Farklı serin mevsim tahıl tür ve çeşitlerinin saman verimi ve kalitesi açısından karşılaştırılması

Year 2023, , 306 - 315, 27.09.2023

Erdal Çaçan , Kağan Kökten

https://doi.org/10.29050/harranziraat.1282736

Abstract

Bu çalışma, tahıllardan elde edilen samanların verim, sindirilebilir kuru madde ve nispi yem değerini belirlemek ve karşılaştırmak amacıyla 2015-16 ve 2016-17 yetişme sezonlarında yürütülmüştür. Tesadüf blokları deneme desenine göre üç tekerrürlü olarak yürütülen çalışmada; 3 adet ekmeklik buğday, 3 adet makarnalık buğday, 3 adet tritikale ve 4 adet arpa çeşidi bitkisel materyal olarak kullanılmıştır. Bitki boyu, biyolojik verim, tohum verimi, saman verimi ve ham protein açısından tahıl türleri arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak önemli bulunmuştur (P≤0.01). Bu özellikler açısından en yüksek sonuçlar tritikale samanından, en düşük değerler ise arpa ve ekmeklik buğday samanlarından elde edilmiştir. Aynı zamanda, en iyi verim sonuçlarının elde edildiği tritikale samanından en düşük ham protein oranı elde edilmiştir. Ham protein verimi, ADF ve NDF içerikleri, sindirilebilir kuru madde ve nispi yem değeri açısından tahıl türleri arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak önemsiz bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak, en yüksek verime sahip türün tritikale olduğu belirlenmiştir. Kalite kriterleri açısından, sadece ham protein içeriğinin türler arasında istatistiksel olarak önemli olduğu ve bu özellik açısından en düşük değerin tritikaleden, en yüksek değerin ise ekmeklik buğday ve arpadan elde edildiği belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Tahıllar, Çeşitler, Tohum verimi, Saman verimi, Saman kalitesi

Comparison of different cool season cereal species and cultivars in terms of straw yield and quality

Abstract

This study was carried out in the year 2015-16 and 2016-17 growing season in order to determine and compare the yield, digestibility dry matter and relative feed value of straw obtained from cereals. In the study, which was carried out in three replications according to the randomized blocks experimental design; 3 bread wheat, 3 durum wheat, 3 triticale and 4 barley cultivars were used as plant material. The difference between cereal species in terms of plant height, biological yield, seed yield, straw yield and crude protein was statistically significant (P≤0.01). In terms of these features the highest results were obtained from triticale straw and the lowest values were obtained from barley and bread wheat straw. At the same time, the lowest crude protein ratio was obtained from triticale straw, where the best yield results were obtained. The difference between cereal species in terms of crude protein yield, ADF and NDF contens, digestibility dry matter and relative feed values were found to be statistically insignificant. As a result, it was determined that the species with the highest yield among the species was trikale. In terms of quality criteria, it was determined that only the crude protein content was statistically significant among the species and the lowest value was obtained from triticale and the highest value was obtained from bread wheat and barley in terms of this property.

