Bazı Pamuk Çeşitlerinin (Gossypium hirsitum L.) Çiğitlerinin Kimyasal Kompozisyonu in vitro Gaz Üretimi

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2, 93 - 99, 15.08.2017

Mahmut Kaplan M. Said Fidan Kağan Kökten İsmail Ülger

Öz

Çalışmanın amacı farklı çeşitlere ait pamuk çiğitlerinin besin madde içeriklerini belirlemektir. Bu amaçla; beş pamuk çeşidinin (Gossupolsuz 86, Lifsiz, Suregrov 125, Stoneville 453 ve Nazilli) çiğitlerinin kimyasal kompozisyonu ve gaz üretim miktarları ile hesaplama ile elde edilen metabolik enerji ve organik madde sindirilebilirliği belirlenmiştir. Pa-muk çiğitlerinin ham protein içeriği %19.03-24.15; ADF içeriği %31.13-35.01; NDF içeriği %38.61-44.86; ham kül içeriği %2.98-4.39; ham yağ içeriği %16.26-26.46 ve kuru madde %65.06-69.13 arasında değişmiştir. Gaz üretimi 60.33-92.71 mL; metabolik enerji (ME) 7.94-11.42 MJ/kg/KM ve organik madde sindirim derecesi (OMS)%50.51-71.72 ara-sında değişmiştir. Pamuk çeşitleri arasında kimyasal kompozisyon, gaz üretimi, ME ve OMS yönünden fark istatistiki olarak önemli (P<0.01) bulunmuştur. Kullanılan çeşitler içerisinde yüksek ham protein ve ham yağ içeriğine, metabolik enerjiye ve düşük ADF ve NDF içeriğine sahip Nazilli çeşidi ön plana çıkmıştır. Çalışma sonuçlarına göre, pamuk çiğit-leri hayvan besleme için oldukça kaliteli yem kaynakları olmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İn vitro gaz üretimi, kimyasal kompozisyon, metabolik enerji, pamuk çiğiti

Chemical Composition and in vitro Gas Production of Whole Cottonseed (Gossypium hirsitum L.) Cultivars

Öz

The present study was conducted to investigate the chemical composition, gas production, metabolic ener-gy and organic matter digestibility of whole cottonseeds of five different cotton cultivars (Gossupolsuz 86, Lifsiz, Suregrov 125, Stoneville 453 and Nazilli). Crude protein contents of cottonseeds varied between 19.03-24.15%; ADF contents between 31.13-35.01%; NDF contents between 38.61-44.86%; crude ash contents between 2.98-4.39%; crude oil contents between 16.26-26.46% and dry matter between 65.06-69.13%. Gas production values varied be-tween 60.33-92.71 mL; metabolic energy (ME) values between 7.94-11.42 MJ/kg/DM and organic matter digestibility (OMD) between 50.51-71.72%. The differences in chemical composition, gas production, ME and OMD values of cot-ton cultivars were found to be statistically significant (P<0.01). The cultivar Nazilli was prominent with high crude pro-tein, metabolic energy, low ADF and NDF content. Current findings revealed that present cotton cultivars constituted high quality feed source for livestock.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Chemical composition, cottonseed, in vitro gas production, metabolic energy

