SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 33 Issue: 4

Effects of Different Harvest Stages on Forage Yield and Quality of Soybean Cultivars Grown as Second Crops

Şeyda Zorer Çelebi(VAN YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-1278-1994
Ahmet Korhan Şahar(DOĞU AKDENİZ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, LİSANSÜSTÜ EĞİTİM, ÖĞRETİM VE ARAŞTIRMA ENSTİTÜSÜ, DOĞU AKDENİZ ARAŞTIRMALARI (YL) (TEZLİ) (İNGİLİZCE) (ÜCRETLİ))0000-0003-2690-9821
Pages
—
Publication Date
2023-12-31
🏛️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)

The results showed that the average plant height of three soybean cultivars was 106.5-203.5 cm and green herbage yield was 190 42-603 50 kg ha-1.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the effect of three different harvesting stages [full bloom stage (R2), full pod stage (R4), and full seed stage (R6)] on forage yield and quality of three soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) cultivars (Adasoy, Derry and Yeşilsoy) were evaluated under Mediterranean climate conditions in Adana, Türkiye in second crop seasons.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Plant height, green herbage yield, dry matter yield, crude protein (CP), crude protein yield (CPY), leaf and stem ratio, dry matter intake (DMI), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), digestible dry matter (DDM) and relative feed value (RFV) were determined.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results showed that the average plant height of three soybean cultivars was 106.5-203.5 cm and green herbage yield was 190 42-603 50 kg ha-1.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Soybean harvest stage · Yield · Soybean cultivars

Abstract

In this study, the effect of three different harvesting stages [full bloom stage (R2), full pod stage (R4), and full seed stage (R6)] on forage yield and quality of three soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) cultivars (Adasoy, Derry and Yeşilsoy) were evaluated under Mediterranean climate conditions in Adana, Türkiye in second crop seasons. Plant height, green herbage yield, dry matter yield, crude protein (CP), crude protein yield (CPY), leaf and stem ratio, dry matter intake (DMI), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), digestible dry matter (DDM) and relative feed value (RFV) were determined. The results showed that the average plant height of three soybean cultivars was 106.5-203.5 cm and green herbage yield was 190 42-603 50 kg ha-1. The highest values were obtained from cv. Derry at R4 and R6 harvest stages. In both years, the highest CPY values were determined from the R6 harvest stages. Obtained ADF, NDF, DMI, DDM, and RFV values were found to be between 32.8-47.1%, 41.1-59.3%, 2.0-3.6%, 52.1-63.3%, 83.0-180.2%, respectively, and the best results were obtained from the R6 harvest stage of cv. Yeşilsoy. According to these results, in second crop conditions, while cv. Derry came to the fore of soybean yield, cv. Yeşilsoy stands out in terms of quality. As a result, it is thought that it is appropriate to harvest soybean in the R6 harvest period, the use of soybean as a green herbage should be expanded and its addition to feed rations can provide positive contributions.

🔖

Cite This Article

Çelebi, Ş. Z., Şahar, A. K., *, Ş. Z. Ç. (2023). Effects of Different Harvest Stages on Forage Yield and Quality of Soybean Cultivars Grown as Second Crops. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, Volume: 33 Issue: 4. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.1265629

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (32)

