Kıraç Şartlarda Yetiştirilen Selvi Sirken (Atriplex nitens)’in Otunun Kalitesi Üzerine Farklı Ekim Zamanları ve Biçim Dönemlerinin Etkileri

Öz

Bu araştırma 2019 ve 2020 yıllarında Iğdır Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi ait deneme arazisinde kuru şartlarda yürütülmüştür. Ekim (Mart ortası, Mart sonu, Nisan başı ve Nisan ortası) ve hasat dönemlerinin (vejetatif dönem sonu, çiçeklenme başlangıcı ve tam çiçeklenme dönemi) Selvi sirken (Atriplex nitens)’in ham protein oranı (HP), nötr çözücülerde çözünemeyen lif (NDF), asit çözücülerde çözünemeyen lif (ADF), kuru madde sindirilebilirliği (KMS), kuru madde tüketimi (KMT), sindirilebilir enerji (SE), metabolik enerji (ME) ve nisbi yem değeri (NYD) üzerine etkileri belirlenmiştir. Deneme tesadüf bloklarında bölünmüş parseller deneme desenine göre 3 tekerrürlü olarak kurulmuştur. Araştırmanın ikinci yılında elde edilen ham protein oranı birinci yıla göre daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Diğer incelenen yem kalite özellikleri yıllara göre herhangi bir değişiklik olmamıştır. Ekim zamanları incelenen tüm besin içerikleri üzerine önemli etkileri olmuştur. Ekim zamanlarını geciktirilmesiyle NDF ve ADF oranında düşüşler olurken, HP, KMS, KMT, SE, ME ve NYD miktarlarında artışlar olmuştur. Hasat dönemlerinin geciktirilmesiyle NDF ve ADF oranlarında artış olurken, HP, KMS, KMT, SE, ME ve NYD miktarlarında düşüşler olmuştur. Yıl, ekim ve biçim dönemlerine göre HP oranları %5.94 ile %13.86, NDF oranları %50.29 ile %64.33,ADF oranları %29.48 ile %41.01, KMS oranları %56.96 ile %65.93, KMT oranları %1.86 ile %2.39, SE miktarı 2.71 ile 3.09 Mcal kg-1, ME miktarı 2.22 ile 2.54 Mcal kg-1 ve NYD değeri 82.40 ile 121.97 arasında olmuştur. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre kuru şartlarda Atriplex nitens’den yüksek kalitede ot elde edilebilmesi için ilk ekim zamanı olan Mart ortasında ekimlerinin yapılması ve vejetatif dönem sonunda hasat edilmesi gerektiği belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Atriplex nitens
• Atriplex nitens
• ekim zamanı
• hasat dönemi
• besin değerleri

The Effects of Different Sowing and Harvesting Times on Hay Quality of Mountain spinach (Atriplex nitens) Grown in Arid Conditions

Öz

This research was carried out in dry conditions in the trial land of Igdir University Faculty of Agriculture in 2019 and 2020. Effects on crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), dry matter digestibility (DMD), dry matter intake (DMI), digestible energy (DE), metabolizable energy (ME) and relative feed value (RFV) of sowing (mid-March, late-March, early-April and mid-April) and harvesting times (end of vegetative period, beginning of flowering and full flowering period) of mountain spinach (Atriplex nitens) were determined. The experiment was set up in randomized blocks according to the split plot design with 3 replications. It was determined that the crude protein obtained in the second year of the study was higher than the first year. Other examined hay quality characteristics did not change over the years. Sowing times had significant effects on all the nutrients studied. Delaying the sowing times resulted in decreases in NDF and ADF ratios, and increases in CP, DMD, DMI, DE, ME and RFV. While the NDF and ADF ratios increased with the delay of the harvest periods, there were decreases in the CP, DMD, DMI, DE, ME and RFV amounts. According to year, sowing and harvesting periods, CP ratios between 5.94% and 13.86%, NDF ratios 50.29% an 64.33%, ADF ratios 29.48% and 41.01%, DMD ratios 56.96% and 65.93%, DMI ratios 1.86% and 2.39%, DE amount 2.71 and 3.09 Mcal kg-1, ME amount 2.22 and 2.54 Mcal kg-1 and RFV value 82.40 and 121.97 was found. According to the results of the study, it was determined that in order to obtain high quality herbage from mountain spinach in dry conditions, it should be sown in mid-March, which is the first sowing time, and harvested at the end of the vegetative period.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Atriplex nitens
• Mountain spinach
• sowing time
• harvest period
• hay quality

