Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Year 2021, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 162 - 166, 31.12.2021

İbrahim Ertekin

https://doi.org/10.32571/ijct.1004113
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Bu çalışma özellikle Akdeniz iklim bölgesi meralarında yaygın bir şekilde bulunan bazı üçgül türlerinin kimyasal kompozisyonunu ve besin değerini karşılaştırmak için yürütülmüştür. Bu amaçla Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi kampüs merasında on farklı noktadan üçgül (Trifolium angustifolium, Trifolium cherleri, Trifolium hybridum, Trifolium lappaceum, Trifolium nigrescens, Trifolium pilulare, Trifolium resupinatum, Trifolium scabrum, Trifolium spumosum ve Trifolium tomentosum) türleri toplanmıştır. Toplanan bu üçgül türlerinde kimyasal kompozisyonu belirlemek için ham kül (HK), ham protein (HP), nötr ortamda çözünmeyen lif (NDF), asitli ortamda çözünmeyen lif (ADF), asitli ortamda çözünmeyen lignin (ADL), hemiselüloz (Hsel) ve selüloz (Sel) içerikleri incelenmiştir. Ayrıca besin değerini belirlemek için kuru madde sindirimi (KMS), kuru madde tüketimi (KMT), nispi yem değeri (NYD) ve net enerji laktasyon (NEL) özellikleri hesaplanmıştır. Tek yıllık üçgül türlerinde incelenen tüm bu özellikler istatistiki açıdan önemli bulunmuştur. Türlerin HK, HP, NDF, ADF, ADL, Hsel ve Sel içerikleri sırasıyla %5.36-9.85, %18.47-22.05, %30.31-49.80, %21.32-34.28, %3.25-5.04, %8.99-15.97 ve %18.07-30.38 arasında değişiklik göstermiştir. Bu bitkilerin besin değerleri için hesaplanan KMS, KMT, NYD ve NEL özelliklerine ait değerlerin sırasıyla %62.20-72.29, %2.41-3.97, 116.20-222.18 ve %1.40-1.74 arasında değiştiği belirlenmiştir. Çalışmadan elde edilen bulgular topluca değerlendirildiğinde T. resupinatum ile T. hybridum türlerinin diğer türlere kıyasla üstün bir besin madde içeriği ve besin değerlerine sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Keywords

Kimyasal Kompozisyon Besin Değeri Tek Yıllık Üçgül Türleri Mera Yem

References

  • Ates, S.; Feindel, D.; El Moneim, A.; Ryan, J. Grass Forage Sci, 2014, 69, 17-31.
  • Can, E.; Çelıktaş, N.; Hatıpoğlu, R.; Avcı, S. Turk J Field Crops, 2009, 14, 72-78.
  • Brahim, K.; Smith, S.E. J. Ran Manage, 1993, 46, 21-25.
  • Evers, G.W. Crop Sci, 2011, 51, 403-409.
  • Brink, G.E.; Fairbrother, T.E. Crop Sci, 1992, 32, 1043-1048.
  • Rocateli, A.; Zhang, H. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Servce, Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 2015, PSS-2117.
  • Yavuz, M. GOÜ Ziraat Fak Derg, 2005, 22, 93-96
  • Fulgueira, C.L.; Amigot, S.L.; Gaggiotti, M.; Romero, L.A.; Basílico, J.C. Fresh Prod, 2007, 1, 121-131.
  • Van Dyke, N.J.; Anderson, P.M. Alabama Cooperative Extension System, 1998, ANR-890.
  • AOAC. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1990, 66-88.
  • Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B., Lewis, B.A. J Dairy Sci, 1991, 74, 3583-3597.
  • Wilson, P.J.; Thompson, K.; Hodgson, J.G. New Phytol,1999, 143, 155-162.
  • Shipley, B.; Vu, T.T. New Phytol, 2002, 153, 359-364.
  • Palacio, S.; Milla, R.; Albuixech, J.; Pérez-Rontomé, C.; Camarero, J.J.; Maestro, M.; Montserrat-Martí, G. New Phytol, 2008, 180, 133-142.
  • Harrington, K.C.; Thatcher, A.; Kemp, P.D. N Z Plant Prot, 2006, 59, 261-265.
  • Khan, Z.I.; Ashraf, M.; Valeem, E.E. Pak J Bot, 2006, 38, 1043-1054.
  • Lee, M.A. J Plant Res, 2018, 131, 641-654.
  • Mayer, J.A.; Cushman, J.C. J Agron Crop Sci, 2019, 205, 625-634.
  • Tekeli, A.S.; Ates, E. Cuban J Agric Sci, 2006, 40, 93-98.
  • Pereira-Crespo, S.; Valladares, J.; Flores, G.; Fernández-Lorenzo, B.; Resch, C.; Piñeiro, J.; Díaz, N.; González-Arráez, A.; Bande-Castro, M.J.; Rodriguez-Diz, X. CIHEAM, 2012, 241-244.
  • Fracchiolla, M.; Lasorella, C.; Laudadio, V.; Cazzato, E. Agric, 2018, 8, 313.
  • Oba, M.; Allen, M.S. J Dairy Sci, 1999, 82, 589-596.
  • Budak, F.; Budak, F. Türk Bil Der Derg, 2014, 7, 1-6.
  • Undersander, D. California Alfalfa Symposium, 2003, 100-104.
  • Gürsoy, E.; Macit, M. Anadolu Tar Bil Derg, 2017, 32, 407-412.

