Silage Quality of Second Crop Forage Pea at Different Plant Densities and Cereal Mixtures

Year 2020, Volume: 1 Issue: 2, 35 - 45, 31.12.2020

Onur İleri Şule Erkovan Halil İbrahim Erkovan Ali Koç

Abstract

This research was conducted to determine the effects of different plant densities (80, 100, 120 plants m-2) and mixtures of 25 and 50 % oat, silage maize, and Sudangrass on the silage quality of forage pea in 2018 and 2019 years. Plant density affected dry matter (DM), crude fat (CF), crude ash (CA), crude protein (CP), neutral detergen fiber (NDF), and acid detergent fiber (ADF) contents significantly. DM and CF content was higher at the densities of 80 and 100 plants m-2 while CA content was higher at the density of 120 plants m-2. Increasing plant density caused an increment in CP and NDF contents but CP content did not significantly change between 100 and 120 plants m-2 while there was a significant decrease of NDF content at the density of 120 plants m-2. Mixture type significantly affected all of the investigated parameters. The highest dry matter content was observed in the 25 and 50 % of Sudangrass mixtures (26,13 and 26,15 % respectively). pH value and Fleig score were observed to be lower in the all mixtures of silage maize and Sudangrass. Silages of sole crop forage pea (3,08 %) and oat mixture (2,98 % for 25 % and 2,90 % for 50 %) had higher CF content than the silages of pea-silage maize and pea-Sudangrass mixtures. CA content was generally similar within all mixes but it was lower at the 50 % of Sudangrass (8,00 %). Cereal mixtures increased the NDF content of forage pea silage but except for oat, ADF content of the forage pea silage decreased when mixed with cereals. According to the results, sowing should be carried out using the density of 100 plants m-2 and silage maize (25 %) or Sudangrass (25 or 50 %) could be added at sowing for increasing the silage quality of second crop forage pea.

