Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 5

Effect of morphological components on the herbage yield and quality of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Wild.) grown at different dates

Sayfa
533–542
Yayın Tarihi
2020-10-02
DOI
—
🏛️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)

In addition, it was concluded that sowing should be performed without delay for high yield and at a later time for quality hay production.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:In addition to environmental conditions and cultural practices, plant factors, particularly morphological parts, have a significant effect on the yield and feed value of roughages.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Therefore, between 2017 and 2018, a study was planned to determine the effect of different sowing times (mid-March, late March, early April, and mid-April) and plant parts (leaves, stems and panicles) together on the herbage yield and quality characteristics of quinoa.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In addition, it was concluded that sowing should be performed without delay for high yield and at a later time for quality hay production.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2017 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Chenopodium quinoa · feed yield and quality · Iğdır

Abstract

In addition to environmental conditions and cultural practices, plant factors, particularly morphological parts, have a significant effect on the yield and feed value of roughages. However, no studies have been conducted for this purpose on quinoa grown for hay production. Therefore, between 2017 and 2018, a study was planned to determine the effect of different sowing times (mid-March, late March, early April, and mid-April) and plant parts (leaves, stems and panicles) together on the herbage yield and quality characteristics of quinoa. In the experiment established according to a randomized complete blocks design, a significant decrease in plant height, stem thickness, number of branches, and panicle ratios were determined with delayed sowing time. The highest contribution of the stems to the fresh herbage and dry matter yield was determined in the 1st sowing period, but the highest contribution to the neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber and acid detergent lignin contents were determined in the first 2 sowing periods. The highest crude protein ratio and yield were determined in the leaves in the late and 1st sowing period, respectively. The highest digestible dry matter and metabolic energy contents were measured in the leaves in all of the sowing periods. The highest digestible energy and relative feed values were determined in the leaves of plants sown in the last 2 sowing periods. As a result, it was shown that the leaves had a positive contribution to the feed quality of quinoa, while the stems had a positive contribution to the feed yield. In addition, it was concluded that sowing should be performed without delay for high yield and at a later time for quality hay production.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

TEMEL, S., KESKİN, B. (2020). Effect of morphological components on the herbage yield and quality of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Wild.) grown at different dates. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 5, 533–542. https://ajindex.com/articles/179396

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (3)

  1. Adolf VI, 2013, ENVIRON EXP BOT, V92, P43, DOI 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2012.07.004 Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC), 1997, OFFICIAL METHODS ANA, P125 Awadalla A, 2017, EGYPT J AGRON, V39, P27, DOI 10.21608/agro.2017.440.1047 Bertero HD, 2000, AUST J PLANT PHYSIOL, V27, P349, DOI 10.1071/PP99134 Bhargava A, 2006, IND CROP PROD, V23, P73, DOI 10.1016/j.indcrop.2005.04.002 Bhargava A, 2007, INDIAN J AGR SCI, V77, P748 Buxton D. R., 1996, ANIMAL FEED SCI TECH, V40, P109 Buxton DR, 1997, J NUTR, V127, pS814, DOI 10.1093/jn/127.5.814S Casini P., 2019, Acta Agriculturae Slovenica, V113, P51 Collins M., 2003, FORAGES INTRO GRASSL, P363 CUSACK DF, 1984,
  2. ECOLOGIST, V14, P21. Darwinkel A, 1997, UNDERSTANDING QUINOA. Dokulgen H., 2019, Harran Tarim ve Gida Bilimleri Dergisi / Harran Journal of Agricultural and Food Science, V23, P178, DOI 10.29050/harranziraat.425602 Dokulgen H, 2015, IGDIR U J I SCI TECH, V5, P57 Fales SL, 2007,
  3. FORAGES, VII, P569. Fonnesbeck P.V., 1984, P AM SOC ANIMAL SCI, V35, P305 Fuentes F, 2011, J AGRON CROP SCI, V197, P124, DOI 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2010.00445.x Fuentes FF, 2012, J AGR SCI-CAMBRIDGE, V150, P702, DOI 10.1017/S0021859612000056 Galwey N. W., 1989, Biologist, V36, P267 Geren H., 2014, Ege Universitesi Ziraat Fakultesi Dergisi, V51, P297 Geren H, 2015, TURK J FIELD CROPS, V20, P59 GRABBER JH, 1991, CROP SCI, V31, P1058, DOI 10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100040043x Gulumser E, 2012, TURK J FIELD CROPS, V17, P101 Hirich A, 2014, J AGRON CROP SCI, V200, P371, DOI 10.1111/jac.12071 Kacar B, 2012, SOIL ANAL. Katsunori I, 2016, JAPAN AGR SCI, V7, P146 Keles G, 2014, J ANIMAL PRODUCT, V55, P1 KHALIL JK, 1986, J RANGE MANAGE, V39, P104, DOI 10.2307/3899277 Kir A.E., 2017, IGDIR U J I SCI TECH, V7, P353 Kir A. E., 2016, IGDIR U J I SCI TECH, V6, P145 MGM, 2019, IGD PROV DIR MET. Moore KJ, 2001, J RANGE MANAGE, V54, P420, DOI 10.2307/4003113 Onal Asci O, 2018, QUALITY ROUGHAGE. Ozyigit Y, 2006, AKDENIZ U ZIRAAT FAK, V19, P29 Peterson AJ, 2015, WORLD AGRIC SER, P173 Ramesh K, 2016, THESIS. Rauf S., 2010, INT J PLANT BREED, V4, P1 Repo-Carrasco R, 2003, FOOD REV INT, V19, P179, DOI 10.1081/FRI-120018884 ROHWEDER DA, 1978, J ANIM SCI, V47, P747 Ruiz KB, 2014, AGRON SUSTAIN DEV, V34, P349, DOI 10.1007/s13593-013-0195-0 Sajjad A., 2014, J AGRIC RES-LAHORE, V52, P535 Shams A, 2011, INT J WATER RES ARID, V1, P318 Sheaffer CC, 1995, N AM ALF IMP C MINN. Shoman H.A., 2018, EFFECT SOWING DATES, V9, P327 Stikic R, 2012, J CEREAL SC