Comparison of chemical composition and nutritive values of some clover species

Year 2021, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 162 - 166, 31.12.2021

İbrahim Ertekin

https://doi.org/10.32571/ijct.1004113
Cited By: 1

Abstract

This study was carried out to compare the chemical composition and nutritive value of some clover species, especially common in the rangelands of the Mediterranean region. For this purpose, clover species (Trifolium angustifolium, Trifolium cherleri, Trifolium hybridum, Trifolium lappaceum, Trifolium nigrescens, Trifolium pilulare, Trifolium resupinatum, Trifolium scabrum, Trifolium spumosum and Trifolium tomentosum) were collected from ten different points in Hatay Mustafa Kemal University campus pasture. To determine the chemical composition of collected clover species, crude ash (CA), crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), acid detergent lignin (ADL), hemicellulose (Hcel) and cellulose (Cel) contents were investigated. In addition, dry matter digestibility (DMD), dry matter intake (DMI), relative feed value (RFV) and net energy lactation (NEL) characteristics were calculated in order to determine the nutritional value of clovers. Differences among species in terms of all features examined were found to be statistically significant. CA, CP, NDF, ADF, ADL, Hcel and Cel contents of species varied between 5.36% and 9.85%, 18.47% and 22.05%, 30.31% and 49.80%, 21.32% and 34.28, 3.25% and 5.04, 8.99% and 15.97% and 18.07% and 30.38, respectively. It was determined that the values of DMD, DMI, RFV and NEL properties calculated for the nutritive values of these plants varied between 62.20-72.29%, 2.41-3.97%, 116.20-222.18 and 1.40-1.74%, respectively. When the results obtained from the study were evaluated collectively, it was determined that T. resupinatum and T. hybridum offered a superior nutrient content and nutritional value compared to other species.