Keywords

Cereals, Cultivars, Seed yield, Straw yield, Straw quality

References

• Abdi, A.M., & Kilic, U. (2018). Effect of lignin peroxidase enzyme on feed values of different straws. KSU Journal of Agriculture and Nature, 21(3), 374-384.
• Acar, Z., Tan, M., Ayan, İ., Önal Aşçı, Ö., Mut, H., Başaran, U., Gülümser, E., Can, M., & Kaymak, G. (2020). The situation of forage crops agriculture and Its development opportunities in Turkey. Agricultural Engineers of Turkey IX. Technical Congress. 13-17 January Ankara, 529-553.
• Akdeniz, H., Keskin, B., Yilmaz, I., & Oral, E. (2004). A research on yield and yield components of some barley cultivars. Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 14(2), 119-125.
• Altin, M., Orak, A., & Tuna, C. (2009). Importance of forage crops in terms of sustainable agriculture. (In Turkish) In R. Avcioglu, R. Hatiopglu & Y. Karadag (Eds.), Forage Crops Vol I (pp. 11-28). Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Publications of the General Directorate of Agriculture and Publication, Izmir.
• Ball, D.M., Hoveland, C.S., & Lacefield, G.D. (1996). Forage Quality in Southern Forages (pp. 124-132). Publ. By the Williams Printing Company.
• Basbag, M., Cacan, E. & Sayar, M.S. (2018). Determining feed quality values of some grass species and assessments onrelations among the traits with biplot analysis method. Journal of Central Research Institute for Field Crops, 27(2), 92−101. https://www.doi.org/10.21566/tarbitderg.501484
• Basbag, M., Sayar, M.S., Cacan, E. & Karan, H. (2021). Determining quality traits of some concentrate feedstuffs and assessments on relations between the feeds and the traits using biplot analysis. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 30(2A), 1627-1635.
• Cakmak, C., Cerci, I.H., Cetinkaya, N., & Kocak, D. (1993). The effects of chemical treatments of wheat straw upon its ruminal degradability and metabolisable energy. Journal of Lalahan Livestock Research Institute, 33(3-4), 58-68.
• Degirmencioglu, T. (2004). A comparative study on in-vitro digestibility of some roughages in sheeps and goats. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Bursa Uludag University, 18(1), 157-165.
• Devendra, C. (1982). Perspective in the utilization of untreated straw by ruminants in Asia. In P.T. Doyle (Ed.), The Utilization of Fibrous Agricultural Residues as Ruminal Feeds (pp. 7-26). School of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Melbourne, Parkville.
• Ergul, M. (2008). Feed Information (In Turkish). Ege University Agriculture Faculty Publications, No: 487, İzmir, Turkey.
• Ergun, A., Colpan, I., Yildiz, G., Kucukersan, S., Tuncer, S., Yalcin, D., Kucukersan, M.K., & Sehu, A. (2002). Feeds, Feed Hygiene and Technology (In Turkish) (pp. 120-122). Ankara University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Animal Nutrition and Nutritional Diseases, Ankara.
• Fluharty, F.L. (2009). Protein and Energy Supplementation of Crop Residues for Breeding Cattle (pp. 01-05). Department of Animal Sciences. The Ohio State University, USA.
• Jeranyama, P. & Garcia, A.D. (2004). Understanding Relative Feed Value (RFV) and Relative Forage Qality (RFQ). South Dakota State University Extension Extra Archives. 352. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/extension_extra/352
• JMP. (2002). A Business Unit of SAS. SAS Institute, USA.
• Kalkan, H., & Filya, I. (2011). Effects of cellulose enzyme on nutritive value, in vitro degistion characteristics and microbial biomass production of wheat straw. Journal of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Kafkas University, 17(4), 585-594.
• Kilic, A. (2006). Determination of Quality in Roughages (In Turkish) (pp.20). Hasad Publications.
• Kilic, U., Abdi, A.M., Ekinci, D. (2019). Effects of different additives and lignin peroxidase enzyme on in vitro gas production kinetics and methane production of some straws. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 51(6), 2057-2067.
• MGM. (2018). Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry General Directorate of Meteorology, http://www.mgm.gov.tr.
• Morrison, J.A. (2003). Illinois Agronomy Handbook. Hay and Pasture, Chapter 6. Rockford Extension Center.
• Richardson, C. (2001). Relative feeding value (RFV), an indicator of hay Quality. OSO Extension Fact F2117, http://clay.agr.okstate.edu/alfalfa/webnews/quality3. htm (Accessed 10 August 2020).
• Rivera, D., & Parish, J. (2010). Interpreting Forage and Feed Analysis Reports. In Extension Service of Mississippi State University, cooperating with U.S. Department of Agriculture.
• Sayar, M.S., Anlarsal, A.E. & Basbag, M. (2010). Current situation, problems and solutions for cultivation of forage crops in the Southeastern Anatolian Region. J.Agric. Fac. HR.U., 14(2), 59-67.
• Sayar, M.S., Basbag, M., Cacan E. & Karan, H. (2022). The effect of different cutting times on forage quality traits of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) genotypes and evaluations with biplot analysis. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 31(08B), 9178-9190.
• Sehu, A., Yalcin, S., Onol, A.G. (1996). The in-vivo digestibility coefficients and rumen degradability characteristics of some cereal straws. Veterinary Journal of Ankara University, 43, 469-477.
• Senel, S. (1986). Feeding Animal (In Turkish) (pp. 251). Istanbul University Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Publications, Rectorate Publications No: 3210, Deanery Publications No: 5, Istanbul.
• Schroeder, J.W. (1994). Interpreting Forage Analysis. Extension Dairy Specialist (NDSU), AS-1080, North Dakota State University.
• Twidwell, A.K., Johnson, K.D., Cherney, J.H., & Ohm, H.W. (1987). Forage yield and quality of soft red winter wheats and a winter triticale. Applied Agricultural Research, 2, 84-88.
• TUIK. (2023). Turkish Statistical Institute, Crop Production Statistics, http://www.tuik.gov.tr. Access date: 10.03.2023.
• Van Soest, P.J. (1994). Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant (2nd Ed.). Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
• Yavuz, M. (2005). Determination of some ruminant feed’s relative feed value and in vitro digestion values. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Gaziosmanpasa University, 22(1), 97-101.
• Yilmaz, N., Ege, H., Sonmez, F., & Ulker, M. (1994). A research on the determination of some winter barley varieties and lines that can adapt in Van region (In Turkish). Paper presented at III. Nuclear Agriculture and Livestock Congress, October 19-21, Ankara, Turkey.
• Yilmaz, I.H., Bozkurt, M.A., & Akdeniz, H. (2001). A study on the possibility of using sludge in winter barley agriculture (In Turkish). Paper presented at National Industry-Environment Symposium and Exhibition, April 25-27, Mersin, Turkey.