KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Black Sea Journal of Agriculture / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3

Effect of Different Mixture Ratios on Silage Quality in Silage Corn and Cowpea

Mehmet Öten(Sakarya Uygulamalı Bilimler Üniversitesi)0000-0002-3737-2356
Lifer Doğan(SAKARYA UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ)0009-0005-3079-2920
Baha Ölmez(SAKARYA UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ)0009-0007-9245-4868
Önder Ferik(SAKARYA UYGULAMALI BİLİMLER ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ZİRAAT FAKÜLTESİ)0009-0009-5882-4540
Sayfa
392–397
Yayın Tarihi
2025-05-15
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

As a result of the study, it was found that producers who wish to plant a mixture of legume and grass forage plants can obtain high-quality forage by using a 75% Cp and 25% C mixture.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In forage crop mixtures, the proportions of legumes and grasses should be adjusted very well.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:This study was conducted in Sakarya province, where pure corn (C), pure cowpea (Cp), and mixtures of 75% corn + 25% cowpea, 50% corn + 50% cowpea, and 25% corn + 75% cowpea were planted.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:As a result of the study, it was found that producers who wish to plant a mixture of legume and grass forage plants can obtain high-quality forage by using a 75% Cp and 25% C mixture.
🔬Tür:Deneysel Tarla Denemesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Corn · Cowpea · Silage

Özet

In forage crop mixtures, the proportions of legumes and grasses should be adjusted very well. This study was conducted in Sakarya province, where pure corn (C), pure cowpea (Cp), and mixtures of 75% corn + 25% cowpea, 50% corn + 50% cowpea, and 25% corn + 75% cowpea were planted. The effect of the different mixture proportions on hay yield was then analyzed. In addition, silage was made from the obtained mixtures and the effect of the applied mixture proportions on the silage quality was determined. The field trials of the research were carried out in the trial areas of Sakarya University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture. Silage was made in 2 kilogram containers from each plot and at the end of the ripening period; silage dry matter ratio (%), silage pH, Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF) (%), Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) (%), Crude Protein (CP) (%), Dry Matter Intake (DMI) (%), Digestible Dry Matter (DDM) (%) and Relative Feed Values (RFV) observations were taken as silage quality criteria. Flieg score calculation was made with physical and sensory analyzes used to determine silage quality. In the study, the highest ADF, NDF, CP, DMI, DDM and RFV were 50%C+50%Cp (%25.69) and 25%Cp+75%C (%25.71), 50%C+50%Cp (%36.75), 100%Cp (%13.59), 100%C (%0.48), 100%C (%2.79), 100%C (%0.32), 75%Cp+25%C (%0.36), respectively. According to the results of physical and sensory analyzes of the obtained silages, it was determined that all silages were very good. According to Flieg scoring, 100%C silage and 75%Cp+25%C mixtures silage were determined as good. As a result of the study, it was found that producers who wish to plant a mixture of legume and grass forage plants can obtain high-quality forage by using a 75% Cp and 25% C mixture.

Abstract

In forage crop mixtures, the proportions of legumes and grasses should be adjusted very well. This study was conducted in Sakarya province, where pure corn (C), pure cowpea (Cp), and mixtures of 75% corn + 25% cowpea, 50% corn + 50% cowpea, and 25% corn + 75% cowpea were planted. The effect of the different mixture proportions on hay yield was then analyzed. In addition, silage was made from the obtained mixtures and the effect of the applied mixture proportions on the silage quality was determined. The field trials of the research were carried out in the trial areas of Sakarya University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture. Silage was made in 2 kilogram containers from each plot and at the end of the ripening period; silage dry matter ratio (%), silage pH, Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF) (%), Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF) (%), Crude Protein (CP) (%), Dry Matter Intake (DMI) (%), Digestible Dry Matter (DDM) (%) and Relative Feed Values (RFV) observations were taken as silage quality criteria. Flieg score calculation was made with physical and sensory analyzes used to determine silage quality. In the study, the highest ADF, NDF, CP, DMI, DDM and RFV were 50%C+50%Cp (%25.69) and 25%Cp+75%C (%25.71), 50%C+50%Cp (%36.75), 100%Cp (%13.59), 100%C (%0.48), 100%C (%2.79), 100%C (%0.32), 75%Cp+25%C (%0.36), respectively. According to the results of physical and sensory analyzes of the obtained silages, it was determined that all silages were very good. According to Flieg scoring, 100%C silage and 75%Cp+25%C mixtures silage were determined as good. As a result of the study, it was found that producers who wish to plant a mixture of legume and grass forage plants can obtain high-quality forage by using a 75% Cp and 25% C mixture.