Kaynakça

• 1. Latimer GW. Official method of analysis of association of official analytical chemistry international. 20th edition, 2016; pp. 66-88. 2. Assefa G, Ledin I. Effect of variety, soil type and fertilizer on the establishment, growth, forage yield, quality and voluntary intake by cattle of oats and vetches cultivated in pure Şekil 1. Pamuk çeşitlerin kümülatif gaz üretim miktarları (ml/200 mg KM) İnkübasyon Süresi (Saat) 98 Pamuk çiğitinin kimyasal kompozisyonu… Erciyes Üniv Vet Fak Derg 14(2), 93-99, 2017 stand and mixtures. Animal Feed Sci Tech-nol 2001; 92(1): 95-111. 3. Atakişi Kİ. Lif bitkileri yetiştirme ve ıslahı. yayın no:104, Tekirdağ: 1999. 4. Ball DM, Collins, M, Lacefield GD, Martin NP, Mertens DA, Olson KE, Putnam DH, Undersander DJ, Wolf MW. Understanding forage quality. First Edition. Park Ridge, Illinois: American Farm Bureau Federation Publication 2001; p. 1-101. 5. Caballero AR, Goicoechea-Oicoechea EL, Hernaiz-Ernaiz PJ. Forage yields and qua-lity of common vetch and oat sown at var-ying seeding ratios and seeding rates of vetch. Field Crops Res 1995; 41(2): 135-40. 6. Canbolat O. Comparison of in vitro gas pro-duction, organic matter digestibility, relative feed value and metabolizable energy con-tents of some cereal forages. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg 2012; 18 (4): 571-7. 7. Getachew G, Robinson PH, De Peters EJ. Relationships between chemical composi-tion, dry matter degradation and in vitro gas production of several ruminant feeds. Anim Feed Sci Tech 2004; 111(1-4): 57-71. 8. Jones LA. Nutritional values for cotton seed meal. Feed stuffs, 1981; December 21, pp: 19-21. 9. Karalazos A, Datos D, Bikos J. A note on the apparent digestibility and nutritive value of whole cottonseed given to sheep. Anim Sci 1992; 55(2): 285-287. 10. Kaplan M, Kamalak A, Kasra AA, Güven I. Effect of maturity stages on potential nutriti-ve value, methane production and conden-sed tanin content of Sanguisorba minor Hay. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg 2014; 20(3): 445-449. 11. Kaya S, Yarsan E, Filazi A, Akar F. Yem ve yem ham maddelerinde bulunan bazı doğal olumsuzluk faktörleri: 2. gossipol düzeyleri. Ankara Univ Vet Fak Derg 1995; 42(3): 323-6. 12. L. A. Kerr, Gossypol toxicosis in cattle. Compendium on continuing education for the practising veterinarian, vol. 11, no. 9, 1989, p. 1139-46. 13. Kırkpınar F, Ergül M. Pamuk tohumu küspe-sinin yem olarak kullanımı. Pamukta Eğitim Semineri, 14-17, Ekim, 2003, p. 223-235. İzmir, Türkiye. 14. Krishnamoorthy RG, Kawada T, Chang SS. Chemical reactions involved in the deep fat frying of foods. I. A laboratory apparatus for frying under simulated restaurant conditions. J Am Oil Chem Soc 1965; 42(10): 878-82. 15. Kumar RR, Ramesh R. Synthesis, molecu-lar structure and electrochemical properties of nickel (II) benzhydrazone complexes: Influence of ligand substitution on DNA/protein interaction, antioxidant activity and cytotoxicity. RSC Adv 2015; 5: 101932-48. 16. Menke KH, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Schneider W. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolisable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J Agric Sci (Camb) 1979; 93(1): 217-22. 17. Menke KH, Steingass H. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim Res Dev 1988; 28: 7-55. 18. Morton CF. Folk remedies of the low co-untry. Inc, Miami, Florida: E.A. Seemann Publishing, 1974; p. 1-176. 19. Oğuz FK. Değerini bilmediğimiz bir ürün: pamuk tohumu. Ankara: Türkiye yem sana-yicileri birliği, Yem Mag Derg, 2006; p. 47-52. 20. Pehlivan F, Özdoğan M. Comparison be-tween chemical and near infrared reflec-tance spectroscopy methods for determining of nutrient content of some alternative feeds. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Fac-ulty 2015; 12 (02): 1-10. 21. Pena F, Tagari H, Satter LD. The effect of heat treatment of whole cottonseed on site and extent of protein digestion in dairy cows. J Ani Sci 1986; 62(5): 1423-33. 22. Ryan JR, Kratzer FH, Grau CR, Vohra P. Glandless cottonseed meal for laying and breeding hens and broiler chickens, Poult Sci 1986; 65: 949-55. 23. SAS, 1999. SAS User’s Guide: Statistic. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC. 24. Singleton VL, Kratzer FH. Plant Phenolics, Gossypol Toxicants Occurring Naturally in Foods. 2. ed., Washington. DC USA: Na-tional Academy Sciences, 1973; p: 309-323. 25. Top B, Uçum İ. Türkiye’de Bitkisel Yağ Açı-ğı. Tarımsal Ekonomi ve Politika Geliştirme Enstitüsü Yayınları, 2012;14(2): 2 -5. 26. Tuncer ŞD, Yalçın S. Türkiye’de üretilen pamuk tohumu küspelerinde gossipol düzeylerinin tespit edilmesi üzerine bir araştır-ma, Selcuk Üniversitesi Vet Fak Dergisi 1986; 2: 125-34. 27. Van Soest PJ, Wine RH. The use of deter-gents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. IV. determination of plant cell wall constituents. JAOAC 1967; 50: 50-5. 28. Van Soest PJ. The use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. II. a rapid method for the determination of fiber and lignin. JAOAC 1963; 46: 829-35. 29. Wellman KT. Effects of using different levels of cottonseed meal on broilers, MS. thesis, Adnan Menderes University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Animal Science Aydın 2007; p. 46.