DETERMINATION OF YIELD AND QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMON REED (Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. Ex Steud) HARVESTED AT DIFFERENT GROWTH STAGES

Abstract

Common Reed (Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. Ex Steud, which is remained inactive and grown in saline drainage channels, has been seen as an important potential to reduce the roughage deficit needed in animal nutrition. For this purpose, some yield, fermantation, chemical and nutritional characteristics of P.australis herbage and silage obtained from the end of the vegetative stage (EVS), the beginning of panicle (BP) and the full panicle stage (FPS) were determined. The study was carried out in 2021-2022 in Igdir, which is located in the North-East of Turkey. The results showed that the forage yield characteristics increased as the development period progressed and also that high lactic acid, low pH, acetic, propionic and butyric acid contents desired in silo feeds were obtained from the cuttings at FPS. In addition, ammonia production was low in silages at BP and FPS, but high the fleig score. It was observed that the dry matter digestibility, metabolic energy and relative feed value were higher while dry matter and crude protein ratio, acid detergent fibre and crude ash content of herbage according to silage were lower. On the other hand, the desired chemical and nutritional values in both herbage and silage were determined during the most suitable BP. As a result, it was determined that the common reed was appropriate to harvest in FPS for a silo feed with high yield and fermentation properties. In addition, it was concluded that the herbage and silage harvested at BP produced a higher quality feed material in terms of nutritional and chemical composition, respectively.

Keywords

• Chemical and nutritional composition
• Common reed
• Development stages
• Fermentation characteristics

References

1. AOAC. 1990. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. International Official Methods of Analysis. 15th edition, Arlington, VA, USA.
2. AOAC. 1997. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. International Official Methods of Analysis. 16th edition, 3rd revision, Arlington, VA, USA.
3. Asano, K., T. Ishikawa., A. Araie and M. Ishida. 2018. Improving quality of common reed (Phragmites communis Trin) silage with additives. Asian-Austral J. Anim. Sci. 31(11): 1747- 1755.
4. Asano, K., T. Ishikawa and M. Ishida. 2017. Digestibility of common reed (Pharagmites communis Trin.) silage as ruminant feed and effects of inclusion levels in the diet of breeding cows on feed intake, ruminal fermentation and blood metabolites. Anim. Sci. J. 88(12): 1955-1962.
5. Aydogan, D. and G. Demiroglu Topcu. 2022. Effect of different harvesting times on the dry matter yield and some forage quality characteristics of common reed (Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin Ex. Steud). ISPEC J. Agr. Sci. 6(3): 492-499 (in Turkish).
6. Baran, M., Z. Váradyová., S. Krácčmar and J. Hedbávnŷ. 2002. The common reed (Phragmites australis) as a source of roughage in ruminant nutrition. Acta. Vet. Brno. 71: 445-449.
7. Buyukkilic Beyzi, S. and S. Sirakaya. 2019. Determination of feed value of common reed (Phragmites australis) in diferent sowing periods. KSU J. Agric. Nat. 22(3): 487-491 (in Turkish).
8. Buyukkilic Beyzi, S., I. Ulger and Y. Konca. 2022. Chemical, fermentative, nutritive and anti‑nutritive composition of common reed (Phragmites australis) plant and silage. Waste and Biomass Valorization. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649- 022-01903-w.

