Sulu ve Kuru Koşullarda Yetiştirilen Farklı Amarant Çeşitlerinde Bitki Kısımlarının Yem Kalite Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi

Öz

Alternatif yem kaynağı olarak kullanılan Amarant türlerinde yem kalitesinin bitki kısımları ve yetişme koşullarına göre nasıl bir değişim gösterdiği konusunda yeterli bilgi bulunmamaktadır. Bu amaçla, 2017-2018 yıllarında sulu ve kuru koşullar altında yetiştirilen Helios, Sterk ve Ultra çeşitlerinin yaprak, salkım ve sapların yem değerini belirlemek için tesadüf bloklarında bölünmüş parseller deneme desenine göre üç tekerrürlü bir çalışma yürütülmüştür. Araştırma sonuçları en yüksek ham protein (HP), kuru madde sindirilebilirliği (KMS), metabolik enerji (ME), nispi yem değeri (NYD) ile en düşük doğal çözücülerde çözünemeyen lif (NDF) ve asit çözücülerde çözünemeyen lif (ADF) içeriklerinin sulu koşullarda yetiştirilen Ultra’dan elde edildiğini gösterdi. Diğer taraftan en yüksek salkım ve sap HP oranı sulu koşullarda yetiştirilen Helios’da belirlenirken, en yüksek salkım ve sap KMS, ME ve NYD ise suluda yetiştirilen Ultra ile kuruda yetiştirilen Helios çeşitlerinde tespit edildi. Ayrıca yaprakların HP, KMS, ME ve NYD sırasıyla salkım ve saplardan daha yüksek, oysa NDF ve ADF içerikleri ise daha düşük bulundu. Sonuç olarak incelenen çeşitlerin yaprak ve salkımları sulu koşullar altında daha yüksek kalitede, sapları ise kuruda (HP hariç) daha düşük kalitede bir yem materyali ürettiği ortaya konulmuştur. sapları ise kuruda (HP hariç) daha düşük kalitede bir yem materyali ürettiği ortaya konulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Amarant türleri
• yem kalitesi
• yetişme koşulları
• morfolojik kısımlar

Determination of Forage Quality Properties of Plant Parts in Different Amaranth Varieties Cultivated Under Irrigated and Rainfed Conditions

Abstract

There is not enough information about how the feed quality changes according to plant parts and growing conditions in Amaranth species used as an alternative feed source. For this purpose, a three-replication study was conducted in randomized blocks according to the split plot design to determine the feed value of leaves, clusters and stems of Helios, Sterk and Ultra cultivars grown under irrigated and dry conditions in 2017-2018. The results of the study showed that the highest crude protein (HP), dry matter digestibility (KMS), metabolic energy (ME), relative feed value (NYD) and lowest natural solvent insoluble fiber (NDF) and acid solvent insoluble fiber (ADF) contents. showed that it was obtained from Ultra grown in irrigated conditions. On the other hand, the highest cluster and stem HP ratio was determined in Helios grown under irrigated conditions, while the highest cluster and stem HP were determined in KMS, ME and NYD cultivars grown in irrigated Ultra and Helios grown in dry conditions. In addition, HP, KMS, ME and NYD of leaves were higher than clusters and stems, whereas NDF and ADF contents were lower, respectively. As a result, it was revealed that the leaves and inflorescences of the examined cultivars produced a higher quality forage material under irrigated conditions, while the stems produced a lower quality forage material in dry (except HP).

Keywords

• Amaranth species
• feed quality
• growing conditions
• morphological parts

Kaynakça

1. Abid, M., Mansour, E., Yahia, L.B., Bachar, K., Khaled, A.B., Ferchichi, A., 2016. Alfalfa nutritive quality as influenced by drought in South-Eastern Oasis of Tunisia. Ital. J. Anim. Sci., 15 (2): 334-342.
2. Adhikary, D., Khatri-Chhetri, U., Slaski, J., 2020. Amaranth: An ancient and high-quality whole some crop. In nutritional value of Amaranth. Intech Open.
3. Alegbejo, J.O. 2013. Nutritional value and utilization of amaranthus (Amaranthus spp.)-a review. Bayero J. Pure Appl. Sci., 6(1): 136-143.
4. Amicarelli, V., Camaggio, G., 2012. Amaranthus: a crop to rediscover. Forum Ware Int., 2: 4-11.
5. AOAC (1997). Official methods of analysis. 16. ed. 3. revision. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington, Washington, DC.
6. Boman, R.L., 2003. New forage analysis: increased feed efficiency potential. USU Dairy Newsletter.
7. Buxton, D.R., Fales, S.L., 1994. Plant environmental and quality. In Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization (Ed. G. C. Fahey). American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp:155-199.
8. Chong, C.C., 1996. Evaluation of six amaranth varieties. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech., 78: 346-354.

