity of lignification. Each type of lignocellulosic complex has a maximum degree of fermentation by microorganisms, and this maximum can be altered when the material is processed. The highest degradation of the fraction when enzymes are used in foods confirms that lignin is a degradation limiting factor.</p>
		</sec>
		<sec sec-type="conclusions">
			<title>CONCLUSIONS</title>
			<p>It is concluded that the studied varieties have an adequate productive performance under conditions of low rainfalls. The Tanzania and Tobiata cultivars are a good option to replace the food deficit during the dry period due to its higher proportion of leaves, better NDF-N and FAD-N relations that give it a higher quality.</p>
		</sec>
	</body>
	<back>
		<ref-list>
			<title>REFERENCES </title>
			<ref id="B1">
				<mixed-citation>Abril, J.L., Roncallo, B. &amp; Bonilla, R. 2017. Efecto de la inoculación con bacterias del género Bacillus sobre el crecimiento de <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> Jacq, en condiciones de estrés hídrico. Rev. Agron. Noroeste Argent. 37 (1): 25-37. ISSN:0080-2069 (impresa). 2314-369X (en línea) </mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Abril</surname>
							<given-names>J.L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Roncallo</surname>
							<given-names>B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Bonilla</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Efecto de la inoculación con bacterias del género Bacillus sobre el crecimiento de Megathyrsus maximus Jacq, en condiciones de estrés hídrico</article-title>
					<source>Rev. Agron. Noroeste Argent.</source>
					<volume>37</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>25</fpage>
					<lpage>37</lpage>
					<issn>0080-2069</issn>
					<issn>2314-369X</issn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B2">
				<mixed-citation>Antonio, G., Gaio, M., Del Valle, T.A., Campana, M. &amp; Gomes, J.P. 2018. Efeitos de enzimas fibrolíticas sobre a degradação in situ da matéria seca e da fibra de forrageiras. Revista Agrarian. 11(42): 363-370. DOI: 10.30612/agrarian.v11i42.7488.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Antonio</surname>
							<given-names>G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Gaio</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Del Valle</surname>
							<given-names>T.A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Campana</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Gomes</surname>
							<given-names>J.P.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year><bold>.</bold><article-title>Efeitos de enzimas fibrolíticas sobre a degradação in situ da matéria seca e da fibra de forrageiras</article-title>
					<source>Revista Agrarian</source>
					<volume>11</volume>
					<issue>42</issue>
					<fpage>363</fpage>
					<lpage>370</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.30612/agrarian.v11i42.7488</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B3">
				<mixed-citation>AOAC. 2016. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 20th ed., Rockville, MD: AOAC International, ISBN: 978-0-935584-87-5, Available: <comment>Available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.directtextbook.com/isbn/9780935584875&amp;gt">http://www.directtextbook.com/isbn/9780935584875&amp;gt</ext-link>
					</comment>, [Consulted: October 10, 2019].</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>AOAC</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2016</year>
					<source>Official methods of analysis of AOAC International</source>
					<edition>20th ed.</edition>
					<publisher-loc>Rockville, MD</publisher-loc>
					<publisher-name>AOAC International</publisher-name>
					<isbn>978-0-935584-87-5</isbn>
					<comment>Available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.directtextbook.com/isbn/9780935584875&amp;gt">http://www.directtextbook.com/isbn/9780935584875&amp;gt</ext-link>
					</comment>
					<date-in-citation content-type="access-date" iso-8601-date="2019-10-10">October 10, 2019</date-in-citation>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B4">
				<mixed-citation>Aumont, G., Caudron, I., Saminadin, G. &amp; Xandé, A. 1995. Sources of variation in nutritive values of tropical forages from the Caribbean. Animal Feed Sci. Tech. 51(1):1-13. http://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(94)00688-6. </mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Aumont</surname>
							<given-names>G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Caudron</surname>
							<given-names>I.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Saminadin</surname>
							<given-names>G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Xandé</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1995</year><bold>.</bold><article-title>Sources of variation in nutritive values of tropical forages from the Caribbean</article-title>
					<source>Animal Feed Sci. Tech.</source>
					<volume>51</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>1</fpage>
					<lpage>13</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/0377-8401(94)00688-6</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B5">
				<mixed-citation>Bartlett, M. 1937. Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. In: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Ser. A; 160(2): 268-282. Available: http://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1937.0109. [Consulted: October 05, 2019].</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Bartlett</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1937</year>
					<article-title>Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests</article-title>
					<source>Proceedings of the Royal Society of London</source>
					<series>Ser. A</series>
					<volume>160</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>268</fpage>
					<lpage>282</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1098/rspa.1937.0109</pub-id>
					<date-in-citation content-type="access-date" iso-8601-date="2019-10-05">October 05, 2019</date-in-citation>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B6">
				<mixed-citation>Bosi, C., Pezzopane, J.R.M., Sentelhas, O.S., Santos, P.M. &amp; Nicodemo, M.L.F. 2014. Produtividade e características biométricas do capim-braquiária em sistema silvipastoril. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 49(4):449-456. ISSN: 1678-3921</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Bosi</surname>
							<given-names>C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Pezzopane</surname>
							<given-names>J.R.M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Sentelhas</surname>
							<given-names>O.S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Santos</surname>
							<given-names>P.M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Nicodemo</surname>
							<given-names>M.L.F.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2014</year>
					<article-title>Produtividade e características biométricas do capim-braquiária em sistema silvipastoril</article-title>
					<source>Pesq. Agropec. Bras.</source>
					<volume>49</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>449</fpage>
					<lpage>456</lpage>
					<issn>1678-3921</issn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B7">
				<mixed-citation>Brant, M.C., Tuffi-Santos, L.D., Freitas, I.C., Frazão, L.A., Silva, M.S.N., Machado, V.D. &amp; Santos, M.V. 2017. Productivity, control, and decomposition of irrigated forage species under glyphosate doses and shading. Planta Daninha. 36:e018175761. Doi: 10.1590/S0100-83582018360100130.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Brant</surname>
							<given-names>M.C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Tuffi-Santos</surname>
							<given-names>L.D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Freitas</surname>
							<given-names>I.C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Frazão</surname>
							<given-names>L.A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Silva</surname>
							<given-names>M.S.N.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Machado</surname>
							<given-names>V.D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Santos</surname>
							<given-names>M.V.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Productivity, control, and decomposition of irrigated forage species under glyphosate doses and shading</article-title>
					<source>Planta Daninha</source>
					<volume>36</volume>
					<elocation-id>e018175761</elocation-id>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1590/S0100-83582018360100130</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B8">
				<mixed-citation>Cáceres, O. &amp; González, E. 2000. Metodología para la determinación del valor nutritivo de los forrajes tropicales. Pastos y Forrajes. 23(1): 87-92. ISSN:0864-0394.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Cáceres</surname>
							<given-names>O.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>González</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2000</year>
					<article-title>Metodología para la determinación del valor nutritivo de los forrajes tropicales</article-title>
					<source>Pastos y Forrajes</source>
					<volume>23</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>87</fpage>
					<lpage>92</lpage>
					<issn>0864-0394</issn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B9">
				<mixed-citation>De Barros, E., Pereira, F.V., Henrique, P., Ferracciú, L.R., Olinda, B. &amp; Alves, E. 2017. Growth of tropical grasses in Oxisol contaminated by nickel. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research. 77(3):273-280. doi:10.4067/S0718-58392017000300273.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>De Barros</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Pereira</surname>
							<given-names>F.V.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Henrique</surname>
							<given-names>P.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ferracciú</surname>
							<given-names>L.R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Olinda</surname>