Kaynakça

1. Acar R, Dursun S, 2012. Importance and Agricultural Usage of Atriplex nitens Schkuhr. International Journal of Ecosystems and Ecology Sciences, 2(3): 173-176.
2. Acar R, Güncan A, 2002. Determination of the Morphological Characteristics and Crude Proteın Contents of Some Wild Species Which Can Be Used As Forage Crops. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 16 (29): 79-83.
3. Acar R, Kayak N, Dal Y, Kal Ü, Seymen M, Koç N, Türkmen Ö, 2019a. The Effect of Different Sowing Times on Plant Characteristics of Mountain Spinach (Atriplex hortensis = Atriplex nitens). Manas Journal of Agriculture Veterinary and Life Sciences, 9(2): 81-84.
4. Acar R, Özköse A, Kahraman O, Özbilgin A, Özcan MM, Özcan MM, 2019b. Determination of some plant characteristics and feed value of drought-resistant Mountain Swan (Atriplex nitens). Zeitschrift für Arznei- & Gewürzpflanzen, 24(2): 94-96.
5. Acar R, Özköse A, Koç N, 2017. Investigation of Alternative Use Potential of Atriplex nitens Schkuhr. Journal of Bahri Dagdas Crop Research, 6 (2): 18-22.
6. Aganga AA, Mthetho JK, Tshwenyane S, 2003. Atriplex nummularia (Old Man Saltbush): A Potential Forage Crop for Arid Regions of Botswana. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 2(2): 72-75.
7. Akinshina N, Toderich K, Azizova A, Saito L, Ismail S, 2014. Halophyte Biomass, A Promising Source of Renewable Energy. Journal of Arid Land Studies, 24(1): 231-235.
8. Anonymous, 2021a. Atriplex nitens Schkuhr. TUBİVES. http://194.27.225.161/yasin/tubives/index.php?sayfa=1&tax_id=1896, (Date of access: 26.10.2021).

