Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF WINTER LEGUME / GRASS MIXTURES HARVESTED AT DIFFERENT PHENOLOGICAL STAGES

Yıl 2023, , 147 - 153, 28.12.2023
https://doi.org/10.46810/tdfd.1378089

Öz

Winter forage crop mixtures are very important sources of quality forage as well as the benefits they bring to the soil and the main crop. In areas where year-round production is carried out, leaving the soil fallow during the winter months and producing maize-maize or cotton-cotton causes fatigue in the soil and facilitates the increase of pests. For this purpose, forage yield and quality characteristics of 12 different winter forage crop applications (4 pure and 8 mixtures) were investigated between 2014-2016 in Büyük Menderes basin. The experiment was designed according to the split-plot experimental design in randomized blocks and mowing operations were carried out in 2 different phenological periods with 4 replications. Hay yield (kg da-1), ADF (%), NDF (%), ADL (%), crude protein ratio (%), crude protein yield (kg da-1) and relative feed value averages were measured. According to the results obtained from the experiment, there are differences between crude protein ratio and relative feed values. When analyzed in line with the production purpose, 75% forage pea + 25% oat mixtures stand out in terms of crude protein yield, while 55% forage pea + 45% annual ryegrass stands out in terms of relative feed value. Due to the changes in mowing times depending on the characteristics, it is thought that it would be ideal to perform mowing operations between 50%-100% flowering.