							<given-names>B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Alves</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Growth of tropical grasses in Oxisol contaminated by nickel</article-title>
					<source>Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research</source>
					<volume>77</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>273</fpage>
					<lpage>280</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4067/S0718-58392017000300273</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B10">
				<mixed-citation>Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple Range and Multiple F Tests. Biometrics. 11 (1): 1-42, ISSN: 0006-341X, DOI:10.2307/3001478.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Duncan</surname>
							<given-names>D. B.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1955</year>
					<article-title>Multiple Range and Multiple F Tests</article-title>
					<source>Biometrics</source>
					<volume>11</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>1</fpage>
					<lpage>42</lpage>
					<issn>0006-341X</issn>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2307/3001478</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B11">
				<mixed-citation>Fernandes, A.M., Deresz, F., Sampaio, D., Ferraz, F.C. &amp; Siqueira, L. 2014. Nutritive value of Tanzania grass for dairy cows under rotational grazing. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 43(8): 410-418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982014000800003.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Fernandes</surname>
							<given-names>A.M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Deresz</surname>
							<given-names>F.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Sampaio</surname>
							<given-names>D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ferraz</surname>
							<given-names>F.C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Siqueira</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2014</year>
					<article-title>Nutritive value of Tanzania grass for dairy cows under rotational grazing</article-title>
					<source>Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia</source>
					<volume>43</volume>
					<issue>8</issue>
					<fpage>410</fpage>
					<lpage>418</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1590/S1516-35982014000800003</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B12">
				<mixed-citation>Fernandes, M.H.M.R., Fernandes, J.S., De Resende, K.T., Bonfa, H.C., Reis, R.A., Ruggieri, A.C., Fernandes, J.J.R. &amp; Santos, P.M. 2016. Grazing behavior and intake of goats rotationally grazing Tanzania-grass pasture with different post-grazing residues. Tropical Grasslands. 4(2):91-100. DOI: 10.17138/TGFT(4)91-100.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Fernandes</surname>
							<given-names>M.H.M.R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Fernandes</surname>
							<given-names>J.S.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>De Resende</surname>
							<given-names>K.T.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Bonfa</surname>
							<given-names>H.C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Reis</surname>
							<given-names>R.A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ruggieri</surname>
							<given-names>A.C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Fernandes</surname>
							<given-names>J.J.R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Santos</surname>
							<given-names>P.M.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2016</year>
					<article-title>Grazing behavior and intake of goats rotationally grazing Tanzania-grass pasture with different post-grazing residues</article-title>
					<source>Tropical Grasslands</source>
					<volume>4</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>91</fpage>
					<lpage>100</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.17138/TGFT(4)91-100</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B13">
				<mixed-citation>García, E. 2004. Modificaciones al sistema de clasificación climática de Köppen. V Edición. Ed: Instituto de Geografía Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México. 98 pp. ISBN: 970-32-1010-4.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>García</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2004</year>
					<source>Modificaciones al sistema de clasificación climática de Köppen</source>
					<edition>V Edición</edition>
					<publisher-name>Instituto de Geografía Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México</publisher-name>
					<publisher-loc>México</publisher-loc>
					<fpage>98</fpage>
					<lpage>98</lpage>
					<isbn>970-32-1010-4</isbn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B14">
				<mixed-citation>Goering, H. K. &amp; Soest, P. J. V. 1970. Forage Fiber Analyses (apparatus, Reagents, Procedures, and Some Applications). (ser. Agriculture handbook, no. ser. 379), U.S. Agricultural Research Service, 24 p., Available: <comment>Available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://books.google.com.cu/books/about/Forage_Fiber_Analyses_apparatus_Reagents.html?id=yn8wAAAAYAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y">https://books.google.com.cu/books/about/Forage_Fiber_Analyses_apparatus_Reagents.html?id=yn8wAAAAYAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y</ext-link>
					</comment>, [Consulted: February 12, 2019].</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Goering</surname>
							<given-names>H. K.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Soest</surname>
							<given-names>P. J. V.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1970</year>
					<source>Forage Fiber Analyses (apparatus, Reagents, Procedures, and Some Applications)</source>
					<series>ser. Agriculture handbook, no. ser. 379</series>
					<publisher-loc>U.S</publisher-loc>
					<publisher-name>Agricultural Research Service</publisher-name>
					<fpage>24</fpage>
					<lpage>24</lpage>
					<comment>Available: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://books.google.com.cu/books/about/Forage_Fiber_Analyses_apparatus_Reagents.html?id=yn8wAAAAYAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y">https://books.google.com.cu/books/about/Forage_Fiber_Analyses_apparatus_Reagents.html?id=yn8wAAAAYAAJ&amp;redir_esc=y</ext-link>
					</comment>
					<date-in-citation content-type="access-date" iso-8601-date="2019-02-12">February 12, 2019</date-in-citation>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B15">
				<mixed-citation>Herrera, R.S. 2006. Fisiología, calidad y muestreos. In: Fisiología producción de biomasa y sistemas silvopastoriles en pastos tropicales. Abono orgánico y biogás. EDICA. Mayabeque, Cuba. p.1-108.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Herrera</surname>
							<given-names>R.S.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2006</year>
					<chapter-title>Fisiología, calidad y muestreos</chapter-title>
					<source>Fisiología producción de biomasa y sistemas silvopastoriles en pastos tropicales. Abono orgánico y biogás</source>
					<publisher-name>EDICA</publisher-name>
					<publisher-loc>Mayabeque, Cuba</publisher-loc>
					<fpage>1</fpage>
					<lpage>108</lpage>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B16">
				<mixed-citation>Lemos, N.LS., Ruggieri, A.C., Costa E Silva, V., Campos, A.F., Malheiros, E.B. &amp; Teixeira, I.A.M. 2014. Tanzania grass structure grazed by goats managed with different residual leaf area index under intermittent stocking. Biosci. J. Uberlândia. 30(6):1811-1818. ISNN: 1981-3163.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Lemos</surname>
							<given-names>N.LS.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Ruggieri</surname>
							<given-names>A.C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Costa E Silva</surname>
							<given-names>V.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Campos</surname>
							<given-names>A.F.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Malheiros</surname>
							<given-names>E.B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Teixeira</surname>
							<given-names>I.A.M.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2014</year>
					<article-title>Tanzania grass structure grazed by goats managed with different residual leaf area index under intermittent stocking</article-title>
					<source>Biosci. J. Uberlândia</source>
					<volume>30</volume>
					<issue>6</issue>
					<fpage>1811</fpage>
					<lpage>1818</lpage>
					<issn>1981-3163</issn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B17">
				<mixed-citation>Massey, F. J. 1951. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 4(543):68-78. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2280095. [Consulted: October 04, 2019].</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Massey</surname>
							<given-names>F. J.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>1951</year>
					<article-title>The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for goodness of fit</article-title>
					<source>Journal of the American Statistical Association</source>
					<volume>4</volume>
					<issue>543</issue>
					<fpage>68</fpage>
					<lpage>78</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.2307/2280095</pub-id>
					<date-in-citation content-type="access-date" iso-8601-date="2019-10-04">October 04, 2019</date-in-citation>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B18">
				<mixed-citation>Méndez-Martínez, Y., Verdecia, D.M., Reyes-Pérez, J.J., Luna-Murillo, R.A., Rivero-Herrada, M., Montenegro-Vivas, L.B. &amp;. Herrera, R.S. 2018. Quality of three <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> cultivars in the Empalme area, Ecuador. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science. 52(4): 423-433. ISSN: 2079-3480. </mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Méndez-Martínez</surname>
							<given-names>Y.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Verdecia</surname>
							<given-names>D.M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Reyes-Pérez</surname>
