Farklı Dozlarda Biyoçar Uygulamasının Karabuğday (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) Silajının Verimi ve Kalitesi Üzerine Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışma, farklı biyoçar dozlarının (0, 250, 500, 750 ve 1000 kg da⁻¹) karabuğdayın (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) silaj verimi ve kalite özellikleri üzerindeki etkilerini belirlemek amacıyla, 2024 yılında Bilecik ekolojik koşullarında yürütülmüştür. Deneme, tesadüf blokları deneme desenine göre üç tekrarlı olarak kurulmuştur. Araştırmada silaj verimi, silaj fermantasyon özellikleri (pH, laktik asit ve asetik asit), kalite kriterleri (kuru madde oranı, Flieg puanı, ham protein, asit deterjanda çözünmeyen lif, nötr deterjanda çözünmeyen lif ile mineral madde içerikleri (K, P, Ca ve Mg) ile sekonder metabolit içerikleri (kondense tanen, toplam fenolik, toplam flavonoid ve DPPH radikal giderme aktivitesi) belirlenmiştir. En yüksek silaj verimi dekara 1000 kg (821.03 kg da⁻¹), 750 kg (814.43 kg da⁻¹) ve 500 kg (809.47 kg da⁻¹) biyoçar uygulamalarından elde edilmiştir. Silajların kuru madde oranı %22.26–27.48, pH’sı ise 4.60–5.12 arasında olmuştur. En yüksek Flieg puanı 500 kg da⁻¹ (75.96) ve 250 kg da⁻¹ (70.29) uygulamalarında saptanmıştır. Ham protein oranı %14.07–14.95 arasında değişmiştir. En yüksek laktik asit 250, 500 ve 1000 kg da-1 biyoçar uygulamalarından elde edilmiştir. Tüm silajların mineral madde içerikleri, hayvanların ihtiyaçlarını karşılayacak düzeyde olmuştur. Silaj verimi, fermantasyon kalitesi, besleme değeri ve biyoaktif bileşenler birlikte değerlendirildiğinde, dekara 500 kg biyoçar uygulamasının avantaj sağladığı tespit edimiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biyoçar
• karabuğday
• silaj
• verim
• kalite.

The Effect of Different Biochar Application Rates on the Yield and Quality of Buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) Silage

Öz

This study was conducted to determine the effects of different biochar application rates (0, 250, 500, 750, and 1000 kg da⁻¹) on silage yield and quality traits of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) under the ecological conditions of Bilecik in 2024. The experiment was established according to a randomized complete block design with three replications. Silage yield, fermentation traits (pH, lactic acid, and acetic acid), forage quality parameters (dry matter content, Flieg score, crude protein, acid detergent fiber, and neutral detergent fiber), mineral contents (K, P, Ca, and Mg), and secondary metabolite contents (condensed tannins, total phenolics, total flavonoids, and DPPH radical scavenging activity) were evaluated. The highest silage yields were obtained from the 1000 kg da⁻¹ (821.03 kg da⁻¹), 750 kg da⁻¹ (814.43 kg da⁻¹), and 500 kg da⁻¹ (809.47 kg da⁻¹) treatments. Dry matter content ranged from 22.26 to 27.48%, while pH values varied between 4.60 and 5.12. The highest Flieg scores were recorded in the 500 kg da⁻¹ (75.96) and 250 kg da⁻¹ (70.29) treatments. Crude protein content ranged from 14.07 to 14.95%, Lactic acid content was highest in the 250, 500, and 1000 kg da⁻¹ treatments. The mineral concentrations of all silages were within the adequate ranges required to meet the nutritional requirements of livestock. The application of a 500 kg da⁻¹ biochar rate was identified as the optimum treatment when silage yield, fermentation quality, nutritive value, and bioactive constituents were evaluated together.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Biochar
• buckwheat
• silage
• yield
• quality.

