Seasonal Nutrient Content Changes of Leaf and Leaf + Shoots in Deciduous Christ’s thorn (Palirus spina-christi Mill.)

Öz

Many shrub and tree species growing naturally in the arid and semi-arid regions play an important role as the fodder resources for grazing animals. In recent years, multiple studies were carried out to determine the nutritional content depending on their growth stages, yearly and seasonal of the shrub and tree species. But, no studies have focused on the feeding value of shrub species by taking sample from only leaf and leaf + shoot parts in the different growth stages. For this purpose, this study was conducted to determine the change of seasonal nutrient content of leaf and leaf + shoots of the decidious christ’s thorn (Palirus spina-christi Mill.) growing intensely in Kilis ecological conditions, between the periods of October 2013-September 2014 . Experiment was established according to factorial arrangement in a randomized block design with four replications, and the crude protein (CP), neutral detergent ber (NDF), acid detergent ber (ADF), acid detergent lignin (ADL), dry matter digestibility (DMD), digestible energy (DE), metabolizable energy (ME) and relative feed value (RFV) were determined. in the fodder samples. In the study, the chemical composition of christ’s thorn differed signi cantly (P<0.01) among the seasons and fodder types. Results showed that the ratios of CP, DMD, DE, ME and RFV in Christ’s thorn decreased depending on maturity, and NDF, ADF and ADL contents increased. The desired nutritional values of the leaf samples were also found to be higher than those of the leaf + shoots samples. Consequently, in terms of the nutritional contents examained it was revealed that deciduous christ’s thorn was a good alternative fodder resource especially for small cattles grazing on semi-arid Mediterranean maquis. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Christ’s thorn,Kilis,maquis,fodder quality,fodder type

Yaprağını Döken Karaçalı (Palirus spina-christi Mill.) Türünde Yaprak ve Yaprak + Sürgünlerinin Mevsimsel Besin İçeriği Değişimi

Öz

Kurak ve yarı-kurak bölgelerde doğal olarak yetişen pek çok çalı ve ağaç türleri otlanan hayvanlar için yem kaynağı olarak önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Son yıllarda çalı ve ağaç türlerinin yıllık, mevsimsel ve gelişme dönemlerine bağlı olarak besin içeriğini belirlemeye yönelik pek çok araştırma yürütülmüştür. Ancak farklı gelişme dönemlerinde sadece yaprak ve yaprak + sürgün kısımlarından örnek alımı yapılarak çalı türlerinin besin değeri üzerine odaklanılmış bir çalışma bulunmamaktadır. Bu amaçla, Ekim 2013-Eylül 2014 dönemleri arasında bir yıl süreyle Kilis ekolojik koşullarında yaygın olarak yetişen yaprağını döken Karaçalı (Palirus spina-christi Mill.) türünün yaprak ve yaprak + sürgünlerin mevsimsel besin içeriği değişimini belirlemek için bu çalışma yürütülmüştür. Araştırma şansa bağlı bloklar da faktöriyel düzenlemeye göre 4 tekrarlamalı olarak kurulmuş ve bitki materyallerinde HP (ham protein), NDF (nötr çözücülerde çözünemeyen lif), ADF (asit çözücülerde çözünemeyen lif), ADL (asit çözücülerde çözünemeyen lignin), KMS (kuru madde sindirilebilirliği), SE (sindirilebilir enerji), ME (metabolik enerji) ve NYD (nispi yem değeri) içerikleri belirlenmiştir. Araştırmada karaçalı türünün kimyasal kompozisyon içeriği dönemler ve yem tipleri arasında önemli farklılık göstermiştir (P<0.01). Sonuçlar karaçalı türünün olgunlaşmasıyla (mevsimlere göre) HP, KMS, SE, ME ve NYD oranlarının azaldığı, NDF, ADF ve ADL oranlarının ise artığını göstermiştir. Ayrıca yaprak örneklerin arzulanan besin değerleri (HP, KMS, SE, ME ve NYD), yaprak + sürgün örneklerine göre daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak yaprağını döken karaçalı türü incelenen besin içerikleri açısından yarı kurak Akdeniz bölgesi makiliklerinde otlanan özellikle küçükbaş hayvanlar için iyi bir alternatif yem kaynağı olduğu ortaya konulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Karaçalı,Kilis,maki,yem kalitesi,yem örnekleme tipi