							<given-names>J.J.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Luna-Murillo</surname>
							<given-names>R.A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Rivero-Herrada</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Montenegro-Vivas</surname>
							<given-names>L.B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Herrera</surname>
							<given-names>R.S.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>Quality of three Megathyrsus maximus cultivars in the Empalme area, Ecuador</article-title>
					<source>Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science</source>
					<volume>52</volume>
					<issue>4</issue>
					<fpage>423</fpage>
					<lpage>433</lpage>
					<issn>2079-3480</issn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B19">
				<mixed-citation>Mojica-Rodríguez, J.E., Castro-Rincón, E., Carulla-Fornaguera, J. &amp; Lascano-Aguilar, C.E. 2017. Efecto de la edad de rebrote sobre el perfil de ácidos grasos en gramíneas tropicales. Corpoica Cienc. Tecnol. Agropecuaria, Mosquera (Colombia). 18(2): 217-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.21930/rcta.vol18_num2_art:623.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Mojica-Rodríguez</surname>
							<given-names>J.E.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Castro-Rincón</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Carulla-Fornaguera</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Lascano-Aguilar</surname>
							<given-names>C.E.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Efecto de la edad de rebrote sobre el perfil de ácidos grasos en gramíneas tropicales</article-title>
					<source>Corpoica Cienc. Tecnol. Agropecuaria, Mosquera (Colombia)</source>
					<volume>18</volume>
					<issue>2</issue>
					<fpage>217</fpage>
					<lpage>232</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.21930/rcta.vol18_num2_art:623</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B20">
				<mixed-citation>Montalvão, D., Abdalla, A.L., Tavares, P., Zanuto, G., Dias, T.P., McManus, C., Abdalla, A.L. &amp; Louvandini, H. 2018. Morphological characteristics, nutritive quality, and methane production of tropical grasses in Brazil. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. Brasília. 53(3):323-331. DOI: 10.1590/S0100-204X2018000300007.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Montalvão</surname>
							<given-names>D.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Abdalla</surname>
							<given-names>A.L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Tavares</surname>
							<given-names>P.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Zanuto</surname>
							<given-names>G.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Dias</surname>
							<given-names>T.P.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>McManus</surname>
							<given-names>C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Abdalla</surname>
							<given-names>A.L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Louvandini</surname>
							<given-names>H.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>Morphological characteristics, nutritive quality, and methane production of tropical grasses in Brazil</article-title>
					<source>Pesq. Agropec. Bras.</source>
					<publisher-loc>Brasília</publisher-loc>
					<volume>53</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>323</fpage>
					<lpage>331</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1590/S0100-204X2018000300007</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B21">
				<mixed-citation>Murillo, S.J., Barros, H.J.A., Rocallo, F.B. &amp; Arrieta, P.G. 2014. Requerimientos hídricos de cuatro gramíneas de corte para uso eficiente del agua en el Caribe seco colombiano. Corpoica Cienc. Tecnol. Agropecu. 15(1):83-99. ISNN: 0122-8706.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Murillo</surname>
							<given-names>S.J.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Barros</surname>
							<given-names>H.J.A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Rocallo</surname>
							<given-names>F.B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Arrieta</surname>
							<given-names>P.G.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2014</year>
					<article-title>Requerimientos hídricos de cuatro gramíneas de corte para uso eficiente del agua en el Caribe seco colombiano</article-title>
					<source>Corpoica Cienc. Tecnol. Agropecu.</source>
					<volume>15</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>83</fpage>
					<lpage>99</lpage>
					<issn>0122-8706</issn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B22">
				<mixed-citation>Ojeda-Quintana, L.J., Toledo-Vazquez, L., Hernández-Rodríguez, C., Machado-Díaz, Y. &amp; Furrazola-Gómez, E. 2016. Influencia de la aplicación de Azospirillum lipoferum en <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> vc. Guinea tobiatá en un suelo Pardo Grisáceo. Pastos y Forrajes. 39(1): 27-32. ISSN:0864-0394.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Ojeda-Quintana</surname>
							<given-names>L.J.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Toledo-Vazquez</surname>
							<given-names>L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hernández-Rodríguez</surname>
							<given-names>C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Machado-Díaz</surname>
							<given-names>Y.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Furrazola-Gómez</surname>
							<given-names>E.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2016</year>
					<article-title>Influencia de la aplicación de Azospirillum lipoferum en Megathyrsus maximus vc. Guinea tobiatá en un suelo Pardo Grisáceo</article-title>
					<source>Pastos y Forrajes</source>
					<volume>39</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>27</fpage>
					<lpage>32</lpage>
					<issn>0864-0394</issn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B23">
				<mixed-citation>Patiño, R.M., Gómez, R. &amp; Navarro, O.A. 2018. Calidad nutricional de Mombasa y Tanzania (<italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic>, Jacq.) manejados a diferentes frecuencias y alturas de corte en Sucre, Colombia. Revista CES Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia. 13 (1) : 17-30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21615/cesmvz.13.1.2</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Patiño</surname>
							<given-names>R.M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Gómez</surname>
							<given-names>R.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Navarro</surname>
							<given-names>O.A.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>Calidad nutricional de Mombasa y Tanzania (Megathyrsus maximus, Jacq.) manejados a diferentes frecuencias y alturas de corte en Sucre, Colombia</article-title>
					<source>Revista CES Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia</source>
					<volume>13</volume>
					<issue>1</issue>
					<fpage>17</fpage>
					<lpage>30</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.21615/cesmvz.13.1.2</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B24">
				<mixed-citation>Pereira, F.C.B., De Mello, L.M.M., Pariz, C.M., De Mendoça, V.Z., Yano, E.H., De Miranda, E.E.V., Cusciol, C.A.C. &amp; Martello, J.M. 2017. Morphological assessment of fall irrigated maize intercropped with tropical forages. Irriga, Botucatu. 22 (3):512-529. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15809/irriga.2017v22n3p512-529.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Pereira</surname>
							<given-names>F.C.B.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>De Mello</surname>
							<given-names>L.M.M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Pariz</surname>
							<given-names>C.M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>De Mendoça</surname>
							<given-names>V.Z.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Yano</surname>
							<given-names>E.H.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>De Miranda</surname>
							<given-names>E.E.V.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Cusciol</surname>
							<given-names>C.A.C.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Martello</surname>
							<given-names>J.M.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2017</year>
					<article-title>Morphological assessment of fall irrigated maize intercropped with tropical forages</article-title>
					<source>Irriga, Botucatu</source>
					<volume>22</volume>
					<issue>3</issue>
					<fpage>512</fpage>
					<lpage>529</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.15809/irriga.2017v22n3p512-529</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B25">
				<mixed-citation>Reis, G.L., Lana, Â.M.Q., Emerenciano-Neto, J.V., Lemos-Filho, J.P., Borges, I. &amp; Longo, R.M. 2013. Produção e composição bromatológica do capim-marandu, sob diferentes percentuais de sombreamento e doses de nitrogênio. Biosci J. 28:(5):1606-1615. ISSN:1525-3244</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Reis</surname>
							<given-names>G.L.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Lana</surname>
							<given-names>Â.M.Q.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Emerenciano-Neto</surname>
							<given-names>J.V.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Lemos-Filho</surname>
							<given-names>J.P.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Borges</surname>
							<given-names>I.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Longo</surname>
							<given-names>R.M.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2013</year>
					<article-title>Produção e composição bromatológica do capim-marandu, sob diferentes percentuais de sombreamento e doses de nitrogênio</article-title>
					<source>Biosci J.</source>
					<volume>28</volume>
					<issue>5</issue>
					<fpage>1606</fpage>
					<lpage>1615</lpage>
					<issn>1525-3244</issn>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B26">
				<mixed-citation>Soil Survey Staff. 2003. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. USDA, Ninth Edition, Washington D. C, p. 332.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="book">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<collab>Soil Survey Staff</collab>
