Quality and Mineral Elements Contents of Trifolium spp. Ecotypes Collected from Eastern Anatolia (Türkiye)

Abstract

Türkiye florası bitki türleri açısından zengindir ancak bazı türler hakkında daha az bilgi bulunmaktadır. Bu nedenle hayvan beslemede türlerin özelliklerinin ve yem potansiyellerinin belirlenmesine ihtiyaç vardır. Bu çalışmanın amacı 14 farklı Trifolium türünün (T. ambiguum, T. bullatum, T. campestre, T. cherleri, T. dasyurum, T. echinatum, T. grandiflorum, T. hirtum, T. nigrescens, T. nigrescens, T. dasyurum) belirlenmesidir. pauciflorum, T. resupinatum, T. spumosum, T. stellatum ve T. tomentosum) doğal kaynaklardan alınmıştır. 12 farklı yerden bitkilerin kök boğazından kesilerek bitkilerin çiçeklenme dönemindeki habitatları. Trifolium genotipleri arasındaki farklılıklar incelenen tüm özellikler açısından istatistiksel olarak çok önemli bulunmuştur. CP, DM, ADF, NDF, ADP, DDM, DMI, Ca, Mg, P ve K oranları ile RFV, Ca/P ve K/(Ca+Mg) değerleri %12,02-25,54, %90,25-96,56, 11,61 arasında değişmektedir. -%35,26, %27,27-47,82, %0,47-1,24, Sırasıyla %61,43-79,87, %2,51-4,40, %1,41-2,19, %0,26-0,43, %0,31-0,50, %1,19-3,65, 119,66-268,62, 3,24-6,09 ve 0,56-1,97. Araştırmada incelenen farklı lokasyonlardan toplanan Trifolium türleri arasında 25 numaralı genotip, yüksek CP, DM, DDM, DMI ve RFV değerleri, düşük ADF ve NDF oranlarıyla öne çıktı. Aynı özellikler açısından 17 numaralı genotip bu genotipi takip etmiştir. 1, 16 ve 21 numaralı genotipler yüksek K değerleri ile öne çıkarken, 25, 9 ve 21 numaralı genotipler sırasıyla yüksek Ca, Mg ve P değerleri ile ön plana çıkmıştır. İncelenen Trifolium türleri arasında verim ve kalite açısından en iyi genotipler 17 ve 25 numaralı genotiplerdir.

Keywords

• Trifolium spp.
• ekotip
• ot kalitesi
• mineral element içeriği

Quality and Mineral Elements Contents of Trifolium spp. Ecotypes Collected from Eastern Anatolia (Türkiye)

Abstract

The flora of Turkey is rich plant species but there is less known about some species. Hence, there is need to determine species properties and their forage potentials for animal feeding. The objective of this study was determine to 14 different Trifolium species (T. ambiguum, T. bullatum, T. campestre, T. cherleri, T. dasyurum, T. echinatum, T. grandiflorum, T. hirtum, T. nigrescens, T. pauciflorum, T. resupinatum, T. spumosum, T. stellatum and T. tomentosum) that taken from natural habitats during the flowering period of the plants by cutting from the root collar of the plants from 12 different locations. The differences between Trifolium genotypes were found to be statistically very significant for all the examined traits. Crude protein (CP), Dry matter (DM), acid detergent insoluble fiber (ADF), neutral detergent insoluble fiber (NDF), acid detergent insoluble protein (ADP), digestible dry matter (DDM), dry matter intake (DMI), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) ratios and relative feed values (RFV), Ca/P and K/(Ca+Mg) values varied between 12.02-25.54%, 90.25-96.56%, 11.61-35.26%, 27.27-47.82%, 0.47-1.24%, 61.43-79.87%, 2.51-4.40%, 1.41-2.19%, 0.26-0.43%, 0.31-0.50%, 1.19-3.65%, 119.66-268.62, 3.24-6.09 and 0.56-1.97, respectively. Among the Trifolium species collected from different locations examined in the research, genotype number 25 (Trifolium tomentosum) stood out with high CP, DM, DDM, DMI and RFV values and low ADF and NDF ratios. Genotype number 17 (Trifolium nigrescens subsp. petrisavii) in terms of the same characteristics followed this genotype. While genotypes number 1 (Trifolium ambiguum), 16 (Trifolium nigrescens subsp. petrisavii) and 21 (Trifolium resupinatum var. resupinatum) stood out with high K values, genotypes number 25 (Trifolium tomentosum), 9 (Trifolium cherleri) and 21 (Trifolium resupinatum var. resupinatum) stood out with high Ca, Mg and P values, respectively. Among the Trifolium species examined, the best genotypes in terms of yield and quality were genotypes number 17 (Trifolium nigrescens subsp. petrisavii) and 25 (Trifolium tomentosum).