9. Collins, M., Fritz, J.O., 2003. Forage Quality. Forages (Ed. Barnes RF; Nelson, CJ; Collins, M ve Moore, KJ), 6th Edition Vol. I Chapter 16, A Blackwell Publishing Company, pp. 363-390.
10. Fales, S.L., Fritz, J.O., 2007. Factors Affecting Forage Quality. Barnes RF, Nelson CJ, Moore KJ, Collins M, editors. Forages. 6th Edition Vol. II Chapter 37, A Blackwell Publishing, pp. 569-580.
11. Fazaeli, H., Ehsani, P., Safayee, A.R., Mehrani, A., 2011. Amaranth (Amaranthus hypochondriacus) as a New Forage Source. Vth Internatıonal Conference: Balnimalcon 2011, 20 October 2011, Bucharest, Romania.
12. Fonnesbeck, P.V., Clark, D.H., Garret, W.N., Speth, C.F., 1984. Predicting energy utilization from alfalfa hay from the Western Region. Proc. Am. Anim. Sci., 35: 305-308.
13. García-Pereyral, J., Valdés-Lozano, C.G.S., Olivares-Saenz, E., Alvarado-Gómez, O., Alejandre-Iturbide, G., Salazar-Sosa, E., Medrano-Roldán, H., 2009. Amaranthus (Amaranthus spp.) grain yield and forage quality after cultivation at various densities in Northeastern Mexico. ΦYTON, 78: 53-60. ISSN 0031 9457.
14. Goptsiy, T., Voroncov, N., Popov, V., Zhyravel, D., Gromenko, S., 2008. Grain varieties of amaranth developed by selection at Kharkiv National Agrarian University and the Perspectives of Their Use. In Amaranth-Plant of the Future: 5th International Symposium of the European Amaranth Association, Nitra, November 9-14, 2008, Slovak Republic, pp. 97-100.
15. Hatfield, R.D., Jung, H.J.G., Broderick, G., Ve Jenkins, T.C., 2007. Nutritional Chemistry of Forages. Forages (Ed. Barnes RF; Nelson, CJ; Moore, KJ ve Collins, M), 6th Edition Vol. II Chapter 31, Blackwell Publishing, pp. 467-485.
16. Jafari, H.R., Karimi, S., Alavipoor, F.S., 2018. Enviromental Planning and Management. In: Hesami, M., Joneidabad, M.R., Kafi, M., The Potential for the Use of Mutant Ornamental Plants for Reclamation of Arid Lands. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, p:385, ISBN (10): 1-5275-1183-9.
17. Kacar, B., 2012. Soil Analysis. Nobel Publication Distribution, Ankara, Turkey.
18. Kadoshnikov, S.I., Serge, I., Kadoshnikova, I.G., Martirosyan, D.M., 2005. Investigation of Fractional Composition of the Protein in Amaranth. In Book "Non-Traditional Natural Resources, Innovation Technologies and Products" Issue 12 Moscow. Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Moscow; 81-104.
19. Keskin, B., Temel, S., Tosun, R., Cakmakci, S., 2020. Determination of feed quality characteristics of seed and straw of some amaranth varieties grown under ırrigation and dry conditions. Int. J. Agric. and Wild Life Sci., 6(3): 625-637.
20. Khalil, J.K., Sawaya, W.N., Hyder, S.Z., 1986. Nutrient composition of Atriplex leaves grown in Saudi Arabia. J. Range Manag., 39: 104-107.
21. Khan, M.G., Abate, M., Endris, S., Chaka, A., 2019. A Critical appraisal of amaranths and chenopodium weeds for their harmful and beneficial aspects in context to food security in pastoral area. Daagu Int. J. Basic Appl. Res., 1(1): 58-69.
22. Kuchenmeister, K., Kuchenmeister, F., Kayser, M., Wrage-Mönnig, N., Isselstein, J., 2013. Influence of drought stress on nutritive value of perennial forage legumes. Int. J. Plant Prod., 7(4): 693-710.
23. Leukebandara, I.K., Premaratne, S., Peiris, B.L., 2015. Nutritive quality of Thampala (Amaranthus spp.) as a forage crop in Sri Lanka. Trop. Agric. Res., 26 (4): 624-631.
24. Leukebandara, I.K., Premaratne, S., Peiris, B.L., Madugith, T., Wimalasiri. S., 2019. Study on milk parameters of saanen goats fed with diet containing Amaranth (Amaranthus hypochondriacus) seeds. Int. J. Agric. Sci., 4: 45-56.
25. MGM, 2019. Igdir Provincial Directorate of Meteorology. Igdir, Turkey.
26. Moore, J.E., Undersander, D.J., 2002. Relative Forage Quality: A proposal for replacement for Relative Feed Value. 2002 Proceedings National Forage Testing Association.