					</person-group>
					<year>2003</year>
					<source>Keys to Soil Taxonomy</source>
					<publisher-name>USDA</publisher-name>
					<edition>Ninth Edition</edition>
					<publisher-loc>Washington D. C</publisher-loc>
					<fpage>332</fpage>
					<lpage>332</lpage>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
			<ref id="B27">
				<mixed-citation>Velasco, M., Hernández, A., Vaquera, H., Martínez, J., Hernández, P. &amp; Aguirre, J. 2018. Growth analysis of (Panicum maximum Jacq.) Cv. Mombasa. Rev.MVZ Córdoba 23(Supl):6951-6963. DOI: 10.21897/rmvz.1415.</mixed-citation>
				<element-citation publication-type="journal">
					<person-group person-group-type="author">
						<name>
							<surname>Velasco</surname>
							<given-names>M.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hernández</surname>
							<given-names>A.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Vaquera</surname>
							<given-names>H.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Martínez</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Hernández</surname>
							<given-names>P.</given-names>
						</name>
						<name>
							<surname>Aguirre</surname>
							<given-names>J.</given-names>
						</name>
					</person-group>
					<year>2018</year>
					<article-title>Growth analysis of (Panicum maximum Jacq.) Cv. Mombasa</article-title>
					<source>Rev.MVZ Córdoba</source>
					<volume>23</volume>
					<supplement>Supl</supplement>
					<fpage>6951</fpage>
					<lpage>6963</lpage>
					<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.21897/rmvz.1415</pub-id>
				</element-citation>
			</ref>
		</ref-list>
	</back>
	<sub-article article-type="translation" id="s1" xml:lang="es">
		<front-stub>
			<article-categories>
				<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
					<subject>CIENCIA DE LOS PASTOS</subject>
				</subj-group>
			</article-categories>
			<title-group>
				<article-title>Componentes del rendimiento y composición bromatológica de tres cultivares de <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> en la zona del Guayas, Ecuador</article-title>
			</title-group>
			<contrib-group>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Méndez-Martínez</surname>
						<given-names>Y.</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Reyes-Pérez</surname>
						<given-names>J. J.</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5"><sup>1</sup></xref>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff6"><sup>2</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Luna-Murillo</surname>
						<given-names>R. A.</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff6"><sup>2</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Verdecia</surname>
						<given-names>D.M.</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff7"><sup>3</sup></xref>
					<xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c2">*</xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Rivero-Herrada</surname>
						<given-names>Marisol</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Montenegro-Vivas</surname>
						<given-names>L.B.</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5"><sup>1</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author">
					<name>
						<surname>Herrera</surname>
						<given-names>R.S.</given-names>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff8"><sup>4</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
			</contrib-group>
			<aff id="aff5">
				<label>1</label>
				<institution content-type="original">Facultad Ciencias Pecuarias, Universidad Técnica Estatal de Quevedo (UTEQ), Quevedo, Los Ríos, Ecuador</institution>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff6">
				<label>2</label>
				<institution content-type="original">Universidad Técnica de Cotopaxi (UTC), Extención La Maná, La Maná, Los Ríos, Ecuador</institution>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff7">
				<label>3</label>
				<institution content-type="original">Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad de Granma, Apartado Postal 21, Bayamo, C.P. 85 100, Granma, Cuba</institution>
			</aff>
			<aff id="aff8">
				<label>4</label>
				<institution content-type="original">Instituto de Ciencia Animal, Apartado Postal 24, San José de las Lajas, Mayabeque, Cuba</institution>
			</aff>
			<author-notes>
				<corresp id="c2">
					<label>*</label>Email: <email>dverdeciaa@udg.co.cu</email>
				</corresp>
			</author-notes>
			<abstract>
				<title>RESUMEN</title>
				<p>Con el objetivo de evaluar los componentes del rendimiento y composición bromatológica de tres cultivares de <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> en la zona del Guayas, Ecuador a diferentes edades de rebrote, se desarrolló la investigación, siguiendo un diseño de bloque al azar con arreglo factorial (3x3) con cinco réplicas. Se estudiaron la productividad (rendimientos de materia seca total, hojas, tallo y biomasa), componentes morfológicos (altura de la planta, longitud y ancho de las hojas, así como número de hojas y tallos); los contenidos de MS, PB, FDN, FDA, LAD, celulosa (Cel), hemicelulosa (Hcel), contenido celular (CC), P, Ca, ceniza, MO, DMS, DMO, EM, ENL y las relaciones FND-N y FAD-N a las edades de 21, 42 y 63 días. Se realizó análisis de varianza según diseño experimental. Los mayores rendimientos de MS y de biomasa se obtuvieron en Tanzania a los 63 días de rebrote (2,74 y 8.25 t/ha, respectivamente). PB y el CC disminuyeron con la madurez de la planta y los mejores valores se obtuvieron en Tanzania y Común a los 21 días de rebrote (15.67 y 62.16%, respectivamente), mientras que los componentes de la pared celular se incrementaron con la edad y los mejores valores lo presentó Tanzania. Vale destacar que entre las variedades y madurez existió interacción significativa (P&lt;0.0001) para todos los indicadores. Se concluye que las variedades estudiadas presentan adecuado comportamiento productivo en condiciones de escasas precipitaciones. Los cultivares Tanzania y Tobiatá constituyen una buena opción para suplir el déficit de alimento durante el período seco por su mayor proporción de hojas, mejores relaciones FND-N y FAD-N que le confieren mayor calidad.</p>
			</abstract>
			<kwd-group xml:lang="es">
				<title>Palabras clave:</title>
				<kwd><italic>Rendimiento</italic></kwd>
				<kwd><italic>edad de rebrote</italic></kwd>
				<kwd><italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic></kwd>
				<kwd><italic>composición química</italic></kwd>
				<kwd><italic>digestibilidad</italic></kwd>
				<kwd><italic>energía</italic></kwd>
			</kwd-group>
		</front-stub>
		<body>
			<sec sec-type="intro">
				<title>INTRODUCCIÓN</title>
				<p>Los pastos son fuente apropiada de nutrientes, principalmente en países de clima tropical; debido al número de especies que se pueden emplear con este fin, posibilidad de cultivarlos todo el año, capacidad del rumiante de utilizar los forrajes; así como la no competencia como alimento para el humano. No obstante, su baja calidad afecta la obtención de resultados productivos adecuados y su adaptabilidad a condiciones ambientales prevalecientes en los diversos ecosistemas, son algunas de las causas que limitan el desarrollo de la ganadería (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">Abril <italic>et al</italic>. 2017</xref>).</p>
				<p>Para atenuar esta situación se han realizado grandes esfuerzos en la introducción de nuevas especies y variedades con mejores desempeños. Sin embargo, se desconoce su crecimiento, productividad y calidad al incrementarse la edad de la planta en las actuales condiciones climáticas de Ecuador (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">Méndez-Martínez <italic>et al.</italic> 2018</xref>).</p>
				<p><italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> es una planta adaptada a las condiciones tropicales, aunque su potencial de producción se afecte por los factores ambientales prevalecientes, cuando está sometida a cortes reiterados y no se restituyen los nutrientes que son extraídos en función de la producción de la biomasa (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">Brant <italic>et al.</italic> 2017</xref>).</p>
				<p>El estudio de las potencialidades agroproductivas y nutritivas de tres cultivares de <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> (vc Común, Tanzania y Tobiatá) introducidas en la región Guayas, Ecuador, en diversas condiciones edafoclimáticas es de mucha importancia, sobre todo por las grandes expectativas que se han creado por su mayor agroproductividad y amplio rango de adaptación a las diferentes regiones climáticas, tolerancia a la sequía y su adaptabilidad a una amplia gama de suelos. Estos elementos resultan de mucha utilidad para los diferentes especialistas de rama pecuaria de la región donde están extendidas estas especies para su empleo en los balances forrajeros. De ahí que el objetivo del presente estudio fue evaluar los componentes del rendimiento y composición bromatológica de tres cultivares de <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> en la zona del Guayas, Ecuador a diferentes edades de rebrote. </p>
			</sec>
			<sec sec-type="materials|methods">
				<title>MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS</title>
				<p><italic>Localización</italic>. La presente investigación se llevó a cabo en la finca El Mamey, ubicada en el sector El Ají, Parroquia del Guayas, provincia del Guayas. Ecuador. Se encuentra entre las coordenadas geográficas 01° 00´ de latitud sur y 79° 30 de longitud oeste a una altura de 75 msnm. El estudio se desarrolló en el período comprendido entre julio-septiembre (época seca) de 2015.</p>
