SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 31 Issue: 3

In Vitro Gas Production and Some Forage Quality Parameters of Different Cereals, Forage Legumes and Italian Ryegrass Hays Used in Animal Nutrition

Kadir Erten(TEKİRDAĞ NAMIK KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ, ZOOTEKNİ BÖLÜMÜ, YEMLER VE HAYVAN BESLEME ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0002-6307-1573
Hazım Serkan Tenikecier(TEKİRDAĞ NAMIK KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ, TARLA BİTKİLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, ÇAYIR MERA VE YEM BİTKİLERİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0002-1866-410X
Ertan Ateş(TEKİRDAĞ NAMIK KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ, TARLA BİTKİLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, ÇAYIR MERA VE YEM BİTKİLERİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0002-3048-497X
Levend Coskuntuna(TEKİRDAĞ NAMIK KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ, ZOOTEKNİ BÖLÜMÜ, YEMLER VE HAYVAN BESLEME ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0001-7137-4198
Fisun Koc(TEKİRDAĞ NAMIK KEMAL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ, ZOOTEKNİ BÖLÜMÜ, YEMLER VE HAYVAN BESLEME ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0002-5978-9232
Pages
—
Publication Date
2025-07-29
🏛️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)

As a result, while cheap feed materials are used to prepare rations, ecologically suitable feed materials that reduce greenhouse gas emissions should also be preferred.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, in vitro gas production parameters of some forage legumes, cereals and Italian ryegrass hays used in animal nutrition was compared.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In addition, in vitro gas production technique was used to determine gas production (GP), methane production (CH4), carbon dioxide production (CO2), ammonia production (NH3) and hydrogen sulphide production (H2S).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, while cheap feed materials are used to prepare rations, ecologically suitable feed materials that reduce greenhouse gas emissions should also be preferred.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Forage legumes · cereals · Italian ryegrass

Abstract

In this study, in vitro gas production parameters of some forage legumes, cereals and Italian ryegrass hays used in animal nutrition was compared. The chemical analyses of the most commonly used legume forages such as alfalfa, hairy vetch, forage pea and Persian clover, and Italian ryegrass and cereals such as barley, oat, triticale, wheat were carried out. In addition, in vitro gas production technique was used to determine gas production (GP), methane production (CH4), carbon dioxide production (CO2), ammonia production (NH3) and hydrogen sulphide production (H2S). Organic matter digestibility (OMD) and metabolizable energy (ME) values were calculated with the amount of GP obtained at the 24th hour of incubation. Protozoa count and pH values were determined as parameters related to rumen fluid. The total amount of GP varied between 50.84-65.98 mL in legume rations and 57.80-75.49 mL in cereals and Italian ryegrass rations. When the CH4 content of the feeds was analysed, it varied between 3.90-18.12 mL in legume feeds and 6.52-15.21 mL in cereals and Italian ryegrass feeds. The high digestibility of pea forages among legume feeds and barley among cereals and Italian ryegrass feeds provided high amounts of CH4 and CO2. As a result, while cheap feed materials are used to prepare rations, ecologically suitable feed materials that reduce greenhouse gas emissions should also be preferred.

🔖

Cite This Article

Erten, K., Tenikecier, H. S., Ateş, E., Coskuntuna, L., Koc, F. (2025). In Vitro Gas Production and Some Forage Quality Parameters of Different Cereals, Forage Legumes and Italian Ryegrass Hays Used in Animal Nutrition. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, Volume: 31 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.1560770

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (73)