Keywords

• Trifolium spp.
• ecotype
• herbage quality
• mineral element content

References

1. Broderick GA (2018). Optimizing ruminant conversion of feed protein to human food protein. Animal, 12(8): 1722-1734.
2. Cacan E, Ozdemir S, Kokten K, Ucar R, Mokhtarzadeh S, Ekmekci M, Kutlu MA (2024). Change of forage yield and quality characteristics of white clover (Trifolium repens L.) at different harvest time. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 21(5): 1099-1111.
3. Da Silva MS, Tremblay GF, Bélanger G, Lajeunesse J, Papadopoulos YA, Fillmore SA, Jobim CC (2014). Forage energy to protein ratio of several legume–grass complex mixtures. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 188: 17-27.
4. Du S, Xu M, Yao J (2016). Relationship between fibre degradation kinetics and chemical composition of forages and by-products in ruminants. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 44(1): 189-193.
5. Ertekin İ (2021). Comparison of chemical composition and nutritive values of some clover species. International Journal of Chemistry and Technology, 5(2): 162-166.
6. Fadlalla IM (2022). The interactions of some minerals elements in health and reproductive performance of dairy cows. IntechOpen, https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101626
7. Genstat (2009). Genstat for Windows (12th edition) Introduction. Vsn International, Hemel Hempstead. Gürsoy E, Macit M (2017). Determination of relative feed values of different legume forages grown as naturally in pastures of Erzurum Province. Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 32(3): 407-412.
8. Hoekstra NJ, De Deyn GB, Xu Y, Prinsen R, Van Eekeren, N (2018). Red clover varieties of Mattenklee type have higher production, protein yield and persistence than Ackerklee types in grass-clover mixtures. Grass and Forage Science, 73(2): 297-308.

9. Karadeniz M, Kökten K (2022). The effects on yield and quality of berseem clover and Italian ryegrass mixture ratios in Elazig conditions. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 12(1): 509-517.
10. Kökten K, Koçak A, Kaplan M, Akçura M, Bakoğlu A, Bağcı, E (2011). Tannin, protein contents and fatty acid composition of the seeds of some Trifolium L. species from Turkey. Asian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 6(1): 88-95.
11. Lee MA (2018). A global comparison of the nutritive values of forage plants grown in contrasting environments. Journal of Plant Research, 131(4): 641-654.
12. Lüscher A, Mueller‐Harvey I, Soussana JF, Rees RM, Peyraud JL. (2014). Potential of legume‐based grassland-livestock systems in Europe: a review. Grass and Forage Science, 69(2): 206-228.
13. McDowell LR, Valle G (2000). Major minerals in forages. In forage evaluation in ruminant nutrition. CABI Publishing. ISBN 0-85199-344-3.
14. McDowell LR (1997) Minerals for grazing ruminants in tropical regions, 3rd edn. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA, 81 pp
15. Morrison J.A. (2003). Hay and pasture management, Chapter 8. Extension Educator, Crop Systems Rockford Extension Center. http://iah.aces.uiuc.edu/pdf/Agronomy_HB/ 08chapter.pdf. (Access date: 30.06.2017).
16. Pereira-Crespo S, Valladares J, Flores G, Fernández-Lorenzo B, Resch C, Piñeiro J, Rodríguez-Díz, X (2012). Prediction of the nutritive value on annual forage clovers and serradella by near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS). In Options Méditerranéennes-Series A: Mediterranean Seminars, 102: 241-244.
17. Peterson PR, Sheaffer CC, Jordan RM, Christians CJ (1994). Response of Kura clover to sheep grazing and clipping. II. Below-ground morphology, persistence, and total nonstructural carbohydrates. Agronony of Journal, 86: 660-667.
18. Seguin AF, Mustafa P (2003). Chemical composition and ruminal nutrient degradabilities of fresh and ensiled Kura clover (Trifolium ambiguum MB). Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 83(3): 577-582.
19. Seguin P, Mustafa AF, Sheaffer CC. (2002). Effects of soil moisture deficit on forage quality, digestibility, and protein fractionation of Kura clover. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 188: 260-266.
20. Tucak M, Čupić T, Horvat D, Ravlić M, Krizmanić G, Maćešić D, Meglič V (2023). Changes in agronomic and forage nutritive values of red clover in response to different development stage. Romanian Agricultural Research, 40: 215-224.