Kaynakça

1. Abdulrazak SA, Fujihara T, Ondiek JK, Ørskov ER, 2000. Nutritive evaluation of some Acacia tree leaves from Kenya. Animal Feed Science Technology, 85: 89-98
2. Abusuwar AO, Ahmed EO, 2010. Seasonal variability in nutritive value of ruminan diets under open grazing system in the semi - arid rangeland of Sudan (South Darfur State). Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America, 1(3): 243-249.
3. Aganga AA, Tshwenyane SO, 2003. Feeding values and anti nutritive factors of forage tree legumes. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition. 2(3):170-177.
4. Ahmad K, Ashraf M, Khan Z, Valeem EE, 2008. Evaluation of macro - mineral concentrations of forages in relation to ruminant’s requirements: A case study in soone valley, Punjab, Pakistan Journal of Botany, 40: 295-299.
5. Alatürk F, Alpars T, Gökkuş A, Coşkun E, Akbağ IA, 2014. Bazı çalı türlerinin mevsimsel değişimi. ÇOMÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi. 2014: 2 (1): 133-141.
6. Anonim 2014. Başbakanlık DMİ Genel Müdürlüğü Meteroloji Bültenleri. Ankara.
7. Asaadi AM, Yazdi AK, 2011. Phenological stage effets on forage quality of four forbs species. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment. 9 (2): 380 - 384.
8. Ataşoğlu C, Şahin S, Canbolat Ö, Baytekin H, 2010. The effect of harvest stage on the potential nutritive value of kermes oak (Quercus coccifera) leaves. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 22 (2), Article 36.