27. Myers, R.L., 1998. Nitrogen Fertilizer Effect on Grain Amaranth. Agron. J., 90:597-602.
28. Olorunnisomo, O.A. 2010. Nutritive value of conserved maize, amaranth or maize-amaranth mixture as dry season fodder for growing West African Dwarf sheep. Lives. Res. Rural Develop., 22(10).
29. Önal Aşcı, Ö., Acar, Z., 2018. Quality of Roughage. Yenimahalle/Ankara: Positive Printing and Packaging Industry Trade Company, p.112. Pecetti, L., Annicchiarico, P., Scotti, C., Paolini, M., Nanni, V., Palmonari, A., 2017. Effects of plant architecture and drought stress level on lucerne forge quality. Grass Forage Sci., 72: 714-722.
30. Peiretti, P.G., 2018. Amaranth in animal nutrition: A review. Lives. Res. Rural Develop., 30(5).
31. Písaríková, B., Peterka J., Trcková M., Moudry J., Zraly Z., Herzig I., 2006. Chemical composition of the above-ground biomass of Amaranthus cruentus. Acta Vet. Brno., 75: 133-138.
32. Pond, W.G., Lehmann, I.W., 1989 Nutritive value of a vegetable amaranth cultivar for growing lambs. J. Anim. Sci., 67: 3036-3039.
33. Pospišil, A., Pospišil, M., Maćešić, D., Svečnjak, Z., 2009 Yield and quality of forage sorghum and different amaranth species (Amaranthus spp.) biomass. Agric. Conspec. Sci., 74: 85-89.
34. Rahnama, A., Safaeie, A.R., 2017. Performance comparison of three varieties of amaranth (Amaranthus hypochondriacus L.) at different harvest time. Int. J. Res. Stud. Agric. Sci., 3: 1-6.
35. Rivera, D., Parish, J., 2010. Interpreting Forage and Feed Analysis Report. 2620, Mississippi State University.
36. Rodríguez, P., Pérez, E., Romel, G., Dufour, D., 2011 Characterization of the proteins fractions extracted from leaves of Amaranthus dubius (Amaranthus spp.). Afr. J. Food Sci. Res., 5: 417-424.
37. Sarmadi, B., Rouzbehan, Y., Rezaei, J., 2016. Influences of growth stage and nitrogen fertilizer on chemical compositon, phenolics, in situ degradability and in vitro ruminal variables in amaranth forage. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech., 215: 273-284.
38. Sleugh, B.B., Moore, K.J., Brummer, E.C., Knapp, A.D., Russell, J., Gibson, L., 2001. Forage nutritive value of various amaranth species at different harvest dates. Crop Sci., 41: 466-472. Stordahl, J.L., Sheaffer, C.C., DiCostanzo, A., 1999. Variety and maturity affect amaranth forage yield and quality. J. Produc. Agric. 12(2): 249-253.
39. Svirskis, A., 2003. Investigation of amaranth cultivation and utilisation in Lithuania. Agron. Res., 49(1): 253-264.
40. Tan, M., Temel, S., 2019. Quinoa in Every Aspect: Importance, Use and Cultivation. IKSAD Publishing House, Ankara, p.183.
41. Temel, S., Keskin, B., 2020. The effect of morphological components on the herbage yield and quality of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) grown in different dates. Turk J. Agric. For., 44(5): 533-542. Temel, S., Keskin, B., Çakmakcı, S., Tosun, R., 2020. Determination of the hay yield performances of varieties belonging to different amaranth species in ırrigated and dry conditions. Int. J. Agric. and Wildlife Sci., 6(3): 615-624.
42. Temel, S., Simsek, U., 2011. Desertification process of ıgdır plain soils and solution suggestions. Alınteri 21(B): 53-59.
43. Temel, S., Yolcu, S., 2020. The effect of different sowing time and harvesting stages on the herbage yield and quality of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa willd.). Turk J. Field Crops., 25(1): 41-49.
44. Yaroshko, O.M., Kuchuk, M.V., 2018. Agrobacterium-caused transformation of cultivars Amaranthus caudatus L. and hybrids of A. caudatus L. x A. paniculatus L. Int. J. Second. Metab., 5 (4): 312-318.
45. Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.D., Lewis, B.A., 1991. Methods for diatery fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animals nutrition. J. Dairy Sci., 74: 3583-3597.
46. Zeng, Y., Himmel, M.E., Ding, S.Y., 2017. Visualizing chemical functionality in plant cell walls. Biotechnol. Biofuels., 10: 263.