Keywords

Forage pea, Silage quality, Plant density, Mixture

References

• Acikgoz, E. 2001. Forage Crops. VIPAS publication number 58, 584p. Bursa. (In Turkish).
• Adesogan, A.T., M.B. Salawu and E.R. Deaville, 2002. The effect on voluntary feed intake, in vivo digestibility and nitrogen balance in sheep of feeding grass silage or pea–wheat intercrops differing in pea to wheat ratio and maturity. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 96:(3-4), 161-173.
• Albrecht, K.A. and K.A. Beauchemin, 2003. Alfalfa and other perennial legume silage. Silage science and technology, 42, 633-664.
• Asik, B.B., A. Uzun and E. Acikgöz, 2020. Seeding rate and cultivar impacts on nutrient uptake of field pea under fertile soil condition. Chilean journal of agricultural research, 80:(1), 11-20.
• Azim, A., A.G. Khan, M.A. Nadeem and D. Muhammad, 2000. Influence of maize and cowpea intercropping on fodder production and characteristics of silage. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 13:(6), 781-784.
• Balabanli, C., S. Albayrak, M. Turk and O. Yuksel, 2010. A research on determination of hay yields and silage qualities of some vetch+cereal mixtures. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 15:(2), 204-209.
• Basaran, U., E. Gulumser, H. Mut and M. Copur-Dogrusoz, 2018. Determination of silage yield and quality of grasspea+cereal intercrops. Turkish Journal of Agriculture – Food Science and Technology, 6:(9), 1237-1242.
• Bejandi, T.K., R.S. Sharifii, M. Sedghi and A. Namvar, 2012. Effects of plant density, Rhizobium inoculation and microelements on nodulation, chlorophyll content and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Annals of Biological Research, 3:(2), 951-958.
• Borreani, G., L. Cavallarin, S. Antoniazzi and E. Tabacco, 2006. Effect of the stage of growth, wilting and inoculation in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) silages. I. Herbage composition and silage fermentation. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 86:(9), 1377-1382.
• Budakli-Carpici, E., 2016. Nutritive values of soybean silages ensiled with maize at different rates. Legume Research-An International Journal, 39:(5), 810-813.
• Can, M., G. Kaymak, E. Gülümser, Z. Acar and İ. Ayab, 2019. Orman üçgülü yulaf karışımlarının silaj kalitesinin belirlenmesi. Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 34:(3), 371-376.
• Canbolat, Ö., K.C. Akbay and A. Kamalak, 2019. Yem bezelyesi silajlarında karbonhidrat kaynağı olarak melas kullanılma olanakları. Tarim ve Doga Dergisi, 22:(1), 122.
• Collins, M. and J.O. Fritz, 2003. Forage Quality, In: Forages: An Introduction to Grassland Agriculture eds. Barnes, R.F., Nelson C.J., Collins, M., Moore K.J., 6th ed., Iowa State Press, Ames, pp. 363-390.
• Collins, M. and V.N. Owens, 2003. Preservation of Forage as Hay and Silage, In: Forages: An Introduction to Grassland Agriculture, eds. Barnes, R.F., Nelson, C.J., Collins, M. Moore, K.J., 6th ed., Iowa State Press, A Blackwell Publishing Company, Ames, Iowa, USA, pp 443-471.
• Cook C.W. and J. Stubbendieck, 1986. Range research: basic problems and techniques. Society for Range Management, Colorado. 317p.
• Craine, J.M. and R. Dybzinski, 2013. Mechanisms of plant competition for nutrients, water and light. Functional Ecology, 27:(4), 833-840.
• Davies, D.R., R.J. Merry, A.P. Williams, E.L. Bakewell, D.K. Leemans and J.K.S. Tweed, 1998. Proteolysis during ensilage of forages varying in soluble sugar content. Journal of Dairy Science, 81:(2), 444-453.
• Denek, N. and A. Can, 2006. Feeding value of wet tomato pomace ensiled with wheat straw and wheat grain for Awassi sheep. Small Ruminant Research, 65:(3), 260-265.
• Dewhurst, R.J., R.T. Evans, N.D. Scollan, J.M. Moorby, R.J. Merry and R.J. Wilkins, 2003. Comparison of grass and legume silages for milk production. 2. In vivo and in sacco evaluations of rumen function. Journal of Dairy Science, 86:(8), 2612-2621.
• Dogan, S. and O. Terzioglu, 2019. Van koşullarında yem bezelyesi (Pisum arvense l.) ve arpa (Hordeum vulgare l.) karışımların ot verimi ve silaj kalitesine etkisi. Bahri Dağdaş Bitkisel Araştırma Dergisi, 8:(1), 106-114.
• Dok, M., M. Şahin, M. Sürmen, and İ. Sezer, 2016. Çeltik tarlalarında değişik baklagil yem bitkilerinin kışlık ara ürün olarak yetiştirme imkânlarının araştırılması. Tarla Bitkileri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 25:(Özel Sayı-1), 105-109.
