Comparison of Cultivated and Wild Relatives of Several Forage Species in Mixed Rangeland Based on Some Nutritional Characteristics

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 91 - 99, 01.04.2022

İbrahim Aydın , Betül Pak Nuh Ocak

https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1062190

Cited By: 1

Öz

Cultivated forage species may have higher nutrients contents (NC) and forage quality indicators (FQI) than their wild relatives. Nine forage samples collected five times from a mixed rangeland and an experimental field during two consecutive years was analysed for ash, crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE) and neutral detergent (NDF) and acid detergent (ADF) fibres. Then, their FQI such as digestible dry matter (DDM), dry matter intake (DMI), metabolizable energy (ME) and relative forage quality (RFQ) were calculated. Data were performed in a linear model with fixed effects (forage plant type [PT] and species [PS]) to NC and FQI, and subjected to hierarchical two-way clustering analysis. Cultivated and wilds relatives varied in CP (12.0-18.9% and 8.8-23.3%), ADF (20.9-33.1% and 39.3-73.5%) and NDF (37.2-61.6% and 26.7-46.1%) contents and ME (8.7-9.7 MJ kg-1 DM and 7.0-9.6 MJ kg-1 DM) and RFQ (98.8-186.7 and 74.6-161.7) values. There were interactions between PT and PS for all NC and FQI, except for CP and EE contents. In general, the CP, EE, ADF, ME and RFQ of cultivars were higher, whereas NDF was lower than those of the wilds. The most notable differences (NDF, ADF and RFQ) between the PT represented the differences in nutritional traits based on the clustering analysis. The cultivated and wilds relatives are comprised of NC and FQI that respond differently under same circumstances.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Forage quality, Grassland, Nutritive value, Nutrient content, Plant breeding

Destekleyen Kurum

TUBİTAK

Proje Numarası

214 O 228

Teşekkür

The authors thank the Scientific and Technological Research Council, TUBITAK (Project no: 214 O 228) for financial support. We want to thank Dr D. Algan and Dr H.S. Abacı for their valuable contribution to laboratory work and statistical analysis, respectively.