				<p><italic>Condiciones agrometeorológicas.</italic> El clima del territorio se clasifica como subtropical húmedo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">García 2004</xref>), con precipitaciones de 117.2mm durante el período experimental. La temperatura media, máxima y mínima fue de: 23.87; 29.17 y 21.03°C; humedad relativa 79%, indicadores que se encuentran dentro del rango de la media histórica hasta el 2014 (116.32 mm; 22.4; 29.52; 21.1°C para la temperatura media, máxima y mínima, respectivamente y 75.6% de humedad relativa) el suelo presente en el área es Inceptisol (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B26">Soil Survey Staff 2003</xref>) y su composición química aparece en la <xref ref-type="table" rid="t7">tabla 1</xref>. </p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t7">
						<label>Table 1</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Characteristics of the soil</title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="justify">Indicator</th>
									<th align="center">Value</th>
									<th align="center">SD±</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">pH</td>
									<td align="center">5.47</td>
									<td align="center">0.03</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">N, cmolc kg<sup>-1</sup></td>
									<td align="center">1.50</td>
									<td align="center">0.05</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">P, cmolc kg<sup>-1</sup></td>
									<td align="center">5.1</td>
									<td align="center">0.2</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">K, cmolc kg<sup>-1</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.54</td>
									<td align="center">0.01</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Ca, cmolc kg<sup>-1</sup></td>
									<td align="center">1.50</td>
									<td align="center">0.05</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Mg, cmolc kg<sup>-1</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.80</td>
									<td align="center">0.046</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Sand, %</td>
									<td align="center">24.00</td>
									<td align="center">2.646</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Loam, %</td>
									<td align="center">56.00</td>
									<td align="center">2.65</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">Clay,%</td>
									<td align="center">20.00</td>
									<td align="center">3.46</td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p><italic>Tratamiento y diseño experimental.</italic> Se empleó un diseño en bloques al azar con arreglo factorial (3x3): tres cultivares de <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> (Común, Tanzania y Tobiatá) y tres edades de rebrote (21, 42 y 63 días) y cinco réplicas.</p>
				<p><italic>Procedimiento.</italic> Las parcelas experimentales (5x5=25m<sup>2</sup>) se sembraron en el mes febrero de 2015 de <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> cultivares Común, Tanzania y Tobiatá a una distancia de 50 cm entre calles y 20 cm entre plantas<bold>.</bold> Las plantas tuvieron un período de establecimiento hasta julio, donde se realizó el corte de uniformidad. A partir de ahí se realizaron los muestreos a los 21, 42 y 63 días de rebrote eliminando 50 cm de efecto de borde y cortando todo el material del área cosechable a 10 cm sobre el nivel del suelo. Se evaluaron la producción de biomasa, rendimiento en materia seca total, de hojas y tallos, número de hojas y tallos (por macolla); así como la longitud y ancho de las hojas (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">Herrera 2006</xref>). Luego se tomó dos kilogramos (dos muestras) por cada uno de los tratamientos y por réplica para su posterior análisis en el laboratorio. </p>
				<p>Solo se empleó riego para facilitar la germinación y el establecimiento, y no se utilizó fertilización ni tratamiento químico para eliminar las malezas. Al inicio del experimento la población de las variedades en las parcelas fue de 97%.</p>
				<p><italic>Determinación de la composición química</italic>
 <bold>.</bold> Se determinaron: MS, PB, ceniza, MO, P, Ca de acuerdo con <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">AOAC (2016)</xref>; FDN, FDA, LAD, celulosa (Cel), hemicelulosa (Hcel) y contenido celular (CC) según <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">Goering y Van Soest (1970)</xref>; la digestibilidad de la materia seca se cuantificó mediante <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">Aumont <italic>et al.</italic> (1995)</xref> y la energía metabolizable y neta de lactación se establecieron según <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">Cáceres y González (2000)</xref>. Todos los análisis se realizaron por duplicado y por réplica.</p>
				<p><italic>Análisis estadístico y cálculos</italic>
 <bold>.</bold> Se realizó análisis de varianza de acuerdo con el diseño experimental y los valores medios se compararon mediante la prueba de rangos múltiples de <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Duncan (1955)</xref>. Para la distribución normal de los datos se utilizó la prueba de Kolmogorov-Smirnov (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">Massey 1951</xref>) y para las varianzas la prueba de <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">Bartlett (1937)</xref>.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec sec-type="results">
				<title>RESULTADOS</title>
				<p>Los mejores resultados de los indicadores productivos (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t8">tabla 2</xref>) fueron para el cultivar Tanzania a los 63 día con 2.74; 1.51; 1.23 y 8.25 t/ha para el rendimiento total, de hojas, tallos y biomasa, respectivamente. Con interacción variedad x edad de rebrote (P&lt;0.0001) en todos los indicadores estudiados.</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t8">
						<label>Table 2</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Yield indicators of three <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> varieties</title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col span="3"/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="justify" rowspan="2">Age, days</th>
									<th align="center" colspan="3">Varieties </th>
									<th align="center" rowspan="2">SE<sup>1</sup> ±</th>
									<th align="center" rowspan="2">P</th>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<th align="center">Common</th>
									<th align="center">Tanzania</th>
									<th align="center">Tobiata</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Dry matter , t/ha </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">0.16<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.24<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.15<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.008</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">0.50<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">1.25<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.61<sup>e</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">1.05<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">2.74<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">1.48<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Biomass, t/ha </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">0.95<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center">1.06<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.96<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.011</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">2.07<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">4.26<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">3.68<sup>d</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">3.67<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">8.25<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">5.25<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Leaves, t/ha </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">0.12<sup>h</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.19<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.11<sup>h</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.005</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify"> </td>
									<td align="center">0.30<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.83<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.37<sup>e</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">0.50<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">1.51<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.77<sup>c</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Stems, t/ha </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">0.04<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.05<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.04<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.004</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">0.20<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.42<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.24<sup>e</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">0.55<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">1.23<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.71<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN11">
								<p><sup>abcdefg</sup>Values with different letters differ at P&lt;0.05 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Duncan 1955</xref>)</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN12">
								<p><sup>1</sup>SE, standard error of the interaction variety x age</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>Hubo interacciones variedad x edad de rebrote para todos los indicadores morfológicos (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t9">tabla 3</xref>). Donde con 1.17m; 125.50; 75.50; 0.99 y 0.042m, la Tanzania a los 63 días mostró los mayores resultados para la altura, número de hojas, número de tallos, longitud de las hojas y ancho de las hojas, respectivamente. </p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t9">
						<label>Table 3</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Morphological components of three <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> varieties</title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col span="3"/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="justify" rowspan="2">Age, days</th>
									<th align="center" colspan="3">Varieties </th>
									<th align="center" rowspan="2">SE<sup>1</sup> ±</th>
