Mürdümük (Lathyrus sativus L.) Genotiplerinin Kaba Yem Verimi, Besin İçeriği ve Fitoterapik Özellikler Bakımından Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Baklagiller familyasında yer alan mürdümük (Lathyrus sativus L.) kısa vejetasyon süresine sahip olup, kuraklığa karşı oldukça dayanıklıdır. Mürdümük ayrıca, hayvan besleme ve sağlığı ile hayvansal ürünlerin verim ve kalitesi için önemli bir yem bitkisidir. Bu çalışmada; 9 populasyon (1603, 2006, 2401, 4301, 4403, 5001, 6408, 6410 ve S3) ve 3 tescilli (GAP Mavisi, İptaş, Karadağ) çeşit olmak üzere toplam 12 mürdümük genotipinin kuru ot veriminin ve kalitesinin belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Deneme, Bilecik ekolojik koşullarında 2022 ve 2023 vejetasyon dönemlerinde 3 tekrarlamalı olarak ve tesadüf blokları deneme desenine göre yürütülmüştür. Çalışmada; kuru ot verimi, ham protein oranı, bitki boyu, asit deterjanda çözünmeyen lif, nötr deterjan çözünmeyen lif, ham kül, besin maddeleri (K, P, Ca ve Mg), kondanse tanen, toplam flavonoid, toplam fenolik, radikal kovucu aktivite (DPPH), toplam alkaloit ve ODAP (N-oksalil-L-alfa, beta-diamino propiyonik asit) içerikleri belirlenmiştir. İki yıllık sonuçlara göre, genotiplerin kuru ot verimi 3.00-4.55 t ha-1 arasında değişmiştir. En yüksek ham protein oranı aynı istatistiksel grupta yer alan 1603 (%19.44), 2006 (%20.00), 2401 (%19.82) ve 6410 (%19.28) popülasyonlarında gözlenmiştir. ODAP içeriği bakımından 2006 (2.20 mg g-1), 2401 (2.00 mg g-1), 5001 (1.32 mg g-1) ve 6408 (1.77 mg g-1) popülasyonları istenilen düzeyde bulunmuştur. Genotiplerin K, P, Ca ve Mg içerikleri sırasıyla %2.75-3.11, %0.44-0.49, %0.91-0.99% ve %0.15-0.21 arasında değişmiştir. Sonuç olarak; kuru ot verimi bakımından GAP Mavisi ön plana çıkmış ancak, genotipler arasında istatistiksel açıdan bir farklılık tespit edilmemiştir. Kalite özellikleri bakımından ise genotipler arasında önemli farklılıklar tespit edilmiş olup, bu durum bölge ekolojisinde öne çıkan genotip/genotiplerin belirlenmesine yardımcı olmuştur. Buna göre; Bilecik ekolojisinde 2401 popülasyonu yem kalitesi açısından diğer genotiplerden daha üstün performans sergilemiştir. Ayrıca, 2006, 5001 ve 6408 populasyonlarının da incelenen özellikler bakımından ümit var oldukları belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mürdümük
• Yem bitkisi
• Sekonder metabolit
• Küresel ısınma
• Hayvan sağlığı

Comparison of Grass Pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) Genotypes in Forage Yield, Nutrient Composition and Phytotrapic Traits

Öz

The grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.), belonging to the legume family, has a short vegetative period and is highly resistant to drought. Also, it is an important forage crop for animal feeding and health, as well as for the yield and quality of animal products. This study aimed to determine the hay yield and quality of a total of 12 grass pea genotypes, including 9 populations (1603, 2006, 2401, 4301, 4403, 5001, 6408, 6410, and S3) and 3 registered varieties (GAP Mavisi, İptaş, Karadağ). The experiment was conducted with three repetitions according to a randomized complete block design in Bilecik during the vegetation periods of 2022 and 2023. Hay yield, crude protein ratio, plant height, acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber, crude ash, mineral contents (K, P, Ca, and Mg), condensed tannin, total flavonoid content, total phenolic content, free radical scavenging activity (DPPH), total alkaloid, and ODAP content (N-oxalyl-L-alpha, beta-diamino propionic acid) were determined in this study. According to two-year results, hay yield ranged between 3.00-4.55 t ha-1. The highest crude protein rate was observed in populations 1603 (19.44%), 2006 (20.00%), 2401 (19.82%), and 6410 (19.28%), which were part of the same statistical group. The populations of 2006 (2.20 mg g-1), 2401 (2.00 mg g-1), 5001 (1.32 mg g-1), and 6408 (1.77 mg g-1) were at the desired level