• Driehuis, F., J.M. Wilkinson, Y. Jiang, I. Ogunade and A.T. Adesogan, 2018. Silage review: animal and human health risks from silage. Journal of Dairy Science, 101:(5), 4093-4110.
• Dumlu, Z., and T. Mustafa, 2009. Erzurum şartlarında yetişen bazı baklagil yem bitkileri ve karışımlarının silaj değerlerinin belirlenmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 40(2), 15-21.
• Erkovan, Ş., O. İleri, H.İ. Erkovan, and A. Koç, 2020. Eskişehir ekolojisinde uygun ekim zamanı ve ekim sıklığının yem bezelyesinin yaş ot verimi ve bazı özelliklerine etkisi. ÇOMÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 8:(1), 225-232.
• Eskandari, H., A. Ghanbari and A. Javanmard, 2009. Intercropping of cereals and legumes for forage production. Notulae Scientia Biologicae, 1:(1), 07-13.
• Filya, I., R.E. Muck and F.E. Contreras-Govea, 2007. Inoculant effects on alfalfa silage: fermentation products and nutritive value. Journal of dairy science, 90:(11), 5108-5114.
• Fraser, M.D., R. Fychan and R. Jones, 2001. The effect of harvest date and inoculation on the yield, fermentation characteristics and feeding value of forage pea and field bean silages. Grass and Forage Science, 56:(3), 218-230.
• Fychan R., J. Roberts, M.D. Fraser and R. Jones, 2000 Yield and ensiling potential of pea/cereal bi‐crops. Proceedings of the British Grassland Society 6th Research Conference, 11–13 September 2000, Craibstone, Bucksburn, Aberdeen, pp. 61–62.
• Gelir, G., 2019. Determination of silage quality characteristics of feed peas (Pisum sativum supsp arvense L.), triticale and mixtures grown in Diyarbakir (Master Thesis). Dicle University, Science Institute, Diyarbakir, 63p.
• Geren, H., R. Avcioglu, H. Soya and B. Kir, 2008. Intercropping of corn with cowpea and bean: Biomass yield and silage quality. African Journal of Biotechnology, 7:(22), 4100-4104.
• Gilliland, T.J. and J. Johnston, 1992. Barley/pea mixtures as cover crops for grass re‐seeds. Grass and Forage Science, 47:(1), 1-7.
• Grant, K., J. Kreyling, L.F. Dienstbach, C. Beierkuhnlein and A. Jentsch, 2014. Water stress due to increased intra-annual precipitation variability reduced forage yield but raised forage quality of a temperate grassland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 186, 11-22.
• Hoffman, P.C., 2005. Ash content of forages. Focus on Forage, 7:(1), 1-2.
• Jaster, E.H., 1995. Legume and grass silage preservation. Post‐Harvest Physiology and Preservation of Forages, 22, 91-115.
• Jinghui, L., Z. Zhaohai, J. Lixin, H. Yuegao, W. Ying and L. Hai, 2006. Intercropping of different silage maize cultivars and alfalfa. Zuo Wu Xue Bao, 32:(1), 125-130.
• Kavut, Y.T. and H. Geren, 2017. Farklı hasat zamanlarının ve karışım oranlarının İtalyan çimi (Lolium multiflorum L.)+ baklagil yembitkisi karışımlarının verim ve bazı silaj kalite özelliklerine etkisi. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 54:(2), 115-124.
• Kilic, A. 1986. Silo Feed. Bilgehan Publications. Izmir, 327p.
• Konuk, A., and A. Tamkoç, 2018. Yem bezelyesinde kışlık ve yazlık ekimin bazı tarımsal özellikler üzerine etkisi. Bahri Dağdaş Bitkisel Araştırma Dergisi, 7:(1), 39-50.
• Laidlaw, A.S. and N. Teuber, 2001. Temperate forage grass-legume mixtures: advances and perspectives. In International Grassland Congress (Vol. 19, pp. 85-92).
• Latre, J., K. Dewitte, E. Wambacq, B.D. Roo and G. Haesaert, 2008. Ensiling of intercrops with legumes. In 13th International Conference of Forage Conservation, Nitra, Slovakia, 3-5 September (pp. 104-105). Slovak Agricultural Research Centre, Research Institute of Animal Production, Nitra.
• Lauriault, L.M. and R.E. Kirksey, 2004. Yield and nutritive value of irrigated winter cereal forage grass–legume intercrops in the Southern High Plains, USA. Agronomy Journal, 96:(2), 352-358.
• McDonald, P., A.R. Henderson and S.J.E., 1991. The Biochemistry of Silage (2nd ed.), Chalcombe publications, Marlow, UK.
• Mustafa, A.F., D.A. Christensen and J.J. McKinnon, 2000. Effects of pea, barley, and alfalfa silage on ruminal nutrient degradability and performance of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 83:(12), 2859-2865.
• Mustafa, A.F. and P. Seguin, 2003. Characteristics and in situ degradability of whole crop faba bean, pea, and soybean silages. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 83:(4), 793-799.
