FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY DIFFERENCES OF AUTUMN AND SPRING-SOWN PEA GENOTYPES UNDER CENTRAL ANATOLIA CONDITIONS

Year 2021, Volume: 26 Issue: 2, 253 - 261, 27.12.2021

Onur İleri Süleyman Avcı Ali Koç

https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.865241

Cited By: 1

Abstract

In this study, some common forage pea cultivars (Golyazi, Ozkaynak, Taskent, Tore, and Urunlu) and a population of Ardahan were investigated during 2015 and 2016 years in Eskisehir condition to determine the forage yield and quality parameters. The fresh forage yield of autumn-sown forage pea (24,36 t/ha) was higher than the spring-sown plants (13,42 t/ha). Golyazi and Urunlu cultivars had lower fresh forage yields (14,63 and 14,81 t/ha respectively) than the other genotypes and Ozkaynak, Taskent, Tore (cvs.), and Ardahan (pop.) were statistically ranked in the same group (between 22,52 and 19,92 t/ha). The dry matter yield of forage pea genotypes did not differ significantly between the autumn and spring seasons. The highest dry matter ratio was 25,06% in Taskent while the lowest was 22,06% in Ozkaynak. The crude protein was higher at autumn sowing (21,17%) than the spring sowing (18,36%) and Ozkaynak had the highest value (21,53%) while Ardahan population was the lowest (17,76%). NDF content was higher in the spring season (37,62%) but only the difference between Taskent (37,60%) and Golyazi (34,06%) was significant among the genotypes. Variation in the ADF content was only significant among the genotypes and the difference between Taskent (33,41%) and Golyazi (31,62%) was significant only as similar to NDF. In sum, Ozkaynak, Taskent, Tore cultivars produce more yield with a satisfying quality by sowing in autumn at Eskişehir conditions, and the population of Ardahan has a high potential to develop new cultivars suitable for the region.

