Çemen (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) ile Yulaf (Avena sativa L.) ve Çavdar (Secale tahıl L.) Karışımlarının Silaj Kalitesinin Belirlenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmada, çemen (Trigonella foenum-graecum L. cv Berkem) ile yulaf (Avena sativa L. cv Faikbey) ve çavdar (Secale cereale L. cv Aslım-93) otunun silaj karışımlarının (%100:0, %75:25, %50:50, %25:75 ve %0:100) kalitesinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Hasattan sonra bitkiler 2-3 cm boyutlarında kesilmiş, karışım oranlarına göre vakumlu torbalara doldurulmuş ve 25±2 oC'de 60 gün fermantasyona bırakılmıştır. Silaj numunelerinde fiziksel gözlemler (koku, yapı, renk), kuru madde (DM), pH, ham protein (CP), asit deterjan lifi (ADF) ve nötr deterjan lifi (NDF) analizleri yapılmış ve nispi yem değeri (RFV) hesaplanmıştır. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre koku, yapı ve renk puanlarının toplamından oluşan silajların toplam fiziksel puanı 13.30-19.75 arasında, fiziksel kalite ise orta-çok iyi sınıf arasında değişmektedir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre karışımdaki çemen otu oranının artmasına paralel olarak silaj DM, ADF ve NDF oranlarının düştüğü, pH, CP ve RFV değerlerinin arttığı tespit edilmiştir. Silajların DM, pH, CP, ADF, NDF ve RFV değerleri sırasıyla %15,67-34,33, %5,06-5,79, %6,01-18,17, %32,03-48,90, %40,07-74,53 ve %63,41-148,48 arasında değişmiştir. Sonuç olarak, özellikle kimyasal parametreler dikkate alındığında “%25 yulaf + %75 çemen” karışımının silajının diğer karışımların silajlarına göre daha üstün olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Keywords

• Silaj
• yulaf
• çavdar
• çemen
• fiziksel özellikler
• nispi yem değeri

Determination of Silage Quality of Fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) with Oat (Avena sativa L.) and Rye (Secale cereale L.) Mixtures

Abstract

In this study, it was aimed to determine the quality of silage mixtures (100:0%, 75:25%, 50:50%, 25:75% and 0:100%) of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L. cv Berkem) with oat (Avena sativa L. cv Faikbey) and rye (Secale cereale L. cv Aslım-93). Following the harvest, plants were cut in 2-3 cm sizes, filled in vacuum bags according to the mixing ratios and left for fermentation at 25±2 oC for 60 days. Physical observations (smell, structure, color), dry matter (DM), pH, crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) analysis were applied to silage samples and relative feed value (RFV) was determined. According to the results obtained, the total physical score of the silages, consisting of the sum of the odor, structure and color scores, ranged between 13.30-19.75 and the physical quality of the silages was ranged between middle-very good class. According to the results of the research, it was determined that the silage DM, ADF and NDF ratios decreased, and the pH, CP and RFV values increased in parallel with the increase in the fenugreek ratio in the mixture. The DM, pH, CP, ADF, NDF and RFV values of the silages varied between 15.67-34.33%, 5.06-5.79%, 6.01-18.17%, 32.03-48.90%, 40.07-74.53% and 63.41-148.48%, respectively. As a result, it was concluded that the silage of “25% oats + 75% fenugreek” mixture was superior to the silages of other mixtures, especially when considered the chemical parameters.

