Akdeniz ekolojik koşullarında bazı sorgum genotiplerinin verim ve kalite performansları

Yıl 2022, , 331 - 339, 30.12.2022

Mustafa Sürmen , Emre Kara

https://doi.org/10.25308/aduziraat.1193628

Cited By: 3

Öz

Sorgum çok amaçlı kullanıma sahip olması yanında su kullanım etkinliği ile bilinen sıcak iklim türlerinden biridir. Su kullanımı bakımından mısıra göre daha avantajlı olduğu bilinen bu türün yetiştiriciliği günümüzde artış göstermektedir. Bu artışa bağlı olarak daha fazla ve farklı amaçlara hizmet edecek çeşitlerin geliştirilmesi gerekmektedir. Çalışmada altı farklı genotip iki standart çeşitle 2016-2017 yıllarında Aydın ekolojik koşullarında üç tekrarlamalı olarak yetiştirilmiştir. Bitki boyu (cm), yaş ot verimi (t da-1), kuru ot verimi (t da-1), yaprak sayısı (adet), ham protein oranı (%), ADF (%), NDF (%) ölçülen özellikler arasındadır. Bu veriler ile ham protein verimi (t da-1) ve nispi yem değeri özellikleri hesaplanmıştır. Denemeden elde edilen sonuçlar ışığında yaş ot veriminin 3.63-10.06 t da-1 arasında, kuru ot veriminin 0.79-2.12 t da-1 arasında, ham protein veriminin 0.075-0.198 t da-1 arasında, nispi yem değerinin 91.61-116.40 arasında değiştiği gözlenmiştir. Genotipler arasında EA27 ve EA36 verim bakımından öne çıkarken bazı kalite özellikleri bakımından Beydarı yüksek değerlere sahiptir. Sonuçlar kullanım amacına göre sorgum ıslahında bazı genotiplerin ümitvar olduğunu ortaya koymuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

sorgum, yem verimi, korelasyon, yem kalitesi

Forage Yield and Quality Performances of Sorghum Genotypes in Mediterranean Ecological Conditions

Öz

Sorghum is one of the warm climate species known for its multi-purpose use and water use efficiency. The cultivation of this species, which is known to be more advantageous than maize in terms of water use, is increasing currently. Depending on this increase, it is necessary to develop more varieties that will serve different purposes. In the study, six different genotypes were grown with two standard genotypes in Aydın (Turkey) ecological conditions in 2016-2017 with 3 replications. Plant height (cm), fresh forage yield (t da-1), hay yield (t da-1), number of leaves, crude protein ratio (%), ADF (%), NDF (%) are the measured properties. With these data, crude protein yield (t da-1) and relative feed value characteristics were calculated. In the light of the results obtained from the experiment, it was observed that the fresh forage yield varied between 3.63-10.06 t da-1, the hay yield between 0.79-2.12 t da-1, crude protein yield between 0.075-0.198 t da-1, and the relative feed value between 91.61- 116.40. Among the genotypes, EA27 and EA36 stand out in terms of yield, while Beydarı has high values in terms of some quality characteristics. The results revealed that some genotypes are promising in sorghum breeding according to their intended use.