in terms of ODAP content. The K, P, Ca, and Mg contents of the genotypes varied between 2.75-3.11%, 0.44-0.49%, 0.91-0.99%, and 0.15-0.21%, respectively. As a result; GAP Mavisi come into prominence however, no statistical difference was found among the genotypes in terms of hay yield. Among the genotypes were detected significant differences in terms of quality traits, and this situation helped to determine the genotype/genotypes that stand out in the ecology of the region. Accordingly, the 2401 population showed superior performance in terms of forage quality compared to the other genotypes in the Bilecik ecology. Besides, it was determined that the 2006, 5001, and 6408 populations show promising results in terms of the examined traits.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Grass pea
• Forage crop
• Secondary metabolite
• Global warming
• Animal health

Kaynakça

1. Abd El Moneim, A. M., Van Dorrestein, B., Baum, M. and Mulugeta, W. (1999). Role of ICARDA in Improving the Nutritional Quality and Yield Potential of Grass Pea (Lathyrus sativus) for Subsistence Farmers in Developing Countries. Improving Human Nutrition Through Agriculture: The Role of International Agricultural Research Workshop, 5–7, October, Los Banos, Philippines.
2. Adams, M. W. (1995). An estimate of homogeneity in crop plants with special reference to genetic vulnerability in dry season. Euphytica, 26: 665-679.
3. Ağamirzaoğlu, M., Valizadeh, N. and Rahimi, A. (2024). Comparison of secondary metabolites and essential oil content of some origanum species. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 21(5), 1075-1090.
4. Archimède, H., Eugène, M., Marie-Magdeleine, C., Boval, M., Martin, C., Morgavi, D., Lecomte, P. and Doreau, M. (2011). Comparison of methane production between temperate and tropical forages: A quantitative review. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 166-167: 59-64.
5. Arıcı, R. Ç. (2023). Determination of performance of some grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.) genotypes in semiarid climate conditions. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 10(4): 984–992. https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1246539
6. Arvouet-Grand, A., Vennat, B., Pourrat, A. and Legret, P. (1994). Standardisation d`un extrait de propolis et identification des principaux constituants. Journal de Pharmacie de Belgique, 49: 462-468.
7. Atıs, I. and Acıkalın, S. (2020). Yield, quality and competition properties of grass pea and wheat grown as pure and binary mixture in different plant densities. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 25(1): 18-25. https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.737476
8. Barry, T. N. (1987). Secondary Compounds of Forages. In: Nutrition of Herbivores. Ed(s): Hacker, J.B. and Ternouth, J.H., Academic Press, Sydney, Australia.

9. Barua, H., Saha, S. R., Ivy, N. A., Rasul, G. and Islam, A. A. (2022). Genetic divergence of guava (Psidium guajava L.) genotypes in Bangladesh: Guava Genotypes in Bangladesh. SAARC Journal of Agriculture, 20(1): 15-28. https://doi.org/10.3329/sja.v20i1.60618
10. Başaran, U., Mut, H., Aşci, Ö. Ö., Acar, Z. and Ayan, İ. (2011). Variability in forage quality of Turkish grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) landraces. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 16(1): 9-14.
11. Basaran, U., Mut, H., Gulumser, E. and Dogrusoz, M. C. (2016). Evaluation of Turkish grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) collections for its agronomic characters with a special reference to ODAP content. Legume Research-An International Journal, 39(6): 876-882. https://doi.org/10.18805/lr.v0iOF.3547
12. Başbağ, M., Aydın, A., Çaçan, E., Sayar, M. S. (2012). Determination of quality characters of some grass pea taxa (Lathyrus spp.) collected in natural areas of Southeastren Anatolia Region of Turkey. Reserach Journal of Agricultural Sciences, (2): 111-114.
