The Comparison of Nutrient Composition and Relative Feed Value of Barley Grain, Barley Green Food and Silage Grown With Grounded System of Barley Grass Grown With Hydroponic System

Year 2018, Volume: 1 Issue: 4, 102 - 109, 01.10.2018

Betül Zehra Sarıçiçek , Birgül Yıldırım Hülya Hanoğlu

Abstract

This research was conducted to investigate the differences between nutrient composition and relative feed value (RFV) according to barley grain, barley green food (BGF) and silage grown with grounded system (GSG) of barley grass, root and grass+root grown with hydroponic system (HSG), and determined of nutrient values of parts of HSG green feed. Barley (Hordium vulgari L.) (Tarm-92) were used as feed material for HSG and GSG. Barley was harvested after 9 month from culture in GSG. One part barley green foot were ensiled during 70 day for silage in laboratory conditions. In HS, barley (Tarm-92) was grown in controlled conditions in green feed machine at 8 days. It was produced 17.5 kg hydroponic green feed from 2 kg barley. One part of hydroponic green feed was investigated by seperatingseperated as grass, root and grass+root. In fresh materials, the highest dry matter (DM) was found for original barley, but the lowest for barley grass silage (p<0.01). There was not determined significantly differences for DM content between HSG green feed with GSG grass silage. However, DM content of HSG green feed was higher than barley grass silage (p<0.01). The crude protein (CP) and ether extract (EE) contents of HSG green feed were the highest compare to GSG feeds (p<0.01). The ash and crude fiber (CF) content of HSG green feed were higher than GSG barley grain (p<0.01) but were lower than GSG barley grass and silage (p<0.01). Nitrojen free extract (NFE) content of HSG green feed decreased significantly compare to GSG (p<0.01). DM content of grass+root part of HSG green feed was higher than grass and root (p<0.01). While CP and ash content of grass HSG were higher than root and grass+root, EE and CF content were highest for root (p<0.01). While, starch was the highest in GSG barley grain, starch content of HSG green feed was highest compare to grass and silage of GSG (p<0.01). Water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC) content of HSG green feed was higher than GSG (p<0.01). The highest Noutral detergant fiber (NDF), acid detergant fiber (ADF) and acid detergant lignin (ADL) values was found for the barley grass GSG (p<0.01). Starch, WSC, NDF, ADF and ADL values of root of HSG green feed were the highest significantly compare to grass and grass+root (p<0.01). Metabolisable energy (ME), net energy lactation (NEL), digestible dry matter (DDM) and RFV increased significantly compare to GSG feeds (p<0.01). DM intake (DMI) of HSG green feed was lower than GSG barley grain and silage (p<0.01). While ME, NEL, DMD, DMI and RFV values of grass HSG were highest compare to root and grass+root, but was the lowest for root (p<0.01). In this study, nutrient composition of hydroponic fodder compare to grounded system improved and relative feed value increased. On the other hand, the best result was obtained from grass partial of hydroponic fodder.

Keywords

Hydroponic system, Ground system, Nutrient composition, Relative feed value

HİDROPONİK VE TOPRAKLI SİSTEMLE YETİŞTİRİLEN ARPA VE YEŞİL YEMİ İLE SİLAJININ BESİN MADDE KOMPOZİSYONU VE NİSPİ YEM DEĞERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Abstract

