Journals / Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry / 2008 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 6

Production Potential of a Natural Pasture Compared to a Wheat Pasture, Both Grazed by Lactating Goats under Mediterranean Climate Conditions

Pages
501–511
Publication Date
2008-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️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)

It was concluded that the wheat pasture had better potential for supplying nutrients to lactating dairy goats than did the natural pasture in spring.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to extend the grazing period using a wheat pasture that produced high quality forage, and to compare the productivity of natural and wheat pastures for grazing goats during a 3-year period (2003-2005) in a Mediterranean zone of Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Twelve 3-4-year-old Saanen goats were allocated to each pasture (10 goats ha-1).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was concluded that the wheat pasture had better potential for supplying nutrients to lactating dairy goats than did the natural pasture in spring.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2003-2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Pasture type · pasture yield · hay intake

Abstract

The aim of this study was to extend the grazing period using a wheat pasture that produced high quality forage, and to compare the productivity of natural and wheat pastures for grazing goats during a 3-year period (2003-2005) in a Mediterranean zone of Turkey. Twelve 3-4-year-old Saanen goats were allocated to each pasture (10 goats ha-1). Pastures were grazed for 2 months (May and June) in 2003 and for 3 months (April, May, and June) in 2004 and 2005. In the study, pasture yield and hay intake, crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and acid detergent fiber (ADF) content of the hay, and milk yield and milk fat percentage were determined. Pasture yield was significantly affected by pasture type (P < 0.001) for each year and the wheat pasture (5.34-6.51 t ha-1) yielded approximately 3.5-fold more hay than the natural pasture (1.48-1.88 t ha-1). Goats in the wheat pasture consumed significantly more forage in 2003 (P = 0.015), 2004 (P < 0.001), and 2005 (P < 0.001). Average hay intake in the wheat pasture ranged between 2.32 ± 0.27 and 2.53 ± 0.27 kg d-1 in 2003, 1.42 ± 0.26 and 3.35 ± 0.26 kg d-1 in 2004, and 2.69 ± 0.25 and 3.33 ± 0.25 kg d-1 in 2005, whereas it ranged between 1.54 ± 0.27 and 1.95 ± 0.27 kg d-1 in 2003, 0.79 ± 0.26 and 1.79 ± 0.26 kg d-1 in 2004, and 0.81 ± 0.25 and 1.60 ± 0.25 kg d-1 in 2005 in the natural pasture. Most of the interactions between pasture type and grazing month were statistically significant in terms of the CP, NDF, and ADF content of the pasture samples. In the first months CP content of the hay in the wheat pasture was higher than in the natural pasture, whereas this was reversed, especially in June. In addition, NDF and ADF content were not similar to CP content. In general, daily milk yield of the goats grazed on the wheat pasture was higher than that of those grazed on the natural pasture throughout the study. Milk yield was consistent with hay intake and milk fat percentage was inversely related to milk yield during the study. It was concluded that the wheat pasture had better potential for supplying nutrients to lactating dairy goats than did the natural pasture in spring.

Özet

The aim of this study was to extend the grazing period using a wheat pasture that produced high quality forage, and to compare the productivity of natural and wheat pastures for grazing goats during a 3-year period (2003-2005) in a Mediterranean zone of Turkey. Twelve 3-4-year-old Saanen goats were allocated to each pasture (10 goats ha-1). Pastures were grazed for 2 months (May and June) in 2003 and for 3 months (April, May, and June) in 2004 and 2005. In the study, pasture yield and hay intake, crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and acid detergent fiber (ADF) content of the hay, and milk yield and milk fat percentage were determined. Pasture yield was significantly affected by pasture type (P < 0.001) for each year and the wheat pasture (5.34-6.51 t ha-1) yielded approximately 3.5-fold more hay than the natural pasture (1.48-1.88 t ha-1). Goats in the wheat pasture consumed significantly more forage in 2003 (P = 0.015), 2004 (P < 0.001), and 2005 (P < 0.001). Average hay intake in the wheat pasture ranged between 2.32 ± 0.27 and 2.53 ± 0.27 kg d-1 in 2003, 1.42 ± 0.26 and 3.35 ± 0.26 kg d-1 in 2004, and 2.69 ± 0.25 and 3.33 ± 0.25 kg d-1 in 2005, whereas it ranged between 1.54 ± 0.27 and 1.95 ± 0.27 kg d-1 in 2003, 0.79 ± 0.26 and 1.79 ± 0.26 kg d-1 in 2004, and 0.81 ± 0.25 and 1.60 ± 0.25 kg d-1 in 2005 in the natural pasture. Most of the interactions between pasture type and grazing month were statistically significant in terms of the CP, NDF, and ADF content of the pasture samples. In the first months CP content of the hay in the wheat pasture was higher than in the natural pasture, whereas this was reversed, especially in June. In addition, NDF and ADF content were not similar to CP content. In general, daily milk yield of the goats grazed on the wheat pasture was higher than that of those grazed on the natural pasture throughout the study. Milk yield was consistent with hay intake and milk fat percentage was inversely related to milk yield during the study. It was concluded that the wheat pasture had better potential for supplying nutrients to lactating dairy goats than did the natural pasture in spring.

