Release Date: 2024-06-03

Crude Protein Content and the Other Forage Quality Traits in Some Annual Plant Species From Different Families and Assessments with Biplot and Correlation Analysis

Mehmet Salih Sayar (Author)

Release Date: 2024-06-03

High-quality forage in livestock feeding will significantly enhance both the yield and quality of animal products. In this respect, it is crucial to know in advance the forage quality traits to make the right choice. Accordingly, the research was fulfilled to determine forage crude protein content and the other forage quality traits in some annual [...]

Media Type
    Buy from

    Price may vary by retailers

    Work TypeBook Chapter
    Published inAlternative Protein Sources
    First Page17
    Last Page49
    DOIhttps://doi.org/10.69860/nobel.9786053359289.2
    Page Count33
    Copyright HolderNobel Tıp Kitabevleri
    Licensehttps://nobelpub.com/publish-with-us/copyright-and-licensing

    High-quality forage in livestock feeding will significantly enhance both the yield and quality of animal products. In this respect, it is crucial to know in advance the forage quality traits to make the right choice. Accordingly, the research was fulfilled to determine forage crude protein content and the other forage quality traits in some annual plant species from different families. According to the variance analysis, it was determined that there were statistically highly significant (P<0.01) differences between the species in terms of all the of the examined traits, and the examined traits were found to be in the following ranges; dry matter content (DMC) 15.67–26.97%, crude protein (CP) content 11.93–24.11%, acid detergent fiber (ADF) content 29.54–46.488%, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content 38.30–62.89%, digestible dry matter (DDM) contents 52.33–65.89%, dry matter intake (DMI) 1.91–3.14%, metabolizable energy (ME) 7.67–10.27 MJ kg-1 DM, relative feed value (RFV) 77.5–160.2, calcium (Ca) content 6.72–18.72 g kg-1 DM, phosphorus (P) contents varied from 3.59–5.35 g kg-1 DM, magnesium (Mg) content 2.25–4.35 g kg-1 DM, potassium (K) content 28.58– 44.40 g kg-1 DM, Ca:P ratio 1.50–4.91 and K/(Ca+Mg) (tetany) ratio 1.34–3.94. Additionally, as a result of comparing the research results with the literature knowledge, it was understood that the Ca, P, Mg and K contents of the examined species were sufficient for the livestock needs. However, due to relatively higher-level K content and lower Ca and Mg contents, the tetany (K/(Ca+Mg) ratios of grasses species, Lolium multiflorum and Triticum aestivum, were found to be over the critical value (2.2) for grass tetany illness. Thus, when livestock intensively feed forages of the grass species, risk of getting grass tetany disease would be higher than the other species. On the other hand, the biplot analysis showed that there was a positive and significant relationship between CP, DDM, DMI, ME and RFV traits, and legume family species, Lathyrus sativus, Trifolium nigrescens and Pisum sativum spp. arvense came to fore in terms of these five traits. These legume species with having higher level the most important forage quality traits, their forage quality was found quite better than the other species.

    Mehmet Salih Sayar (Author)
    Professor, Dicle University
    https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5834-5277
    3Salih SAYAR, who graduated from Dicle university, Faculty of Agricultyre Field crops, Department in 2001. He works in breeding and agronomy of Meadow and pasture forage crops. He completed his master’s degree on pisum arvense. The author, who completed his doctorate on Vicia pannonica, Now, he works at Dicle University as a Professor.

    • Sengul, S., Tahtacıoglu, L., & Mermer, A. (2003). Determination of suitable alfalfa (Medicago sativa L) cultivars for some ecological conditions of Samsun province. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 8(1), 10-14.

    • Sayar, M. S., Han, Y., Basbag, M., Gul, I., & Polat, T. (2015). Rangeland improvement and management studies in Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkey. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 52(1), 9-18.

    • Engin, B., & Mut, H. (2017). Determination of hay yield and some quality traits of different alfalfa cultivars. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 27(2), 212-219.

    • Yucel, C., Sayar, M. S. & Yucel, H. (2012). Determination of the some properties related to forage quality of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) genotypes under the Diyarbakır conditions. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Harran University, 16(2), 45-54.

    • McDowell, L. R., & Arthington, J. D. (2005). Minerales para rumiantes en pastoreo en regiones tropicales (4ª ed.). Universidad de Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

    • Acıkgoz, E. (2001). Forage crops. Uludag Univ Publ no:182, Bursa, Turkey, pp. 584.

    • Moinuddin, M., Gulzar, S., Aziz, I., Alatar, A. R. A., Hegazy, A. K., & Khan, M. A. (2012). Evaluation of forage quality among coastal and inland grasses from Karachi. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 44(2), 573-577.

    • Basbag, M., Sayar, M. S., Cacan, E., & Karan, H. (2021). Determining quality traits of some concentrate feedstuffs and assessments on relations between the feeds and the traits using biplot analysis. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 30(2A), 1627-1635.

    • Sayar, M.S., Basbag, M., Cacan E. & Karan, H. (2022). The effect of different cutting times on forage quality traits of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) genotypes and evaluations with biplot analysis. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 31(08B), 9178-9190.