9. Anonymous, 2021b. Republic of Turkey Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, Directorate General for Meteorological Service.
10. AOAC, 1997. Official Methods of Analysis. 16th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists AOAC Intl., Gaithersburg, MD.
11. Ball DM, Hoveland CS, Lacefield GD, 1996. Forage Quality in Southern Forages. Publ. By the Williams Printing Company, 124-132.
12. Benzarti M, Ben Rejeb K, Debez A, Abdelly C, 2013. Environmental and Economical Opportunities for the Valorisation of the Genus Atriplex: New Insights. In: Hakeem K, Ahmad P, Ozturk M, (eds) Crop Improvement. Springer, Boston, MA.
13. Boughalleb N, Trabelsi L, Harzallah-Skhiri F, 2009. Antifungal activity from polar and non-polar extracts of some Chenopodiaceae wild species growing in Tunisia. Nat Prod Res, 23:988–997.
14. Buxton, D.R. 1996. Quality related characteristics of forages as influenced by plant environment and agronomic factors. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 40: 109-119.
15. Christman S, 2003. Atriplex hortensis. https://floridata.com/plant/709 (date of access: 25.02.2022).
16. Collins, M. and Fritz, J.O. 2003. Forage Quality. In: Barnes RF, Nelson CJ, Collins M, Moore KJ (editors). Forages, Vol. I. 6th ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Company, pp. 363-390.
17. El Shaer HM, 2010. Halophytes and salt-tolerant plants as potential forage for ruminants in the Near East region. Small Ruminant Research, 91:3–12.
18. Fales SL, Fritz JO, 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.
19. Fonnesbeck PV, Clark DH, Garret WN, Speth CF, 1984. Predicting energy utilization from alfalfa hay from the Western Region. Proceeding of American Society of Animal Sciences (Western Section), 35: 305-308.
20. Frost RA, Wilson LM, Launchbaugh KL, Hovde EM, 2008. Seasonal change in forage value of rangeland weeds in Northern Idaho. Invasive Plant Science and Management, 1; 343-351.
21. FAO, 1990. Micronutrient assessment at the country level: An international study, FAO Soil Bulletin, No: 63, Rome
22. Geerts S, Raes D, Garcia M, Taboada C, Miranda R, Cusicanqui J, Mhizhac T, Vacher J, 2009. Modeling the potential for closing quinoa yield gaps under varying water availability in the Bolivian Altiplano. Agricultural Water Management, 96(11): 1652-1658.
23. Grzeszczuk M, Jadczak D, Kawecka A, Długosz I, 2010. Effect of sowing date on biological value of garden orache. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Hortorum Cultus, 9(4): 163-169.
24. Hoffman PC, Lundberg KM, Bauman LM, Shaver RD, 2003. The effect of maturity on NDF digestibility. Focus on Forage 5: 1-3.
25. Hou L, Bai W, Zhang Q, Liu Y, Sun H, Luo Y, Song S, Zhang WH, 2021. A new model of two-sown regime for oat forage production in an alpine region of northern China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-14.
26. JMP, 2003. JMP 5.0.1, A Business Unit of SAS, Cary, NC.
27. Jung HG, 2012. Forage Digestibility: The Intersection of Cell Wall Lignification and Plant Tissue Anatomy [online]. Website https://animal.ifas.ufl.edu/apps/dairymedia/rns/2012/12jungrns2012.pdf [accessed 12 February 2022].
28. Kacar B, Katkat AV, Ozturk S, 2006. Plant Physiology. 2. ed. Ankara: Nobel Publication Distribution.
29. Keskin B, Temel S, 2022. The Effects of Different Sowing and Harvest Periods on Herbage Yield and Some Yield Components of Mountain Spinach (Atriplex nitens Schkuhr) Grown in Rainfed Conditions. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 9(2): 340-349.
30. Khalil JK, Sawaya WN, Hyder SZ, 1986. Nutrient composition of Atriplex leaves grown in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Range Management, 39: 104-107.
31. Kır AE, 2016. Determination of Seed Yield and Some Characteristics of Different Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) Variety and Populations In Igdir Ecological Conditions. Master Thesis, Iğdır University, Institute of Science and Technology, Iğdır.
32. Kır AE, Temel S, 2017. Determination of Seed Yield and Some Agronomical Characteristics of Different Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) Genotypes under Irrigated Conditions. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 7(1): 353-361.
33. Koocheki A, 2000. Potential of Saltbush (Atriplex spp.) as a Fodder Shrub for the Arid Lands of Iran. pp: 178-183. In: (Eds) Gintzburger, G, Bounejmate M, Nefzaoui A, 2000. Fodder Shrub Development in Arid and Semi-arid Zones. Proceedings of the Workshop on Native and Exotic Fodder Shrubs in Arid and Semi-arid Zones 27 Oct-2 Nov 1996, vol: I, Hammamet, Tunisia.
34. Kutlu HR, Görgülü M, Çelik LB, 2005. General Animal Nutrition-Lecture Note. Çukurova University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Animal Science, Department of Feeds and Animal Nutrition, Adana.
35. Kutlu HR, Özen N, 2009. Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition. VI. National Animal Science Congress, Erzurum.