13. Bate-Smith, E. C. (1975). Phytochemistry of proanthocyanidins. Phytochemistry, 14: 1107-1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9422(75)85197-1
14. Cartea, M. E., Picoagea, A., Soengas, P. and Ordás, A. (2002). Morphological characterization of kale populations from Northwestern Spain. Euphytica, 129: 25-32.
15. Chase, R. A., Pearson, S., Nunn, P. B. and Lantos, P. L. (1985). Comparative toxicities of and Β-N-Oxalyl-L-Α, Β- iaminopropionic acids to rat spinal cord. Neuroscience Letters, 55(1): 89-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3940(85)90317-9
16. de Paula, E. M., Samensari, R. B., Machado, E., Pereira, L. M., Maia, F. J., Yoshimura, E. H. and Zeoula, L. M. (2016). Effects of phenolic compounds on ruminal protozoa population, ruminal fermentation, and digestion in water buffaloes. Livestock Science, 185: 136-141. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982014000400006
17. Deshpande, S. S. and Campbell, C. G. (1992). Genotype variation in BOAA, condensed tannins, phenolics and enzyme inhibitors of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus). Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 72(4): 1037-1047. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps92-130
18. Dohi, H., Yamada, A. and Fukukawa, T. (1997). Intake stimulants in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) fed to sheep. Journal of Dairy Science, 80: 2083–2086. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76153-8
19. Dua, K. and Care, A. D. (1999). The role of phosphate on the rates of mineral absorbtion from the forestomatch of sheep. The Veterinary Journal, 157: 51-55. https://doi.org/10.1053/tvjl.1998.0259
20. Geren, H., Avcıoğlu, R. and Soya, H. (2004). Investigations on the herbage performances of some common vetch (Vicia sativa) cultivars under Bornova conditions. ANADOLU Journal of Aegean Agricultural Research Institute, 14(2): 35-38.
21. Gezer, K., Duru, M. E., Kivrak, I., Turkoglu, A., Mercan, N., Turkoglu, H. and Gulcan, S. (2006). Free-radical scavenging capacity and antimicrobial activity of wild edible mushroom from Turkey. African journal of Biotechnology, 5(20). 1924-1928.
22. Gülümser, E., Yıldırım, İ., Kardeş, Y. M. and Başaran, U. (2023). Determination of roughage yield and qualıty of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) and cmmon vetch (Vicia sativa L.) in Bilecik ecological conditions. MAS Journal of Applied Sciences, 8(Special issue): 938–942. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10003589
23. Gürlük, S. (2021). On the use of shadow price of biodiversity in natural resource management: The Case of Uludağ national park. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty, 18(2): 234-246.
24. Gürsoy, E. and Macit, M. (2017). Determination of mineral contents of some legume and cereal forages grown as naturally in pastures of Erzurum province. Alınteri Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 32(1): 1-9 https://doi.org/10.28955/alinterizbd.279756
25. Hanbury, C. D., White, C. L., Mullan, B. P. and Siddique, K. H. M. (2000). Are view of the potential of Lathyrus sativus L. and Lathyrus cicera L. grain for use as animal feed. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 10546: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00186-3
26. Hoy, W. K., Smith, P. A. and Sweetland, S. R. (2002). The development of the organizational climate index for high schools: its measure and relationship to faculty trust. High School Journal, 86(2): 38-49.
27. INEN (2005). Ecuadorian Technical Standard for Legumes – Debittered Chocho Grain. Published by the Ecuadorian Institute for Standardization, Quito. (Grano desamargado de chocho Norma Tecnica Ecuatoriana Leguminosas Grano desamargado de chocho. Instituto Ecuatoriano de Normalizacion, Quito). (In Spanish)
28. Kacar, B. (1972). Chemical Analysis of Plants and Soil. (2nd Edition) Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture Publications, Ankara, Türkiye.
29. Kökten, K., Özdemir, S., Kardeş, Y. M. and Kaplan, M. (2018). Biplot analysis for herbage yield and quality attributes of different grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.) genotypes. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 27(9): 6079-6086.
30. Kowalczyk, E., Patyra, E. and Kwiatek, K. (2013). Organic acids and their ımportance in animal husbandry. Medycyna Weterynaryjna, 69(5): 269-273.
