SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi / 2003 / Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 1

Effects of anatomic structure and chemical composition on forage quality

Yembitkilerinde anatomik yapı ve kimyasal kompozisyonunun besleme değerine etkileri

Mustafa TAN
Ömer MENTEŞE
Pages
97–103
Publication Date
2022-10-10
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)

In this paper, effects of anatomy, morphology and chemical composition on forage quality was discussed in details among forage groups.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Each plant has a unique morphology and physiology which gives it specific growth and forage quality characteristics.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In general, warm season plants almost always have higher levels of structural matter in hay than cool-season plants because of many warm season plants have low leaf/stem and high growth rate.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this paper, effects of anatomy, morphology and chemical composition on forage quality was discussed in details among forage groups.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Each plant has a unique morphology and physiology which gives it specific growth and forage quality characteristics. Although some generalizations can be made, there are the differences in quality that exist among groups of plants, individual species, and even cultivars. These differences are very clear between grass-legume and warm-cool season forage crops. In general, warm season plants almost always have higher levels of structural matter in hay than cool-season plants because of many warm season plants have low leaf/stem and high growth rate. Therefore, forages grown in warm climates have poor quality. On the other hand, grasses have higher cell wall concentrations and a more rapid accumulation of lignin than legumes, and thus a more rapid decline in digestibility with maturity. In this paper, effects of anatomy, morphology and chemical composition on forage quality was discussed in details among forage groups.

Özet

Her bitkinin besleme değerine etkili olan, kendine has morfolojik ve fizyolojik özellikleri vardır. Bazı genellemeler yapılsa da bitki grupları, türleri ve hatta varyeteleri arasında dahi önemli farklılıklar vardır. Bu farklılıklar yembitkileri arasında baklagillerle buğdaygiller, serin mevsim bitkileri ile sıcak mevsim bitkileri arasında oldukça belirgindir. Genel olarak sıcak mevsim bitkilerinin otunda serin mevsim bitkilerine göre daha fazla yapısal madde bulunmaktadır, Çünkü birçok sıcak mevsim bitkisi hızlı büyüme ve düşük yaprak/sap oranına sahiptir. Bu nedenle sıcak iklimlerde yetişen bitkiler düşük besleme değerine sahiptir. Diğer yandan buğdaygiller baklagillere göre daha fazla hücre duvarı maddelerine ve olgunlaşma ile hızlı bir lignin birikimine sahiptir. Bundan dolayı olgunlaşma ile sindirimlerinde hızlı bir azalma meydana gelir. Bu makalede farklı bitki grupları arasında yem kalitesine etki eden anatomik, morfolojik farklılıklar ve kimyasal kompozisyon tartışılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

TAN, M., MENTEŞE, Ö. (2022). Effects of anatomic structure and chemical composition on forage quality. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 34 - Sayı: 1, 97–103. https://ajindex.com/articles/456317

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Akin, D.E., 1989. Histological and Physical Factors Affecting Digestibility of Forages. Agron. J., 81:17-25.
  2. Akin, D.E., Robinson, E.L., 1982. Structure of Leaves and Stems of Arrowleaf and Crimson Clovers as Related to in Vitro Digestibility. Crop Sci., 22: 24-29.
  3. Akin, D.E., Wilson, J.R., Windham, W.R., 1983. Site and Rate of Tissue Digestion in Leaves of C3, C4 and C3/C4 Intermediate Panicum Species. Crop Sci., 23: 147-155.
  4. Buxton, D.R., 1990. Cell-Wall Components in Divergent Germplasm of Four Perennial Forage Grass Species. Crop Sci., 30: 402-408.
  5. Buxton, D.R., Casler, M.D., 1993. Environmental and Genetic Effects on Cell Wall Composition and Digestibility. In Forage Cell Wall Structure and Digestibility, H. G. Jung, D. R. Buxton, R. D. Hatfield, J. Ralph (Eds.). American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, USA, p:685-714.
  6. Buxton, D.R., Anderson, L.C., Hallam, A., 1988. Intercropping Sorghum into Alfalfa and Red Canarygrass to Increase Biomass Yield. J. Prod. Agric, 11: 481-486.
  7. Buxton, D.R.,. Redfearn, D.D., 1996. Plant Limitations to Fiber Digestion and Utilization. 37th Annual Ruminant Nut. Conf., 14 April, 1996, Washington, p: 814-818.
  8. Cherney, D.J.R., Cherney, J.H., Davidson, A.H., 1997. Characterization of Legume and Grass Residues Following in Vitro and in Sacco Ruminal Digestion. Proc. The XVIII International Grassland Cong., June 8-17, 1997,
  9. Winnipeg and Saksatoon, Session: 17:17-23.
  10. Deinum, B., Dirven, G.P., 1975.
  11. Climate, Nitrogen and Grass. 6. Comparision of Yield and Chemical Composition of Temperate and Tropical Grass Species Grown at Different Temperatures. Neth. J. Agric. Sci., 69-82.
  12. Ehlke, N.J., Casler, M.D., 1985. Anatomical Characteristics of Smoothbrornegrass Clones Selected for in Vitro Dry Matter Digestibility. Crop Sci., 25: 513-517.
  13. Galyean, MX., Goetsch, A.L., 1993. Utilization of Forage Fiber by Ruminants. In Forage Cell Wall Structure and Digestibility, H. G. Jung, D. R. Buxton, R. D. Hatfıeld, J. Ralph (Eds.). American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, USA, p: 33-71.
  14. Hanna, W.W., Monson, W.G., Burton, G.W., 1973. Histological Examination of Fresh Forage Leaves After in Vitro Digestion. Crop Sci., 13: 98-102.
  15. Hastert, A. A., Owensby, C.E., Harbers, L.H., 1983. Rumen Microbial Degradation of Indiangrass and Big Bluestem Leaf Blades. J. Anim. Sci., 57: 1626-1636.
  16. Kephart, K.D., Buxton, D.R., 1993. Forage Quality Responses of C3 and C4 Perennial Grasses to Shade. Crop Sci., 33: 831-837.
  17. Merchen, N.R., B