Kaba Yem Amaçlı Yem Bezelyesi (Pisum arvense L.) Yetiştiriciliği: İç Anadolu’da Farklı Ekim Zamanları ve Bitki Sıklıkları

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 54 Sayı: 2, 75 - 80, 23.05.2023

Meliha Feryal Sarıkaya Onur İleri Şule Erkovan Halil İbrahim Erkovan Ali Koç

https://doi.org/10.5152/AUAF.2023.22067

Öz

Bu çalışma, bazı yem bezelyesi çeşitlerinde (Özkaynak ve Taşkent) farklı ekim zamanları (Ekim, Kasım) ve bitki sıklıklarının (80, 100, 120 tohum m−2) kuru ot verimi ve kalitesine etkilerini belirlemek amacıyla 2018 ve 2019 yıllarında Eskişehir ekolojik koşullarında yürütülmüştür. Deneme Tesadüf Blokları Deneme Desenine göre üç tekrarlamalı olarak kurulmuştur. Çalışmada kuru ot verimi, ham protein (HP), nötr deterjan lif (NDF), asit deterjan lif (ADF) ve asit deterjan lignin (ADL) oranları incelenmiştir. Kuru ot verimi, ADF ve ADL oranları (sırasıyla 5139,2 kg ha−1, %31,76 ve %8,02) 2018’de daha yüksek olurken, HP (%13,89–%14,44) ve NDF (%37,52–%37,77) oranları yıllar arasında önemli bir değişiklik göstermemiştir. Çeşitler ve ekim sıklığı arasında incelenen özellikler yönünden önemli bir farklılığın olmadığı, ancak geç sonbahar ekiminin HP içeriğinde %1,51’lik bir artışa neden olduğu belirlenmiştir. Güzlük ekim ve farklı bitki sıklıklarının yem bezelyesinin kuru ot verimi ve kalitesi üzerinde herhangi bir olumsuz etkisi olmamıştır. Bu nedenle, İç Anadolu koşullarında Özkaynak veya Taşkent yem bezelyesi çeşitlerinin Ekim-Kasım aylarında ve 80 tohum m−2 kullanılarak ekilmesi önerilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yem bezelyesi, yem kalitesi, kaba yem verimi, bitki sıklığı, ekim zamanı

Growing Forage Pea (Pisum arvense L.) for Hay: Different Sowing Dates and Plant Densities in Central Anatolia

Öz

The study was carried out to determine the effects of different sowing times (October and November) and plant densities (80, 100, and 120 seeds m−2) on hay yield and quality of some forage pea cultivars (Özkaynak and Taşkent) in 2018 and 2019 years of Eskisehir ecological conditions. The experiment was established in Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications. Hay yield, crude protein, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, and acid detergent lignin contents were investigated. Hay yield, acid detergent fiber, and acid detergent lignin contents were higher in 2018 (5139.2 kg ha−1, 31.76%, and 8.02%, respectively) but crude protein (13.89–14.44%) and neutral detergent fiber (37.52–37.77%) contents did not change significantly between the years. Cultivars and plant densities did not cause any significant variation on the examined characteristics but late autumn sowing caused a 1.51% increase in crude protein content, which was significant. Neither late autumn sowing nor different plant densities caused any negative effects on hay yield and quality of forage peas. Therefore, forage peas could be sown in both October and November using any of the Özkaynak or Taşkent cultivars at 80 seeds m−2 plant density in Central Anatolia conditions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Forage pea, hay quality, hay yield, plant density, sowing date