Kaynakça

  • Bruinsma J. Livestock commodities. World agriculture: Towards 2015-2030 an FAO perpective. Earthscan Pub., 85-86, London, UK. 2003.
  • Barnes RF, Miller DA, Nelson CJ. Forages Volume 1: An ıntroduction to grassland agriculture fifth edition, Iowa State University Press, 9-369, Iowa, USA. 1995.
  • Altın M, Orak A, Tuna C. Yembitkilerinin sürdürülebilir tarım açısından önemi. Yembitkileri (Avcıoğlu, R., Hatipoğlu, R., Karadağ, Y.), Yembitkileri, T.C. Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı Tarımsal Üretim ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü, Cilt 1: 11-24, İzmir. 2009. (In Turkish)
  • Horrocks RD, Vallentine JF. Harvested Forages, Academic Press, 3-87, San Diego, California, USA. 1999.
  • Yolcu H, Tan M. Ülkemiz yem bitkileri tarımına genel bir bakış. Tar. Bil.Der. 2008;14(3): 303-312. (In Turkish)
  • Yavuz T, Kır H, Gül V. Türkiye’de Kaba Yem Üretim Potansiyelinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kırşehir İli Örneği. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi. 2020; 7(3): 345-352. (In Turkish)
  • Demi̇roğlu Topçu G, Kır B, Çelen A, Kavut YT. Değişik Fiğ + Tahıl Karışımları İçin En Uygun Karışım Oranı ve Biçim Zamanının Belirlenmesi. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2020 Jun 1;4(2):146–56. (In Turkish)
  • Papastylianou I. Effect of rotation system and N fertilizer on barley and vetch grown in various crop combinations and cycle lengths. J. of Agric. Sci. 2008;142(1): 41-48.
  • Budaklı Carpıcı E, Celik N. Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with triticale and annual ryegrass. Turk. J. of Field Crops 2014;19(1): 66-69.
  • Lithourgidis AS, Dordas CA, Damalas CA, Vlachostergios DN. Annual intercrops: An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian J. of Crop Sci. 2011;5(4): 396-410.
  • Bouyoucos GJ. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analysis of soil. Agron. J. 1962;54(5).
  • Richards LA. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkaline soils, USDA, Salinity Laboratory Agricultural Handbook, 110-118, Riverside, USA. 1954.
  • Black CA. Methods of soil analysis. Part 1,2, American Soc. of Agr., Madison, USA
  • Açıkgöz E, 2021. Yem Bitkileri (Vol 1).Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı, Bitkisel Üretim Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara, Türkiye (In Turkish)
  • Tuna C, Orak A. The role of intercropping on yield potential of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) / oat (Avena sativa L.) cultivated in pure stand and mixtures. J. of Agric. and Biol. Sci. 2007;2(2): 14-19.
  • Cook CW, Stubbendieck J. Range research: basic problems and techniques. Society for Range Management. Colorado. 1986;317.
  • AOAC. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 17th Ed. 2nd Rev. Gaithersburg, MD, USA. Association of Analytical Communities. 2003
  • Van-Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA Method for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of dairy science 1991;74: 3583-3597.
  • De Mendiburu F, de Mendiburu MF. Package ‘agricolae’. 2019. R Package, Version, 1.3. [cited: 13.10.2023] Available from: https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/agricolae/agricol ae.pdf
  • Olivoto T, Lúcio AD. “metan: An R package for multi‐environment trial analysis.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2020;11(6): 783-789.
  • Warnes GR, Bolker B, Bonebakker L, Gentleman R, Huber W, Liaw A, Lumley T, Maechler M, Magnusson A, Moeller S, Schwartz M, Venables B, Galili T. Package ‘gplots’. Various R Programming Tools for Plotting data. R Package, Version, 3.1.3. 2022.
  • Kocer A, Albayrak S. Determination of forage yield and quality of pea (Pisum sativum L.) mixtures with oat and barley. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 2012;17(1): 96-99.
  • Giacomini SJ, Vendruseolo ERO, Cubilla M, Nicoloso RS, Fries MR. Dry matter, C/N ratio and nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium accumulation in mixed soil cover crops in Southern Brazil. Rev. Bras. Ciencia Solo 2003;27: 325–334.
  • Aasen A, Baron VS, Clayton GW, Dick AC, McCartney DHSwath grazing potential of spring cereals, field pea and mixtures with other species. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 2004;84(4): 1051-1058.
  • Caballero AR, Goicoechea-Oicoechea EL, Hernaiz Ernaiz PJ. Forage yields and quality of common vetch and oat sown at varying seeding ratios and seeding rates of vetch. Field Crops Research. 1995;41: 135-140
  • Carr PM, Horsley RD, Poland WW. Barley, oat, and cereal-pea mixtures as dryland forages in the Northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal. 2004;96: 677–684.
  • Aşçı ÖÖ, Zeki A, Arıcı, YK. Herbage yield, quality traits and interspecies competition of forage pea–triticale mixtures harvested at different stages. Turkish Journal of Field Crops. 2015;20(2): 166-173.
  • Pampana S, Masoni A, Arduini I. Response of cool-season grain legumes to waterlogging at flowering. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 2016;96(4): 597-603.
  • Alatürk F, Gökkuş A, Ali B. Effects of Annual Grass with the Mixtures of Legume on Agronomic Growth of Plants. Acta Nat. Sci 2021;2(2): 166-176.
  • Sohail S, Ansar M, Skalicky M, Wasaya A, Soufan W, Ahmad Yasir T, et al. Influence of tillage systems and cereals–legume mixture on fodder yield, quality and net returns under Rainfed conditions. Sustainability 2021;13(4): 2172.
  • Yavuz T, Karadağ Y. Bazı buğdaygil ve baklagil yem bitkileri ile bunların karışımlarının kıraç mera koşullarındaki performansları. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Gaziosmanpaşa University (JAFAG) 2016;33(2): 63-71. (In Turkish)
  • Albayrak S, Türk M. Changes in the forage yield and quality of legume–grass mixtures throughout a vegetation period. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 2013;37(2):139-147.
  • Zaeem M, Nadeem M, Pham TH, Ashiq W, Ali W, Gillani SSM, et. al. Corn-soybean intercropping improved the nutritional quality of forage cultivated on Podzols in boreal climate. Plants, 2021;10(5): 1015.
  • Rizvi SA, Gondal MR, Naseem W, Umair A, Basit A, Muhammad G, et. al. Evaluating environmental adaptive variability of various Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) fodder cultivars. International Journal of Agricultural Technology. 2022;18(4):1767-1782.
  • Yazgi A, Aykas E, Dumanoglu Z, Demiroğlu Topcu G. Seed Mixture Flowing Characteristicsof a Seed Drill for Mixed Seeding. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 2017 Jan 30;33(1):63–71.

