Farklı Biçim Zamanlarının Yem Bezelyesi (Pisum sativum L.) ve Yulaf (Avena sativa L.) Karışımlarında Ot Verim ve Kalitesi Üzerine Etkileri

Öz

Bu çalışma, üç farklı biçim zamanının yem bezelyesi (Pisum sativum L.) ve yulaf (Avena sativa L.) karışımlarının verim ve kalitesi üzerine etkilerini belirlemek amacıyla 2013-2015 yıllarında, Kırşehir ekolojik koşularında yürütülmüştür. Tesadüf bloklarında bölünmüş parseller deneme desenine göre yürütülen bu araştırmada, yem bezelyesi ve yulafın yalın ekimleriyle birlikte beş farklı karışım oranı incelenmiştir. Biçim zamanları(çiçeklenme başlangıcı, tam çiçeklenme ve bakla bağlama) ana parsellere, karışımlar (%100 B, %100 Y, %70 B + %30 Y, %60 B + %40 Y, %50 B + %50 Y, %40 B + %60 Y ve %30 B + %70 Y) alt parsellere yerleştirilmiştir. Karışım ve biçim zamanları ayrı ayrı dikkate alındığında, en yüksek kuru ot verimi, %30 bezelye + %70 yulaf karışımından (509.1 kg/da) ve bakla bağlama döneminden (465.9 kg/da) elde edilmiştir.  Karışımlarda en düşük ADF ve NDF oranıyla en yüksek ham protein oranı yalın bezelyeden sırasıyla %30.33, %40.15 ve %17.54 olarak elde edilmiştir. Biçim zamanlarından çiçeklenme başlangıcında bu değerler aynı sırayla %32.53 ve %42.27 ve %15.39’dur. Araştırma sonuçları, karışımların ekilişlerindeki yulaf oranı arttığında kuru ot veriminin de arttığını göstermiştir. Ancak ot verimiyle birlikte artan ADF ve NDF oranları; ham protein, TDN ve RFV gibi yem kalite değerlerinin azalmasına neden olmuştur. Biçim zamanı çiçeklenme başlangıcından bakla bağlama dönemine doğru ilerlediğinde kuru ot verimlerinin arttığı ve kalite özelliklerinin de düştüğü belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak yüksek kuru ot verimi elde etmek için %30 bezelye + %70 yulaf karışımı yetiştirilebilir. Verimle birlikte kalite kriterleri de değerlendirildiğinde %60 bezelye + %40 yulaf veya %50 bezelye + %50 yulaf karışımlarının çiçeklenme başlangıcında biçilmesi önerilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bezelye,yulaf,karışım,ot verimi

The Effects of Different Cutting Stages on Forage Yield and Quality in Pea (Pisum sativum L.) and Oat (Avena sativa L.) Mixtures

Öz

This study was carried out to determine the effects of three different cutting stages on forage yield and quality of pea (Pisum sativum L.) and oat (Avena sativa L.) mixtures in Kırşehir ecological conditions in 2013-2015. In this study, which was conducted in randomized complete split-block design, pure sowings and five different mixture ratios of pea and oat were investigated. Cutting stages (beginning of flowering, full flowering, and pod binding) were designed as main plot, mixtures (100% P, 100% O, 70% P + 30% O, 60% P + 40% O, 50% P + 50% O, 40% P + 60% O, and 30% P + 70% O) as subplot. When considered mixture and cutting stage separately, the highest forage yield was obtained from 30% pea + 70% oat mixture (509.1 kg/da) and pod binding stage (465,9 kg/da). In mixture, the lowest ADF and NDF with highest crude protein ratios were obtained from in pure sowing of pea as 30.33%, 40.15%, and 17.54% respectively. At the beginning of flowering in cutting stages, these values were 32,53%, 42,27%, and 15.39% in the same order. The results showed that when the proportion of oat in planting of mixtures increased, forage yield increased. However, ADF and NDF ratios increasing with forage yield caused decreases in forage quality parameters such as crude protein, TDN and RFV values. It was determined that when cutting stages progress from the beginning of flowering to pod binding period, forage yields increased, but quality characteristics decreased. To conclude, 30% pea + 70% oat mixture can be grown to obtain higher forage yield. When evaluated the quality parameters with forage yield, suggesting that 60% pea + 40% oat or 50% pea + 50% oat mixtures can be harvested at the beginning of flowering.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pea,oat,mixture,forage yield

Kaynakça

1. Acar Z., Aşçı Ö.Ö., Ayan İ., ve Başaran U., 2006. Yem bitkilerinde karışık ekim sistemleri. Journal of Faculty of Agriculture, OMÜ, 21(3): 379-386
2. Anonim, 2005. The Ankom 200 Fiber Analyzer, Procedures for NDF, ADF and ADL analyses. ANKOM, Fairport, NY, hhtp:// www. ankom.com (Erişim Tarihi:11.01.2017)
3. AOAC, 1990. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Arlington, VA , USA
4. Balabanlı C., Albayrak S., Turk, M. and Yüksel O., 2010. A research on determination of hay yields and silage qualities of some vetch+ cereal mixtures. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 15(2): 204-209
5. Begna S.H., Fielding D.J., Tsegaye T., Van Veldhuizen R., Angadi S. and Smith D.L., 2011. Intercropping of oat and field pea in Alaska: An alternative approach to quality forage production and weed control. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B-Soil & Plant Science, 61(3): 235-244
6. Bilgili U., 2009. Yem Bezelyesi (Pisum arvense L.). Yem Bitkileri II. Cilt (Ed: Avcıoğlu R., Hatipoğlu R., Karadağ Y.), Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı Yayınları, İzmir, s. 440-448
7. Carr P.M., Martin G.B., Caton J.S. and Poland W.W., 1998. Forage and Nitrogen Yield of Barley—Pea and Oat—Pea Intercrops. Agronomy Journal, 90(1): 79-84
8. Carr P.M., Horsley R.D. and Poland W.W., 2004. Barley, oat, and cereal–pea mixtures as dryland forages in the northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal, 96(3): 677-684