Kaynakça

• Açıkgöz, E. (2001). Forage crops (p. 584). VIPAS publication.
• Açıkgöz, E., Sincik, M., Wietgrefe, G., Sürmen, M., Çeçen, S., Yavuz, T., Erdurmuş, C., & Göksoy, A. T. (2013). Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 37, 22–32.
• Ağırbaş, N. C., Sapmaz, K., & Koç, A. (2017). Eskişehir ilinde yem bitkileri ekiliş alanı ve üretim miktarı üzerine tarımsal desteklemelerin etkisi [The effects of agricultural supports on forage crops of cultivation area and amount of production in Eskisehir province]. Atatürk University Journal of the Agricultural Faculty, 48(1), 65–72.
• Alan, O., & Geren, H. (2012). Bezelye’de (Pisum sativum L.) farklı ekim zamanlarının tane verimi ve diğer bazı tarımsal özellikler üzerine etkisi [Effects of different sowing dates on the seed yield and some other agronomical characteristics of pea (Pisum sativum L.)] Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 49:127–134.
• Alatürk, F., Çınar, C., & Gökkuş, A. (2021). Farklı sıra aralıklarının bazı yem bezelyesi çeşitlerinin verim ve kalitesi üzerine etkileri [Effects of different row spacings on yield and quality of some field pea cultivars]. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 8(1), 53–57.
• Albayrak, S., & Türk, M. (2013). Changes in the forage yield and quality of legume-grass mixtures throughout a vegetation period. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 37, 139–147.
• Annicchiarico, P., & Iannucci, A. (2007). Winter survival of pea, faba bean and white lupin cultivars in contrasting Italian locations and sowing times, and implications for selection. Journal of Agricultural Science, 145(6), 611–622. [CrossRef].
• Ateş, E., & Tekeli, A. S. (2017). Farklı taban gübresi uygulamalarının yem bezelyesi (Pisum arvense L.)’nin ot verimi ve kalitesine etkisi [The effect of different based fertilizer applications on herbage yield and quality of fodder pea (Pisum arvense L.)]. KSU Journal of Agriculture and Nature, 20, 13–16.
• Başbağ, M., Aydın, A., Çaçan, E., & Sayar, M. S. (2015). The quality values of some legume plants in southeastern Anatolia Region. 11st Congress of Field Crops, 7–10 September (pp. 95–99). Canakkale, Turkey.
• Borreani, G., Peiretti, P. G., & Tabacco, E. (2007). Effect of harvest time on yield and pre-harvest quality of semi-leafless grain peas (Pisum sativum L.) as whole-crop forage. Field Crops Research, 100(1), 1–9. [CrossRef]
• Dereli, D. N. (2015). Cultivation possibility of some annual legumes as a second crop under Eskisehir ecological conditions (p. 58) [Master’s Thesis, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Institute of Science, Department of Field Crops].
• Halil, D. S., & Uzun, A. (2019). Determination of combining ability and hybrid performance of some pea (Pisum sativum L.) lines obtained by crossing with Line x Tester analysis method. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 28(10), 7119–7123.
• İleri, O., Budaklı, E. C., Erbeyi, B., Avcı, S., & Koç, A. (2018). Effect of sowing methods on silage yield and quality of some corn cultivars grown in second crop season under irrigated condition of Central Anatolia, Turkey. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 23(1), 72–79.
• Javanmard, A., Nasab, A. M., Javanshir, A., Moghaddam, M., & Janmohammadi, H. (2009). Forage yield and quality in intercropping of maize with different legumes as double-cropped. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 7(1), 163–166.
• Joachim, H., & Jung, G. (1997). Analysis of forage fiber and cell walls in ruminant nutrition. Journal of Nutrition, 127, 810–813.
• Kadıoğlu, S. (2011). The effects of phosphate fertilization and bacteria inoculation on agricultural and morphological characteristics of some different (forage) pea cultivars [Doctoral Dissertation] (p. 172). Ataturk University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Field Crops.
• Kadıoğlu, S., Tan, M., Kadıoğlu, B., & Taşgın, G. (2020). Determination of yield and some characteristics of forage pea genotypes (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) under Erzurum conditions. Atatürk University Journal of Agricultural Faculty, 51(2), 151–158.
• Kalkan, F., & Avcı, S. (2020). Effect of applying nitrogen on yield of silage maize grown after forage legumes. KSU Journal of Agriculture and Nature, 23, 336–342.
• Kaplan, O., & Gökkuş, A. (2018). Kışlık ara ürün olarak yetiştirilen yem bitkilerinin biberin (Capsicum annuum var. annuum) verim ve verim unsurlarına etkileri [The effects of fodder crops grown as a winter intermediate crop on yield and yield components of pepper (Capsicum annuum var. annuum)]. COMU Journal of Agriculture Faculty, 6(2), 1–6.