Anahtar kelimeler
🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Öten, M., Doğan, L., Ölmez, B., Ferik, Ö. (2025). Effect of Different Mixture Ratios on Silage Quality in Silage Corn and Cowpea. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 392–397. https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1653485

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (37)

  1. Acar Z, Aşçı ÖÖ, Ayan I, Mut H, Başaran N, 2006. Mixed cropping systems in forage crops. OMU J Agric Fac, 21(2): 379-386.
  2. Açıkgöz E, 2021. Forage crops volume II. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, General Directorate of Plant Production, Education and Publication Department, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 57.
  3. Adeyanju AO, Ishiyaku MF, 2007. Genetic study of earliness in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) under screen house condition. IJPBG, 1(1): 34-37.
  4. Akçin A, 1988. Food grain legumes. S Univ Fac Agric, Pub No: 8, Konya, Türkiye, pp: 63.
  5. Alaca B, Özaslan Parlak A, 2017. Effects of corn, sorghum sudangrass hybrid with soybean, cowpea and guar mixed crops on silage yield and quality. COMU J Agric Fac, 5(1): 99-104.
  6. Beycioğlu T, 2016. The effect of different inter-row and over-row distances applied to cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) plant on yield components in Kahramanmaraş conditions. MSc thesis, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Univ, Institute of Science, Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye, pp: 57.
  7. Budaklı Carpıcı E, 2009. Evaluation of plant density and different amounts of nitrogen applications in silage corn cultivation in terms of stress physiology. PhD thesis, Bursa Uludag Univ Institute of Science, Bursa, Türkiye, pp: 63.
  8. Burgu L, Mut H, 2023. Silage yield and some quality traits of silage maize varieties growing as second crop. JOTAF, 20(1): 12-24.
  9. Canbolat Ö, Karaman Ş, 2009. Comparison of in vitro gas production, organic matter digestibility, relative feed value and metabolizable energy contents of some legume forages. J Agric Sci, 15(2): 188-195.
  10. Debnath P, Pattanaaik SK, Sah D, Chandra G, Pandey AK, 2018. Effect of boron and zinc fertilization on growth and yield of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L Walp) in Inceptisols of Arunachal Pradesh. J Indian Soc Soil Sci, 66(2): 229-234.
  11. Demirel M, Cengiz F, Erdoğan S, Çelik S, 2001. Van ekolojik koşullarında yetiştirilen sorgum ve macar fiği karışımlarının silaj kaliteleri ve besin maddelerinin rumende parçalanabilirlikleri üzerine bir araştırma. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(3): 94-101.
  12. Doğan Y, Toğay N, Toğay Y, 2011. A study on the determination of hydration capacities, hydration indexes and hard seed coat ratios of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) varieties and genotypes grown in Türkiye. YYU J Sci Inst, 16(1): 1-4.
  13. Düzgüneş O, Kesici T, Kavuncu O, Gürbüz F, 1987. Research and experimental methods (statistical methods II). Ankara Univ Fac Agric, Pub No: 1021, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 295.
  14. Gençkan MS, 1983. Yembitkileri tarımı. Ege Univ Fac Agric, Pub No: 467, İzmir, Türkiye, pp: 237-243.
  15. Günay A, 1992. Special vegetable cultivation, vol 4. Çağ Press, Ankara,Türkiye, pp: 103.
  16. JMP, 2018. Statistical discovery from SAS.
  17. Kaya Ö, Polat C, 2010. Determination of silage fermentation properties and feed value of some corn varieties grown as first and second crops in Tekirdağ Province conditions. JOTAF, 7(2): 129-136.