Bu çalışma, hidroponik sistemle yetiştirilen (HSY) arpa yeşil yeminin, topraklı sistemle yetiştirilen (TSY) arpa tahılı, arpa hasılı ve arpa hasılı silajına göre besin maddeleri içerikleri ve nispi yem değerlerinin karşılaştırılması ve hidroponik arpa yeşil yeminin kısımlarının besin değerlerinin de belirlenmesi amacıyla yürütülmüştür. TSY ve HSY için yem materyali olarak arpa (Hordeum vulgare L.) (Tarm-92) kullanılmıştır. TSY de arpa ekimden 9 ay sonra hasıl olarak hasat edilmiştir. Arpa hasılının bir kısmı silaj elde edilmek için laboratuvar koşullarında 70 gün silolanmıştır. HSY de arpa(Tarm-92), kontrollü çevre koşullarına sahip yeşil yem makinesinde 8 günde yetiştirilmiştir. 2 kg arpadan ortalama 17,5 kg yeşil yem elde edilmiştir. HSY yeşil yemin bir kısmı çim, kök, çim+kök kısımlarını ayrıca incelemek için ayrıştırılmıştır. Taze halde en yüksek kuru madde (KM) orijinal arpada, en düşük ise arpa hasılı silajında belirlenmiştir (p>0.01). HSY yeşil yem ile TSY arpa hasılında KM içeriği bakımından önemli farklılık belirlenmemiştir. Ancak HSY yeşil yemin KM içeriği arpa hasılı silajınınkinden daha yüksek olmuştur. HSY yeşil yeminin ham protein (HP) ve ham yağ (HY) içeriği TYS ne göre daha yüksek olmuştur (p>0.01). HSY yeşil yemin ham kül (HK) ve ham sellüloz (HS) içeriği ise TSY arpa tahılından yüksek, hasıl ve silajından önemli derecede düşük bulunmuştur (p>0.01). HSY yeşil yemin nitrojensiz öz maddeler (NÖM) içeriği TYS ne göre önemli derecede düşmüştür (p>0.01) . Hidroponik yeşil yemin çim+kök kısmının KM içeriği çim ve kök kısmına göre daha yüksek olmuştur (p>0.01). HSY yeşil yemin çim kısmının HP ve HK içeriği, kök ve çim+kök kısmına göre en yüksek olurken (p>0.01), HY ve HS içeriği kök kısmında en yüksek olmuştur (p>0.01). Nişasta TSY arpada yüksek olurken, HSY yeşil yemin nişasta içeriği hasıl ve silaja göre daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Suda çözünür karbonhidrat (SÇK) HSY de TYS ne göre daha yüksek bulunmuştur (p>0.01). En yüksek Nötr deterjan fiber (NDF), asit deterjan fiber (ADF) ve asit deterjan lignin (ADL)
değerleri TSY de hasılda belirlenmiştir (p>0.01). HSY yeşil yemin kök kısmının nişasta SÇK, NDF, ADF ve ADL değerleri, çim ve çim+kök kısmına göre önemli derecede yüksek bulunmuştur (p>0.01). HSY yeşil yemin, metabolize enerji (ME), net enerji laktasyon (NEL), sindirilebilir kuru madde (SKM) ve nispi yem değeri (NYD) değerleri TYS ne göre önemli derecede artmıştır (p>0.01). HSY yeşil yemin kuru madde tüketimi (KMT) TSY arpa tahılı ve silajından daha düşük olmuştur (p>0.01). HSY yeşil yemin çim kısmı, kök ve çim+kök kısmına göre ME, NEL, SKM, KMT ve NYD bakımından en yüksek olurken kök kısmı en düşük değere sahip olmuştur. Bu çalışmada, TYS e göre HSY de arpa yeşil yeminin besin madde içeriğinde iyileşme olmuş ve yemin değeri artmıştır. Diğer taraftan HSY yeşil yeminde ise en iyi sonuç çim kısmında elde edilmiştir.

