@article{article_41162, title={MEYAN OTUNUN (Glycyrrhiza Sp.) KABAYEM OLARAK KULLANILMA OLANAKLARI II}, journal={Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi}, volume={6}, year={2010}, author={Özhan, Macit and Göl, Kazım}, abstract={<p>Araştırmanın kesim dönemine kadar işlenen I. Kısım, Ziraat Dergisinin Mart 1975 Cilt 6, Sayı I. de yayınlanmıştır. </p> <p>POSSIBILITIES TO USE THE LIQUORICE HAY <br />(Glycyrrhiza Sp.) AS A ROUGHAGE IN CATTLE RATIONS </p> <p>Liquorice plant covers more <br />than one millions of acres of usable <br />land in the south and south eastern <br />part of ’Imkey. Altoughı it İs <br />considered as a weed by the farmers <br />but it wastıhought woıi1hwihile <br />for ııS to lI1ves’tiıgate tıhe poSisiib’İHties <br />rto use this plant as a roughage <br />in cattle rations. <br />The experiment was carrled <br />out in tıhe Alparslan Sıtaie Farm .in <br />Muş province. Fi!f.ty hea:d of eatde <br />(30 Alberdeen Anıguses, 20 Herefords) <br />we!’e diSltrilbuted ’İnto firve <br />groups of ten each (4 Herefords <br />6 Anguses). <br />Coneentrates fed to eadh group <br />were compuselcI of barley, wheat <br />bran, sunflower oil meal and containcd <br />[2 % digestihle protein. <br />Eadh ıgroup received the same amount <br />of concentr:ates. <br />Tihe roughage paNiün of tıhe <br />ratian’S in the treatıınents were as <br />fallow:s : <br />Group 1 1.0 Kg. Liquorice hay + 3.0 Kg. pTairie hay <br />» 2 2.0 ı> » » 2.0 » » » <br />» 3 0.0 ı> » » + 4.0 ’) ı> » <br />» 4 4.0 » » » + 0.0 » » » <br />» 5 3.0 » » » + 1.0 » » » <br />After 100 daıys of feeıding tıhe <br />eXlperiment ternıinated. The statistical <br />analysis showed no significant <br />dififerences ’between the groups. <br />This resuLt indicated t!hat ·tihe Li.quoııİce <br />hıay had no signıificanrt effect <br />on the Hveweight gain.s. As II matter <br />of .tact ,the daiıly g.ains in tftıe <br />gr;oups were close to eadh other. <br />The da’İly ıga~ns in ;the first and second <br />groups were .8000 and .0795 <br />Kg. respectively. <br />Since no significant differences <br />were obıserved between the rations <br />it is then be possiibIe to caneIude <br />I<The Liquorice hay can be <br />suhsıtitute for prairie hay in cattle <br />ra tionsı>. The same result will also <br />emilile US to say «The Liquorke <br />hay can be substitute for straw in <br />cattIe rations». <br />At the end of the experiment <br />the cattle were transportea to <br />Meat Packing Plant in Erzurum <br />province by lomes for slaughter. <br />,During tıhe process of slauıgihter, <br />skinJ feet and Iirver weights we· <br />re taken. The conclutions arri’Ved <br />after applying sta:tİosticaI analys;is <br />were giJven below. <br />Skin weİghts. 11he d’ifferences <br />in S’kin weights between· gnmps <br />were found not S İgnificant, but <br />’1!he dififerences betweenthe Ibreedıs <br />55 <br />were significant (P < .05). The <br />skin weights in all the groups were <br />in favaur oc Herefurds. <br />Head welghts. The calculatal <br />ditferences between gııaups were <br />rtot signi:ficant, ’but the differences <br />, in head weights between the <br />breeds were significant (P<.05) , <br />and the weight’ differences were <br />in favour of Herefords. <br />Feet welghts. Hereford feet <br />weights were higher than Angu.s <br />feet weights, and the differences <br />were significant (P< .05). Furthermore <br />the feed X breed interaetions <br />were also significant. <br />Liver weights. The differences <br />between gtorups in liver weights we· <br />re not sigrnficant Ibut between <br />bıeeds ’were significant. In some <br />groups Herm-<ırd liveJ1s were hea’Vıi· <br />er filan Angu.’S TivellS and in· some <br />onhers ’Vice· versa. Slnce Herefords <br />we e hea’V.ier than Anguses funıdamentally <br />their livers should also <br />be heavier than Angus livers, but <br />this trend were not observed. <br />Fat thickness. In none of the <br />groups fal tibkkness were O;Ter <br />4 mm. The hiıghest value cakulatal <br />for the Berefords wa:s in the first <br />and fifth groups aıs 3.6 mm. while <br />for Angııses İn the .first .group alS <br />3.16 mm. ActualIy these figures <br />are VeJ’Y 1O’W for 11ıe Mıgus and. <br />Herefoııds, since dur natİve ’breeds <br />yrields more faıt than tlhe bree.ds <br />men’tioned above. <br />Eye muscle atea. Eye mUS()le <br />area for Herefordis weı::e ’m~er <br />than Anguses İn 2 and 3 groups <br />But the situadon was different <br />56 <br />in ıst 3rd and 4th groups. Eye <br />ı:rruscle area in ,rhese groups wer~ <br />in favout of .Angus ’breed. Alclıough . <br />the average figu.re for Herefor.ds <br />Wa’s very high ’in group :5 because <br />,of one animal lıav.ing very lal1ge eye <br />muscle area. <br />Kldney fat. No- biıg di.fiferenees <br />were ohserved between gmups and <br />. breeds for tlhi’S aharacter. Aotually <br />it waS not possible to decide whether <br />the differences were signifi~ <br />cant, becau}, number={2}, publisher={Ataturk University}