FARKLI FENOLOJİK DÖNEMLERDE BİÇİLEN KIŞLIK BAKLAGİL / BUĞDAYGİL KARIŞIMLARININ YEM VERİM VE KALİTE ÖZELLIKLERİ

Yıl 2023, , 147 - 153, 28.12.2023
https://doi.org/10.46810/tdfd.1378089

Öz

Kışlık yem bitkileri karışımları kaliteli kaba yem kaynağı olmaları yanı sıra toprağa ve ana ürüne kazandırdıkları ile oldukça önemli kaynaklardır. Yıl boyu üretim yapılan bölgelerde kış aylarında toprağın nadasa bırakılıp mısır-mısır ya da pamuk-pamuk üretimi yapılması toprakta yorgunluğa sebep olmakta ve zararlıların artmasını kolaylaştırmaktadır. Bu amaçla Büyük Menderes havzasında 2014-2016 yılları arasında 4 saf ve 8 karışım olmak üzere 12 farklı kışlık ara ürün yem bitkileri uygulamasının yem verim ve kalite özellikleri incelenmiştir. Deneme tesadüf bloklarında bölünmüş parseller deneme desenine göre 4 tekerrürlü olarak tasarlanmış ve 2 farklı fenolojik dönemde biçim işlemleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Denemede kuru ot verimi (kg da-1), ADF(%), NDF(%), ADL(%), ham protein oranı (%) değerleri ölçülürken ham protein verimi (kg da-1) ve nispi yem değeri ortalamaları hesaplanmıştır. Denemeden elde edilen neticelere göre ham protein oranı ve nispi yem değerleri arasında farklılıklar söz konusudur. Üretim amacı doğrultusunda incelendiğinde ham protein verimi açısından %75 yem bezelyesi + %25 yulaf karışımları öne çıkarken nispi yem değeri açısından %55 yem bezelyesi + %45 tek yıllık çim öne çıkmaktadır. Biçim zamanlarında özelliklere bağlı olarak yaşanan değişimlerden dolayı %50-%100 çiçeklenme arasında biçim işlemlerinin gerçekleştirilmesinin ideal olacağı düşünülmektedir.