    • Schroeder, J. W. (1994). Interpreting forage analysis. Extension Dairy Specialist (NDSU), AS-1080, North Dakota State University.

    • Jeranyama, P., & Garcia, A.D. (2004). Understanding Relative Feed Value (RFV) and Relative Forage Qality (RFQ). Available at: https://openprairie.sdstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgiarticle=1351&context=extension_extra (Accessed: 01 May, 2024).

    • NRC. (2000). National Research Council, “Nutrient requirements of beef cattle” (Seventh rev ed.). Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press.

    • Spears, J. W. (1994). Minerals in forages. In: Fahey, G.C.J., Moser, L.E., Martens, D.R. and Collins, M., Eds., Forage Quality, Evaluation, and Utilization. ASA. CSSA. SSSA. Madison, 281-317 pp.

    • Wacker WEC. (1980). Magnesium and man. Cambridge, Mass., USA: Harvard University Press.

    • Jones, G. B., & Tracy, B. F. (2013). Evaluating seasonal variation in mineral concentration of cool‐season pasture herbage. Grass Forage Science, 70, 94-101.

    • Basaran, U., Mut, H., Onal Aşçı, O., Acar, Z., & Ayan, I. (2011). Variability in forage quality of Turkish grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) landraces. Turkish Journal Field Crops, 16(1), 9-14.

    • Basbag, M., Cacan, E., Sayar, M.S., & Karan, H. (2018). Identification of certain agricultural traits and inter-trait relationships in the Helianthemum ledifolium (L.) MILLER var. lasiocarpum (Willk.) Bornm. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 50(4): 1369-1373.

    • Schroeder, J. W. (1994). Interpreting Forage Analysis. Extension Dairy Specialist (NDSU), AS-1080, North Dakota State University.

    • Kirchgessner, M., & Kellner, R. J. (1981). Estimation of the energetic feed value of green and forage feed through the cellulas method. Landwirtschschaftliche Forschung, 34, 276-281.

    • Gungor, T., Basalan, M., & Aydoğan, I. (2008). The determination of nutrient contents and metabolizable energy levels of some roughages produced in Kirikkale region. Veterinary Journal of Ankara University, 55(2), 111-115.

    • Lacefield, G. D. (1988). Alfalfa hay quality makes the difference. University of Kentucky Department of Agronomy AGR-137, Lexington Kentucky, USA.

    • SAS Institute. (2002). JMP Statistics. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute, Inc. pp.707.

    • Steel, R. G. D., & Torrie, J. H. (1980). Principles and procedures of statistics: A biometrical approach (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Company.

    • VSN International. (2011). GenStat for Windows 14th Edition. VSN International.

    • Yan, W., & Kang, M.S. (2003). GGE Biplot Analysis: A Graphical Tool for Breeders, Geneticists, and Agronomists. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 288 PP.

    • Kamalak, A., Canbolat, O., Gurbuz, Y., Ozkan, C. O., & Kizilsimsek, M. (2005). Determination of nutritive value of wild mustard, sinapsis arvensis harvested at different maturity stages using in situ and in vitro measurements. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 18(9), 1249-1254.

    • Ertekin, I. (2021). Comparison of chemical composition and nutritive values of some clover species. International Journal of Chemistry and Technology, 5(2), 162-166.

    • Amiri, F., & Mohamed Shariff, A. R. B. (2012). Comparison of nutritive values of grasses and legume species using forage quality index. Songklanakarin Journal of Science and Technology, 34(5), 577-586.

    • Sayan, Y., Ozkul, H., Alcicek, A., Coşkuntuna, L., Onen, S. S., & Polat, M. (2004). Comparison of the parameters using for determination of metabolizable energy value of the roughages. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University, 41(2), 167-175.

    • Sayar, M.S. and Han, Y, Yolcu, H. & Yucel, H. (2014). Yield and quality traits of some perennial forages as both sole crops and intercropping mixtures under irrigated conditions. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 19(1), 59-65.

    • Underwood, E.J. (1981). The mineral nutrition of livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough, England.

    • Khan, Z. I., Ashraf, M., & Hussain, A. (2007). Evaluation of macro mineral contents of forages: influence of pasture and seasonal variation. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 20(6), 908 – 913.

    • McDowell, L. R. (1992). Minerals in animal and human nutrition. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

    • Sabah, E., & Çelik, M. Y. (2011). Investigation on availability of marble wastes of İscehisar (Afyon) as additive feeding material of animals. Turkey III. Marble Symposium (Mersem 2001) May 3-5, 2001, Afyon, Symposium Proceedings Book.

    • Basbag, M., Cacan, E., Aydın, A., & Sayar, M. S. (2011). Determination forage quality traits of some vetch species collected from native flora Southeastern Anatolia. International Participation I. Ali Numan Kırac Agricultural Congress and Fair. April 27 to 30, 2011. Eskişehir, Turkey.