Keywords

Hidroponik sistem, Topraklı sistem, Besin madde içeriği, Nisbi yem değeri

References

• Abdullah A. 2001. Nutritive value of barley fodder grown in a hydroponics system. Degree of Master of Science in the Faculty of Agriculture (Unpub.), University Putra, Malaysia.
• AdıyamanE, Ayhan V. 2011. Broiler Altlığı ile Bazı Buğdaygil Yem Bitkilerinin Silolanma Olanakları Hayvansal Üretim 52(2): 29-38.
• Al-Karaki G N and Al-Hashimi M. 2012 Green fodder production and water use efficiency of some forage crops under hydroponic condition. Intern. Schol. Res. Network DOI: 10.5402/2012/924672.
• AOAC. 1990. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of analysis, 15th (Ed.), Vol.1. AOAC, Washington, DC, 69-79.
• Ball DM, Hoveland CS, Lacefield GD. 1996. Forage quality. In: Southern Forages (2nd edition). Potash & Phosphate Institute and Foundation for Agronomic Research. Norcross, GA., 124-132.
• Canpolat Ö. 2012.Bazı kaba yemlerin in vitro gaz üretimi, sindirilebilir organic madde, nisbi yem değeri ve metabolic enerji içeriklerinin karşılaştırılması. Kafkas Üniv. Vet. Fak. Dergisi, 18(4):571-577.
• Carruthers S. 2003. Green Feed. Livestock Fodder Shed. Retrieved from http://owll.massey.ac.nz/referencing/apa-interactive.php
• Chavan J and Kadam, SS. 1989. Nutritional improvement of cereals by sprouting. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 28(5), 401-437.
• Chung T, NwokoloEN, Sim JS. 1989. Compositional and digestibility changes in sprouted barley and canola seeds. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition. 39:267-278.
• Dubois M, Giles KA, Hamilton JK, Rebes PA, Smith F. 1956. Colorimetric Method for Determination of Sugars and Related Substances. Anal. Chem., 28: 350-356.
• Dung DD, Goodwin IR, and Nolan JV. 2010. Nutrient content and in sacco digestibility of Barley grain and sprouted Barley. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(19), 2485-2492.
• Düzgüneş O, Kesici T, Kavuncu O, Gürbüz F. Araştırma ve Deneme Metodları (İstatistik MetodlarıII) A. Üniv.Zir.Fak. Yay:1021/295, Ankara, 1987.
• El-Morsy AT, Abul SF and Emam MS.2013,Localized hydroponic green forage technology as a climate change adaptation under Egyptian condition. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, 9 (6), 341-350.
• Fazaeli H, Golmohammadi H, Shoayee AA, Montajebi N, Mosharraf Sh. 2011. Performance of Feedlot calves fed hydroponics fodder barley. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 13, 367-375.
• Fazaeli H, Golmohammadi HA,Tabatabayee SN and Asghari TM.2012, Productivity and nutritive value of barley green fodder yield in hydroponic system. Iran, World Applied Science Journal 16 (4), , 531-539.
• Gebremedhin WK. 2015. Nutritional benefit and economic value of feeding hydroponically grown maize and barley fodder for Konkan Kanyal goats. Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science (IOSR-JAVS) e-ISSN: 2319-2380, p-ISSN: 2319-2372. Volume 8, Issue 7 Ver. II (July. 2015), PP 24-30
• Hinton DG. 2007. Supplementary Feeding of Sheep and Beef Cattle. Colligwood. Australia:Landlinks Press.
• Intissar Fand Eshtayeh A. 2004.A new source of fresh green feed (Hydroponic barley) for Awassi sheep. Master in environmental sciences, faculty of graduate studies, at An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine,
• Karaşahin M.2014. Kaba Yem Kaynağı Olarak Hidroponik Arpa Çimi Üretiminde Kuru Madde ve Ham Protein Verimleri Üzerine Farklı Uygulamaların Etkileri* Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 9 (1):27-33, 2014 ISSN 1304-9984.
• Karaşahin M. 2017. Farklı Tohum Miktarlarının Hidroponik Arpa Çimi Üzerine Etkileri Iğdır Üni. Fen Bilimleri Enst. Der. / Iğdır Univ. J. Inst. Sci. & Tech. 7(4): 63-68,
• Kirazı AB, Kutlu HR. 2016, Arpa Silajının Ham Besin Madde İçerikleri Üzerine Rekombinant İnokulant Katkısının Etkileri Harran Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi, 20(2): 105-118.
• Lorenz K. 1980. Cereal sprouts composition, nutritive value, food applications. Crit Rev. Food Science Technol. 13(4):353-385.
• Marsico G, Micera E, Dimatteo S, Minuti F, Vicenti A. and Zarrilli A. 2009. Evaluation of Animal Walfare and Milk Production of Goat Fed on Diet Containing Hydroponically Germinating Seeds. Ital. J. Anim. Sci., 8(2): 625-627.
• Miller BF. 1977. Effects of sprouting on nutritional value of wheat. National Conferance Wheat Utilization Researchers, Tuscon, Arizona.
• Miscera E, Ragni M, Minuti F, Rubino G, Marisco G, Zarrilli A. 2009. Improvement of shhep welfare and milk production fed on diet containing hydroponically germinating seeds. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 8 (2), 634-636.
• Morgan J, Hunter RR, O’Haire R. 1992. Limiting factors in Hydroponic barley grass production. 8 th International Congress on Soilles culture. Hunter’s Rest. South Africa.
• MooreJE, Undersander DJ. 2002. Relative Forage Quality: An alternative to relative feed value and quality index. In “Proceedings of the 13th Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium”, 10-11 January, Gainesville. 9. Tremblay M., 1998. A tool for determining alfalfa quality. Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. Saskatchewan.
• Peer DJ, and LeesonS.1985. Feeding value of hydroponically sprouted barley for poultry and pigs. Animal Feed Science Technology, 13, 83-190.
• Rebolé A, Alzueta C, Ortiz LT, Baro C, Rodríguez ML, Caballero R. 2004. Yields and chemical composition of different parts of the common vetch at flowering and at two seed filling stages. Spanish J Agric Res, 2 (4): 550-557.
• Reddy GV, Reddy MR.and Reddy, KK.1988. Nutrient utilization by milk cattle fed on rations containing artificially grown fodder. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 5 (1), 19–22.
• Richardson C. 2001. Relative feeding value (RFV), an indicator of hay Quality. OSO Extension Fact F2117.http://clay.agr.okstate.edu/alfalfa/webnews /quality3.htm
• Rodriguez-Muela C, Rodriguez HE, Ruiz O, Flores A, Grado JA. and Arzola C. 2004. Use of green fodder produced in hydroponic system as supplement for lactating cows during the dry season. In the Proceeding of the American Society of Animal Science, pp: 271-274.
• Schoenian S.2013. Small Ruminant InfoSheet. Hydroponic Fodder. http://www.sheepandgoat/articles/hydrofodder.html.
• Sneath R, and McIntosh F.2003.Review of hydroponic fodder production for beef cattle. Queensland Government, Department of primary Industries, Dalby, Quensland 84. McKeehen, pp: 54.
• Tudor G, Darcy T, Smith P, Shallcross F. 2003. The intake and liveweight change of droughtmaster steers fed hydroponically grown, young sprouted barley fodder (Autograss) Department of Agriculture Western Australia. Page8.
• Van Dyke NJ. and Anderson PM.2000. Interpreting a forage analysis. Alabama cooperative extension. Circular ANR-890
• Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB and Lewis BA. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74: 3583-3597.
• Van Soest PJ. 1994. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant (2nd Ed.). Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.