  1. Acar B & Özköse A (2023). Determination of yield and quality of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) and teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc) Trotter) sown at different times. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty 20(3): 698-711. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.1255365
  2. Açikgöz E (1994). Grass Fields Construction and Maintenance Technique. Çevre Peyzaj Mimarlığı Press No: 4, Bursa, Türkiye, (In Turkish).
  3. Açıkgöz E (2001). Forage Crops. Uludağ Üniversitesi Güçlendirme Vakfı, Yayın No: 182. Vipaş A.Ş. Yayın No:58, 584 s., Bursa, Türkiye, (In Turkish).
  4. Akdeniz H, Koc A, Hossain A & El Sabagh A (2018). Nutritional values of four hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth.) varieties grown under Mediterranean environment. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 27: 5385-5390
  5. Altın M, Gökkuş A & Koç A (2011). Meadow Pasture Management I. Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı, Tarımsal Üretim ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü, Onur Grafik, İstanbul, Türkiye, (In Turkish).
  6. Altın M, Orak A & Tuna C (2009) The importance of forage crops for sustainable agriculture. In Forage Crops Volume I, 11-28, Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı, Tarımsal Üretim ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü, Emre Press, İzmir, Turkiye, (In Turkish).
  7. AOAC (2019). Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 21st Ed., Association of Official Analytical Chemists, U.S.A.
  8. Ates E & Tekeli A S (2005). Forage quality and tetany potential of orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata L.) and white clover (Trifolium repens L.) mixtures. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science 39: 97-102
  9. Ateş E & Tekeli A S (2017). The effect of different based fertilizer applications on herbage yield and quality of fodder pea (Pisum arvense L.). KSU Journal of Natural Sciences 20: 13 – 16. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksudobil.348886 Ates E & Tenikecier H S (2022). Content of isoflavones and macro elements in five clover species (Trifolium spp.) grown on pasture: the influence of a slope aspect. Journal of Elementology 27(2): 379 – 392. https://doi.org/10.5601/jelem.2022.27.2.2240
  10. Ateş E (2011). Some chemical and morphological properties of five clover species (Trifolium sp.) at different aspect of pasture in Belovets village (Razgrad), Bulgaria. International Journal of Plant Production 5(3): 255-262.
  11. Ates E, Coskuntuna L & Tekeli A S (2010). The amino acid and fiber contents of four different annual forage legumes at full-bloom stage. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science 44(1): 73-78.
  12. Ates E, Tenikecier H S & Ozkan U (2020). The dry matter yield, α-tocopherol, β-carotene and some mineral contents in fodder pea (Pisum arvense L.) varieties at different growth stages. Comptes Rendus De L Academie Bulgare Des Sciences 73(4): 579-586. https://doi.org/10.7546/CRABS.2020.04.18
  13. Avcı M A, Ada R & Demirelma H (2017). Turfgrass and forage crops to be used as natural flora found some grasses collection and use of breeding purposes. Tübitak-Tovag (113O919) Project Report, 2017 (In Turkish). (Accesed Date: 15.09.2023) (https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/en/yayin/detay/619172/dogal-florada-bulunan-cim-ve-yem-olarak-kullanilabilecek-bazi-bugdaygil-yem bitkilerinin-toplanmasi-ve-islah-amacli-kullanilmasi)
  14. Badrzadeh M, Zaragarzadeh F & Esmaielpour B (2008). Chemical composition of some forage Vicia spp. in Iran. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 6(2): 178-180
  15. Cacan E & Kokten K (2019). A research on the evaluation of the cereal species as roughage. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 56(2): 221-229. https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.459694
  16. Cacan E & Kokten K (2023). Comparison of different cool season cereal species and cultivars in terms of straw yield and quality. Harran Journal of Agricultural and Food Science 27(3): 306-315. https://doi.org/10.29050/harranziraat.1282736
  17. Canbolat Ö, Kara H & Filya İ (2013). Comparison of in vitro gas production, metabolizable energy, organic matter digestibility and microbial protein production of some legume hays. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Uludag University 27(2): 71-82