9. Azim A, Ghazanfar S, Latif A, Nadeem A, 2011. Nutritional evaluation of some top fodder tres leaves and shrubs of district Chakwal, Pakistan in relation to ruminants requirements. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 10 (1): 54-59.
10. Buxton DR, 1996. Quality - related characteristics of forages as in uenced by plant environment and agronomic factors. Animal Feed Science Technology, 59: 37-49.
11. Canbolat Ö, 2012. Determination of potential nutritie value of exotic tree leaves in Turkey. Kafkas Üniversitesi Veterinerlik Fakültesi Dergisi, 18 (3): 419-423.
12. Claessens A, Michaund R, Belanger G, Mather DE, 2005. Leaf and stem characteristics of timothy plants divergently selected for the ratio of lignin to cellulose. Crop Science, 45: 2425-2429.
13. Dzowela BH, Hove L, Mafongoya PL, 1995. Effect of Drying Method on Chemical Vomposition and in vitro Digestibility of Multi – Purpose Tree and Shrup Fodders. Tropical Grasslands, 29: 263-269.
14. Fonnesbeck PV, Clark DH, Garret WN, Speth CF, 1984. Predicting energy utilization from alfalfa hay from the Western Region. Proc. American Animal Science, 35: 305 - 308.
15. 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(4): 343-351.
16. Ghazanfar S, Latif A, Mirza IH, Nadeem MA, 2011. Macro - minerals concentrations of major fodder tree leaves and shrubs of district Chakwal, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 10 (5): 480-484.
17. Kacar B, Katkat AV, Öztürk Ş, 2006. Bitki Fizyolojisi (2. Baskı). Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, s, 563, Ankara.
18. Kamalak A, 2006. Determination of nutritive value of a native grown shrub, Glycyrrhiza glabra L. Using in vitro and in situ measurements. Small Ruminant Research, 64: 268-278.
19. Karabulut A, Canbolat O, Özkan CO, Kamalak A, 2006. Potential nutritive value of some Mediterranean shrub and tree leaves as emergency food for sheep in winter. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 18 (6).
20. Kesici Ö, 1994. Kilis Yöresinin Coğrafyası. Kilis Kültür Derneği Genel Yayın No:12.
21. Khalil JK, Sawaya WN, Hyder SZ, 1986. Nutrient composition of Atriplex leaves grown in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Range Management, 39: 104-107.
22. Kökten K, Gürsoy O, Tukel T, Hatipoğlu R, 2010. Yield and Nutritive Value of Anti – Taurus Mountain Rangeland Shrubs in Turkey. Jaurnal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 9 (4): 716-720.
23. Kökten K, Kaplan M, Hatipoğlu R, Saruhan V, Çınar S, 2012. Nutritive values of the leaves of Mediterranean shrubs. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 22 (1): 188-194.
24. Lyons RK, Machen RV, Forbes TDA, 1999. Why Range Forage Quality Changes. Texas Agric. Ext. Serv., B - 6036, p. 7.
25. Mountousis J, Papanikolaou K, Stanogias G, Chatzitheodoridis F, Roukos C, 2008. Seasonal variation of chemical composition and dry matter digestibility of rangelands in NW Greece. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 9(3): 547-556.
26. Nahand MK, Doust-Nobar RS, Maheri-Sis N, Sadigh AA, Noshadi A, Azar MS, Hassanpour S, 2010. Estimation of nutritional value of almond tree leaves as a feedstuffs for ruminants using gas production technique. Global Veterinaria, 5 (2): 150-153.
27. NRC 2007. Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep, Goats, Cervids, and New World Camelids. National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington DC, p. 362.
28. Oddy VH, Robards GE, Low SG, 1983. Prediction of in vivo dry matter digestibility from the ber nitrogen content of a feed. In: Robards, G.E., Packham, R.G. (Eds.), Feed Information and Animal Production. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Farnham Royal, UK, pp. 395-398.
29. Oktay G, Temel S, 2015. Ebu Cehil (Calligonum polygonoides L. ssp. commosum (L’Her.) çalısının yıllık yem değerinin belirlenmesi. Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 32 (1): 30-36.
30. Parissi ZM, Papachristou TG, Nastis AS, 2005. Effect of drying method on estimated nutritive value of browse species using an in vitro gas production technique. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 123-124 (1): 119-128.
31. Parlak AÖ, Gökkuş A, Hakyemez BH, Baytekin H, 2011a. Forage yield and quality of Kermes oak and herbaceous species throughout a year in Mediterranean zone of western Turkey. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 9 (1): 510 – 515.
32. Parlak AÖ, Gökkuş A, Hakyemez BH, Baytekin H, 2011b. Forage quality of deciduos woody and herbaceous species throughout a year in Mediterranean shrublands of western Turkey. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 21 (3): 513-518.
33. Pecetti L, Tava A, Pagnotta MA, Russi L, 2007. Variations in forage quality and chemical composition among Italian accessions of Bituminaria bituminosa (L.) Strit. J. Sci. Food Agric., 87: 985 – 991.
34. Redfearn D, Zhang H, Caddel J, 2006. Forage qualityinterpretations. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, F - 2117.
35. Sheaffer CC, Peterson MA, Mccalin M, Volene JJ, Cherney JH, Johnson KD, Woodward WT, Viands DR, 1995. Acide Detergent Fiber, Neutral Detergent Fiber Concentration and Relative Feed Value. North American Alfalfa İmprovemnt Conference, Minneapolis.
36. Sultan JI, Rahim IU, Javaid A, Bilal MO, Akhtar P, Ali S, 2010. Chemical composition, mineral pro le, Palatability and İn Vitro Digestibility od Shrubs. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 42 (4): 2453-2459.
37. Tan M, Serin Y, 2011. Baklagil Yem Bitkileri. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Ders Yayınları No: 190, Erzurum.
38. Tan M, Temel S, 2012. Alternatif Yem Bitkileri. Atatürk Üniv. Ziraat Fak. Ders Yayınları No: 246, 195 - 207, Erzurum.
39. Temel S, Tan M, 2011. Fodder Values of Shrub Species in Maquis in Different Altitudes and Slope Aspects. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 21 (3): 508-512.
40. Tolunay A, Adiyaman E, Akyol A, Ince D, 2009. Herbage growth and fodder yield characteristics of kermes oak (Quecus coccifera L.) in a vegetation period. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 8(2): 290-294.
41. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JD, Lewis BA, 1991. Methods for diatery bre, neutral detergent bre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animals nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74: 3583-3597.
42. Ventura MR, Castanon JIR, Pieltain MC, Flores MP, 2004. Nutritive value of forage shrubs: Bituminaria bituminosa, Rumex lunaria, Acacia salicina, Cassia sturtii and Adenocorpus foliosus; Small Ruminant Research, 52: 13-18.