Keywords

• Silage
• oat
• rye
• fenugreek
• physical traits
• relative feed value

References

1. [1] Budak F, Budak F. Quality on forage plants and factors effecting forage quality. Turkish Journal of Scientific Reviews. 2014;7(1):1-6. (In Turkish).
2. [2] Can M, Acar Z, Ayan İ, Gülümser E, Mut H. Silage quality of chicory binary mixtures with white clover and orchard grass. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology. 2020;10(4):3076-3083. (In Turkish).
3. [3] Acar Z, Tan M, Ayan İ, Önal Aşçı Ö, Mut H, Başaran U, Gülümser E, Can M, Kaymak G. Situation of forage crops agriculture and development opportunities in Turkey. Agricultural Engineers of Turkey IX. Technical Congress, 13-17 January, Ankara, Turkey; 2020. (In Turkish).
4. [4] Kim HS, Han OK, Kim SC, Kim MJ, Kwak YS. Screening and investigation Lactobacillius spp. to improve Secale cereale silage quality. Animal Science Journal. 2017;88(10):1538-1546.
5. [5] Sterna V, Zute S, Brunava L. Oat grain composition and its nutrition benefice. Agriculture and agricultural science procedia. 2016;8:252-256.
6. [6] Kim KS, Tinker NA, Newell MA. Improvement of oat as a winter forage crop in the Southern United States. Crop Science. 2014;54(4):1336-1346.
7. [7] Ahmad M, Dar ZA, Habib M. A review on oat (Avena sativa L.) as a dual-purpose crop. Scientific Research and Essays. 2014;9(4):52-59.
8. [8] Raguindin PF, Itodo OA, Stoyanov J, Dejanovic GM, Gamba M, Asllanaj E, Kern H. A systematic review of phytochemicals in oat and buckwheat. Food Chemistry. 2020;127982.