  1. Acikgoz, E. (2001). Forage Crops (3rd Ed.). Uludag University, Strengthening Foundation Publication, Number: 182, Bursa.
  2. Acikgoz, E., Sincik, M., Wietgrefe, G., Sürmen, M., Çeçen, S., Yavuz, T., Erdurmuş, C., & Göksoy, A. T. (2013). Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 37(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.3906/tar-1204-58
  3. Acikgoz, E., Sincik, M., Oz, M., Albayrak, S., Wietgrefe, G., Turan, Z. M., Goksoy, A. T., Bilgili, U., Karasu, A., Tongel, O., & Canbolat, O. (2007). Forage soybean performance in mediterranean environments. Field Crops Research, 103(3), 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FCR.2007.06.006
  4. Allen, M. S. (1996). Physical constraints on voluntary intake of forages by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science, 74(12), 3063–3075.
  5. Anderson, E. J., Ali, M. L., Beavis, W. D., Chen, P., Clemente, T. E., Diers, B. W., Graef, G. L., Grassini, P., Hyten, D. L., McHale, L. K., Nelson, R. L., Parrott, W. A., Patil, G. B., Stupar, R. M., & Tilmon, K. J. (2019). Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] breeding: History, improvement, production and future opportunities. Advances in Plant Breeding Strategies: Legumes, 7, 431–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23400-3_12/COVER
  6. Anonymous. (2016a). Eastern Mediterranean Agricultural Research Institute, Variety Catalog, http://arastirma.tarim.gov.tr/cukurovataem. Access date: 22.05.2016).
  7. Anonymous. (2016b). Automatic Meteorology Observation Station Adana Province climate data for many years. www.omgi.mgm.gov.tr. Access date: 21.06.2016.
  8. AOAC, 1990. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Method of Analysis. 15th.ed. Washington DC, USA. 66-88.
  9. Baath, G. S., Northup, B. K., Rocateli, A. C., Gowda, P. H., & Neel, J. P. S. (2018). Forage Potential of Summer Annual Grain Legumes in the Southern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal, 110(6), 2198–2210. https://doi.org/10.2134/AGRONJ2017.12.0726
  10. Ball, D. M., & Hoveland, C. S. (1996). Lacefield, and GD,‘Forage Quality. Southern Forages’, Potash & Phosphate Institute and Foundation for Agronomic Research, Norcross, GA, 124–132.
  11. Cirak, C. & Esendal, E., (2005). Plant growth stages of soybean. Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 20(2):57-65
  12. Garcia, A. (2006). Alternative Forages for Dairy Cattle: Soybeans and Sunflowers. SDSU Extension Extra Archives. https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/extension_extra/121
  13. Henchion, M., Hayes, M., Mullen, A. M., Fenelon, M., & Tiwari, B. (2017). Future Protein Supply and Demand: Strategies and Factors Influencing a Sustainable Equilibrium. Foods 2017, Vol. 6, Page 53, 6(7), 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/FOODS6070053
  14. Hintz, R. W., Albrecht, K. A., & Oplinger, E. S. (1992). Yield and Quality of Soybean Forage as Affected by Cultivar and Management Practices. Agronomy Journal, 84(5), 795–798. https://doi.org/10.2134/AGRONJ1992.00021962008400050007X
  15. Joachim, H. Jung, G. (1997). Analysis of forage fiber and cell walls in ruminant nutrition. The Journal of nutrition, 127(5), 810-813.
  16. Mayouf, R., Lakhdar, H., Oued, E., & Arbouche, F. (2014). Chemical composition and relative feed value of three Mediterranean fodder shrubs African Journal of Agricultural Research Chemical composition and relative feed value of three Mediterranean fodder shrubs. Article in African Journal of Agricultural Research, 9(8), 746–749. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2013.7805
  17. McCandlish, A. C., E. Weaver E., & Lunde, L. A., (2017). Soybeans as a home-grown supplement for dairy cows. Bulletin: 17: 204, Article 1. Available at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ bulletin /vol17/iss204/1
  18. McPeake, R., Robwerg, R., Self, C., & Long, D. (2010). Establishing wildlife food plots, University of Arkansas, Ext. Ser. Publ. FSA9092-PD-12-10RV, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Little Rock, AR, USA.
  19. Mertens, D. R. (1994). Regulation of forage intake. In: Fahey Jr. G. C.; Collins. M.; Mertens. D. R.; Moser. L. E. (Eds.) Forage Quality. Evaluation and Utilization. Madison: American Society of Agronomy. Crop Science of America. Soil Science of America. p.450-493.
  20. Moore, J. E., & Undersander, D. J. (2002). Relative forage quality: An alternative to relative feed value and quality index. In Proceedings 13th annual Florida ruminant nutrition symposium (Vol. 32, pp. 16-29).
  21. Munoz, A. E., Holt, E. C., & Weaver, R. W. (1983). Yield and Quality of Soybean Hay as Influenced by Stage of Growth and Plant Density1. Agronomy Journal, 75(1), 147–149. https://doi.org/10.2134/AGRONJ1983.00021962007500010038X
  22. Nazlican, A. N. (2010). Soybean farming. http://arastirma.tarim.gov.tr/cukurovataem1.pdf Access date: 22.09.2018.
  23. Northup, B. K., & Rao, S. C. (2015). Green Manure and Forage Potential of Lablab in the U.S. Southern Plains. Agronomy Journal, 107(3), 1113–1118. https://doi.org/10.2134/AGRONJ14.0455
  24. Ocumpaugh, W. R., Matches, A. G., & Luedders, V. D. (1981). Sod-Seeded Soybeans for Forage1. Agronomy Journal, 73(3), 571–574. https://doi.org/10.2134/AGRONJ1981.00021962007300030038X
  25. Ozkan, U., & Demirbag, S. N., (2016). Status quo of quality roughage resources in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Scientific Reviews, 9(1): 23-27.
  26. Redfearn, D., Zhang, H., & Caddel, J. (2006). Forage quality interpretations. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service F-2117.
  27. Rohweder, D., Barnes, R. F., & Jorgensen, N. (1978). Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science, 47(3), 747–759.
  28. Sancak, C. (2011). Ankara University, Faculty of Agriculture, Agronomy Department. agri.ankara.edu.tr: http://www.agri.ankara.edu.tr/fcrops/1283. Cultivation of Field Crops Part 1.
  29. Sheaffer, C. C., Orf, J. H., Devine, T. E., & Jewett, J. G. (2001). Yield and Quality of Forage Soybean. Agronomy Journal, 93(1), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.2134/AGRONJ2001.93199X
  30. Van Soest, P. J. (1994). Nutritional ecology of the ruminant (2nd Ed.). Cornell University Press. Ithaca, N.Y.
  31. Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Methods for Dietary Fiber, Neutral Detergent Fiber, and Nonstarch Polysaccharides in Relation to Animal Nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74(10), 3583–3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/JDS.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  32. Voisin, A. S., Guéguen, J., Huyghe, C., Jeuffroy, M. H., Magrini, M. B., Meynard, J. M., Mougel, C., Pellerin, S., & Pelzer, E. (2014). Legumes for feed, food, biomaterials and bioenergy in Europe: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(2), 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13593-013-0189-Y/METRICS