									<th align="center" rowspan="2">P</th>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<th align="center">Common</th>
									<th align="center">Tanzania</th>
									<th align="center">Tobiata</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Height, m </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">0.74<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.78<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.75<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.010</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">0.83<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.96<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.86<sup>c</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">0.94<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">1.17<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.98<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Number of leaves </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">27.25<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center">26.50<sup>h</sup></td>
									<td align="center">25.50<sup>h</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.057</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">52.75<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">58.25<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">56.00<sup>e</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">77.00<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">125.50<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">106.00<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Number of stems </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">12.50<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">17.50e</td>
									<td align="center">16.50e</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.692</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">27.25<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">39.00c</td>
									<td align="center">29.50d</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">35.50<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">75.50a</td>
									<td align="center">66.50b</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Leaf lenght , m </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">0.37<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.43<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.39<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.007</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">0.43<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.58<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.53<sup>d</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">0.86<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.99<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.93<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Leaf width , m </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">0.021<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.027<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.027<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.001</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.044</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">0.028<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.035<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.034<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">0.033<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.042<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.038<sup>a</sup></td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN13">
								<p><sup>abcdefgh</sup>Values with different letters differ at P&lt;0.05 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Duncan 1955</xref>)</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN14">
								<p><sup>1</sup>SE, standard error of the interaction variety x age</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>La proteína bruta y contenido celular a los 21 días con 15.67 y 62.16% presentaron los mejores resultados para los cultivares Tanzania y Común. Mientras que para este ultima variedad se incrementaron con la edad de rebrote los componentes de la pared celular (FDN, FDA, LDA y Cel) con 69.35; 35.74; 5.63 y 30.10%, respectivamente. Se registró a los 63 días en la Tobiatá el contenido (33.96%)mayor de hemicelulosa (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t10">tabla 4</xref>).</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t10">
						<label>Table 4</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Protein content and fibrous fractionation of three <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> varieties </title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col span="3"/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="justify" rowspan="2">Age, days</th>
									<th align="center" colspan="3">Varieties </th>
									<th align="center" rowspan="2">SE<sup>1</sup> ±</th>
									<th align="center" rowspan="2">P</th>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<th align="center">Common</th>
									<th align="center">Tanzania</th>
									<th align="center">Tobiata</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Dry matter, % </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">19.66<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center">21.54<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">23.76<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.012</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">27.24<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">28.35<sup>cd</sup></td>
									<td align="center">29.16<sup>c</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">31.87<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">30.46<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">33.64<sup>a</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Crude protein , % </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">11.87<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">15.67<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">11.48<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.008</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">10.33<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">12.52<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">10.83<sup>d</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">9.13<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center">9.37<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">9.23<sup>g</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Neutral detergent fiber , % </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">37.84<sup>h</sup></td>
									<td align="center">43.48<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">39.66<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.014</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">55.16<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">53.54<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">55.77<sup>d</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">69.35<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">65.25<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">67.33<sup>c</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Acid detergent fiber , % </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">19.27<sup>h</sup></td>
									<td align="center">22.66<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center">25.53<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.009</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">30.56<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">29.36<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">30.83<sup>d</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">35.74<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">32.74<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">33.37<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Acid detergent lignin, % </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">2.43<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center">2.14<sup>h</sup></td>
									<td align="center">2.33<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.011</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">4.13<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">3.78<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">4.55<sup>d</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">5.63<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">4.67<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">5.26<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Cellulose, % </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">16.85<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center">20.53<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">23.19<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.014</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">26.43<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">25.58<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">26.28<sup>c</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">30.10<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">28.07<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">28.12<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Hemicellulose, % </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">18.57<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">20.81<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">14.14<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.016</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">24.60<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">24.18<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">24.94<sup>c</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">33.61<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">32.52<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">33.96<sup>a</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Cell content , % </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">62.16<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">56.62<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">60.34<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.014</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">44.84<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">46.46<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">44.23<sup>e</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">30.65<sup>h</sup></td>