Kaynakça

  • Bruinsma J. Livestock commodities. World agriculture: Towards 2015-2030 an FAO perpective. Earthscan Pub., 85-86, London, UK. 2003.
  • Barnes RF, Miller DA, Nelson CJ. Forages Volume 1: An ıntroduction to grassland agriculture fifth edition, Iowa State University Press, 9-369, Iowa, USA. 1995.
  • Altın M, Orak A, Tuna C. Yembitkilerinin sürdürülebilir tarım açısından önemi. Yembitkileri (Avcıoğlu, R., Hatipoğlu, R., Karadağ, Y.), Yembitkileri, T.C. Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı Tarımsal Üretim ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü, Cilt 1: 11-24, İzmir. 2009. (In Turkish)
  • Horrocks RD, Vallentine JF. Harvested Forages, Academic Press, 3-87, San Diego, California, USA. 1999.
  • Yolcu H, Tan M. Ülkemiz yem bitkileri tarımına genel bir bakış. Tar. Bil.Der. 2008;14(3): 303-312. (In Turkish)
  • Yavuz T, Kır H, Gül V. Türkiye’de Kaba Yem Üretim Potansiyelinin Değerlendirilmesi: Kırşehir İli Örneği. Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi. 2020; 7(3): 345-352. (In Turkish)
  • Demi̇roğlu Topçu G, Kır B, Çelen A, Kavut YT. Değişik Fiğ + Tahıl Karışımları İçin En Uygun Karışım Oranı ve Biçim Zamanının Belirlenmesi. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2020 Jun 1;4(2):146–56. (In Turkish)
  • Papastylianou I. Effect of rotation system and N fertilizer on barley and vetch grown in various crop combinations and cycle lengths. J. of Agric. Sci. 2008;142(1): 41-48.
  • Budaklı Carpıcı E, Celik N. Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with triticale and annual ryegrass. Turk. J. of Field Crops 2014;19(1): 66-69.
  • Lithourgidis AS, Dordas CA, Damalas CA, Vlachostergios DN. Annual intercrops: An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian J. of Crop Sci. 2011;5(4): 396-410.
  • Bouyoucos GJ. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analysis of soil. Agron. J. 1962;54(5).
  • Richards LA. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkaline soils, USDA, Salinity Laboratory Agricultural Handbook, 110-118, Riverside, USA. 1954.
  • Black CA. Methods of soil analysis. Part 1,2, American Soc. of Agr., Madison, USA
  • Açıkgöz E, 2021. Yem Bitkileri (Vol 1).Tarım ve Orman Bakanlığı, Bitkisel Üretim Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara, Türkiye (In Turkish)
  • Tuna C, Orak A. The role of intercropping on yield potential of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) / oat (Avena sativa L.) cultivated in pure stand and mixtures. J. of Agric. and Biol. Sci. 2007;2(2): 14-19.
  • Cook CW, Stubbendieck J. Range research: basic problems and techniques. Society for Range Management. Colorado. 1986;317.
  • AOAC. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 17th Ed. 2nd Rev. Gaithersburg, MD, USA. Association of Analytical Communities. 2003
  • Van-Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA Method for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of dairy science 1991;74: 3583-3597.
  • De Mendiburu F, de Mendiburu MF. Package ‘agricolae’. 2019. R Package, Version, 1.3. [cited: 13.10.2023] Available from: https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/agricolae/agricol ae.pdf
  • Olivoto T, Lúcio AD. “metan: An R package for multi‐environment trial analysis.” Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2020;11(6): 783-789.
  • Warnes GR, Bolker B, Bonebakker L, Gentleman R, Huber W, Liaw A, Lumley T, Maechler M, Magnusson A, Moeller S, Schwartz M, Venables B, Galili T. Package ‘gplots’. Various R Programming Tools for Plotting data. R Package, Version, 3.1.3. 2022.
  • Kocer A, Albayrak S. Determination of forage yield and quality of pea (Pisum sativum L.) mixtures with oat and barley. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 2012;17(1): 96-99.
  • Giacomini SJ, Vendruseolo ERO, Cubilla M, Nicoloso RS, Fries MR. Dry matter, C/N ratio and nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium accumulation in mixed soil cover crops in Southern Brazil. Rev. Bras. Ciencia Solo 2003;27: 325–334.
  • Aasen A, Baron VS, Clayton GW, Dick AC, McCartney DHSwath grazing potential of spring cereals, field pea and mixtures with other species. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 2004;84(4): 1051-1058.
  • Caballero AR, Goicoechea-Oicoechea EL, Hernaiz Ernaiz PJ. Forage yields and quality of common vetch and oat sown at varying seeding ratios and seeding rates of vetch. Field Crops Research. 1995;41: 135-140
  • Carr PM, Horsley RD, Poland WW. Barley, oat, and cereal-pea mixtures as dryland forages in the Northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal. 2004;96: 677–684.
  • Aşçı ÖÖ, Zeki A, Arıcı, YK. Herbage yield, quality traits and interspecies competition of forage pea–triticale mixtures harvested at different stages. Turkish Journal of Field Crops. 2015;20(2): 166-173.
  • Pampana S, Masoni A, Arduini I. Response of cool-season grain legumes to waterlogging at flowering. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 2016;96(4): 597-603.
  • Alatürk F, Gökkuş A, Ali B. Effects of Annual Grass with the Mixtures of Legume on Agronomic Growth of Plants. Acta Nat. Sci 2021;2(2): 166-176.
  • Sohail S, Ansar M, Skalicky M, Wasaya A, Soufan W, Ahmad Yasir T, et al. Influence of tillage systems and cereals–legume mixture on fodder yield, quality and net returns under Rainfed conditions. Sustainability 2021;13(4): 2172.
  • Yavuz T, Karadağ Y. Bazı buğdaygil ve baklagil yem bitkileri ile bunların karışımlarının kıraç mera koşullarındaki performansları. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Gaziosmanpaşa University (JAFAG) 2016;33(2): 63-71. (In Turkish)
  • Albayrak S, Türk M. Changes in the forage yield and quality of legume–grass mixtures throughout a vegetation period. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 2013;37(2):139-147.
  • Zaeem M, Nadeem M, Pham TH, Ashiq W, Ali W, Gillani SSM, et. al. Corn-soybean intercropping improved the nutritional quality of forage cultivated on Podzols in boreal climate. Plants, 2021;10(5): 1015.
  • Rizvi SA, Gondal MR, Naseem W, Umair A, Basit A, Muhammad G, et. al. Evaluating environmental adaptive variability of various Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) fodder cultivars. International Journal of Agricultural Technology. 2022;18(4):1767-1782.
  • Yazgi A, Aykas E, Dumanoglu Z, Demiroğlu Topcu G. Seed Mixture Flowing Characteristicsof a Seed Drill for Mixed Seeding. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 2017 Jan 30;33(1):63–71.
Toplam 35 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Ziraat Mühendisliği (Diğer)
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Emre Kara 0000-0002-5535-8398

