MEYAN OTUNUN (Glycyrrhiza Sp.) KABAYEM OLARAK KULLANILMA OLANAKLARI II

Year 1975, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, - , 26.12.2010

Macit Özhan Kazım Göl

Abstract

Araştırmanın kesim dönemine kadar işlenen I. Kısım, Ziraat Dergisinin Mart 1975 Cilt 6, Sayı I. de yayınlanmıştır.

POSSIBILITIES TO USE THE LIQUORICE HAY
(Glycyrrhiza Sp.) AS A ROUGHAGE IN CATTLE RATIONS

Liquorice plant covers more
than one millions of acres of usable
land in the south and south eastern
part of 'Imkey. Altoughı it İs
considered as a weed by the farmers
but it wastıhought woıi1hwihile
for ııS to lI1ves'tiıgate tıhe poSisiib'İHties
rto use this plant as a roughage
in cattle rations.
The experiment was carrled
out in tıhe Alparslan Sıtaie Farm .in
Muş province. Fi!f.ty hea:d of eatde
(30 Alberdeen Anıguses, 20 Herefords)
we!'e diSltrilbuted 'İnto firve
groups of ten each (4 Herefords
6 Anguses).
Coneentrates fed to eadh group
were compuselcI of barley, wheat
bran, sunflower oil meal and containcd
[2 % digestihle protein.
Eadh ıgroup received the same amount
of concentr:ates.
Tihe roughage paNiün of tıhe
ratian'S in the treatıınents were as
fallow:s :
Group 1 1.0 Kg. Liquorice hay + 3.0 Kg. pTairie hay
» 2 2.0 ı> » » 2.0 » » »
» 3 0.0 ı> » » + 4.0 ') ı> »
» 4 4.0 » » » + 0.0 » » »
» 5 3.0 » » » + 1.0 » » »
After 100 daıys of feeıding tıhe
eXlperiment ternıinated. The statistical
analysis showed no significant
dififerences 'between the groups.
This resuLt indicated t!hat ·tihe Li.quoııİce
hıay had no signıificanrt effect
on the Hveweight gain.s. As II matter
of .tact ,the daiıly g.ains in tftıe
gr;oups were close to eadh other.
The da'İly ıga~ns in ;the first and second
groups were .8000 and .0795
Kg. respectively.
Since no significant differences
were obıserved between the rations
it is then be possiibIe to caneIude
I<The Liquorice hay can be
suhsıtitute for prairie hay in cattle
ra tionsı>. The same result will also
emilile US to say «The Liquorke
hay can be substitute for straw in
cattIe rations».
At the end of the experiment
the cattle were transportea to
Meat Packing Plant in Erzurum
province by lomes for slaughter.
,During tıhe process of slauıgihter,
skinJ feet and Iirver weights we·
re taken. The conclutions arri'Ved
after applying sta:tİosticaI analys;is
were giJven below.
Skin weİghts. 11he d'ifferences
in S'kin weights between· gnmps
were found not S İgnificant, but
'1!he dififerences betweenthe Ibreedıs
55
were significant (P < .05). The
skin weights in all the groups were
in favaur oc Herefurds.
Head welghts. The calculatal
ditferences between gııaups were
rtot signi:ficant, 'but the differences
, in head weights between the
breeds were significant (P<.05) ,
and the weight' differences were
in favour of Herefords.
Feet welghts. Hereford feet
weights were higher than Angu.s
feet weights, and the differences
were significant (P< .05). Furthermore
the feed X breed interaetions
were also significant.
Liver weights. The differences
between gtorups in liver weights we·
re not sigrnficant Ibut between
bıeeds 'were significant. In some
groups Herm-<ırd liveJ1s were hea'Vıi·
er filan Angu.'S TivellS and in· some
onhers 'Vice· versa. Slnce Herefords
we e hea'V.ier than Anguses funıdamentally
their livers should also
be heavier than Angus livers, but
this trend were not observed.
Fat thickness. In none of the
groups fal tibkkness were O;Ter
4 mm. The hiıghest value cakulatal
for the Berefords wa:s in the first
and fifth groups aıs 3.6 mm. while
for Angııses İn the .first .group alS
3.16 mm. ActualIy these figures
are VeJ'Y 1O'W for 11ıe Mıgus and.
Herefoııds, since dur natİve 'breeds
yrields more faıt than tlhe bree.ds
men'tioned above.
Eye muscle atea. Eye mUS()le
area for Herefordis weı::e 'm~er
than Anguses İn 2 and 3 groups
But the situadon was different
56
in ıst 3rd and 4th groups. Eye
ı:rruscle area in ,rhese groups wer~
in favout of .Angus 'breed. Alclıough .
the average figu.re for Herefor.ds
Wa's very high 'in group :5 because
,of one animal lıav.ing very lal1ge eye
muscle area.
Kldney fat. No- biıg di.fiferenees
were ohserved between gmups and
. breeds for tlhi'S aharacter. Aotually
it waS not possible to decide whether
the differences were signifi~
cant, because no 'statistical
analysis was applied.
Confonnatlon. No confonnation
differences between groups
and between breeds were ohserved
Homegenity in confoqnation was
also noticed in both breeds.
Fleshing. All the gmups and
. the brl",ecis had almosıt saırne grades
for Eleshing. A1thou.gh smaIl dilferenees
ihaıd occuıred in some groups
for both breeds, but Rerefords
s.höwed more homogenlty.
Cooler shrinkages. The d1fferences
in codler shrinkage values
between groups and between
breeds were not signifıcant. The
figures calculated for cooler
shrinkages for the breeds vvere
almost the same as in native
bree'cJs.
Boneless 'luts. Using the .data
obta'ine:d from the carcass weight,
r,~b eye area, internal faıt and fat
t'hickneslS, the honeleıss cuts in
dI1uck, rib, loin and rump were cal·
cclated. S~nce the va'lues were not
subjected to statistical arialysrrs, the
calculated differences between
groups and ·between breeds were
used as descriptive data.

Keywords

-