									<td align="center">34.75<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">32.67<sup>g</sup></td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN15">
								<p><sup>abcdefgh</sup>Values with different letters differ at P&lt;0.05 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Duncan 1955</xref>)</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN16">
								<p><sup>1</sup>SE, standard error of the interaction variety x age</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>Para el contenido de ceniza, minerales y materia orgánica (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t11">tabla 5</xref>) hubo interacción (P&lt;0.0001) variedad-edad de rebrote. Con los mayores porcentajes de cenizas a los 63 días (16.84) y 42 d P (0.37%) para la variedad Tobiatá; mientras que el Ca (0.78%) correspondieron a Tanzania con 63 d y para el Común a los 21 días de rebrote MO (89.67%).</p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t11">
						<label>Table 5</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Minerals and organic matter of three Megathyrsus <italic>maximus</italic> varieties</title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col span="3"/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="justify" rowspan="2">Age, days</th>
									<th align="center" colspan="3">Varieties </th>
									<th align="center" rowspan="2">SE<sup>1</sup> ±</th>
									<th align="center" rowspan="2">P</th>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<th align="center">Common</th>
									<th align="center">Tanzania</th>
									<th align="center">Tobiata</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Ashes, % </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">10.33<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">12.50<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">12.63<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.01</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">13.14<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">13.55<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">14.39<sup>c</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">15.45<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">15.75<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">16.84<sup>a</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Calcium, % </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">0.47<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.57<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.56<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.01</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">0.73<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.63<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.72<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">0.67<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.78<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.69<sup>c</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Phosphorus, % </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">0.023<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.027<sup>cd</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.026<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.001</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">0.033<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.028<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.037<sup>a</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">0.036<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.033<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">0.034<sup>b</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Organic matter , % </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">89.67<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">87.50<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">87.37<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.01</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">86.86<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">86.46<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">85.61<sup>d</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">84.55<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">84.24<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">83.16<sup>f</sup></td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN17">
								<p><sup>abcdef</sup>Values with different letters differ at P&lt;0.05 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Duncan 1955</xref>)</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN18">
								<p><sup>1</sup>SE, standard error of the interaction variety x age</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
				<p>Para los indicadores de la calidad (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t12">tabla 6</xref>) existió variabilidad entre cultivares según avanzó la madurez del forraje para las relaciones FDN/N, FDA/N, DMS, DMO, EM y ENL. Los mejores resultados fueron para variedad Tanzania de 17.35 y 9.04% a los 21 días en las relaciones FDN/N y FDA/N, la DMS y DMO (53.83; 54.32%) a los 21 días para los cultivares Común y Tobiatá, el aporte energético 7.97 y 4.55 MJ/kg (EM, ENL) a los 21 días fue mejor para el Común. </p>
				<p>
					<table-wrap id="t12">
						<label>Table 6</label>
						<caption>
							<title>Quality indicators of three <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> varieties </title>
						</caption>
						<table>
							<colgroup>
								<col/>
								<col span="3"/>
								<col/>
								<col/>
							</colgroup>
							<thead>
								<tr>
									<th align="justify" rowspan="2">Age, days</th>
									<th align="center" colspan="3">Varieties </th>
									<th align="center" rowspan="2">SE<sup>1</sup> ±</th>
									<th align="center" rowspan="2">P</th>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<th align="center">Common</th>
									<th align="center">Tanzania</th>
									<th align="center">Tobiata</th>
								</tr>
							</thead>
							<tbody>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">NDF/N relation </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">19.52<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">17.35<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">21.60<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.029</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">33.36<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">26.72<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">32.19<sup>e</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">47.50<sup>i</sup></td>
									<td align="center">43.52<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center">45.60<sup>h</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">ADF/N relation </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">10.15<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">9.04<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">13.90<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.015</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">18.48<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">14.65<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">17.79<sup>e</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">24.46<sup>i</sup></td>
									<td align="center">21.84<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center">22.60<sup>h</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">DM digestibility, % </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">53.83<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">51.35<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">53.03<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.006</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">46.22<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">46.93<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">45.95<sup>d</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">39.97<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center">41.78<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">40.86<sup>f</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">OM digestibility , % </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">55.11<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">52.93<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">54.32<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.005</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">47.63<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">48.48<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">47.40<sup>e</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">41.43<sup>h</sup></td>
									<td align="center">43.21<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">42.31<sup>g</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Metabolizable energy, MJ/kg </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">7.97<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">7.63<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">7.84<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.001</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">6.80<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">6.93<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">6.76<sup>e</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">5.83<sup>g</sup></td>
									<td align="center">6.11<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">5.97<sup>g</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="center" colspan="6">Net lactation energy, MJ/kg </td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">21</td>
									<td align="center">4.55<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center">4.31<sup>b</sup></td>