Anahtar Kelimeler

sorghum, forage yield, correlation, forage quality

Kaynakça

• Ahalawat NK, Arya VK, Kumar P, Singh SK (2018) Genetic divergence in forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). Journal of Applied and Natural Science 10(1): 439-444.
• Al-Naggar AMM, Abd El-Salam RM, Hovny MRA, Walaa Yaseen YS (2018) Genotype × Environment İnteraction and Stability of Sorghum Bicolor Lines for Some Agronomic and Yield Traits in Egypt. Asian Journal of Agricultural and Horticultural Research 1:1-14.X
• Ali S, Xu Y, Ma X, Ahmad I, Manzoor Jia Q, Akmal M, Hussain Z, Arif M, Cai T, Zhang J, Jia Z (2019) Deficit İrrigation Strategies To Improve Winter Wheat Productivity And Regulating Root Growth Under Different Planting Patterns. Agric. Water Manag 219: 1–11.
• Assefa G, Ledin I (2001) Effect Of Variety, Soil Type And Fertilizer On The Estab- Lishment, Growth, Forage Yield, Quality and Voluntary Intake By Cattle of Oats and Vetches Cultivated in Pure Stands and Mixtures. Animal Feed Science and Technology 92: 95–111.
• Atis I, Konuskan O, Duru M, Gozubenli H, Yilmaz S (2012) Effect of Harvesting Time on Yield, Composition and Forage Quality of Some Forage Sorghum Cultivars. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 14(6).
• AOAC (2003) Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 17th Ed. 2nd Rev. Gaithersburg, MD, USA. Association of Analytical Communities.
• Aydinoglu B, Cakmakci S (2018) Farklı Lokasyonlarda Yetiştirilen Sorgum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] Bitkisinde Biçim Devresinin Hasıl Verimi ve Bazı Verim Ögelerine Etkisi. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi 5(2): 167-175.
• Caballero R, Goicoechea EL, Hernaiz PJ (1995) Forage Yields and Quality of Com- Mon Vetch and Oat Sown at Varying Seeding Ratios and Seeding Rates of Common Vetch. Field Crops Research 41: 135–140.
• Carmi A, Aharoni Y, Edelstein M, Umiel N, Hagiladi A, Yosef E, ... Miron J (2006) Effects of Irrigation and Plant Density on Yield, Composition and in vitro Digestibility of a New Forage Sorghum Variety, Tal, at Two Maturity Stages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 131(1-2): 121-133.
• Celik B, Turk M (2021). The Determination of Forage Yield and Quality of Some Silage Sorghum Cultivars in Ecological Conditions of Uşak Province. Turkish Journal of Range and Forage Science 2(1): 1-7.
• Cherney JH, Cherney DJR, Akin DE, Axtell JD (1991) Potential of Brown-Midrib, Low-Lignin Mutants for Improving Forage Quality. Adv. Agron. 46:157–198.
• Colombini S, Galassi G, Crovetto GM, Rapetti L (2012) Milk Production, Nitrogen Balance, and Fiber Digestibility Prediction of Corn, Whole Plant Grain Sorghum, and Forage Sorghum Silages in The Dairy Cow. Journal of Dairy Science, 95(8): 4457-4467.
• Cook CW, Stubbendieck J (1986) Range Research: Basic Problems and Techniques. Society for Range Management Press, Colorado.
• de Mendiburu F, de Mendiburu MF. Package ‘agricolae’. (2019) R Package, Version, 1.3. Available from: https://cran.r- project.org/web/packages/agricolae/agricol ae.pdf
• Erdurmus C, Erdal S, Oten M, Kiremitci S, Uzun B (2021). Investigation of Forage Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) Genotypes for Yield and Yield Components. Maydica 66(2): 13.
• Girgin VÇ (2012) Bornova Koşullarında İkinci Ürün Olarak Yetiştirilen Tatlı Sorgum (Sorghum bicolor L.)’da Farklı Azot Dozlarının Bazı Tarımsal ve Teknolojik Özelliklere Etkisi Üzerinde Araştırmalar. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ege Üniv. Fen Bil. Enst., İzmir.
• Hallam A, Anderson IC, Buxton DR (2001) Comparative Economic Analysis of Perennial, Annual, and Intercrops for Biomass Production. Biomass Bioenergy 21: 407– 424.
• Horrocks RD, Vallentine JF (1999) Harvested Forages. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA.. Ismaeil FM, Abusuwar AO, El-Naim AM (2012) Influence of Chicken Manure on Growth and Yield of Forage Sorghum (Sorghum Bicolor L. Moench.). International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 2(2): 56-60.