    • Sayar, M. S. (2016). Dry matter yield and forage quality of promising bitter vetch (Vicia ervilia (L.) willd. ) lines. VII International Scientific Agriculture Symposium, Jahorina, October 06-09, 2016 Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina Book of Proceedings, pages: 283-291.

    • Marković, J., Štrbanović, R., Cvetković, M., Anđelković, B., & Živković, B. (2009). Effects of growth stage on the mineral concentrations in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) leaf, stem and the whole plant. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry, 25(5-6), 1225-1231.

    • ARC. (1980). The nutrients requirements of ruminant livestock (4th ed.). CAB International.

    • Ensminger, M. E., Oldfield, J. E., & Heinemann, W. W. (1990). Feeds & nutrition (second ed.). The Ensminger Publishing Company.

    • Reid, R. L., & Jung, G. A. (1991). Plant/soil interactions in nutrition of the grazing animal. In Proc. 2nd Grazing Livestock Nutrition Conf., Aug. 2-3, 1991, Steamboat Springs, CO (pp. 48-63).

    • Tajeda, R., Mcdowell, R., Martin, F.G., & Conrad, J.H. (1985). Mineral element analyses of various tropical forages in Guatemala and their relationship to soil concentration. Nutrient Reports International, 32, 313-324.

    • Abbasi, M. K., Tahır, M. M., Shah, A. S., & Batool, F. (2009). Mineral nutrient composition of different ecotypes of white clover and their nutrient credit to soil at Rawalakot Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan Journal Botany, 41(1), 41-51.

    • Ternouth, J.H. (1990). Phosphorus and beef production in northern Australia. 3. Phosphorus in cattle-a review. Tropical Grasses, 24, 159-169.

    • Judson, G. J., & McFarlane, J. D. (1998). Mineral disorders in grazing livestock and the usefulness of soil and plant analysis in the assessment of these disorders. Australian Joumal of Experitmental Agiculture, 3(8), 707-23.

    • Ayan, I., Mut, H., Onal-Asci, O., Basaran, U., & Acar, Z. (2010). Effects of manure application on the chemical composition of rangeland hay. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(13), 1852-1857.

    • Grass Tetany. (2022). In Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Grass_tetany

    • Kemp, A., & Hart, M. L. (1957). Grass tetany in grazing milking cows. Netherlands Journal of Agicultural Sciences, 5, 4-17.

    • Dahlen, C. R., & Stoltenow, C. (2014). Grass tetany. North Dakota State University Ext. Serv. V1703. Available at: https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/livestock/ grass-tetany

    • Fırıncıoglu H. K., Unal, S., Pank, Z. & Beniwal, S. P. S. (2012). Growth and development of narbon vetch (Vicianarbonensis L.) genotypes in the semi-arid central Turkey. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 10(2): 430-442

    • Kilic, H., Tekdal, S., Kendal, E., & Aktaş, H. (2012). Evaluation of advanced durum wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp durum) lines with biplot analysis method based on the augmented experimental design. KSU J. Nat. Sci., 15(4), 19-25.

    • Kendal, E., & Sayar, M. S. (2016). The stability of some spring triticale genotypes using biplot analysis. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 26(3), 754-765.

    • Kendal, E., Sayar, M. S., Tekdal, S., Aktas, H., & Karaman, M. (2016). Assessment of the impact of ecological factors on yield and quality parameters in triticale using GGE biplot and AMMI analysis. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 48(5), 1903-1913.

    • Oral, E., Kendal, E., Kılıc, H., & Doğan, Y. (2019). Evolution barley genotypes in multi-environment trials by AMMI model and GGE biplot analysis. Fresen. Environ. Bull., 28(4A), 3186-3196.

    • Yan, W., & Tinker, N.A. (2006). Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: principles and applications. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 86, 623–645.

    • Ilker, E., Aykut Tonk, F., Caylak, O., Tosun, M., & Ozmen, I. (2009). Assessment of genotype×environment interactions for grain yield in maize hybrids using AMMI and GGE biplot analyses. Turk. J. Field Crop, 14(2), 123-135.

    • Sayar, M. S., & Han, Y. (78). Determination of seed yield and yield components of grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.) lines and evaluations using GGE biplot analysis method. Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi- Journal Agric. Sci., 21(1), 78-92.

    onix_3.0::thothThoth ONIX 3.0
    onix_3.0::project_museProject MUSE ONIX 3.0
    onix_3.0::oapenOAPEN ONIX 3.0
    onix_3.0::jstorJSTOR ONIX 3.0
    onix_3.0::google_booksGoogle Books ONIX 3.0
    onix_3.0::overdriveOverDrive ONIX 3.0
    onix_2.1::ebsco_hostEBSCO Host ONIX 2.1
    csv::thothThoth CSV
    json::thothThoth JSON
    kbart::oclcOCLC KBART
    bibtex::thothThoth BibTeX
    doideposit::crossrefCrossRef DOI deposit
    onix_2.1::proquest_ebraryProQuest Ebrary ONIX 2.1
    marc21record::thothThoth MARC 21 Record
    marc21markup::thothThoth MARC 21 Markup
    marc21xml::thothThoth MARC 21 XML

    Share This Chapter!