  18. Cao C, Chen L, Gao W, Chen Y & Yan M (2006). Impact of planting grass on terrene roads to avoid soil erosion. Landscape and Urban Planning 78: 205-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.07.007
  19. Çelen A E, Çimrin K M & Şahan K (2005). The herbage yield and nutrient contents of some vetch (Vicia Sp.) species. Journal of Agronomy 4(1): 10-13. https://doi.org/10.3923/ja.2005.10.13
  20. Çiftçi R & Gül M (2021). Effects of propionic acid on in vitro gas production, methane production, and feed quality in hay, barley, and vetch grain. Atatürk University Journal of Veterinary Sciences 16(3): 275-282. https://doi.org/10.17094/ataunivbd.890942
  21. Engin B & Mut H (2017). Determination of hay yield and some quality traits of different alfalfa cultivars. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences 27(2): 212 – 219. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.289466
  22. Engin B & Mut H (2018). Variation of some nutrient contents with relative feed value according to cutting order in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) varieties. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty 15(2): 119-127.
  23. Ensminger M E, Oldfield J E & Heinemann W W (1990). Feeds and Nutrition. 2nd Ed., The Ensminger Publishing Company. Clovis, California, U.S.A.
  24. Ergül M (1988). Feed Knowledge and Technology. Ege University, Agricultural Faculty Press, No: 487, İzmir, Turkey, (In Turkish).
  25. Erten K, Coşkuntuna L & Koç F (2023a). Comparison of in vitro gas production parameters of dairy cow rations prepared with different meals. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology 2023, 11(11): 2059-2065. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v11i11.2059 2065.6066
  26. Erten K, Coşkuntuna L & Koç F (2023b). The relationship between the in vitro gas production parameters of feed nutrients. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Science 10(3): 529-540. https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.1225932
  27. Erten K, Coskuntuna L & Koç F (2023c). Effect of plant extracts addition to total mixed ration on in vitro gas production parameters. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University 60(2): 317-329. https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.1232824
  28. Figueiredo M V, Burity H A, Martinez C R & Chanway C P (2008). Alleviation of drought stress in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) by co-inoculation with Paenibacillus polymyxa and Rhizobium tropici. Applied Soil Ecology 40: 182-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.04.005
  29. Gadisa B, Debela M, Dinkale T & Tulu A (2023). Forage yield and quality parameters of eight oat (Avena sativa L.) genotypes at multilocation trials in Eastern Oromia, Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture 9: 2259521. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2259521
  30. Genç S & Soysal M İ (2018). Parametric and nonparametric post hoc tests. Black Sea Journal of Engineering and Science 1(1): 18-27
  31. Georgieva N, Nikolova I & Naydenova Y (2016). Nutritive value of forage of vetch cultivars (Vicia sativa L., Vicia villosa Roth.). Banat’s Journal of Biotechnology 7(14): 5–12. https://doi.org/10.7904/2068–4738–VII(14)–5
  32. Gökkaya G & Orak A (2021). Determination of the effects of cutting time on forage yield and quality in some alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) varieties. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences 31(2): 434–452. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.781018
  33. Gül S, Erten K, Coşkuntuna L & Koç F (2023). Effects of addition of different additives to sorghum silage on aerobic stability. ISPEC Joournal of Agricultural Sciences 7(3): 681-692. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8361977
  34. Gürsoy E, Sezmiş G & Kaya A (2022). Determining the feed value, feed quality, and in vitro fermentation properties of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum L.) harvested in different periods. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Technology 10(4): 542-548. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v10i4.542-548.4542
  35. Harmanşah F (2018). Roughage production in Turkey problems and suggestions. Turkey Seed Growers Association Journal 25: 9-13 (In Turkish).
  36. Harmeyer J (1965). Zur methodical experimenteller untersuchungen an pansenprotozoan. Zentralblatt for Veterinary Medicine Reihe A 12(9): 841-880.