Kaynakça

• Algan D, Aydın İ, Ocak N. 2018. Economic analysis of fertilization based on nutritional value of rangeland: A new opinion. Anadolu J Agr Sci, 33: 246-253.
• Algan D, Ocak N, Aydin I. 2019. Productive potential and quality of overgrazed rangelands subjected to overseeding and fertilization. Fresenius Environ Bullet, 28: 5916-5925.
• Aşcı ÖÖ. 2016. Importance of Clover (Trifolium sp.) Genus for Black Sea Region. Tr J Agric-Food Sci Technol, 4: 1-4.
• Amiri F. Shariff ARBM. 2012. Comparison of nutritive values of grasses and legume species using forage quality index. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol, 34: 577-586.
• Arzani H, Ahmadi Z, Azarnivand H, Bihamta MR. 2010. Forage quality of three life forms of rangeland species in semi-arid and semi humid regions in different phenological stages. Desert, 15: 71-74.
• Asaadi AM, Yazdi AK. 2011. Phonological stage effects on forage quality of four forbs species. J Food Agric Environ, 9: 380-384.
• AOAC 2005. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis. 18th edn. Arlington, VA, USA.
• Aydın İ, Ocak N, Pak B, Süzer RP. 2018. Experiments on development of quality index in forage crops based on relative forage quality (RFQ). The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Research Group, AFVRG-Project No- 214O228, Report of Final Results.
• Aydın İ, Pak B, Algan D, Ocak N. 2020. Floristic patterns and qualities of forage species from mountainous rangeland in the Middle Black Sea Region of Turkey. Tr J Agric Food Sci Technol, 8: 733-740.
• Aydin, I, Algan D, Pak B, Ocak N. 2019. Similarity analysis with respect to some quality indicators and quality categories based on relative forage quality ranges of desirable rangeland forages. Fresenius Environ Bullet, 28: 5926-5936.
• Beecher M, Hennessy D, Boland TM, McEvoy M, O'Donovan M. Lewis E. 2015. The variation in morphology of perennial ryegrass cultivars throughout the grazing season and effects on organic matter digestibility. Grass Forage Sci, 70: 19-29.
• Belyea RL, Steevens B. Garner G. Whittier JC, Sewell H. 1993. Using NDF and ADF to balance diets. Agric Publication, G. 3161.
• Bidgoli DR, Ranjbarforoei A. Akhzari D. 2013. Estimation of nutritive values of some range species as indicators for rangelands management. J Rang Sci, 2: 669-676.
• Bumb I, Garnier E, Bastianelli D. Richarte J, Bonnal L, Kazakou E. 2016. Influence of management regime and harvest date on the forage quality of rangelands plants: the importance of dry matter content. AoB Plant, 8: plw045.
• Capstaff NM, and Miller AJ. 2018. Improving the yield and nutritional quality of forage crops. Front Plant Sci, 9: 535.
• Dudek T, Wolański P, Rogut K. 2020. The content of macro-and micro minerals in the sward of different types of semi-natural meadows of temperate climate in SE Poland. Agronomy, 10: 273.
• Elgersma A, Søegaard K, Jensen SK. 2014. Herbage dry-matter production and forage quality of three legumes and four non-leguminous forbs grown in single-species stands. Grass Forage Sci, 69: 705-716.
• Fan Q, Wang Z, Chang S, Peng Z, Wanapat M, Hou F. 2020. Relationship of mineral elements in sheep grazing in the highland agro-ecosystem. Asian Australas J Anim Sci, 2020, 33: 44-52.
• Gulwa U, Mgujulwa, N, Beyene ST. 2017. Effect of grass-legume intercropping on dry matter yield and nutritive value of pastures in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Univers J Agric Res, 5: 355-362.
• Hayes BJ, Cogan NO, Pembleton LW, Goddard ME, Wang J, Spangenberg GC, Forster JW. 2013. Prospects for genomic selection in forage plant species. Plant Breed, 132: 133-143.
• Hutton PG, Kenyon PR, Bedi MK, Kemp PD, Stafford KJ, West DM, Morris ST. 2011. A herb and legume sward mix increased ewe milk production and ewe and lamb live weight gain to weaning compared to a ryegrass dominant sward. Anim Feed Sci Technol, 164: 1-7.
• Kemp PD, Kenyon PR, Morris ST. 2010. The use of legume and herb forage species to create high performance pastures for sheep and cattle grazing systems. R Bras Zootec, 39: 169-174.
• Lee MA. 2018. A global comparison of the nutritive values of forage plants grown in contrasting environments. J Plant Res, 131: 641-654.
• Michaud A, Andueza D, Picard F, Plantureux S, Baumont R. 2012. Seasonal dynamics of biomass production and herbage quality of three grasslands with contrasting functional compositions. Grass Forage Sci 67: 64-76.
• Onoda Y, Wright IJ, Evans JR, Hikosaka K, Kitajima K, Niinemets Ü, Poorter H, Tosens T, Westoby M. 2017. Physiological and structural tradeoffs underlying the leaf economics spectrum. New Phytolog, 214: 1447-1463.
• Pfeiffer VW, Ford BM, Housset J, McCombs A, Blanco‐Pastor JL, Gouin N, Manel S, Bertin A. 2018). Partitioning genetic and species diversity refines our understanding of species-genetic diversity relationships. Ecol Evol, 8: 12351-12364.
• Rohweder DA, Barnes RF, Jorgensen N. 1978. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. J Anim Sci, 47: 747-759.
• Ruckle M, Meier M, Frey L, Eicke S, Kölliker R, Zeeman SC, Studer B. 2017. Diurnal leaf starch content: an orphan trait in forage legumes. Agron, 7:16.
• Schellberg J. Pontes LDS. 2012. Plant functional traits and nutrient gradients on grassland. Grass Forage Sci, 67: 305-319.
• Schröder R. Prasse R. 2013. Do Cultivated varieties of native plants have the ability to outperform their wild relatives? PLoS ONE 8: e71066.
• Tyler G. Olsson T. 2001. Plant uptake of major and minor mineral elements as influenced by soil acidity and liming. Plant and Soil, 230: 307-321.
• Undersander D, Moore JE, Schneider N. 2010. Relative Forage Quality. Madison, WI, USA: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Focus Forage. 12:1-3.
• Uzun F, Dönmez HB, Ocak N. 2015. Genetic potential of wild birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) seeds collected from different geographical locations regarding to nutrient composition and nutritive value. Agroforest Syst, 89: 963-972.
• Uzun F, Ocak N. 2019. Some vegetation characteristics of rangelands subjected to different grazing pressures with single- or multi-species of animals for a long time (A case of Zonguldak province, Turkey). Anadolu J Agr Sci, 34: 360-370.
• Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci, 74: 3583-3597.