SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 32 Sayı: 3

Nutritive value of rangeland in the grazing maturity on the family basis

Otlatma olgunluğundaki doğal meranın familyalar bazında besleme değeri

Duygu Algan
İbrahim Aydın
Mustafa Olfaz
Pages
367–373
Publication Date
2017-10-15
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

With respect to the quality factor, it was found that legumes and other families were “first class” in terms of their acid detergent fiber content with the exception of grasses, which was classified as “second class”.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Yield and the quality of the rangeland depend on the botanical composition.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Moreover, it was found that legumes and other families were “first class” in terms of their neutral detergent fiber content with the exception of grasses, which was classified as “4th grade”.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:With respect to the quality factor, it was found that legumes and other families were “first class” in terms of their acid detergent fiber content with the exception of grasses, which was classified as “second class”.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Botanik kompozisyon · Göreceli yem değeri · Ham protein

Abstract

Yield and the quality of the rangeland depend on the botanical composition. The purpose of this study is to investigate the nutrient content of the plants available in a native rangeland on the family basis with respect to the nutritional requirements of the livestock grazing on that rangeland. The results of the study showed that the legumes found on the rangeland were rich in crude protein (CP) content while other species belonging the other families were sufficient with the exception of grasses, which was insufficient. With respect to the quality factor, it was found that legumes and other families were “first class” in terms of their acid detergent fiber content with the exception of grasses, which was classified as “second class”. Moreover, it was found that legumes and other families were “first class” in terms of their neutral detergent fiber content with the exception of grasses, which was classified as “4th grade”. The relative feed value of the species belonging to legumes, grasses and other families were found as 145.6, 90.4 and 125.9, respectively. Legumes and species belonging to other families were found sufficient while grass species were found insufficient in terms of their ability to meet the metabolic energy (ME) requirements of the livestock grazing on the rangeland. There are marked differences between plant families found in rangelands in terms of their abilities to meet nutrient requirements of animals. As a result, the presence of legumes and the other families in adequate amounts is vital for meeting the CP, digestible dry matter and ME requirements of animals.

Özet

Meraların verimliliği ve üretilen otun kalitesi bitki türlerinin özelliği ve botanik kompozisyon tarafından belirlenir. Bu çalışmanın amacı doğal merada bulunan bitki türlerinin familya bazında besin maddeleri içeriklerini otlayan hayvanların ihtiyaçları açısından incelemektir. Araştırma sonucunda, ham protein (HP) içeriği bakımından, baklagiller familyasına dahil türlerin oldukça zengin, diğer familyaların yeterli ve buğdaygillerin ise yetersiz olduğu belirlenmiştir. Kalite faktörü açısından incelendiğinde; asit çözücülerde çözünmeyen lifli bileşikler bakımından, meradaki baklagiller ve diğer familyaların 1. sınıf, buğdaygiller familyasına dahil türlerin ise 2. sınıfta yer aldığı görülmektedir. Nötral çözücülerde çözünmeyen lifli bileşikler açısından ise meradaki baklagiller ve diğer familyalar 1. sınıfta”, buğdaygil familyasına ait bitkiler ise 4. sınıfta” yer almaktadır. Baklagil, buğdaygil ve diğer familyaların nispi yem değerleri sırasıyla 145.6, 90.4 ve 125.9 olarak tespit edilmiştir. Meralarda otlayan hayvanların metabolik enerji (ME) ihtiyaçlarının karşılanması açısından, baklagiller ve diğer familyaların yeterli, buğdaygiller familyasına dahil türlerin ise yetersiz olduğu belirlenmiştir. Meralarda bulunan bitki familyaları arasında hayvanların besin maddeleri ihtiyaçlarını karşılama yetenekleri bakımından belirgin farklılıklar vardır. Hayvanların HP, sindirilebilir kuru madde ve ME ihtiyaçlarının karşılanabilmesi açısından meralarda yeterli oranda baklagil ve diğer familyaların bulunması hayati bir önem taşımaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Algan, D., Aydın, İ., Olfaz, M. (2017). Nutritive value of rangeland in the grazing maturity on the family basis. Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 32 Sayı: 3, 367–373. https://doi.org/10.7161/omuanajas.296511