• Karayel, R., & Bozoğlu, H. (2015). Tryptophane and raw protein contents of local pea (Pisum sativum L.) lines for different sowing dates. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 21, 337–345.
• Knott, C. M., & Belcher, S. J. (1998). Optimum sowing dates and plant populations for winter peas (Pisum sativum). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 131, 449–454.
• Koçer, A., & Albayrak, S. (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., & Tamkoç, A. (2018). Yem bezelyesinde kışlık ve yazlık ekimin bazı tarımsal özellikler üzerine etkisi [Effect on some agricultural features of winter and summer planting in forage peas]. Journal of Bahri Dagdas Crop Research, 7(1), 39–50.
• Krawutschke, M., Kleen, J., Weiher, N., Loges, R., Taube, F., & Gierus, M. (2013). Changes in crude protein fractions of forage legumes during the spring growth and summer regrowth period. Journal of Agricultural Science, 151(1), 72.
• Lithourgidis, A. S., Vasilakoglou, I. B., Dhima, K. V., Dordas, C. A., & Yiakoulaki, M. D. (2006). Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding ratios. Field Crops Research, 99(2–3), 106–113. [CrossRef]
• McKenzie, D. B., & Spaner, D. (1999). White lupin: An alternative to pea in oat-legume forage mixtures grown in Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 79, 43–47.
• Meen, A. (2001). Forage quality on the Arizona strip. Rangelands, 23, 7–12.
• Mukherjee, D., Sharma, B. R., & Mani, J. K. (2013). Influence of different sowing dates and cultivars on growth, yield and disease incidence in garden pea (Pisum sativum) under mid hill situation. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 83(9), 918–923.
• NRC (2001). Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle (7th edn). National Academy Press.
• Pursley, A. A., Biligetu, B., Warkentin, T., Lardner, H. A., & Penner, G. B. (2020). Effect of stage of maturity at harvest for forage pea (Pisum sativum L.) on eating behavior, ruminal fermentation, and digestibility when fed as hay to yearling beef heifers. Translational Animal Science, 4(1), 149–158. [CrossRef]
• Rubatzky, V. E., & Yamaguchi, M. (1997). World vegetables: Principles, production, and nutritive values (2nd edn). International Thomson Publishing.
• SAS Institute (2011). Base SAS 9.3 Procedures Guide (computer program).
• Tan, M., Kırcı, K. K., & Gül, Z. D. (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.
• Tan, M., Koç, A., & Dumlu Gül, Z. (2012). Morphological characteristics and seed yield of east Anatolian local forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) ecotypes. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 17(1), 24–30.
• Türk, M., Albayrak, S., & Yüksel, O. (2007). Effects of phosphorus fertilization and harvesting stages on forage yield and quality of carbon vetch. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 50, 457–462.
• Uzun, A., & Açıkgöz, E. (1998). Effect of sowing season and seeding rate on the morphological traits and yields in pea cultivars of different leaf types. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 181, 215–222.
• Uzun, A., Aşık, B. B., & Açıkgöz, E. (2017). Effects of different seeding rates on forage yield and quality components of pea cultivars under Bursa conditions. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 22(1), 126–133.
• Uzun, A., Bilgili, U., Sincik, M., Filya, I., & Açıkgöz, E. (2005a). Yield and quality of forage type pea lines of contrasting leaf types. European Journal of Agronomy, 22(1), 85–94. [CrossRef]
• Uzun, A., Gün, H., & Açıkgöz, E. (2012). Farklı gelişme dönemlerinde biçilen bazı yem bezelyesi (Pisum sativum L.) çeşitlerinin ot, tohum ve ham protein verimlerinin belirlenmesi [Yield and quality characteristics of some pea (Pisum sativum L.) Varieties Harvested at Different Growing stages]. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Uludag University, 26(1), 27–38.
• Uzun, A., Karasu, A., Turgut, İ., Çakmak, F., & Turan, Z. M. (2005b). Bursa koşullarında ekim nöbeti sistemlerinin mısırın verim ve verim öğeleri üzerine etkisi [The effect of crop rotation systems on the yield and yield components in corn under Bursa conditions]. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Bursa Uludag University, 19(2), 61–68.
• Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Methods of dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74(10), 3583–3597. [CrossRef]