Mustafa Sürmen 0000-0001-9748-618X

Erken Görünüm Tarihi 28 Aralık 2023
Yayımlanma Tarihi 28 Aralık 2023
Gönderilme Tarihi 18 Ekim 2023
Kabul Tarihi 12 Aralık 2023
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2023

Kaynak Göster

APA Kara, E., & Sürmen, M. (2023). FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF WINTER LEGUME / GRASS MIXTURES HARVESTED AT DIFFERENT PHENOLOGICAL STAGES. Türk Doğa Ve Fen Dergisi, 12(4), 147-153. https://doi.org/10.46810/tdfd.1378089
AMA Kara E, Sürmen M. FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF WINTER LEGUME / GRASS MIXTURES HARVESTED AT DIFFERENT PHENOLOGICAL STAGES. TDFD. Aralık 2023;12(4):147-153. doi:10.46810/tdfd.1378089
Chicago Kara, Emre, ve Mustafa Sürmen. “FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF WINTER LEGUME / GRASS MIXTURES HARVESTED AT DIFFERENT PHENOLOGICAL STAGES”. Türk Doğa Ve Fen Dergisi 12, sy. 4 (Aralık 2023): 147-53. https://doi.org/10.46810/tdfd.1378089.
EndNote Kara E, Sürmen M (01 Aralık 2023) FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF WINTER LEGUME / GRASS MIXTURES HARVESTED AT DIFFERENT PHENOLOGICAL STAGES. Türk Doğa ve Fen Dergisi 12 4 147–153.
IEEE E. Kara ve M. Sürmen, “FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF WINTER LEGUME / GRASS MIXTURES HARVESTED AT DIFFERENT PHENOLOGICAL STAGES”, TDFD, c. 12, sy. 4, ss. 147–153, 2023, doi: 10.46810/tdfd.1378089.
ISNAD Kara, Emre - Sürmen, Mustafa. “FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF WINTER LEGUME / GRASS MIXTURES HARVESTED AT DIFFERENT PHENOLOGICAL STAGES”. Türk Doğa ve Fen Dergisi 12/4 (Aralık 2023), 147-153. https://doi.org/10.46810/tdfd.1378089.
JAMA Kara E, Sürmen M. FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF WINTER LEGUME / GRASS MIXTURES HARVESTED AT DIFFERENT PHENOLOGICAL STAGES. TDFD. 2023;12:147–153.
MLA Kara, Emre ve Mustafa Sürmen. “FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF WINTER LEGUME / GRASS MIXTURES HARVESTED AT DIFFERENT PHENOLOGICAL STAGES”. Türk Doğa Ve Fen Dergisi, c. 12, sy. 4, 2023, ss. 147-53, doi:10.46810/tdfd.1378089.
Vancouver Kara E, Sürmen M. FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF WINTER LEGUME / GRASS MIXTURES HARVESTED AT DIFFERENT PHENOLOGICAL STAGES. TDFD. 2023;12(4):147-53.