Kaynakça

1. Acar, R., Güneş, A., Gummadov, N., & Topal, İ. (2011). Effects of different plant densities on the yields and some yield components of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench.) Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 25(3), 47-51.
2. Akgül, G. (2017). Biochar: Production and applications. Selcuk University Journal of Engineering Sciences, 5(4): 485-499.
3. Aktaş, Y. (2019). The effect of biochar on organic carbon mineralization and organic carbon forms ın an acidic soil (Master's Thesis, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara).
4. Alçiçek, A., & Özkan, K. (1996). The comparison of the two different methods on the determination of organic acids in silage fodders. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 33(2-3), 191-198.
5. Amelchanka, S. L., Kreuzer, M., & Leiber, F. (2010). Utility of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) as feed: Effects of forage and grain on in vitro ruminal fermentation and performance of dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 155(2-4), 111-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.10.007.
6. Arvouet-Grand, A.,Vennat, B., Pourrat, A., & Legret, P. (1994). Standardization of propolis extract and identification of principal constituents. Journal de Pharmacie de Belgique, 49(6), 462-468.
7. Balcı, F., & Uslu, Ö. S. (2024). The effects of cutting time on herbage production and quality of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Meonch.) cultivated in Kahramanmaras conditions. International Journal of Agriculture Forestry and Life Sciences, 8(2), 21-25.
8. Başaran, U., Gülümser, E., Çopur Doğrusöz, M., & Mut, H. (2018). Performance of alfalfa under different intercropping treatments. Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 28(3), 28(3): 278-284. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.423946.