🔖

Cite This Article

HAKYEMEZ, B. H., GÖKKUŞ, A., YURTMAN, İ. Y., SAVAŞ, T. (2008). Production Potential of a Natural Pasture Compared to a Wheat Pasture, Both Grazed by Lactating Goats under Mediterranean Climate Conditions. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 6, 501–511. https://ajindex.com/articles/179773

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. AFRC, 1998. The Nutrition of Goats. AFRC Technical Committee on Responses to Nutrients, Report No: 10, CAB International. Akkaya, A. 1994. Buğday Yetiştiriciliği. KSİ Üniv. Genel Yayın No: 1, Ziraat Fak. Genel Yay. No: 1, Ders Kitapları Yay. No: 1, Kahramanmaraş. Akpa, G.N., E.O. Asiribo, O.O. Oni and J.P. Alawa. 2001. The influence of non-genetic factors on the shape of lactation curves in Red Sokoto goats. Anim. Sci. 72: 233-239. AOAC, 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. 15thEdition, Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC), Arlington, V.A. Beck, P.A., S. Hutchinson, C.B. Stewart, J.D. Shockey and S.A. Ginter. 2007. Effect of crabgrass (Digitaria ciliaris) hay harvest interval on forage quality and performance of growing calves fed mixed diets. J. Anim. Sci. 85: 527-535.
  2. Bakoğlu, A., A. Koç and A. Gökkuş. 1999. Variation in biomass and chemical composition of dominant rangeland plants during the growing season, II. Changes in Chemical Composition. Turk. J. Agric. For. 23: 495-508.
  3. Brown, D. 1957. Methods of Surveying and Measuring Vegetation. Commonwealth Bureau of Pastures and Fields Crops. Hurley, Berks, Bulletin No: 42, p. 223. Buxton, D.R. and D.R. Mertens. 1995. Quality related characteristics of forages. In: Forages, Vol. II. The Science of Grassland Agriculture (Eds.: R. F. Barnes, D. A. Miller and C.J. Nelson). Iowa State University Press, Inc., pp. 83-96.
  4. Cabiddu, A., A. Branca, M. Decandia, A. Pes, P.M. Santucci, F. Masoero and L. Calamari. 1999. Relationship between body condition score, metabolic profile, milk yield and milk composition in goats browsing a Mediterranean shrubland. Livest. Prod. Sci. 61: 267- 273. Ekinci, H., H. Özcan, O. Yüksel, Y. Kavdır and V.S. Çavusgil. 2004. Üvecik İşletme Arazisi Toprakları. ÇOMÜ Ziraat Fak., Üniversite Yayınları, No: 40, Çanakkale. GfE, 2003. Recommendations for the Supply of Energy and Nutrients to Goats. Ausschuss für Bedarfsnormen der Gesellschaft für Ernährungsphysiologie, DLG Verlag. Gökkuş, A. and A. Koç. 2001. Mera ve Çayır Yönetimi. Atatürk Üniv. Ziraat Fak. Ders Yayınları, No: 228, Erzurum. Goering, M.K. and P.J. Van Soest. 1970. Forage Fiber Analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agricultural Handbook, No: 379, Washington DC: Agric. Res. Serv., USA. Hersom, M.J., G.W. Horn, C.R. Krehbiel and W.A. Phillips. 2004. Effect of live weight gain of steers during winter grazing: I. feedlot performance, carcass characteristics and body composition of beef steers. J