9. [9] Soycan G, Schär MY, Kristek A, Boberska J, Alsharif SN, Corona G, Spencer JP. Composition and content of phenolic acids and avenanthramides in commercial oat products: Are oats an important polyphenol source for consumers?. Food chemistry: X. 2019;3: 100047.
10. [10] Wang Q, Ellis PR. Oat β-glucan: physico-chemical characteristics in relation to its blood-glucose and cholesterol-lowering properties. British Journal of Nutrition. 2014;112(S2):S4-S13.
11. [11] Huang CW, Liang WH, Esvelt Klos K, Chen CS, Huang YF. Evaluation of agronomic performance and exploratory genome‐wide association study of a diverse oat panel for forage use in Taiwan. Grassland Science. 2020;66(4):249-260.
12. [12] Irfan M, Ansar M, Sher A, Wasaya A, Sattar A. Improving forage yield and morphology of oat varieties through various row spacing and nitrogen application. JAPS: Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences. 2016;26(6).
13. [13] Gaikpa DS, Koch S, Fromme FJ, Siekmann D, Würschum T, Miedaner T. Genome‐wide association mapping and genomic prediction of Fusarium head blight resistance, heading stage and plant height in winter rye (Secale cereale). Plant Breeding. 2020;139(3):508-520.
14. [14] Miedaner T, Hübner M, Korzun V, Schmiedchen B, Bauer E, Haseneyer G, Reif JC. Genetic architecture of complex agronomic traits examined in two testcross populations of rye (Secale cereale L.). BMC Genomics. 2012;13(1):1-13.
15. [15] Bakera B, Święcicka M, Stochmal A, Kowalczyk M, Bolibok L, Rakoczy-Trojanowska M. Benzoxazinoids biosynthesis in rye (Secale cereale L.) is affected by low temperature. Agronomy. 2020;10(9):1260.
16. [16] Cotton TA, Pétriacq P, Cameron DD, Al Meselmani M, Schwarzenbacher R, Rolfe SA, Ton J. Metabolic regulation of the maize rhizobiome by benzoxazinoids. The ISME Journal. 2019;13(7):1647-1658.
17. [17] Bakera B, Makowska B, Groszyk J, Niziołek M, Orczyk W, Bolibok-Brągoszewska H, Rakoczy-Trojanowska M. Structural characteristics of ScBx genes controlling the biosynthesis of hydroxamic acids in rye (Secale cereale L.). Journal of Applied Genetics. 2015;56(3):287-298.
18. [18] Pihlava JM, Hellström J, Kurtelius T, Mattila P. Flavonoids, anthocyanins, phenolamides, benzoxazinoids, lignans and alkylresorcinols in rye (Secale cereale) and some rye products. Journal of Cereal Science. 2018;79:183-192.
19. [19] Auerbach H, Theobald P. Additive type affects fermentation, aerobic stability and mycotoxin formation during air exposure of early-cut rye (Secale cereale L.) silage. Agronomy. 2020;10(9):1432.
20. [20] Özyazıcı G. Responses of sulfur and phosphorus doses on the yield and quality of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.). Applied Ecology and Environmental Research. 2020;18(5):7041-7055.
21. [21] Bahmani M, Shirzad H, Mirhosseini M, Mesripour A, Rafieian-Kopaei M. A review on ethnobotanical and therapeutic uses of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graceum L). Journal of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine. 2016;21(1):53-62.
22. [22] Adil S, Qureshi S, Pattoo RA. A review on positive effects of fenugreek as feed additive in poultry production. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2015;14(12):664.
23. [23] Dronca D, Pacala N, Stef L, Pet I, Bencsik I, Dumitrescu G, Ahmadi M. Fenugreek-a dietary alternative component in animal feed. scientific papers: Animal Science & Biotechnologies/Lucrari Stiintifice: Zootehnie si Biotehnologii. 2018;51(2).
24. [24] Kaiser AG, Dear BS, Morris SG. An evaluation of the yield and quality of oat-legume and ryegrass-legume mixtures and legume monocultures harvested at three stages of growth for silage. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 2007;47(1):25-38.
25. [25] Denek N, Can A, Avci M, Aksu T, Durmaz H. The effect of molasses-based pre-fermented juice on the fermentation quality of first-cut lucerne silage. Grass Forage Sci. 2011;66:243-250.
26. [26] Anonymous 2020a. Siirt Province Climate Data. T.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, General Directorate of Meteorology, Turkey.
27. [27] Anonymous 2020b. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Seed Registration and Certification Central Directorate, Cool Climate Cereals Technical Instruction, Ankara, Turkey.
28. [28] Anonymous 1987. Bewertung von Grünfutter, Silage und Heu-Deutsche Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft (DLG), DLG Merkblatt Frankfurt, 224.
29. [29] Ergün A, Tuncer ŞD, Çolpan İ, Yalçın S, Yıldız G, Küçükersan MK, Küçükersan S, Şehu A, Saçaklı P. Feed, Feed Hygiene and Technology. Ankara University, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Extended 5th Edition, Ankara, Turkey, 2013; p448. (In Turkish).
30. [30] Bulgurlu Ş, Ergül M. Physical, chemical and biological analysis methods of feeds. Ege University Faculty of Agriculture Publications No: 127, 1978. İzmir, Turkey. (In Turkish).
31. [31] Anonymous 1993. Bestimmung des pH-Wertes. In: Die chemischen Untersuchungen von Futtermitteln. Teil 18 Silage. Abschnit 18.1 Bestimmung des pH-Wertes., Methodenbuch Bd. III., VDLUFAVerlag, Darmstadt.
32. [32] Van Soest PJ. The use of detergents in the analysis of fibre feeds. II. A rapid method for the determination of fibre and lignin. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1963;46:829-835.
33. [33] Van Soest PJ, Wine RH. Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. Journal - Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1967;50:50-55.
34. [34] Van Dyke NJ, Anderson PM. Interpreting a Forage Analysis. Alabama Cooperative Extension, Circular ANR-890, 2000.