• Mustafa, A.F., P. Seguin, D.R. Ouellet and I. Adelye, 2002. Effects of cultivars on ensiling characteristics, chemical composition, and ruminal degradability of pea silage. Journal of dairy science, 85:(12), 3411-3419.
• Mustafa, A.F. and P. Seguin, 2004. Chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of whole‐crop pea and pea–cereal mixture silages grown in South‐western Quebec. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 190:(6), 416-421.
• Nkosi, B.D., A.T. Kanengoni and R. Thomas. 2011. Effects of ensiling total mixed potato hash ration with or without bacterial ınoculation on silage fermentation and nutritive value for growing pigs. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 10: 1667-1672.
• Pursiainen, P. nad M. Tuori, 2008. Effect of ensiling field bean, field pea and common vetch in different proportions with whole‐crop wheat using formic acid or an inoculant on fermentation characteristics. Grass and Forage Science, 63:(1), 60-78.
• Rondahl, T., J. Bertilsson and K. Martinsson, 2011. Effects of maturity stage, wilting and acid treatment on crude protein fractions and chemical composition of whole crop pea silages (Pisum sativum L.). Animal feed science and technology, 163:(1), 11-19.
• Rowden, R., D. Gardiner, P.C. Whiteman and E.S. Wallis, 1981. Effects of planting density on growth, light interception and yield of a photoperiod insensitive pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan). Field Crops Research, 4, 201-213.
• SAS Institute Inc., 2011. Base SAS® 9.3 Procedures Guide [computer program]. 536p.
• Salawu, M.B., A.T. Adesogan, C.N. Weston and S.P. Williams, 2001. Dry matter yield and nutritive value of pea/wheat bi-crops differing in maturity at harvest, pea to wheat ratio and pea variety. Animal feed science and technology, 94:(1-2), 77-87.
• Salawu, M.B., A.T. Adesogan, M.D. Fraser, R. Fychan and R. Jones, 2002. Assessment of the nutritive value of whole crop peas and intercropped pea–wheat bi-crop forages harvested at different maturity stages for ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 96:(1-2), 43-53.
• Seydosoğlu, S., 2019. Farklı oranlarda karıştırılan yem bezelyesi (Pisum sativum L.) ve arpa (Hordeum vulgare L.) hâsıllarının silaj ve yem kalitesine etkisi. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 56:(3), 297-302.
• Shao, H., D. Shi, W. Shi, X. Ban, Y. Chen, W. Ren, F. Chen and G. Mi, 2020. The impact of high plant density on dry matter remobilization and stalk lodging in maize genotypes with a different stay-green degree. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 66, 1-15.
• Tekeli, A.S. and E. Ates, 2003. Yield and its components in field pea (Pisum arvense L.) lines. Journal of Central European Agriculture. 4: 313-317.
• Thorvaldsson, G., G.F. Tremblay and H. Tapani-Kunelius, 2007. The effects of growth temperature on digestibility and fibre concentration of seven temperate grass species. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B-Soil and Plant Science, 57:(4), 322-328.
• Turgut, I., A. Duman, U. Bilgili and E. Acikgoz, 2005. Alternate row spacing and plant density effects on forage and dry matter yield of corn hybrids (Zea mays L.). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 191:(2), 146-151.
• Van Soest, P.J., J.B. Robertson and B.A. Lewis, 1991. Symposium: carbohydrate methodology, metabolism, and nutritional implications in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science, 74:(10), 3583-3597.
• Wang, N. and J.K. Daun, 2004. Effect of variety and crude protein content on nutrients and certain antinutrients in field peas (Pisum sativum). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 84:(9), 1021-1029.
• Weinberg, Z.G., G. Ashbell, A. Azrieli and I. Brukental, 1993. Ensiling peas, ryegrass and wheat with additives of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and cell wall degrading enzymes. Grass and Forage Science, 48:(1), 70-78.
• Wilkinson, J.M., 1999. Silage and animal health. Natural toxins, 7(6): 221-232.
• Yilmaz, A., S. Altinok and Z. Kocabas, 2009. An investigation on quality parameters of the silages made by corn and soybean grown in different seeding rates. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 8:(9), 1856-1859.