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (37)

  1. Adesogan, A.T., Sollenberger, L.E., Moore, J.E., 2006. Florida Forage handbook. C.G. Chambliss, University of Florida, Cooperative Extension Services, Florida.
  2. Albayrak, S., Türk, M., Yüksel, O., Yılmaz, M., 2011. Forage yield and the quality of perennial legume-grass mixtures under rainfed conditions. Not Bot Hort Agrobot Cluj, 39(1): 114-118.
  3. Anonim, 2015., https://www.mgm.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/il-ve-ilceler-istatistik.aspx?m=SAMSUN (Erişim tarihi: 15 Şubat 2016).
  4. Aydin, I., Uzun, F., 2005. Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization of rangelands affects yield forage quality and botanical composition. European Journal of Agronomy, 23(1): 8-14. doi:10.1016/j.eja.2004.08.001.
  5. Ball, D.M., Collins, M., Lacefield, G.D., Martin, N.P., Mertens, D.A., Olson, K.E., Putnam, D.H., Undersander, D.J., Wolf, M.W., 2001. Understanding forage quality. American Farm Bureau Federation Publication, 1-01, Park Ridge, IL, p. 16.
  6. Barry, T.N., 1998. The feeding value of chicory (Chichorium intybus) for ruminant livestock. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 131(3): 251-257.
  7. Belyea, R.L., Steevens, B., Garner, G., Whittier, J.C., Sewell, H., 1993. Using NDF and ADF to balance diet. University of Missouri Extension, G3161.
  8. Bruinenberg, M., Valk, H., Korevaar, H., Struik, P., 2002. Factors affecting digestibility of temperate forages from seminatural grasslands: a review. Grass and Forage Science, 57(3): 292-301. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2494.2002.00327.x.
  9. Canpolat, Ö., Karaman, Ş., 2009. Bazı baklagil kaba yemlerinin in vitro gaz üretimi, organik madde sindirimi, nispi yem değeri ve metabolik enerji içeriklerinin karşılaştırılması. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 15(2): 188-195.
  10. Corriher, V.A., Hill, G.M., Pringle, T.D., Mullinix, B.G., 2009. Forage-finished beef supplemented with corn and corn oil. The Professional Animal Scientist, 25(5): 586-595. doi:10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30761-0.
  11. Çınar, S., 2012. Çukurova taban koşullarında bazı çok yıllık sıcak mevsim buğdaygil yem bitkilerinin yonca (Medicago sativa L.) ile uygun karışımlarının belirlenmesi. Doktora Tezi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 151s, Adana.
  12. France, J., Theodorou, M., Lowman, R., Beever, D., 2000. Feed evaluation for animal production, feeding systems and feed evaluation models. CABI Publishing. pp. 12-20.
  13. Gillen, R.L., Berg, W.A., 1998. Nitrogen fertilization of a native grass planting in Western Oklahoma. Journal of Range Management, 51(4): 436-441. doi:10.2307/4003330.
  14. Jouven, M., Carr¨re, P., Baumont, R., 2006. Model predicting dynamics of biomass, structure and digestibility of herbage in managed permanent pastures, 1. Model description. Grass and Forage Science, 61(2): 112-124. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.2006.00515.x.
  15. Keady, T.W.J., Hanrahan, J.P., 2010. An evaluation of tyfon and chicory, as the sole forage orin combination with perennial ryegrass on the performance of finishing lambs. Proceedings of the British Society and Animal Science, p. 151.
  16. Kemp, P.D., Kenyon, P.R., Morris, S.T., 2010. The use of legume and herb forage species to create high performance pastures for sheep and cattle grazing systems. Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia, 39: 169-174. doi:10.1590/S1516-35982010001300019.
  17. Lacefield, G.D., 1988. Alfalfa hay quality makes the difference university of kentucky department of agronomy, AGR-137, Lexington, KY. http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/agr/agr137/agr 137.htm/ (Erişim tarihi: 5 Şubat 2017).
  18. Li, G., Kemp, P.D., 2005. Forage chicory (Cichorium intybus L.): A review of its agronomy and animal production. Advances in Agronomy, 88: 187-222.
