SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Issue: 1

Evaluation of the Forage Quality and Mineral Content of Echinops orientalis Populations

Mehmet Basbag(DICLE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7853-7604
Erdal Çaçan(BİNGÖL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-9469-2495
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-09
🏛️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)

In conclusion, E. orientalis represents a valuable alternative forage plant for the region, provided that mineral balances are carefully managed in animal diets.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The study was carried out to investigate the possibilities of utilizing some Echinops orientalis populations as a roughage source.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Within the scope of the study, Echinops orientalis populations were collected from 17 different locations in South Eastern Anatolia Region of Türkiye in May 2025.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, E. orientalis represents a valuable alternative forage plant for the region, provided that mineral balances are carefully managed in animal diets.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Echinops sp. · Quality traits · Minerals

Abstract

The study was carried out to investigate the possibilities of utilizing some Echinops orientalis populations as a roughage source. Within the scope of the study, Echinops orientalis populations were collected from 17 different locations in South Eastern Anatolia Region of Türkiye in May 2025. In the study, it was observed that there were significant differences between populations and locations in terms of quality traits examined. The crude protein (CP) ratios of Echinops orientalis populations ranged between 12.0-18.1%, acid detergent fiber (ADF) ratios between 25.4-40.8%, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) ratios between 32.5-51.1%, digestible dry matter (DDM) ratios between 57.2-69.1%, dry matter intake (DMI) ratios between 2.35-3.69%, and relative feed values (RFV) between 104-194. These values indicated that the populations provided a high level of forage quality. The phosphorus (P), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg) and K:(Ca+Mg) ratios of Echinops orientalis populations were also found to be at ideal levels, but their calcium (Ca) content was high and accordingly the Ca:P ratio was above the limit value (>2). Cluster analysis was performed to reveal the similarity of the locations. Cluster analysis revealed that the populations from Gaziantep-2 and Şırnak-1 exhibited the highest similarity, whereas the populations sampled from Adıyaman-1 and Diyarbakır-3 showed the greatest divergence in terms of forage quality traits. In conclusion, E. orientalis represents a valuable alternative forage plant for the region, provided that mineral balances are carefully managed in animal diets.

🔖

Cite This Article

Basbag, M., Çaçan, E. (2026). Evaluation of the Forage Quality and Mineral Content of Echinops orientalis Populations. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.1844563

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (38)