9. Chamberlain, A.T. and J.M. Wilkinson. 1996. Feeding the Dairy Cow. Welton, Lincoln, LN2 3 LT, UK: Chalcombe Publ. Chambers, R., T. Mozdzer and J. Ambrose. 1998. Effects of salinity and sulfide on the distribution of Phragmites australis and Spartina alterniflora in a tidal saltmarsh. Aquat. Bot. 62: 161-169.
10. Collins, M. and J.O. Fritz. 2003. Forage quality. In: Forages, ed. Barnes, R.F., Nelson, C.J., Collins, M. and Moore, K.J., 363- 390, Blackwell Publishing, Ames IA.
11. Deakin, C., R. Ferguson., B. Hope and D. Featherstone. 2016. Mapping and removal of Phragmites australis along Western collingwood shoreline through community action and local partnerships. Collingwood Phragmites Report Canada, 1-58.
12. De Baere, S., V. Eeckhaut., M. Steppe., C. De Maesschalck., P. De Backer., F. Van Immerseel and S. Croubels. 2013. Development of a HPLC-UV method for the quantitative determination of four short-chain fatty acids and lactic acid produced by intestinal bacteria during in vitro fermentation. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 80C:107-115.
13. El-Talty, Y.I., M.H. Abdel-Gwad and A.E.M. Mahmoud. 2015. Effect of common reed (Phragmites australis) silage on performance of growing lambs. Asian J. Anim. Sci. 9(1): 1- 12.
14. Fales, S.L. and J.O. Fritz. 2007. Factors affecting forage quality. In: Forages, ed. Barnes, R.F., Nelson, C.J., Moore, K.J. and Collins, M., 569-580, Blackwell Publishing, Ames IA. GDM. 2021. Igdir Provincial Directorate of Meteorology. Igdir, Turkiye.
15. Genctan, T. 2012. Agricultural Ecology. Turkiye: Namık Kemal University Faculty of Agriculture General Publ. 6, Publ. No:3 (in Turkish).
16. Hellings, S.E. and J.L. Gallagher. 1992. The effects of salinity and flooding on Phragmites australis. J. Appl. Ecol. 29: 41-49.
17. Hocking, P.J., C.M. Finlayson and A.J. Chick. 1998. Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. Ex Steud. In: The biology of Australian Weeds, ed. Panetta, F.D., Groves, R.H. and Shepherd, R.C.H., 2: 177-206, Meredith, Australia.
18. Iranmanesh, Y. 2014. Study of some additives efect on chemical composition and nutritive value of Phragmites australis forage silage with in vitro gas production method. J. Novel Appl. Sci. 3(10): 1089-1094.
19. Kadi, S.A., M. Ouendi., C. Bannelier., M. Berchiche and T. Gidenne. 2018. Nutritive value of sun-dried common reed (Phragmites australis) leaves and its efect on performance and carcass characteristics of the growing rabbit. World Rabbit Sci. 26(2): 113-121.
20. Karabulut, A. and I. Filya. 2012. Feeds Knowledge and Feed Technology (5th Edition). Uludag University, Faculty of Agriculture Lecture Notes, No.: 67. p: 43-48. Bursa (in Turkish).
21. Katongole, C.B., R. Lumu and J.E. Lindberg. 2021. Comparative chemical composition and rumen degradation of common reed and elephant grass in urban/peri-urban dairying systems in Uganda. Agroecol. Sustain Food Syst. 45(6): 892-906.
22. Kering, M.K., T.J. Butler, J.T. Biermacher and J.A. Guretzky. 2012. Biomass yield and nutrient removal rates of perennial grasses under nitrogen fertilization. Bioenerg. Res. 5: 61-70.
23. Kobbing, J.F., N. Thevs and S. Zerbe. 2013. The utilisation of reed (Phragmites australis): A review. Mires and Peat 13(1): 1-14.
24. Lewandowski, I., J.M. Scurlock, E. Lindvall and M. Christou. 2003. The development and current status of perennial rhizomatous grasses as energy crops in the US and Europe. Biomass Bioener. 25(4): 335-361.
25. Limin Kung, J.R., M.R. Stokes and C.J. Lin. 2003. Silage additives. In: Silage science and technology (Agronomy Series No. 42), ed. Buxton, D.R., Muck, R.E. and Harrison, H., American Society of Agronomy, Madison, USA.
26. Lissner, J., H. Schierup, F. Comín and V. Astorga. 1999. Effect of climate on the salt tolerance of two Phragmites australis populations. I. growth, inorganic solutes, nitrogen relations, and osmoregulation. Aquat. Bot. 64: 317-333.
27. Matoh, T., N. Matsushita and E. Takahashi. 1988. Salt tolerance of the reed plant Phragmites communis. Physiol. Plant 72: 8- 14.
28. McDonald, P., A.R. Henderson and S.J.E. Heron. 1991. The Biochemistry of Silage. 2. ed. England: Chalcombe, Marlow. Meeske, R. 2005. Silage additives: Do they make a difference? Sa-Anim. Sci. 1(6): 49-55.
29. Monllor, P., C.A. Sandoval-Castro, A.J. Ayala-Burgos, A. Roca, G. Romero and J.R. Díaz. 2020. Preference study of four alternative silage fodders from the Mediterranean region in Murciano-Granadina goats. Small Rum. Res. 192: 106204.
30. Oktay, G. and S. Temel. 2015. Determination of annual fodder value of Ebu cehil (Calligonum polygonoides L. ssp. comosum (L’Hér.)) shrub. J. Agric. Faculty of Gaziosmanpasa Univ. 32(1): 30-36 (in Turkish).
