External Quality Control: Official Results of Forage Seeds Quality


  •  Ricardo Miotto Ternus    
  •  Jerffeson Araujo Cavalcante    
  •  Geri Eduardo Meneghello    
  •  Vinícius Jardel Szareski    
  •  Ivan Ricardo Carvalho    
  •  Andrea Bicca Noguez Martins    
  •  Giordano Gelain Conte    
  •  Francisco Amaral Villela    

Abstract

The objective of this work to evaluate the official results of seeds quality of ryegrass, black oat grass, sudangrass and pearl millet, originated from commercial establishments from the State of Santa Catarina. Lots of forage seeds sampled in the state of Santa Catarina in the year of 2013 to 2015, presented low physiologic and physic quality, being the main criteria of disapproval the physic purity and germination. The samples of forage seeds from C1 and C2 categories collected in Santa Catarina present superior quality in relation to the non-certified S1 and S2. The quality of ryegrass seeds (national) showed below the legal standards established, independent of the year, for the physic purity and germination criteria. Although, for the ryegrass lots (imported) there was none disapproval related to germination and physic purity being out of the tolerated limits.The germination and physic purity indexes, for sudangrass lots presented conformity index adequate to the tolerated limits allowed by legal standards. In the other hand, for the same species, the criteria for number of other cultivated species presented 100% of disapproval for the analyzed lots in the non-certified categories in 2013. Lots of pearl millet seeds, with exception of those from the C2 category sampled in 2014, presented in conformity to the legal standards required, being, in comparison with the other species, the one that showed lower non-conformity degree in the analyzed period.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27

Contact