35. [35] Rohweder DA, Barnes RF, Jorgensen N. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science. 1978;47(3):747-759.
36. [36] Açıkgöz N, Açıkgöz N. Common mistakes in the statistical analyzes of agricultural experiments I. Single Factorials. Anadolu. 2001;11(1):135-147. (In Turkish).
37. [37] Aykan Y, Saruhan V. Determination of Silage Quality Features of Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) and Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Mixtures Ensiling at Different Rates. The Journal of Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. 2018;11(2):64-70. (In Turkish).
38. [38] Demirel R, Saruhan V, Baran MS, Andiç N, Şentürk Demirel D. Determination of different ratios of trifolium repens and hordeum vulgare mixtures on silage quality. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2010;20(1):26-31. (In Turkish).
39. [39] Seydoşoğlu S. Investigation of the effect of fodder pea (Pisum sativum L.) and Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) herbages mixed at different rates on silage and feed quality, Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University. 2019;56(3):297-302. (In Turkish).
40. [40] Karadeniz E, Eren A, Saruhan V. Determination of silage quality of grasspea (Lathrus sativus L.) and Triticale (xTriticosecale Wittmack) mixtures. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2020;4(2):249-259. (In Turkish).
41. [41] Görü N, Seydoşoğlu S. Determination of silage quality of some winter cereals (oat, barley, rye and triticale) mixed with common vetch (Vicia sativa L.). Isparta Uygulamalı Bilimler Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi. 2021;16(1):26-33. (In Turkish).
42. [42] Geren H. Effect of sowing dates on silage characteristics of different maize cultivars grown as second crop under Bornova conditions. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 2001;38(2-3):47-54. (In Turkish).
43. [43] Çakmak B, Yalçın H, Bilgen H. The effect of packing pressure and storage duration on the crude nutrient content and the quality of silages made from green and fermented corn. Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2013;19:22-32. (In Turkish).
44. [44] Gülümser E, Mut H, Başaran U, Çopur Doğrusöz M. determination of quality traits of silages obtained of forage pea and oats in different ratios. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology. 2021;11(1):763-770.
45. [45] Filya İ. The effects of lactic acid bacterial inoculants on the fermentation aerobic stability and in situ rumen degradability characteristics of maize and sorghum silages. Turkish Journal Of Veterınary And Animal Scıences. 2002;26:815-823. (In Turkish).
46. [46] McDonald P, Henderson AR, Heron SJE. The Biochemistry of Silage. Second Edition. Chalcombe Publication, Marlow-England. 1991. p.340.
47. [47] Filya İ. Silage Technology. Uludağ University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Animal Science, Bursa, Turkey. 2001. (In Turkish).
48. [48] Wang J, Wang JQ, Zhou H, Feng T. Effects of addition of previously fermented juice prepared from alfalfa on fermentation quality and protein degradation of alfalfa silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2009;151:280-290.
49. [49] Geren H. An ınvestigation on some guality characteristics of ensilaged giant kinggrass (Pennisetum hybridum) with different levels of leguminous forages. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University. 2014;51(2):209-217. (In Turkish).
50. [50] Liu QH, Shao T, Zhang JG. Determination of aerobic deterioration of corn stalk silage caused by aerobicbacteria. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2013;183(3-4):124-131.
51. [51] Danley MM, Vetter RL, Wedin WF. Modified laboratory silo unit for studying the fermentation of corn (Zea mays L.) grain. Agronomy Journal. 1973;65:621-624.
52. [52] Comberg G. Gärfutter: Betriebswirtschaft, Erzeugung, Verfütterung. Verlag Eugen Ulmer Stuttgart, Gerokstraße 19, Printed in Germany. 1974. p.260.
53. [53] Roth GW. Corn silage productionand management. college of agricultural sciences. Agricultural Research and Coop. Extension, Agronomy Facts. 2001;18.
54. [54] Kılıç A. Determination of Quality in Roughage. Hasat Publishing, İstanbul, Turkey. 2006. (In Turkish).
55. [55] Geren H, Avcioglu R, Soya H, Kir B. Intercropping of corn with cowpea and bean: biomassyield and silage quality. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2008;7(22):4100-4104.
56. [56] Turan N. Determination of chemical composition and quality properties of silage produced by mixing green hungarian vetch and barley in various proportions. European Journal of Science and Technology. 2019;17:787-793. (In Turkish).
57. [57] Mut H, Gülümser E. Çopur Doğrusöz M, Başaran U. Effect of different companion crops on alfalfa silage quality. KSU Journal of Agriculture and Nature. 2020;23(4):975-980. (In Turkish).
58. [58] Önal Aşçı Ö, Acar Z. Quality in Forages. TMMOB Chamber of Agricultural Engineers Publications, Ankara. 2018.p.112. (In Turkish).
59. [59] Van Soest PJ. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant (2nd Ed.). Ithaca, N.Y. Cornell University Press. 1994.
60. [60] Gürsoy E, Macit M. Determination of in vitro gas production parameters of some grass forages grown as naturally in the pastures of Erzurum. Yüzüncü Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2014;24(3):218-227. (In Turkish).
61. [61] Can M, Kaymak G, Gülümser E, Acar Z, Ayan İ. Determination of silage quality of Bituminaria bituminosa with oat mixtures. Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2019;34:371-376. (In Turkish).