  37. İleri O, Avci S & Koç A (2021). Forage yield and quality differences of autumn and spring-sown pea genotypes under Central Anatolia conditions. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 26(2): 253-261. https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.865241
  38. IPNI (1998). Potassium in Animal Nutrition. International Plant Nutrition Institute, Norcross, USA. Isaac R A & Johson JR W C (1998). Elemental determination by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry. In: Handbook of reference methods for plant analysis. Kalra Y. P. (ed.). CRC Press, Washington DC, U.S.A. pp. 165-170.
  39. Kahraman T, Orhun E G & Baytekin H (2022). Evaluation of oat (Avena sativa L.) genotypes for green forage, hay yield and some quality parameters in Trakya-Marmara Region. KSU Journal of Agriculture and Nature, 25 (Suppl 2): 462-470. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1058212
  40. Kansu S (1973). Nutrients and Animal Nutrition Information (3rd Ed.). Ankara University, Agricultural Faculty Press, No: 492, Textbook No: 166, Ankara, Türkiye, (In Turkish).
  41. Karabulut A, Canbolat O, Ozkan C O & Kamalak A (2007). Determination of nutritive value of Citrus tree leaves for sheep using in vitro gas production technique. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 20(4): 529–535. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2007.529
  42. Karakuş Ü (2018). The relationship between feed and animal production. Turkey Seed Growers Association Journal 25: 14-19 (In Turkish).
  43. Kearl L C, Harris L E, Lyord L & Farrid M (1979). Arab and Middle East tables of feed composition. Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, U.S.A.
  44. Keleş G (2014). Nutritive value of morphological components in triticale forage harvested at different maturity stages. Journal of Animal Production 55(1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.29185/hayuretim.363896
  45. Kılıç Ü & Sarıçiçek B Z (2006). Factors affecting the results of gas production technique. Journal of Animal Production 47(2): 54-61
  46. Krause K M & Oetzel G R (2006). Understanding and preventing subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy herds: A review. Animal Feed Science and Technology 126(3-4): 215-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2005.08.004
  47. Kurt Ö, Kamalak A & Kurt A N (2022). Determination of relative feed value, in vitro gas production, organic matter digestibility and metabolic energy content of some legume forages. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology 12(2): 1143–1153. https://doi.org/10.21597/jist.1032208
  48. Lanyasunya T P, Wang H R, Kariuki S T, Kuria D M, Chek A L & Mukisira E A (2007). Effect of maturity on the mineral content of hairy vetch (Vicia villosa). Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 7: 53-58
  49. Lewis G, Schrire B, Mackinder B & Lock M (2005). Legumes of the World. Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, U. K. Melesse A, Steingass H, Schollenberger M & Rodehutscord M (2017). Screening of common tropical grass and legume forages in Ethiopia for their nutrient composition and methane production profile in vitro. Tropical Grasslands-Forrajes Tropicales 5(3): 163–175. https://doi.org/10.17138/tgft(5)163-175
  50. Menke K H, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D & Schneider W (1979). The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feeding stuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. The Journal of Agricultural Science 93(1): 217-222
  51. NRC (2001). Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattles, 7th Edition. National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, 105 pp, Washington, U.S.A.
  52. Orak A, Tenikecier H S & Demirkan A K (2015). Determination of yield and yield potential of the mixture of different forage crops. 11. Field Crops Congress, 7-10 September, pp. 420, Çanakkale, Türkiye.
  53. Orak A, Tenikecier H S & Deveci S (2022). The determination of the forage yield and some quality aspects of the mixtures of Hungarian vetch with wheat and oat at different ratios.” II. International Field Crops Congress (TABKON2022), 29 September – 02 October, pp. 91-102, Rize, Türkiye.
  54. Öztürk H & Pişkin İ (2009). Physio-pathological aspect of ruminal acidosis. Journal of Turkish Veterinary Medical Society 80(3): 3-6