									<td align="center">4.47<sup>a</sup></td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.001</td>
									<td align="center" rowspan="3">0.0001</td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">42</td>
									<td align="center">3.73<sup>d</sup></td>
									<td align="center">3.83<sup>c</sup></td>
									<td align="center">3.71<sup>d</sup></td>
								</tr>
								<tr>
									<td align="justify">63</td>
									<td align="center">3.05<sup>f</sup></td>
									<td align="center">3.25<sup>e</sup></td>
									<td align="center">3.15<sup>ef</sup></td>
								</tr>
							</tbody>
						</table>
						<table-wrap-foot>
							<fn id="TFN19">
								<p><sup>abcdefgh</sup>Values with different letters differ at P&lt;0.05 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">Duncan 1955</xref>)</p>
							</fn>
							<fn id="TFN20">
								<p><sup>1</sup>SE, standard error of the interaction variety x age</p>
							</fn>
						</table-wrap-foot>
					</table-wrap>
				</p>
			</sec>
			<sec sec-type="discussion">
				<title>DISCUSIÓN</title>
				<p>La productividad (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t8">tabla 2</xref>) tuvo marcado efecto de la edad de rebrote. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">Brant <italic>et al.</italic> (2017)</xref> al evaluar el cultivar Tanzania encontraron rendimientos de biomasa y materia seca de 23 y 8 t/ha, respectivamente resultados superiores a los obtenidos en este estudio. De acuerdo con <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B25">Reis <italic>et al</italic>. (2013)</xref> y <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">Bosi <italic>et al</italic>. (2014)</xref> la producción de materia seca es importante para determinar la adaptabilidad de las especies a las condiciones edafoclimáticas. Según lo planteado por estos autores las plantas en dependencia de sus características presentan diferentes niveles de tolerancias a dichos escenarios. Sin embrago, en otros estudios donde se sometieron las especies a niveles de sombra hasta el 50% muestran la drástica reducción del rendimiento del forraje (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Fernández <italic>et al.</italic> 2016</xref>). </p>
				<p>
					<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Velasco <italic>et al</italic>. (2018)</xref>, en la región de Chiapas, México, informaron al evaluar el efecto de la edad de rebrote y el efecto estacional climático en el rendimiento de cultivar Mombasa mayores producciones en la primavera-verano que en otoño-invierno (10; 12; 6 y 2 t/ha a los 80 días de rebrote), planteando que este comportamiento estacional tuvo una relación directa con la precipitaciones acumuladas (59.6 mm) y las variaciones de temperaturas máximas (32.8 °C) y mínimas (21.6°C). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">Lemos <italic>et al.</italic> (2014)</xref>, encontraron en el cultivar Tanzania 4.83; 2.33 y 1.52 tMS/ha para el rendimiento total, hojas y tallos</p>
				<p>El crecimiento estacional y anual de los componentes morfológicos en el pasto (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t9">tabla 3</xref>) tiene relación directa con las condiciones climáticas, la fertilidad del suelo y las prácticas de manejo. La proporción de hojas, tallos y raíces que se generan por la interacción genotipo-ambiente; estos indicadores dan como resultado el rendimiento de forraje. El conocimiento de la influencia de la estacionalidad en el crecimiento de especies de interés, permite identificar la disponibilidad y, en consecuencia, adoptar estrategias de manejo (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B22">Ojeda-Quintana <italic>et al.</italic> 2016</xref> y <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B27">Velasco <italic>et al</italic>. 2018</xref>).</p>
				<p>
					<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B21">Murillo <italic>et al</italic>. (2014)</xref>, notificaron para la vc. Mombasa incrementos en la altura a edades superiores a los 50 días de rebrote en todas las estaciones del año, lo que se relaciona con la restricción de luz que ocurre en el dosel, cuando es superior al 95% de interceptación de luz, el sombreo y senescencia de hojas basales origina un aumento en la proporción de tallos y material muerto en la pradera. Aspectos que coinciden con los resultados obtenidos por <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B23">Patiño <italic>et al</italic>. (2018)</xref> en el estado Sucre Colombia. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B24">Pereira <italic>et al.</italic> (2017)</xref>, encontraron alturas para los cultivares Tanzania y Áries de 2.66 y 2.62 m y las diferencias encontradas entre este estudio y la presente investigación se deben a las características inherentes a cada hibrido. </p>
				<p>La composición química (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t10">tabla 4</xref>) disminuyó con la madurez, con variabilidad entre las variedades evaluadas. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Fernandes <italic>et al.</italic> (2016)</xref>, reportaron para <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> vc Tanzania valores de los componentes fibrosos (FND, FAD, LAD) de 73; 37 y 6% con el incremento de la edad de rebrote, los que asociaron este comportamiento al aumento de la proporción de tejido sostén (tallos). Mientras que, Fernandes <italic>et al</italic>. (2014) y <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">Antonio <italic>et al</italic>. (2018)</xref> en Tanzania y Mombasa encontraron concentraciones de MS (15.5-18.8%); PB (13.9-17.1%); FND (71.1-73.6%); FND (31.4-34.2%); Lignina (3.5-5.2%); Ceniza (7.9-8.1%) y MO (85.6-88.4%), los que estuvieron influenciados por el aumentos de la edad fisiológica de la planta y los niveles de componentes estructurales de la pared celular.</p>
				<p>Por otra parte, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Montalvão <italic>et al</italic>. (2018)</xref> reportaron contenidos de PB, FND, FAD, LAD, HCEL y CEL de 10.2; 70.8; 46.6; 5.8; 24.2 y 40.7%, respectivamente. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">Mojica-Rodríguez <italic>et al.</italic> (2017)</xref> al evaluar el efecto de la edad de rebrote en la calidad de los cultivares Mombasa y Tanzania encontró de los 21 a 63 días de crecimiento de la PB de 5.5 a 5.9 unidades porcentuales, mientras que para la pared celular se produjo incrementos para la FND y FAD de 9 a 10.5 y 8.2 a 6.4 unidades porcentuales. </p>
				<p>Aunque existió interacción variedad x edad de rebrote para los minerales y materia orgánica (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t11">tabla 5</xref>), los bajos valores encontrados en el presente estudio pueden ser producto del efecto de las bajas precipitaciones durante el período de estudio (117.2mm) que permiten que los minerales no se encuentren disponibles para ser absorbidos por las raíces de las plantas (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">De Barros <italic>et al</italic>. 2017</xref>). <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">Méndez-Martínez <italic>et al</italic>. (2018)</xref> y <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Montalvão <italic>et al</italic>. (2018)</xref> reportaron resultados similares con porcentajes de cenica (9-14) y MO (85-90) para esta especie. Concluyendo que la variabilidad de estos indicadores depende de las características propias de cada especie y el efecto de las condiciones edafoclimáticas. </p>
				<p>La calidad (<xref ref-type="table" rid="t12">tabla 6</xref>) fue afectada por el incremento de la madurez de los forrajes, con disminución de la DMS, DMO, EM y ENL; con incrementos de la relación FND-N y FAD-N. <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B20">Montalvão <italic>et al</italic>. (2018)</xref>, obtuvieron resultados similares en la relación entre la fracción fibrosa y nitrógeno, planteando que a mayor edad de rebrote se produce el decrecimiento del porcentaje de hojas y aumento de los tallos, y por ende bajos niveles de PB y altos de componentes de la pared celular afectan la degradación de materia orgánica y aporte energético debido a la menor eficiencia de los microorganismos del rumen. En estudios de <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">Fernandes <italic>et al.</italic> (2016)</xref> se reportaron disminución de la digestibilidad de la materia seca, influenciados por el incremento de la facción fibrosa y decrecimiento del follaje y por consiguiente la calidad de la biomasa. Por otra parte, Fernandes et al. (2014), notificaron para vc Tanzania digestibilidad de la materia seca y de la proteína bruta de 63,66 a 58,04% y 54,1 a 56,31%, respectivamente. </p>
				<p>
					<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">Antonio <italic>et al</italic>. (2018)</xref> notificaron incrementos en la digestibilidad MS, FND, FAD, LAD, hemicelulosa y celulosa de 1.7; 3.1; 4.7; 2.1; 2.3 y 4.6% al emplear enzimas fibrolíticas en <italic>Megathyrsus maximus</italic> vc Mombasa, planteando que la celulosa y hemicelulosa son fermentadas por los microorganismos del rumen con relativa facilidad. Sin embargo, en la medida que aumenta el contenido de lignina, esta se une a los carbohidratos y el grado de fermentación disminuye, el que puede llegar hasta cero, dependiendo de la intensidad de lignificación. Cada tipo de complejo lignocelulósico tiene un grado máximo de fermentación por los microorganismos, y este máximo puede ser alterado cuando se realiza un procesamiento del material. La mayor degradación de la fracción cuando se emplean las enzimas en los alimentos confirma que la lignina es un factor limitante de degradación.</p>
			</sec>
			<sec sec-type="conclusions">
				<title>CONCLUSIONES</title>
				<p>Se concluye que las variedades estudiadas presentan adecuado comportamiento productivo en condiciones de escasas precipitaciones. Los cultivares Tanzania y Tobiatá constituyen una buena opción para suplir el déficit de alimento durante el período seco por su mayor proporción de hojas, mejores relaciones FND-N y FAD-N que le confieren mayor calidad.</p>
			</sec>
		</body>
	</sub-article>
</article>