Keywords

Chemical Composition Nutritional Value Annual Clover Species Rangeland Forage

References

  • Ates, S.; Feindel, D.; El Moneim, A.; Ryan, J. Grass Forage Sci, 2014, 69, 17-31.
  • Can, E.; Çelıktaş, N.; Hatıpoğlu, R.; Avcı, S. Turk J Field Crops, 2009, 14, 72-78.
  • Brahim, K.; Smith, S.E. J. Ran Manage, 1993, 46, 21-25.
  • Evers, G.W. Crop Sci, 2011, 51, 403-409.
  • Brink, G.E.; Fairbrother, T.E. Crop Sci, 1992, 32, 1043-1048.
  • Rocateli, A.; Zhang, H. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Servce, Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 2015, PSS-2117.
  • Yavuz, M. GOÜ Ziraat Fak Derg, 2005, 22, 93-96
  • Fulgueira, C.L.; Amigot, S.L.; Gaggiotti, M.; Romero, L.A.; Basílico, J.C. Fresh Prod, 2007, 1, 121-131.
  • Van Dyke, N.J.; Anderson, P.M. Alabama Cooperative Extension System, 1998, ANR-890.
  • AOAC. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1990, 66-88.
  • Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B., Lewis, B.A. J Dairy Sci, 1991, 74, 3583-3597.
  • Wilson, P.J.; Thompson, K.; Hodgson, J.G. New Phytol,1999, 143, 155-162.
  • Shipley, B.; Vu, T.T. New Phytol, 2002, 153, 359-364.
  • Palacio, S.; Milla, R.; Albuixech, J.; Pérez-Rontomé, C.; Camarero, J.J.; Maestro, M.; Montserrat-Martí, G. New Phytol, 2008, 180, 133-142.
  • Harrington, K.C.; Thatcher, A.; Kemp, P.D. N Z Plant Prot, 2006, 59, 261-265.
  • Khan, Z.I.; Ashraf, M.; Valeem, E.E. Pak J Bot, 2006, 38, 1043-1054.
  • Lee, M.A. J Plant Res, 2018, 131, 641-654.
  • Mayer, J.A.; Cushman, J.C. J Agron Crop Sci, 2019, 205, 625-634.
  • Tekeli, A.S.; Ates, E. Cuban J Agric Sci, 2006, 40, 93-98.
  • Pereira-Crespo, S.; Valladares, J.; Flores, G.; Fernández-Lorenzo, B.; Resch, C.; Piñeiro, J.; Díaz, N.; González-Arráez, A.; Bande-Castro, M.J.; Rodriguez-Diz, X. CIHEAM, 2012, 241-244.
  • Fracchiolla, M.; Lasorella, C.; Laudadio, V.; Cazzato, E. Agric, 2018, 8, 313.
  • Oba, M.; Allen, M.S. J Dairy Sci, 1999, 82, 589-596.
  • Budak, F.; Budak, F. Türk Bil Der Derg, 2014, 7, 1-6.
  • Undersander, D. California Alfalfa Symposium, 2003, 100-104.
  • Gürsoy, E.; Macit, M. Anadolu Tar Bil Derg, 2017, 32, 407-412.
There are 25 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Engineering
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

İbrahim Ertekin 0000-0003-1393-8084

Publication Date December 31, 2021
Published in Issue Year 2021 Volume: 5 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Ertekin, İ. (2021). Comparison of chemical composition and nutritive values of some clover species. International Journal of Chemistry and Technology, 5(2), 162-166. https://doi.org/10.32571/ijct.1004113
AMA Ertekin İ. Comparison of chemical composition and nutritive values of some clover species. Int. J. Chem. Technol. December 2021;5(2):162-166. doi:10.32571/ijct.1004113
Chicago Ertekin, İbrahim. “Comparison of Chemical Composition and Nutritive Values of Some Clover Species”. International Journal of Chemistry and Technology 5, no. 2 (December 2021): 162-66. https://doi.org/10.32571/ijct.1004113.
EndNote Ertekin İ (December 1, 2021) Comparison of chemical composition and nutritive values of some clover species. International Journal of Chemistry and Technology 5 2 162–166.
IEEE İ. Ertekin, “Comparison of chemical composition and nutritive values of some clover species”, Int. J. Chem. Technol., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 162–166, 2021, doi: 10.32571/ijct.1004113.
ISNAD Ertekin, İbrahim. “Comparison of Chemical Composition and Nutritive Values of Some Clover Species”. International Journal of Chemistry and Technology 5/2 (December 2021), 162-166. https://doi.org/10.32571/ijct.1004113.
JAMA Ertekin İ. Comparison of chemical composition and nutritive values of some clover species. Int. J. Chem. Technol. 2021;5:162–166.
MLA Ertekin, İbrahim. “Comparison of Chemical Composition and Nutritive Values of Some Clover Species”. International Journal of Chemistry and Technology, vol. 5, no. 2, 2021, pp. 162-6, doi:10.32571/ijct.1004113.
Vancouver Ertekin İ. Comparison of chemical composition and nutritive values of some clover species. Int. J. Chem. Technol. 2021;5(2):162-6.

Cited By

A pivotal nutritional potential of understory vascular plants in Patagonian forests
Trees, Forests and People
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100622
 Download Cover Image

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.