  55. Öztürk O & Şen C (2022). The effect of different drip irrigation lateral depth on the efficiency and quality parameters of alone and mixture planted alfalfa in Kırklareli conditions. Journal of Tekirdag Agricultural Faculty 19(2): 380–389. https://doi.org/10.33462/jotaf.997416
  56. Öztürk O (2022). Effects of different irrigation methods on yield, plant water consumption and some forage quality values of Italian grass (Lolium multiflorum). Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University 59(2): 313–322. https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.991023 Parlar T & Koç F (2020). Nutritional evaluation of a dairy cattle enterprise using total ration mixture. Erciyes Journal of Agriculture and Animal Sciences 3(1): 24-32
  57. Pereira D S, Lana R de P, Carmo D L do & Costa Y K S da (2019). Chemical composition and fermentative losses of mixed sugarcane and pigeon pea silage. Acta Scientiarum Animal Sciences 41(1): e43709. https://doi.org/10.4025/actascianimsci.v41i1.43709
  58. Reed J D & Van Soest P J (1984). Estimating the nutritive value of crop residue and agro-industrial by-products by chemical methods. Proceedings of the FAO/ILCA Expert Consultation 5–9 March, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
  59. Rohweder D A, Barnes R F & Jorgensen N (1978). Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science 47: 747-759
  60. Selçuk B, Bakir T, Kaya A & Başer A (2022). Determination of antimethanogenic effect of addition of waste coffee extract to alfalfa hay (Medicago sativa) by in vitro gas production method. Muş Alparslan University Journal of Agriculture and Nature 2(2): 77-82
  61. Sezmiş G, Kaya A, Kaya H, Macit M, Erten K, Palangi V & Lackner M (2023). Comparison of black tea waste and legume roughages: Methane mitigation and rumen fermentation parameters. Metabolites 13(6): 731. https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo13060731
  62. Shewmaker G E (2012). Consider the value of plant nutrients in your hay and corn silage. Idaho Hay and Forage Conference 1-2 March 2012, Burley, ID, Univeresity of Idaho Extention 28-35, U.S.A.
  63. Tajeda R, Mcdowell L R, Martin F G & Conrad J H (1985). Mineral element analyses of various tropical forages in Guatemala and their relationship to soil concentrations. Nutrition Reports International 32: 313-324.
  64. Tekeli A S & Ates E (2006). Nutritive values of some annual clovers Trifolium sp at different growth stages. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science 40: 93-98
  65. Tekeli A S & Ates E (2011). Forage Legumes (Renewed II. Ed.). Sevil Grafik Tasarim ve Cilt Evi, Tekirdag, Türkiye, (In Turkish).
  66. Tekeli A S, Ates E & Varol F (2005). Nutritive values of some annual clovers (Trifolium sp.) at different growth stages. Journal of Central European Agriculture 6: 323-330
  67. Tekeli A S, Avcioğlu R & Ateş E (2003). Changes in some morphological and chemical properties of Persian clover (Trifolium pratense L.) in relation to time and above-ground biomass. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 9(3): 352-360
  68. Tenikecier H S & Ates E (2021). Yield, some cell wall component and mineral contents of fodder pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L. Poir) forage as influenced by cultivar, growth stages and phosphorus application. Journal of Elementology 26(2): 319 – 332. https://doi.org/10.5601/jelem.2021.26.1.2118
  69. Tenikecier H S & Ates E (2022). Impact of salinity on germination and seedling growth of four cool-season turfgrass species and cultivars. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 31(2): 1813-1821. https://doi.org/10.15244/pjoes/142965
  70. TTSM (2019). Variety Registration and Seed Certification Center, Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Technical Instructions for Agricultural Characteristics Measuring Trials of Forage Grasses. Ankara, Turkey, (Accesed Date: 15.03.2023). (https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/BUGEM/TTSM/Belgeler/Duyuru%20Belgeleri/2019/çayır%20mera/buğdaygil%20yem%20bitkileri.pdf)
  71. Ullrey D E (1997). Hay quality evaluation. Nutrition Advisory Group Handbook Fact Sheet 001: 1-10.
  72. Van Soest P J, Robertson J B & Lewis B A (1991). Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3583–3597
  73. Zadoks J C, Chang T T & Konzak C F (1974). A decimal code for growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14: 415-421