31. Kuhnen, S., Moacyr, J. R., Mayer, J. K., Navarro, B. B., Trevisan, R., Honorato, L. A. and Pinheiro Machado Filho, L. C. (2014). Phenolic content and ferric reducing–antioxidant power of cow's milk produced in different pasture‐based production systems in southern Brazil. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 94(15): 3110-3117.
32. Kumar, R. and Singh, M. (1984). Tannins: Their adverse role in ruminant nutrition. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 32: 447-453.
33. Lambein, F., Travella, S., Kuo, Y. H., Van Montagu, M. and Heijde, M. (2019). Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.): orphan crop, nutraceutical or just plain food? Planta, 250: 821-838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-018-03084-0
34. Lascano, C. E. and Cárdenas, E. (2010). Alternatives for methane emission mitigation in livestock systems. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 39: 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982010001300020
35. Martin, C., Copani, G. and Niderkorn, V. (2016). Impacts of forage legumes on intake, digestion and methane emissions in ruminants. Legume Research, 12: 8-10.
36. Mayland, H. F. and Hankins, J. L. (2001). Mineral Imbalances and Animal Health: A Management Puzzle. In: Anti-Quality Factors in Rangeland and Pastureland Forages. Ed(s): Launchhbaugh, K., Universty of Idaho, Moskow, Russia.
37. Mehta, S. L., Ali, K. and Barna, K. S. (1994). Somaclonal variation in a Food Legume – Lathyrus sativus. Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 3: 73–77.
38. Patra, A. K., Kamra, D. N. and Agarwal, N. (2006). Effect of plant extracts on in vitro methanogenesis, enzyme activities and fermentation of feed in rumen liquor of buffalo. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 128 (3-4): 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.11.001
39. Plitmann, U., Gabay, R. and Cohen, O. (1995). Innovations in the Tribe Vicieae (Fabaceae) from Israel. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences, 43: 249-258. https://doi.org/10.1080/07929978.1995.10676609
40. Rao, S. L. N. (1978). A sensitive and specific colorimetric method for determination of a,bdiaminopropionic acid and Lathyrus sativus neurotoxin. Analytical Biochemistry, 86(2): 386-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(78)90762-5
41. Rochfort, S., Parker, A. J. and Dunshea, F. R. (2008). Plant bioactives for ruminant health and productivity. Phytochemistry, 69(2): 299–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2007.08.017
42. Santos Neto, T. M., Mota, R. A., Silva, L. B. G., Viana, D. A., Lima-Filho, J. L., Sarubbo, L. A., ... and Porto, A. L. F. (2009). Susceptibility of Staphylococcus spp. isolated from milk of goats with mastitis to antibiotics and green propolis extracts. Letters in Drug Design & Discovery, 6(1): 63-68. https://doi.org/10.2174/157018009787158599
43. Sayar, M. S. and Han, Y. (2015). Determination of seed yield and yield components of grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.) lines and evaluations using GGE biplot analysis method. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 21(1): 78-92.
44. Sayar, M. S., Han, Y., Seydoşoğlu, M. and Başbağ, M. (2013). Determination of forage yield, its affecting components, and relationships among traits of some grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) lines in Diyarbakır ecological conditions. Xth Turkey Field Crops Congress, 10-13 September, Volume III: 56-64, Konya, Türkiye.
45. Sharifi, P. and Ebadi, A. A. (2018). Relationships of rice yield and quality based on genotypes by trait (GT) biplot. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 90(1): 343-356.
46. Sing, K. S., Suneetha, Y., Sandeep Raja, D. and Srinivas, T. (2020). Principal component analysis for yield and quality traits of coloured rice (Oryza sativa L.). The Pharma Innovation Journal, 9(7): 456-462.
47. Singleton, V. L., Orthofer, R. and Lamuela-Raventos, R. M. (1999). Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of folin-ciocalteu reagent. Methods Enzymol, 299: 152-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(99)99017-1
48. Undi, M., Wittenberg, K., McGeough, E. J. and Ominski, K. H. (2016). Impact of forage legumes on greenhouse gas output and carbon footprint of meat and milk. Legume society, (12): 26-28.
49. Wilkinson, L. and Friendly, M. (2009). The history of the cluster heat map. American Statistical, 63(2): 179-184. https://doi.org/10.1198/tas.2009.0033