  1. Akan, H., Aydoğdu, M., Korkut, M. M., & Balos, M. M. (2013). An ethnobotanical research of the Kalecik mountain area (Şanlıurfa, South-East Anatolia). Biological Diversity and Conservation, 6(2), 84–90.
  2. Avcı, M., Kaplan, O., Yertürk, M., & Aslan, M. (2006). Nutrient and botanical composition of pasture in Ceylanpınar Agriculture Farm. Van Veterinary Journal, 17(1–2), 9–13.
  3. Ayan, I., Mut, H., Onal-Asci, O., Basaran, U., & Acar, Z. (2010). Effect of manure application on the chemical composition and nutritive value of rangeland hay. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(13), 1852–1857. https://doi.org/10.3923/javaa.2010.1852.1857
  4. Aydın, A., Çaçan, E., & Başbağ, M. (2014). Forage yield and quality determination of a pasture in the Derik district of Mardin. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, Special Issue(2), 1631–1637.
  5. Aydın, İ., & Uzun, F. (2002). Çayır mera amenajmanı ve islahı [Pasture and rangeland management and improvement] (Textbook No. 9). Ondokuz Mayıs University Faculty of Agriculture.
  6. Bakoğlu, A., Kutlu, M. A., & Kökten, K. (2013, September). Determination of important plants for honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) in Bingöl region, life spin and date of the flowering [Paper presentation]. 10th Field Crops Congress of Türkiye, Konya, Türkiye.
  7. Başbağ, M., Çaçan, E., Sayar, M. S., & Firat, M. (2019). Determination of some quality characteristics of southern milk-vetch (Astragalus hamosus L.) herbage collected from different locations of Southeastern Anatolia Region. International Journal of Agriculture and Wildlife Science, 5(2), 346–354. https://doi.org/10.24180/ijaws.594960
  8. Başbağ, M., & Sayar, M. S. (2023). Determination of some forage quality traits in Aegilops species found in the Southeastern Anatolia Region. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 7(4), 870-880. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10250513
  9. Başbağ, M., & Çaçan, E. (2025). Evaluation of some Crepis species in terms of herbage quality characteristics. International Journal of Agriculture and Wildlife Science, 11(1), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.24180/ijaws.1585803
  10. Behçet, L., & Yapar, Y. (2019). Important plants at the Matan Mountain (Bingöl) flora with regard to beekeeping. Biological Diversity and Conservation, 12(1), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.5505/biodicon.2019.13008
  11. Çetik Yeşilova, E., & Başbağ, M. (2024). Determination of herbage quality characteristics in some Trigonella species in meadow-pasture and natural vegetation of the Southeastern Anatolia Region. ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 8(1), 15-24. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10749052
  12. Demir, İ., Keser, A. M., Altunoğlu, M. K., Akpınar, S., & Akdoğan, G. E. (2024). Characteristic features of Kolludere Valley (Bitlis-Hizan) honey. Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 34(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.1306890
  13. Doğan, A. (2014). Ethnobotanical investigations in Pertek (Tunceli) [Doctoral dissertation, Marmara University]. Marmara University Open Access.
  14. Doğan, A., & Tuzlacı, E. (2015a). Some local names of the plants of Tunceli. Eurasscience Journals, 3(2), 23–33.
  15. Doğan, A., & Tuzlacı, E. (2015b). Wild edible plants of Pertek (Tunceli-Türkiye). Marmara Pharmaceutical Journal, 19(2), 126. https://doi.org/10.12991/mpj.20151910459
  16. Ekmekçi, M., Çaçan, E., Özdemir, S., Kökten, K., Kutlu, M. A., Mokhtarzadeh, S., & Uçar, R. (2022). The effects of different sowing times on straw yield and straw quality of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench.). ISPEC Journal of Agricultural Science, 6(2), 368-374. https://doi.org/10.46291/ISPECJASvol6iss2id310
  17. Eksik, C., & Akan, H. (2021). Ethnobotanical evaluation of some plants used by indigenous people in rural villages of Mardin. Bağbahçe Bilim Dergisi, 8(3), 97–130. https://doi.org/10.35163/bagbahce.937816
  18. Elqarnwdy, F. O. M., Massuod, M. A. A., Alganoudi, G. A. E., Ali, G. A. A., Sadek, O. A.-S., & Alnaas, A. A. M. (2021). On the ecology and nutritional value of two Echinochloa species (Echinochloa colona and Echinochloa stagnina) in Egypt. Journal of Medicinal Plants Studies, 9(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.22271/plants.2021.v9.i1a.1241
  19. Erarslan, Z. B., Ecevit Genc, G., & Kultur, S. (2020). Medicinal plants traditionally used to treat skin diseases in Türkiye - eczema, psoriasis, vitiligo. Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy of Ankara University, 44(1), 137–166. https://doi.org/10.33483/jfpau.586114
  20. Erbay, M. Ş., & Sarı, A. (2018). Plants used in traditional treatment against hemorrhoids in Türkiye. Marmara Pharmaceutical Journal, 22(2), 110–132. https://doi.org/10.12991/mpj.2018.49
  21. Ertug, F. (2014). Yenen Bitkiler. Illustrated Flora of Turkey. 1ed. Turkey Is Bank Cultural Publications, Ankara, 345-380.
  22. Görhan, K. Ö., & Öztürk, F. (2021). A taxonomic study on bee plants of the Sütey Plateau (Suphan Mountain / Adilcevaz / Bitlis). MAS Journal of Applied Sciences, 6(Special Issue), 1281–1293. https://doi.org/10.52520/masjaps.162
  23. JMP. (2018). JMP (Version 14.0). SAS Institude Inc. [Computer software].
  24. Karabulut, İ. H., & Çomaklı, B. (2023). The seasonal variation of forage's chemical composition of a semi arid rangeland according to altitude and aspects. Turkish Journal of Range and Forage Science, 4(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.51801/turkjrfs.1264845
  25. Khedher, O., Rigane, G., Riguene, H., Salem, R., & Moussaoui, Y. (2020). Phenolic profile (HPLC-UV) analysis and biological activities of two organic extracts from Echinops spinosissimus Turra roots growing in Tunisia. Natural Product Research, 35(24), 5786–5793. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2020.1837812
  26. Lacefield, G. D. (1988). Alfalfa hay quality makes the difference (AGR-137). University of Kentucky Department of Agronomy.
  27. Macit, M. G., & Köse, Y. B. (2015). Medicinal plants used for folk medicine in Oltu (Erzurum/Türkiye). Biological Diversity and Conservation, 8(2), 74–80.
  28. Morrison, J. A. (2003). Hay and pasture management. In Illinois Agronomy Handbook (Chap. 8). http://iah.aces.uiuc.edu/pdf/AgronomyHB/08chapter.pdf
  29. Motsara, M. R., & Roy, R. N. (2008). Guide to laboratory establishment for plant nutrient analysis (FAO Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin No. 19). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  30. Oymak, E. (2018). Ethnobotanic features of natural plants used by inhabitants in Bozova (Şanlıurfa) [Master's thesis, Harran University]. Harran University Open Access.
  31. Öten, M., & Albayrak, S. (2018). Determination of variation between some alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) genotypes by principal component and clustering analysis. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(3), 222–228. https://doi.org/10.19159/tutad.421625
  32. Seydoşoğlu, S., & Basbag, M. (2024). Herbage quality of eight native Hordeum ecotypes collected from natural grassland & pasture ecology of Southeastern Anatolia. Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 34(3), 462-474. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.1453445
  33. Seydoşoğlu, S., & Kökten, K. (2018). Some characters of rangeland vegetation in Batman province of Beşiri district. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 55(4), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.407616
  34. Şapcı, H., & Vural, C. (2017). Antimicrobial and antioxidant activity of Echinops phaeocephalus (Asteraceae). KSU Journal of Natural Sciences, 20(4), 355–360. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksudobil.288299
  35. Wróbel, B., Zielewicz, W., Paszkiewicz-Jasińska, A., Spychalski, B., & Jakubowska, Z. (2022). Effect of harvest date on structural carbohydrates and lignin content in meadow sward in different pluvio-thermal conditions. Journal of Water and Land Development, 55, 60–66. https://doi.org/10.24425/jwld.2022.142305
  36. Wróbel, B., Zielewicz, W., & Paszkiewicz-Jasińska, A. (2025). Improving forage quality from permanent grasslands to enhance ruminant productivity. Agriculture, 15(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131438
  37. Yeşil, Y., & Akalın, E. (2016). Fodder, veterinary and miscellaneous useful plants in Kürecik (Malatya- Eastern Türkiye). Journal of Faculty of Pharmacy of Istanbul University, 46(1), 23–37.
  38. Zorer Çelebi, Ş., & Şahar, A. K. (2023). Effects of different harvest stages on forage yield and quality of soybean cultivars grown as second crops. Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 33(4), 571-580. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.1265629