• Jahanzad E, Jorat M, Moghadam H, Sadeghpour A, Chaichi MR, Dashtaki M (2013) Response of a New and a Commonly Grown Forage Sorghum Cultivar to Limited Irrigation and Planting Density. Agricultural water management 117: 62-69.
• Kara E, Sürmen M, Erdoğan H (2019) Katı Biyogaz Atığı Uygulamalarının Sorgum ve Sorgum x sudanotu Melezi Bitkilerinde Yem Verimi ve Kalitesi Üzerine Etkileri. Uluslararası Tarım ve Yaban Hayatı Bilimleri Dergisi 5(2): 355-361.
• Kir H, Sahan BD (2019) Yield and Quality Feature of Some Silage Sorghum and Sorghum-Sudangrass Hybrid Cultivars in Ecological Conditions of Kırşehir Province. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi 6(3): 388-395.
• Lithourgidis AS, Vasilakoglou IB, Dhima KV, Dordas CA, Yiakoulaki MD (2006). Forage Yield and Quality of Common Vetch Mixtures with Oat and Triticale in Two Seeding Ratios. Field Crops Research 99: 106–113.
• Marsalis MA, Angadi S, Contreras-Govea FE, Kirksey RE (2009) Harvest Timing and byproduct Addition Effects on Corn and Forage Sorghum Silage Grown Under Water Stress. Res. Bulletin BL- 799. NM Agric. Exp. Sta.
• Moray S, İstanbulluoğlu A (2022) Tekirdağ Koşullarında Sorgum-Sudan Otu Melezi (Sorghum bicolor-Sorghum sudanense) Su Verim İlişkileri. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 19(1): 166-176.
• Naoyuki T, Yusuke G (2004) Cultivation of Sweet Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) and Determination of its Harvest Time to Make Use as the Raw Material for Fermentation, Practiced During Rainy Season in Dry Land of Indonesia. Plant Production Science 7: 442-448.
• Oten M (2017). The Effects of Different Sowing Time and Harvesting Height on Hydrocyanic Acid Content in Some Silage Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) Varieties. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 22(2): 211-217.
• Paterson JA, Belyea RL, Bowman JP, Kerley MS, Williams JE (1994) The Impact of Forage Quality and Supplementation Regimen on Ruminant Animal Intake and Performance. In: Fahey Jr., G.C. (Ed.), Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, WI, USA, pp. 9–11.
• Paye WS, Acharya P, Ghimire R (2022) Water Productivity of Forage Sorghum in Response to Winter Cover Crops in Semi-arid Irrigated Conditions. Field Crops Research 283: 108552.
• Rostamza M, Chaichi MR, Jahansooz MR, Rahimian Mashhadi H, Sharifi HR, (2011) Effects of Water Stress and Nitrogen Fertilizer on Multi-cut Pearl Millet Forage Yield, Nitrogen, and Water Use Efficiency. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 42: 2427–2440.
• Salman A, Budak B (2015) Farklı Sorgum x Sudanotu Melezi (Sorghum bicolor x Sorghum sudanense stapf.) çeşitlerinin verim ve verim özellikleri üzerine bir araştırma. Adnan Menderes Universitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 12(2): 93-100.
• Singh KP, Chaplot PC, Sumeriya HK, Choudhary GL (2016) Performance of Single Cut Forage Sorghum Genotypes to Fertility Levels. Forage Research 42(2): 140-142.
• Turkish State Meteorological Service (2021) Climatic data of the experimental area (Aydın / Turkey). https://mevbis.mgm.gov.tr/ (accessed 20 June 2021).
• Van-Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Method for Dietary Fiber, Neutral Detergent Fiber, and starch Polysaccharides in Relation to Animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74: 3583-3597.
• Warnes GR, Bolker B, Bonebakker L, Gentleman R, Huber W, Liaw A, Lumley T, Maechler M, Magnusson A, Moeller S, Schwartz M, Venables B, Galili T (2022) Package ‘gplots’. Various R Programming Tools for Plotting data. R Package, Version, 3.1.3. 2022.
• Wei T, Simko V, Levy M, Xie Y, Jin Y, Zemla JR (2017) Package "corrplot": Visualization of a Correlation Matrix; 2017. Available: https://cran.r- project.org/web/packages/corrplot/index.html