Keywords

Adaptation, Forage pea, Forage quality, Winter Catch Crop, Yield

References

• Acikgoz, E. 2001. Forage Crops. VIPAS publication number 58, 584p. Bursa (In Turkish).
• Asci, O.O., Z. Acar, Y.K. Arici. 2015. Hay yield, quality traits and interspecies competition of forage pea–triticale mixtures harvested at different stages. Turkish Journal of Field Crops. 20(2): 166-173.
• Ates, E. 2012. The mineral, amino acid and fiber contents and forage yield of field pea (Pisum arvense L.), fiddleneck (Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth.) and their mixtures under dry land conditions in the western Turkey. Romanian Agricultural Research. 29: 237-244.
• Ates, E. and A.S. Tekeli. 2017. The effect of different based fertilizer applications on herbage yield and quality of fodder pea (Pisum arvense L.). Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University Journal of Nature Sciences. 20: 13-16 (In Turkish)
• Atis, A. and S. Acikalin. 2020. Yield, quality and competition properties of grass pea and wheat grown as pure and binary mixture in different plant densities. Turkish Journal of Field Crops. 25(1): 18-25.
• Balabanli, C., S. Albayrak and O. Yuksel. 2010. Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilization on the quality and yield of native rangeland. Turkish Journal of Field Crops. 15(2): 164-168.
• Ball, D.M., M. Collins, G.D. Lacefield, N.P. Martin, D.A. Mertens, K.E. Olson, D. Putnam, D. Undersander and M.W. Wolf. 2001. Understanding forage quality. American Farm Bureau Federation Publication. 1(01).
• Beauchemin, K.A. 1996. Using ADF and NDF in dairy cattle diet formulation—a western Canadian perspective. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 58(1-2): 101-111.
• Bilgili, U., U. Aysen, M. Sincik, M. Yavuz, B. Aydinoglu, S. Cakmakci, H. Geren, R. Avcioglu, I. Nizam, A.S. Tekeli, I. Gul, E. Anlarsal, C. Yucel, M. Avci, Z. Acar, I. Ayan, A. Ustun and E. Acikgoz. 2010. Forage yield and lodging traits in peas (Pisum sativum L.) with different leaf types. Turkish Journal of Field Crops. 15(1): 50-53.
• Buxton, D.R. 1996. Quality-related characteristics of forages as influenced by plant environment and agronomic factors. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 59(1-3): 37-49.
• Cacan, E., N. Ozbay and K. Kokten. 2016. Determination of germination and emergence performances of some forage pea lines and varieties at different temperatures. Nevsehir Journal of Science and Technology. 5: 62-68 (In Turkish)
• Cherney, J.H. and G.C. Marten. 1982. Small grain crop forage potential: I. biological and chemical determinants of quality, and yield. Crop Science. 22(2): 227-231.
• Choi, S.H., S.W. Kim, B.Y. Park, B.D. Sang, Y.K. Kim, J.H. Myung and S.N. Hur. 2005. Effects of dietary crude protein level on growth and meat quality of Korean native goats. Journal of Animal Science and Technology. 47(5): 783-788.
• Collins, M. and J.O. Fritz. 2003. Forage quality. In: Forages: An Introduction to Grassland Agriculture (6th ed.), ed. Barnes, R.F., Nelson, C.J., Collins, M. and Moore, K.J., 363-390, Iowa State Press, Ames.
• Corson, D.C., G.C. Waghorn, M.J. Ulyatt and J. Lee. 1999. NIRS: Forage analysis and livestock feeding. In Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association, pp. 127-132.
• Erkovan, H.I., M.K. Gullap, M. Dasci, A. Koc. 2009. Changes in leaf area index, forage quality and above-ground biomass in grazed and ungrazed rangelands of Eastern Anatolia Region. Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 15(3): 217-223.
• Ghorbani, B., T. Ghoorchi, H. Amanlou and S. Zerehdaran. 2010. Effects of using monensin and different levels of crude protein on milk production, blood metabolites and digestion of dairy cows. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 24(1): 65-72.
• Hakyemez, B.H. 2006. Effect of sowing dates on forage and seed yields in common vetch (Vicia sativa L.). Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Bursa Uludag University. 20(1): 47-55 (In Turkish).
• Karayel, R. and H. Bozoglu. 2012. Local pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes appropriate for forage. Academic Journal of Agriculture. 1(2): 83-90 (In Turkish)
• Kocer, A. and S. Albayrak. 2012. Determination of forage yield and quality of pea (Pisum sativum L.) mixtures with oat and barley. Turkish Journal of Field Crops. 17(1): 96-99.
• Konuk, A. and A. Tamkoc. 2018. Effect on some agricultural features of winter and summer planting in forage peas. Journal of Bahri Dagdas Crop Research. 7(1): 39-50 (In Turkish)
• Krawutschke, M., J. Kleen, N. Weiher, R. Loges, F. Taube and M. Gierus. 2013. Changes in crude protein fractions of forage legumes during the spring growth and summer regrowth period. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 151(1): 72-90.
• Liu, N., C. Karunakaran, R. Lahlali, T. Warkentin and R.A. Bueckert. 2019. Genotypic and heat stress effects on leaf cuticles of field pea using ATR-FTIR spectroscopy. Planta. 249(2): 601-613.
• McMurray, L., J. Davidson, M. Lines, A. Leonforte, M. Salam. 2011. Combining management and breeding advances to improve field pea (Pisum sativum L.) grain yields under changing climatic conditions in southeastern Australia. Euphytica. 180: 69–88.
• Murray, G.A., D. Eser, L.V. Gusta, G. Ete´ve´. 1988. Winterhardiness in pea, lentil, faba bean and chickpea. In: World Crops: Cool Season Food Legumes ed. Summerfield, R.J., 831-843, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
• Ozyigit, Y. and M. Bilgen. 2006. Effect of different cutting stages on some quality factors in various legume forage crops. Mediterranean Agricultural Sciences. 19(1): 29-34 (In Turkish).
• Peksen, E. and A. Gulumser. 2007. Comparison of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) genotypes sown in autumn and spring for some plant characters and seed yield. Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 22(1): 79-85 (In Turkish)
• SAS Institute Inc. 2011. Base SAS 9.3 Procedures Guide [computer program], 536 p.
• Sayar, M.S. and A.E. Anlarsal. 2008. A research on determination of yield and some yield components of forage pea (Pisum arvense L.) cultivars and lines in Diyarbakir ecological conditions. Journal of Cukurova University Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences. 17(4): 78-88 (In Turkish)
• Tan, M., A. Koc, Z. Dumlu Gul, E. Elkoca, I. Gul. 2013. Determination of dry matter yield and yield components of local forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) ecotypes. Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 19: 289-296.
• Tan, M., K.K. Kirci and Z.D. Gul. 2014. Effects of row spacing and seeding rate on hay and seed yield of Eastern Anatolian forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) ecotype. Turkish Journal of Field Crops. 19(1): 96-100.
• Tas, N. 2011. The effect of optimum mixture type and rate, and cutting time on hay yield and yield components for vetch+wheat mixtures sown in spring and autumn under rainfed conditions. Anadolu Journal of Aegean Agricultural Research Institute. 21(1): 1-15 (In Turkish).
• Tekce, E. and M. Gul. 2014. The Importance of NDF and ADF in Ruminant Nutrition. Ataturk University Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 9(1): 63-73 (In Turkish)
• Turan, N. and H. Sakman. 2019. Determination of herbage yield and quality of some Narbon vetch (Vicia narbonensis L.) varieties grown under semi-arid climatic conditions during spring sowing. Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 34(3): 377-385 (In Turkish)
• TUIK, 2019. Crop Production Statistics, Turkish Statistical Institute, Ankara, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=tarim-111&dil=2 (Accessed December 20, 2020).
• Uzun, A., U. Bilgili, M. Sincik, I. Filya and E. Acikgoz. 2005. Yield and quality of forage type pea lines of contrasting leaf types. European Journal of Agronomy. 22(1): 85-94.
• Uzun, A., H. Gun and E. Acikgoz. 2012. Yield and quality characteristics of some pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties harvested at different growing stages. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Bursa Uludag University. 26(1): 27-38 (In Turkish)
• Yavuz, T., 2017. The effects of different cutting stages on forage yield and quality in pea (Pisum sativum L.) and oat (Avena sativa L.) mixtures. Journal of Central Research Institute for Field Crops. 26(1): 67-74 (In Turkish).