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

Year 2021, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 140 - 145, 28.06.2021

Gülay Zulkadir , Leyla İdikut

https://doi.org/10.31015/jaefs.2021.2.2

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

• Anonymous, 2018a. Eastern Mediterranean passage belt agricultural research institute.
• Anonymous, 2018b. T.C. Ministry of forestry and water affairs, general directorate of meteorology, Kahramanmaraş.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• Khan, N., Chaudhry, S., Siddiqui, M.Z. and Yadav, R.A. (2017). Effect of weed management options and nitrogen scheduling on weed dynamics and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum) under Central Plain Zone of Uttar Pradesh. Indian J. Agro., 62(4): 464- 469.
• Morrison, J.A. (2003). Hay and Pasture Management. Chapter 8. Extension Educator, Crop Systems Rockford Extension Center.
• Nurfeta, A., Tolera, A., Eik, L.O. and Sundstøl, F., (2008). Yield and mineral content of ten esnet (Ensete ventricosum) varieties. Tropical Ani. Health and Pro., 40(4): 299-309. Doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-007-9095-0
• Podkowka, Z., Gesinski, K. and Podkowka, L. (2018). The influence of additives facilitating ensiling on the quality of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) silage. J. Cen. Euro. Agri., 19 (3): 607-614. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/19.3.2237
• Risi, J. and Galwey, N.W. (1991). Effects of sowing date and sowing rate on plant development and grain yield of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) in a temperate environment. The Journal of Agri. Sci., 117 (3): 325-332.
• SAS. (2004). SAS Institute Inc., SAS Campus Drive, Cary, North Carolina 27513.
• Sayar, M.S., Başbağ, M. and Çaçan, E., (2018). Determining feed quality values of some grass species and assessments on relations among the traits with biplot analysis method. Journal of Cen. Res. Inst. for Field Crops, 27 (2): 92-101. Doi: http://www.doi.org/10.21566/tarbitderg.501484
• Tan, M. (2020). Macro-and micromineral contents of different quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) varieties used as forage by cattle. Turkish J. Agri, and Forestry 44 (1): 46-53. Doi: http://doi.org/10.3906/tar-1904-10
• Tan, M. and Temel, S. (2017). Studies on the adaptation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) to the eastern Anatolia region of Turkey. AGROFOR Inter. J., 2 (2): 33-39. Retrieved from http://agrofor.ues.rs.ba/data/20171115-04-Tan%20at%20all.pdf
• Temel, I. and Keskin, B. (2019). The effects on the nutrient content of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) of different row spacing and intra-row spacing. Inter. J. Agri. And Wildlife Sci., 5 (1): 110-116. Doi: http://doi.org/10.24180/ijaws.486327