  18. Kavut Y, Soya H, 2012. A research on silage quality traits of some corn (Zea mays L.) varieties in Aegean Region conditions. Ege Univ J Agric Fac, 49(2): 223-227.
  19. Kılıç A, 2006. Determination of quality in forages. Hasat Publishing, Istanbul, Türkiye, pp: 75
  20. Klamem K, Phoksawat K, Suksaran W, Phaikaeo C, 2005. A document suggestion of silage. Department of Livestock Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand, Bangkok, pp: 24-33.
  21. Korkmaz Y, Ayasan T, Aykanat S, Avcı M, 2019. Determination of yield and quality performances of silage maize cultivars to be grown as second crop under Çukurova conditions. TURJAF, 7(1): 13-19.
  22. Moore JE, 1994. Forage quality indices: development and application. In: Forage quality, evaluation and utilization. (Ed. Fahey Jr GC), ASA, CSSA, SSSA, Madison, WI, pp: 977-998.
  23. Mut H, Gülümser E, Çopur Doğrusöz M, Başaran U, 2020. Effect of different companion crops on alfalfa silage quality. KSU J Agric Nat, 23(4): 975-980.
  24. Öz A, Kapar H, Dok M, 2017. Black Sea Agricultural Research Institute publications. http://arastirma.tarim.gov.tr/ktae/Belgeler/brosurler/Mısır%20Tarımı.pdf (accessed date: March 5, 2025).
  25. Özata E, Öz A, Kapar H, 2012. Determination of yield and quality characteristics of silage hybrid maize variety candidates. TABAD, 5(1): 37-41.
  26. Öztürk A, Özata E, Erdal Ş, Pamukçu M, 2019. Utilization and future of special corn types in Türkiye. IJEMAR, 2(2): 75-90.
  27. Panyasak A, Tumwasorn S, 2015. Effect of moisture content and storage time on sweet corn silage. Walailak J Sci Technol, 12(3): 237-243.
  28. Redfearn D, Zhang H, Caddel J, 2006. Forage quality interpretations. Oklahoma Cooperative, Extension Service, Oklahoma, USA, pp: F-2117. http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2557/F-2117web.pdf (accessed date: March 9, 2024).
  29. Sarıçiçek BZ, Ayan İ, Garipoğlu AV, 2002. Effect of single and mixed planting of corn and some legumes on silage quality. OMU J Agric Fac, 17(1): 1-5.
  30. Seydoşoğlu S, Gelir G, Ayana Çam B, 2020. Effects of mixing ratios and cutting periods on hay yield in forage pea and triticale mixtures. ADU J Agric Fac, 17(1): 9-13.
  31. Sheaffer CC, Peterson MA, Mccalin M, Volene JJ, Cherney JH, Johnson KD, Woodward WT, Viands DR, 1995. Acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber concentration and relative feed value. North Am Alfalfa Improv Conf, Minneapolis, ABD, pp:45.
  32. Tantekin G, 2016. Determination of yield and yield components of some silage maize varieties grown as main crop in Diyarbakır ecological conditions. MSc thesis, Siirt Univ, Institute of Science, Siirt, Türkiye, pp: 62.
  33. TUIK, 2025. Turkish Statistical Institute, Cereals and other plant products, fodder crops. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1001 (accessed date: March 5, 2025).
  34. Uygur M, 2022. Determination of silage quality by physical and chemical methods. https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/etae/belgeler/egitim%20brosur/127-ciftcibro.pdf (accessed date: March 5, 2025).
  35. Ünal D, 2023. Determination of hay yield and quality of silage corn and some legume forage plants. MSc thesis, Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Univ, Inst of Sci, pp: 138.
  36. Van Dyke NJ, Anderson PM, 2000. Interpreting a forage analysis. Alabama Cooperative Extension, Circular ANR-890.
  37. Woolfort MK, 1984. The silage ferment. Grassland Research Inst, Hurley, England, pp: 350.