Dergiler / Turkish Journal Of Field Crops / 2020 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2

EFFECTS OF ANİMAL GRAZİNG ON FAVORABLE FORAGE YİELD AND QUALİTY OF RANGELANDS WİTH DİFFERENT SLOPE

Sayfa
168–173
Yayın Tarihi
2020-12-07
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)

According to the obtained results, it reveals the necessity to practice appropriate management such as the proper intensity of grazing, especially in sloping areas to ensure sustainable rangeland use.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:This study conducted between 2016 and 2017 in the Kosk Village of Yakutiye District of Erzurum Province on rangeland sites with 4 different slopes (0-10%, 10-30%, 30-60 and 60% and above).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In the research, current favorable forage yield and some forage quality characteristics of rangeland sites with different slope degrees were investigated.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:According to the obtained results, it reveals the necessity to practice appropriate management such as the proper intensity of grazing, especially in sloping areas to ensure sustainable rangeland use.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2016 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Favorable Forage Yield · Forage quality · Rangelands

Abstract

This study conducted between 2016 and 2017 in the Kosk Village of Yakutiye District of Erzurum Province on rangeland sites with 4 different slopes (0-10%, 10-30%, 30-60 and 60% and above). In the research, current favorable forage yield and some forage quality characteristics of rangeland sites with different slope degrees were investigated. It was determined that the forage yield of rangeland sites decreased in steep slope rangeland sites and increased in slightly sloping rangeland sites. It was determined that the effect of different sloping degrees on some forage quality was important. Slightly slope rangeland sites, forages had higher crude protein content, while steep slope rangeland sites had higher ADF and NDF ratio. Also, it was calculated that the Relative Feed Value (RFV) in the rangelands decreased due to the increase in slope. According to the obtained results, it reveals the necessity to practice appropriate management such as the proper intensity of grazing, especially in sloping areas to ensure sustainable rangeland use.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

GULLAP, M., SEVEROĞLU, S. (2020). EFFECTS OF ANİMAL GRAZİNG ON FAVORABLE FORAGE YİELD AND QUALİTY OF RANGELANDS WİTH DİFFERENT SLOPE. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 2, 168–173. https://ajindex.com/articles/180704

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (6)

  1. Adesogan, A.T., D.I. Givens and E. Owen. 2000. Measuring chemical composition and nutritive value in forages. In Field and Laboratory Methods for Grassland and Animal Production Research (Ed. L Mannetje and R.M. Jones), CABI, Cambridge, 263-278.
  2. Alaturk, F. 2012. The Effect of Fertilization on Yield and Chemical Composition of Weed in Canakkale Province. Master Thesis, Onsekiz Mart University Institute of Science, Canakkale. Allen-Diaz, B. and R.D. Jackson. 2000. Grazing effects on spring ecosystem vegetation of California's Hardwood Rangelands. J. Range Manage., 53: 215-220.
  3. Altin, M., A. Gokkus and A. Koc. 2005. Meadow Rangeland Improvement. T. C. Agriculture and Rural Affairs Ministry General Directorate of Agricultural Production and Development, Mart Printing House, Istanbul, 468 s. Amiri, F., A. Ariapour and S. Fadai. 2018. Effects of livestock grazing on vegetation and soil moisture properties in grazed and non-grazed range site. Journal of Biological Sciences, 8 (8), 1289-1297.
  4. Andrae, J. 2003. What is Forage Quality? http://commodities.caes.uga.edu/ fieldcrops/forages/GACatArc/2003/Nov03.pdf (Accessed May 09, 2020) Anonymous, 1991. Production Yearbook. United Nations FAO Statics Series No:47, Rome, Italy. Aydin, A. and Y. Sezen. 1995. Soil Chemistry Laboratory Book. Ataturk Univ. Agriculture Faculty, Lecture Publications No: 174, Atatüurk Univ. Faculty of Agriculture, Erzurum. Ball, D.M., M. Collins, G.D. Lacefield, N.P. Martin, D.A. Mertens, K.E. Olson, D.H. Putnam, D.J. Undersander and M.W. Wolf. 2001. Understanding forage quality. American Farm Bureau Federation Publication 1-01,
  5. Park Ridge, USA 21 p. Cinar, S. 2001. A Research on Determination of Yield and Botanical Composition in the Rangeland of Hanyeri Village of Tufanbeyli District of Adana Province. Cukurova. U. Institute of Science, Field Crops Department, Master Thesis, Adana, 78 s. Dasci, M. 2008. The Effect of Fertilization on Pasturelands with Different Topographic Structures on Quality Characteristics Related to Vegetation and Weed Yield. Ataturk University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Field Crops, Erzurum. Demiralay, I. 1993. Soil Physical Analysis Methods. Ataturk University, Faculty of Agriculture Publ., No:143, Erzurum, 131 s. Dovel, J. 1996. Cutting height effect on wetland meadow forage yield and quality. J. Range Manage. 49: 151-156.
  6. Enright, N.J., B.P. Miller and R. Akhter. 2005. Desert vegetation and vegetation-environment rel