Research Article

Feed-value of post-harvest quinoa plant sections grown by different cultural applications

Volume: 5 Number: 2 June 28, 2021
EN

Feed-value of post-harvest quinoa plant sections grown by different cultural applications

Abstract

The aim of the study, the grains of the quinoa plant grown in the Kahramanmaraş region, Turkey, which was sown at different times (March 26, April 2, 13 and 26, and May 11) in various row spacing applications (20, 40 and 60 cm) was separated, and the feed-worthiness of the remaining plant sections were analyzed. The study findings demonstrated that crude protein content was 9.70-19.30%, dry matter ratio was 86.18-88.20%, acid detergent fiber content was 42.95-55.95%, neutral detergent fiber content was 51.23-64.27%, acid detergent insoluble protein content was 0.88-1.37%, digestible dry matter content was 45.3-55.4%, dry
matter intake rate was 1.87-2.34%, relative feed value was 66.88-96.49%, and quality standard value varied between III and V. Mineral content was determined as follows: Ca: 0.96-1.96%, K: 1.47-2.08%, Mg: 0.17-0.74%, P: 0.18-0.37%, Tetany: 1.51-1.99, milk fever: 3.69-9.49. It was determined that the sowing time with the highest feed values for quinoa straw was May 11, while the ideal row spacing was 40 cm. Thus, a feed with higher protein and mineral content but low indigestible nutrient content could be obtained. However, it was concluded that it would be more adequate to employ the feed in composite form with other feed plants for feed quality.

Keywords

ADF, ADP, crude protein content, mineral content, NDF

References

  1. Anonymous, 2018a. Eastern Mediterranean passage belt agricultural research institute.
  2. Anonymous, 2018b. T.C. Ministry of forestry and water affairs, general directorate of meteorology, Kahramanmaraş.
  3. Aydin, I. and Uzun, F. (2008). Potential decrease of grass tetany risk in rangelands combining N and K fertilization with MgO treatments. European J. Agr. 29 (1): 33-37. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2008.02.003
  4. Başbağ, M., Çaçan, E. and Sayar, M.S. (2018). Determining feed quality values of some grass species and assessments on relations among the traits with biplot analysis method. J. Cen. Res. Inst. Field Crops 27 (2): 92−101. Doi: https://doi.org/10.21566/tarbitderg.501484
  5. Chen, Z.C., Peng, W.T., Li, J. and Liao, H. (2018). Functional dissection and the transport mechanism of magnesium in plants. In Seminars in cell & developmental biology 74: 142-152. Academic Press. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.08.005
  6. Debski B., Gralak, M.A., Bertrandt, J. and Kłos, A. (2013). Minerals and polyphenols content of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) plant. Probl. Hig. Epidemiol 94(2): 300-304. Retrieved from http://phie.pl/pdf/phe-2013/phe-2013-2-300.pdf
  7. Gürsoy, E. and Macit, M. (2017). Comparison of relative feed values of some grasses grown in grassland and meadow of Erzurum province. Yüzüncü Yıl Uni. J. of Agri. Sci., 27 (3): 309-317. Doi: http://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.280244
  8. Kakabouki, I., Bilalis, D., Karkanis, A., Zervas, G. and Hela, D. (2014). Effects of fertilization and tillage system on growth and crude protein content of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.): An alternative forage crop. Emirates J. Food and Agri. 26 (1): 18-24. Doi: https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v26i1.16831
  9. Kaplan, M., Kökten, K., Kale, H., Kardeş, Y.M., Akçura, M. and Şatana, A. (2017). Herbage Yield and Quality of Different Narbon Vetch Lines and Cultivars. 120-126. In: 2nd International Balkan Agriculture Congress, Tekirdağ, Türkiye.
  10. Kaya, E. and Aydemir, S.K. (2020). Determining the forage yield, quality, and nutritional element contents of quinoa cultivars and correlation analysis on these parameters. Pak J Agri Sci. 57 (2): 311-317. Doi: http://doi.org/10.21162/PAKJAS/20.7229
APA
Zulkadir, G., & İdikut, L. (2021). Feed-value of post-harvest quinoa plant sections grown by different cultural applications. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences, 5(2), 140-145. https://doi.org/10.31015/jaefs.2021.2.2
AMA
1.Zulkadir G, İdikut L. Feed-value of post-harvest quinoa plant sections grown by different cultural applications. int. j. agric. environ. food sci. 2021;5(2):140-145. doi:10.31015/jaefs.2021.2.2
Chicago
Zulkadir, Gülay, and Leyla İdikut. 2021. “Feed-Value of Post-Harvest Quinoa Plant Sections Grown by Different Cultural Applications”. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences 5 (2): 140-45. https://doi.org/10.31015/jaefs.2021.2.2.
EndNote
Zulkadir G, İdikut L (June 1, 2021) Feed-value of post-harvest quinoa plant sections grown by different cultural applications. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences 5 2 140–145.
IEEE
[1]G. Zulkadir and L. İdikut, “Feed-value of post-harvest quinoa plant sections grown by different cultural applications”, int. j. agric. environ. food sci., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 140–145, June 2021, doi: 10.31015/jaefs.2021.2.2.
ISNAD
Zulkadir, Gülay - İdikut, Leyla. “Feed-Value of Post-Harvest Quinoa Plant Sections Grown by Different Cultural Applications”. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences 5/2 (June 1, 2021): 140-145. https://doi.org/10.31015/jaefs.2021.2.2.
JAMA
1.Zulkadir G, İdikut L. Feed-value of post-harvest quinoa plant sections grown by different cultural applications. int. j. agric. environ. food sci. 2021;5:140–145.
MLA
Zulkadir, Gülay, and Leyla İdikut. “Feed-Value of Post-Harvest Quinoa Plant Sections Grown by Different Cultural Applications”. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences, vol. 5, no. 2, June 2021, pp. 140-5, doi:10.31015/jaefs.2021.2.2.
Vancouver
1.Gülay Zulkadir, Leyla İdikut. Feed-value of post-harvest quinoa plant sections grown by different cultural applications. int. j. agric. environ. food sci. 2021 Jun. 1;5(2):140-5. doi:10.31015/jaefs.2021.2.2