9. Chapko L.B., Brinkman M.A. and Albrecht K.A., 1991. Oat, oat-pea, barley, and barley-pea for forage yield, forage quality, and alfalfa establishment. Journal of Production Agriculture, 4(4): 486-491
10. Cousin R., 1997. Peas (Pisum sativum L.). Field Crops Research, 53(1-3): 111-130
11. Dordas C.A., Vlachostergios D.N. and Lithourgidis A.S., 2012. Growth dynamics and agronomic-economic benefits of pea–oat and pea–barley intercrops. Crop and Pasture Science, 63(1): 45-52
12. Droushiotis D.N., 1989. Mixtures of annual legumes and small-grained cereals for forage production under low rainfall. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 113(02): 249-253
13. Geçit H.H., Emeklier Y., İkincikarakaya S., Adak M.S., Kolsarıcı Ö., Ekiz H., Altınok S., Sancak C., Sevimay C. S. ve Kendir H. 2009. Tarla Bitkileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları, 540 s., Ankara
14. Horrocks R.D. and Vallentine J.F., 1999. Harvested Forages. Academic Press, London, UK
15. Karadağ Y. and Büyükburç U., 2003. Effects of seed rates on forage production, seed yield and hay quality of annual legume-barley mixtures. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 27(3):169-174
16. Kaiser A.G., Dear B.S. and Morris S.G., 2007. An evaluation of the yield and quality of oat–legume and ryegrass–legume mixtures and legume monocultures harvested at three stages of growth for silage. Animal Production Science, 47(1): 25-38
17. Khorasani G.R., Jedel P.E., Helm J.H. and Kennelly J.J., 1997. Influence of stage of maturity on yield components and chemical composition of cereal grain silages. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 77(2): 259-267
18. Kocer A. and Albayrak S., 2012. Determination of forage yield and quality of pea (Pisum sativum L.) mixtures with oat and barley. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 17(1): 96-99
19. Lithourgidis A.S., Vasilakoglou I.B., Dhima K.V., Dordas C.A. and Yiakoulaki M.D., 2006. Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding ratios. Field Crops Research, 99(2): 106-113
20. Lithourgidis A.S. and Dordas C.A., 2010. Forage yield, growth rate, and nitrogen uptake of faba bean intercrops with wheat, barley, and rye in three seeding ratios. Crop Science, 50(5): 2148-2158
21. Lithourgidis A.S., Vlachostergios D.N., Dordas C.A. and Damalas C.A,. 2011. Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea–cereal intercropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy, 34(4): 287-294
22. Moore J.E. and Undersander D.J., 2002. Relative forage quality: An alternative to relative feed value and quality index. Proceedings 13th Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, University of Florida, USA, pp 16-32
23. Mustafa A.F. and Seguin P., 2004. Chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of whole‐crop pea and pea–cereal mixture silages grown in South‐western Quebec. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 190(6): 416-421
24. Omokanye T.A., 2014. On-farm testing of strip intercropping of annual crops for forage yield and quality. International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research, 4(4):65-76
25. Pozdisek J., Henriksen B., Ponizil A. and Løes A.K., 2011. Utilizing legume-cereal intercropping for increasing self-sufficiency on organic farms in feed for monogastric animals. Agronomy Research, 9(1-2): 343–356
26. Salawu M.B., Adesogan A.T., Weston, C.N. and Williams S.P., 2001. Dry matter yield and nutritive value of pea/wheat bi-crops differing in maturity at harvest, pea to wheat ratio and pea variety. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 94(1): 77-87
27. Shoaib M., Ayub M., Shehzad M., Akhtar N., Tahir M. and Arif M., 2014. Dry matter yield and forage quality of oat, barley and canola mixture. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 51(2): 433-439
28. Sleugh B, Moore KJ, George JR, Brummer EC, 2000. Binary legume – grass mixtures ımprove forage yield, quality, and seasonal distribution. Agronomy Journal, 92: 24-29
29. Staniak M., Księżak J. and Bojarszczuk J., 2012. Estimation of productivity and nutritive value of pea-barley mixtures in organic farming. J. Food Agric. Environ, 10(2): 318-323
30. Steel R.G.D., Torrie J.H. and Dickey D.A. 1997. Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometric approach. 3rd Ed. McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc., New York. USA
31. Sürmen M., Yavuz, T. and Çankaya N., 2011. Effects of phosphorus fertilization and harvesting stage on forage yield and quality of common vetch. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 9(1): 353-355
32. Todd A.G. and Spaner D., 2003. Spring cereals for forage and grain production in a cool maritime climate. Journal of agronomy and crop science, 189(1): 7-13
33. Turk M. and Albayrak S., 2012. Effect of harvesting stages on forage yield and quality of different leaf types pea cultivar. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 17(2): 111-114
34. Undersander D., 2001. Does forage quality pay. Proceedings of American Forage and Grassland Council, April 22-25, Springdale, AR. AFGC, Georgetown, TX, pp. 120-125
35. Uzun A. and Asik F.F., 2012. The effect of mixture rates and cutting stages on some yield and quality characters of pea (Pisum sativum L.) + oat (Avena sativa L.) mixture. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 17(1): 62-66
36. Yıldırım S. ve Parlak A.Ö., 2016. Tritikale ile bezelye, bakla ve fiğ karışım oranlarının belirlenerek yem verimi ve kalitesine etkileri. ÇOMÜ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1):77-83