9. Bate-Smith, E.C. (1975). Phytochemistry of proanthocyanidins. Phytochemistry, 14, 1107-1113.
10. Beyyavaş, V., Suat, C. U. N., Sakin, E., & Turhan, D. (2024). Effects of different doses of biochar and zinc phosphate applications on the development of canola plants. MAS Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(4), 1159-1167. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14538522.
11. Comberg, G. (1974). Gärfutter: Betriebswirtschaft, Erzeugung, Verfütterung, Verlag Eugen Ulmer Stuttgart, Gerokstraße 19, Printed in Germany, ISBN:3-8001-4321-6, 260s.
12. Dizlek, H., Özer, M. S., İnanç, E., & Gül, H. (2009). Composition of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) and its possible uses in food ındustry. The Journal of Food, 34 (5), 317-324
13. Dua, K., & Care, A.D. (1999). The role of phosphate on the rates of mineral absorption from the fore stomach of sheep. The Veterinary Journal, 157(1), 51-55.
14. Er, M. (2018). The nutritive value of buckwheat hay or silage and its effect on milk yield of dairy goat. (PhD Thesis, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Aydın Adnan Menderes University, Aydın, Türkiye.).
15. Erdem, H., Kınay, A., Gunal, E., Yaban, H., & Tutus, Y. (2017). The effects of biochar application on cadmium uptake of tobacco. Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 12(2), 447-456.
16. Fabiszewska, A.U., Zielińska, K.J., & Wróbel, B. (2019). Trends in designing microbial silage quality by biotechnological methods using lactic acid bacteria inoculants: a minireview. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 35(5), 76. https://doi.org/10.1007/ S11274-019-2649-2/TABLES/1.
17. Gezer, C.,Yücecan, S., & Rakıcıoğlu, N. (2006). The Effect of Heat Treatment on Antioxidant Activity of Some Spices. Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences, 5(1), 5-11.
18. Gürsoy, E., & Macit, M. (2017). Determination of mineral contents of some legume and cereal forages grown as naturally in pastures of Erzurum province. Alinteri Journal of Agriculture Science, 32(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.28955/alinterizbd.279756.
19. Jacquemart, A.L., Cavoy, V., Kinet, J.M., Ledent, J.F., & Quinet, M. (2012). Is buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) still a valuable crop today? The European Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, 6 (Special Issue 2), 1-10.
20. Kalber, T., Kreuzer, M. & Leiber, F. (2013). Effect of feeding buckwheat and chicory silages on fatty acid profile and cheese-making properties of milk from dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Research, 80(1), 81-88.
21. Keleş, G., Ateş, S., Güneş, A., & Halıcı, İ. (2012). Nutritive value and fermentation characteristics of buckwheat silage ensiled with chemical or biological additives. Selcuk Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 26 (4), 33-36.
22. Keleş, G., Kocaman, V., Üstündağ, A.Ö., Zungur Bastıoğlu, A., & Özdoğan, M. (2018). Growth rate, carcass characteristics and meat quality of growing lambs fed buckwheat or maize silage. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 31(4), 522-528. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0296.
23. Kılıç, A., 1984. Silage Feed. Bilgehan Publishing House, 350 p., İzmir, Türkiye.
24. Kidambi, S. P.,Matches, A. G., & Gricgs, T. C. (1989). Variability for Ca, Mg, K, Cu, Znand K/(Ca+Mg) ratioamong 3 wheat grasses and sainfoin on the southern high plains. Range Management, 42, 316-322.
25. Kuhnen, S., Moacyr, J.R., Mayer, J.K., Navarro, B.B., Trevisan, R., Honorato, L.A., Maraschin, M., Pinheiro, M., & 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, 3110-3117. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6654.
26. Kumar, R., & Singh, M. (1984). Tannins: Their adverse role in ruminant nutrition. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 32, 447- 453.
27. Lee, S.H.Y., Humphries, D.J., Cockman, D.A., Givens, D.I., & Spencer, J.P.E. (2017). Accumulation of citrus flavanones in bovine milk following citrus pulp in corporation in to the diet of dairy cows. EC Nutrition, 7(4), 143-154.
28. Leiber, F., Kunz, C., & Kreuzer, M. (2012). Influence of different morphological parts of buckwheat (FagopyrumeEsculentum) and its major secondary metabolite rutin on rumen fermentation in vitro. Czech Journol of Animal Science, 57(1), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.17221/5479-CJAS.
29. Lüscher, A., Suter, M., & Finn, J.A. (2016). Legumes and grasses in mixtures complement each other ideally for sustainable forage production. The journal of the International Legume Society, Issue 12, 8-10.
30. Martin, C., Copani, G., & Niderkorn, V. (2016). Impacts of forage legumes on intake, digestion and methane emissions in ruminants. The Journal of The International Legume Society, 12, 24-25.
31. Özkan, U. (2020). Comparative overview and evaluation of Turkey’s forage crops agriculture. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 1(1), 29-43.
32. Panyasak, A., & Tumwasorn, S. (2013). Effect of moisture content and storage time on sweet. Walailak Journal of Science and Technology, 12(3), 237-243.
33. Patra, A.K., Kamra, D.N., & Agarwal, N. (2006). Effect of plant extracts on in vitro methano genesis, enzyme activities and fermentation of feed in rumen liquor of buffalo. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 128(3-4), 276-291.
34. Polat, H. İ., & Kan, A. (2021). Determination of some yield and quality traits of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench.) at different growth periods. Journal of Agriculture Faculty, 16(2): 234-240.
35. Rochfort, S., Parker, A.J., & Dunshea, F.R. (2008). Plant bioactives for ruminant health and productivity, Phytochemistry, 69(2), 299-322.
36. Singleton, V. L.,Orthofer, R., & Lamuela-Raventós, R. M. (1999). Analysis of Total Phenolsand Other Oxidation Substrates and Antioxidants by Means of Folin-CiocalteuReagent. Methods in Enzymology, 299, 152-178.
37. Xiao, Q., Zhu, L. X., Shen, Y. F., & Li, S. Q. (2016). Sensitivity of soil water retention and availability to biochar addition in rainfed semi-arid farmland during a three-year field experiment. Field Crops Research, 196, 284-293.
38. Yamaner, Ç., Alkan, M., Halavurt, E. A., & Tekin, T. H. (2021). Identification of lactic acid bacterial profile effective on the quality of silages prepared from buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) by DNA fingerprinting techniques. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.19159/TUTAD.742929.
39. Yavuz, H., Yiğit, A., & Erekul, O. (2016). Effect of different sowing densities on yield and some quality characteristics of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench.) Journal of Adnan Menderes University Agricultural Faculty, 13(2): 17-22.
40. Yıldırım, İ., Kardeş, Y. M., & Gülümser, E. (2024). The effect on silage quality of hops at different rates added to silage maize. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 8(1), 221-228. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10844403.
41. Zhang, A., Liu, Y., Pan, G., Hussain, Q., Li, L., Zheng, J., & Zhang, X. (2012). Effect of biochar amendment on maize yield and greenhouse gas emissions from a soil organic carbon poor calcareous loamy soil from Central China Plain. Plant and Soil, 351(1–2), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-0957-x.