  19. Moore, J.E., Undersander, D.J., 2002. Relative forage quality: An alternative to relative feed value and quality index, Proceedings of the 13th Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, University of Florida, U.S.A, pp. 16-32.
  20. Moorhead, A.J.E., Judson, H.G., Stewart, A.V., 2002. Liveweight gain of lambs grazing 'Ceres Tonic' plantain (Plantago lanceolata) or perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production, 62: 171-173.
  21. Newman, Y.C., Lambert, B., Muir, J.P., 2006. Defining forage quality. The Texas A&M University System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating, pp. 1-13.
  22. National Research Council, 1996. The Evaluation Of Forensic Dna Evidence. Washington, (DC); National Academy Press.
  23. National Research Council, 2007. Nutrient Requirements of Small Ruminants: Sheep, Goats, Cervids, and New World Camelids, 6th. ed, National Academy Press Washington, DC, USA.
  24. Pak, B., 2016. Mera bitkilerinin besin içerikleri açısından karşılaştırılması. Yüksek lisans tezi. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 107s, Samsun.
  25. Pavlu, V., Hejcman, M., Pavlu, L., Gaisler, J., Nežerková, P., 2006. Effect of continuous grazing on forage quality, quantity and animal performance. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 113: 349-355. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.10.010.
  26. Pinkerton, B., Cross, D.L., Service, C.U.C.E., 1991. Forage quality. Cooperative Extension Service, Clemson University.
  27. Samuel, M.J., Hart., R.H., 1998. Nitrogen fertilization, botanical composition and biomass production on mixed-grass rangeland. Journal Range Management, 51(4): 408-416.
  28. Schreurs, N.M., Marotti, D.M., Tavendale, M.H, Lane, G.A., Barry, T.N., Lopez-Villalobos, N., Mcnabb, W.C., 2007a. Concentration of indoles and other rumen metabolites in sheep after a meal of fresh white clover, perennial ryegrass or Lotus corniculatus and the appearance of indoles in the blood. Journal Science Food and Agriculture, 87(6): 1042-1051. doi:10.1002/jsfa.2804.
  29. Schreurs, N. M., Mcnabb, W.C., Tavendale, M.H., Lane, G.A., Barry, T.N., Cummings, T., Fraser, K., Lopez-Villalobos, N., Ramirez-Restrepo, C.A., 2007b. Skatole and indole concentration of fat from lambs that had grazed perennial ryegrass/white clover pasture or Lotus corniculatus. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 138(3-4): 254-271. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.11.020.
  30. Schut, A., Gherardi, S., Wood, D., 2010. Empirical models to quantify the nutritive characteristics of annual pastures in south-west Western Australia. Crop and Pasture Science, 61(1): 32-43. doi:10.1071/CP08438.
  31. Tallowin, J., Jefferson, R., 1999. Hay production from lowland semi-natural grasslands: a review of implications for ruminant livestock systems. Grass and Forage Science, 54(2): 99-115. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2494.1999.00171.x.
  32. Undersander, D., 2003. The new Forage Quality Index-concepts and use, World’s Forage Superbowl Contest. http://www.dfrc.ars.usda.gov/WDExpoPdfs/new Relative FQ index.pdf (Erişim tarihi: 12 Şubat 2017).
  33. Van Soest, P.J., 1973. Composition and nutritive value of forages, The Science of grassland Agriculture Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
  34. Van Soest, P.J., 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University, Ithaca, p. 476.
  35. White, L.M., Wight, J.R., 1984. Forage yield and quality of dryland grasses and legumes. Journal Range Management, 37(3): 233-236.
  36. Yavuz, M., 2005. Bazı ruminant yemlerinin nispi yem değeri ve in vitro sindirim değerlerinin belirlenmesi. GOÜ, Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1): 97-101.
  37. Corriher, V.A., Hill, G.M., Pringle, T.D., Mullinix, B.G., 2009. Forage-finished beef supplemented with corn and corn oil. The Professional Animal Scientist, 25(5): 586-595. doi:10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30761-0.