36. Morrison JA, 2003. Hay and pasture managment. Chapter 6, Hay and Pasture. http://extension.cropsciences.illinois.edu/handbook/pdfs/chapter06.pdf (date of access: 21.02.2022).
37. Oddy VH, Robards GE, Low SG, 1983. Prediction of in vivo dry matter digestibility from the fiber nitrogen content of a feed. In: Robards, G.E., Packham, R.G. (Eds.), Feed Information and Animal Production. Common wealth Agricultural Bureau, Farnham Royal, UK.
38. Önal Aşcı O, Acar R, 2018. Quality of Roughage. Ankara, Turkey: Positive Printing and Packaging Industry Trade Company.
39. Özyiğit Y, Bilgen M, 2006. Effect of different cutting stages on some quality factors in various legume forage crops. Mediterranean Agricultural Sciences, 19: 29-34.
40. Panahi F, Assareh MH, Jafari M, Jafari A, Arzani H, Tavili A, Zandi Esfahan E, 2012. Phenological effects on forage quality of Salsola arbuscula, Salsola orientalis and Salsola tomentosa in three habitats in the central part of Iran. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 11: 800-807.
41. Papanastasis VP, Yiakoulaki MD, Decandia M, Dini-Papanastasi O, 2008. Integrating woody species into livestock feeding in the Mediterranean areas of Europe. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 140: 1-17.
42. Rabbimov A, Bekchanov B, Mukimov T, 2011. Chemical Composition and Palatability of Some Species of Halophytes. Arid Ecosystems, 1(2): 104–109.
43. Razzaghi F, 2011. Acclimatization and agronomic performance of quinoa exposed to salinity, drought and soil-related abiotic stresses. (MSc), Department of Agroecology Science and Technology, Aarhus University.
44. Redzic SJ, 2006 Wild edible plants and their traditional use in the human nutrition in Bosnia-Herzegovia. Ecology of Foodand Nutrition, 45: 189-232.
45. Richards LA, 1954. Origin and natüre of saline and alkali soil, In: Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soil. Agricultural Handbook No: 60, USDA, Washington, D.C., USA, 1-6.
46. Redfearn D, Zhang H, Caddel J, 2006. Forage quality interpretations. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service F-2117. http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2557/F-2117web.pdf (date of access: 09 March 2022).
47. Rohweder DA, Barnes RF, Jorgensen N, 1978. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science, 47: 747-759.
48. Sheaffer CC, Peterson MA, Mccalin M, Volene JJ, Cherney JH, Johnson KD, Woodward WT, Viands DR, 1995. Acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber concentration and relative feed value. North American Alfalfa Improvement Conference, Minneapolis.
49. Tan M, Temel S, 2017. Studies on the adaption of quinoa (Chenopodium quiona Willd.) to Eastern Anatolia Region of Turkey. AGROFOR International Journal, 2(2): 33-39.
50. Temel I, Keskin B, 2019. The effects on nutrient content of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) of different row spacing and intra-row spacing. International Journal of Agriculture and Wildlife Science (IJAWS), 5(1): 110 – 116.
51. 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. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 44(5): 533-542.
52. Temel S, Keskin B, 2022. The effect of different sowing and harvest periods on herbage yield and some yield components in Mountain Spinach as alternative forage resource. International Journal of Agriculture and Wildlife Science, 8(1): 92-107.
53. Temel S, Tan M, 2012. Alternatif Yem Bitkileri (Alternative Forage Crops). Atatürk University Faculty of Agriculture Course Publications, No: 246.
54. 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.). Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 25(1): 41-49.
55. Türk M, Albayrak S, 2012. Effect of harvesting stages on the forage yields and quality in pea cultivars of differing leaf types. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 17: 111-114.
56. Türkeş M, 2012. A Detailed Analysis of the Drought, Desertification and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Marmara Journal of European Studies, 20(1): 7-56.
57. Ülgen N, Yurtsever N, 1974. Turkey Fertilizer and Fertilization Guide (Türkiye Gübre ve Gübreleme Rehberi). Soil and Fertilizer Research Institute Technical Publication No:28, Ankara.
58. van Niekerk WA, Hassen A, Vermaak PJ, Coertze RJ, 2009. Influence of species/cultivar and season on the quality of Atriplex grown at different sites in South Africa. South African Journal of Animal Science, 39 (1): 238-241.
59. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA, 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74: 3583-3597.
60. Watson MC, 1990. Atriplex species as irrigated forage crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 32: 107-118.
61. Yousef Elahi M, 2013. Determination of nutritive value of five species of halophyte plants used by camel in East South Iran. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4(9): 2721-2725.