31. Rivera, D. and J. Parish. 2010. Interpreting forage and feed analysis reports. Mississippi State University Extension Service, Publicaiton 2620.
32. Saltonstall, K. 2001. Cryptic invasion by a non-native genotype of the common reed, Phragmites australis, into North America. Pnas. 99(4): 2445-2449.
33. Scragg, A.H. 2009. Biofuels: Production Application and Development. USA: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
34. Shay, J. M. and C.T. Shay. 1986. Prairie marshes in western Canada, with specific reference to the ecology of five emergent macrophytes. Can. J. Bot. 64: 443-454.
35. Sheaffer, C.C., M.A. Peterson, M. Mccalin, J.J. Volene and J.H. Cherney. 1995. Acide detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber concentration and relative feed value. In: North American Alfalfa Improvement Conference, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
36. Small, E. and P.M. Catling. 2001. Poorly known economic plants of Canada-29. Common reed, Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. Can. Bot. Assoc. Bull. 34: 21-26.
37. Steel, R.G.D. and J.H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics, McGaw-Hill Book Company, Inc. N.Y.
38. Sun, Z., D. Zhou, L.M.M. Ferreira, Q. Zhong and Y. Lou. 2008. Diet composition, herbage intake and digestibility in Inner Mongolian Cashmere goats grazing on native Leymus chinensis plant communities. Livest. Sci. 116: 146-155.
39. Tanaka, S.T., C. Irbis, H. Kumagai and T. Inamura. 2016. Timing of harvest of Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud affects subsequent canopy structure and nutritive value of roughage in subtropical highland. J. Environ. Manage. 420- 428.
40. Temel, S. 2015. Determination of fodder quality parameters in vegetative and seed maturity stages of Salsola tragus L. and Noaea mucronata (Forssk.) Asch. and Schweinf. Int. J. Agric. and Wildlife Sci. 1(1): 23-30 (in Turkish).
41. Temel, S. 2018. Determination of nutritional contents at the different development stages of Puccinellia distans and Aeluropus littoralis commonly growing in saline-alkaline pastures. Int. J. Agric. and Wildlife Sci. 4(2): 237-246 (in Turkish).
42. Temel, S. 2019. Variations in nutrient composition during Noaea mucronata’s active growth as a source of roughage. Int. J. Agric. and Wildlife Sci. 5(1): 117-123 (in Turkish).
43. Temel, S. and B. Keskin. 2020. The effect of morphological components on the herbage yield and quality of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) grown in different dates. Turk. J. Agric. For. 44(5): 533-542.
44. Temel, S. and B. Keskin. 2022. Determination of forage quality properties of plant parts in different amaranth varieties cultivated under irrigated and rainfed conditions. J. Agric. Faculty Ataturk Univ. 53(2): 122-132 (in Turkish).
45. Temel, S., B. Keskin and Z. Guner. 2022. Change in forage quality of whole plant, leaf and stem according to sowing and harvesting periods in Atriplex nitens Schkuhr grown without fertilizer. Turkish Journal Field Crops 27(2): 208-216.
46. Temel, S. and A.E. Kir. 2015. Determination of grazing preferences of the small ruminants based on seasonal periods of some shrub and tree species. Int. J. Agric. and Wildlife Sci. 1(1): 31-39 (in Turkish).
47. Temel, S., M. Surmen and M. Tan. 2015. Effects of growth stages on the nutritive value of specific halophyte species in saline grasslands. J. Anim. Plant Sci. 25(5): 1419-1428.
48. Temel, S. and U. Simsek. 2011. Desertification process of Igdir plain soils and solution suggestions. Alınteri 21(B): 53-59 (in Turkish).
49. Vaičekonytė, R., E. Kiviat, F. Nsenga and A. Ostfeld. 2014. An exploration of common reed (Phragmites australis) bioenergy potential in North America. Mires. Peat. 13: 1-9.
50. Van Soest, P.J., J.D. Robertson and B.A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for diatery fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animals nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74: 3583-3597.
51. Van der Werff, M., J.W. Simmers and S.H. Kay. 1987. Biology, management and utilization of common reed Phragmites australis. European Research Office of the U.S. Army, London.
52. Warren, R.S., P.E. Fell, J.L. Grimsby, E.L. Buck, G.C. Rilling and R.A. Fertik. 2001. Rates, patterns, and impacts of Phragmites australis expansion and effects of experimental Phragmites control on vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and fish within tidelands of the lower Connecticut River. Estuaries. 24: 90- 107.
53. Windham, L. and J.G. Ehrenfeld. 2003. Net impact of a plant invasion on nitrogen cycling processes within a brackish tidal marsh. Ecol. Appl. 13(4): 883-896.