Evaluation of adaptation, herbage yield, and forage quality of selected barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) varieties under mediterranean ecological conditions

• Autorzy: Sertpolat Muhittin , Uslu Omer Suha

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.14597/infraeco.2025.010

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This study was conducted during the 2020-2021 growing season at the experimental field of the Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University. The objective was to evaluate the adaptation, herbage yield, and forage quality of selected barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) varieties under the ecological conditions of Kahramanmaraş province. Ten barley cultivars (Compagne, Ibaona, Arconda, Yalın, Çetin 2000, Asil, Aydan Hanım, Bozlak, Misket, and Akar) were used in the experiment. The experiment was arranged in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The results revealed no statistically significant differences among the varieties for the traits evaluated, except for crude ash content. Green herbage yield ranged from 1046 to 1506 kg/da, while dry herbage yield varied between 334 and 484 kg/da. Dry matter content ranged from 29.66% to 33.30%, crude protein content from 11.9% to 14.0%, and crude ash content from 6.48% to 8.67%. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) ratios ranged from 62.30% to 68.17% and 32.05% to 36.58%, respectively. Digestible dry matter (DDM) values ranged from 59.58% to 64.42%, dry matter intake (DMI) from 1.76% to 1.93%, and relative feed value (RFV) from 83.28 to 95.34. Among the cultivars, Compagne had the highest green herbage yield, Yalın had the highest crude protein content, and Asil showed the highest relative feed value.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

barley; NDF; ADF; herbage yield; forage quality; Mediterranean ecology

• Wydawca: Stowarzyszenie Infrastruktura i Ekologia Terenów Wiejskich
• Czasopismo: Infrastruktura i Ekologia Terenów Wiejskich
• Rocznik: 2025
• Tom: Vol. 20, No. 1.1
• Strony: 143--153
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 32 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Sertpolat Muhittin

• Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University 46050 Türkiye

• https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1518-4589

autor

Uslu Omer Suha

• Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University 46050 Türkiye

• https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0858-0305

Bibliografia

• 1. Anonymous. (2021a). Soil Analysis Report. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University, Faculty of Agriculture, Laboratory Records.
• 2. Anonymous. (2021b). Meteorological Data. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, General Directorate of Meteorology, Kahramanmaraş Provincial Directorate.
• 3. Anonymous. (2021c). Buğdaygil Yem Bitkileri Tarımsal Değerleri Ölçme Teknik Talimatı. https://www.tarimorman.gov.tr/BUGEM/TTSM/Belgeler/Duyuru%20Belgeleri/2019/%C3%A7ay%C4%B1r%20mera/bu%C4%9Fdaygil%20yem%20bitkileri.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 19.05.2021.
• 4. AOAC. (1990). Official method of analysis, Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 15th Edition, Washington DC, USA.
• 5. Arthington, J.D., Ranches, J. (2021). Trace mineral nutrition of grazing beef cattle. Animals, 11(10), 2767.
• 6. Ball, D.M., Hovelend, C.S, Lacefield, G.D. (1996). Forage Quality in Southern Forages. Potash and Phosphate Institute. Norcross, Georgia, p. 124-132.
• 7. Ben Salem, H., Smith, T. (2008). Feeding strategies to improve small ruminant production in dry environments. Small Ruminant Research, 77(2-3), 174-194.
• 8. Capstaff, N.M., Miller, A.J. (2018). Improving the yield and nutritional quality of forage crops. Frontiers in Plant Science, 9, 535.
• 9. Ceccarelli, S. (2015). Efficiency of plant breeding. Crop Science, 55(1), 87-97.
• 10. Henning, J.C., Lacefield, G.D., Amaral-Philips, D. (2000). Interpreting forage quality reports. Cooperative Extension Service. ID-101.
• 11. Kaçar, B., (1972). Chemical Analyses of Plants and Soil: II. Plant Analyses. Ankara University Press, Ankara, 646 s.
• 12. Karabulut, D., Çaçan, E. (2018). Comparison of some cereal species planted at different times in terms of forage yield and quality. Alınteri Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 33(2): 125-131. doi: 10.28955/alinterizbd.360031.
• 13. Kutlu, H.R., (2008). Feed Evaluation and Analysis Methods. Çukurova University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Animal Science, Lecture Notes, Adana, 65 s.
• 14. Linn, J.G., Martin, N.P. (2017). Forage quality tests and interpretation. University of Minnesota Extension Service. University of Minnesota Agriculture. chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/8ac6e7dc-4bb0-4d5f-881f8ff20d04a5e3/content.
• 15. Mahmud, I., Ullah, M., Ali, M. (2020). Nutritional quality evaluation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars for ruminant feeding. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 30(1), 65-72.
• 16. Marijanušić, K., Manojlović, M., Bogdanović, D., Čabilovski, R., Lombnaes, P. (2017). Mineral composition of forage crops in respect to dairy cow nutrition. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 23(2), 204-212. Retrieved from https://www.agrojournal.org/23/02- 05.pdf.
• 17. Marschner, P. (2012). Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. Academic Press.
• 18. McDonald, P., Edwards, R.A., Greenhalgh, J.F.D., Morgan, C.A., Sinclair, L.A., Wilkinson, R.G. (2011). Animal Nutrition (7th ed.). Pearson.
• 19. Mertens, D.R. (2017). Creating a system for meeting the fiber requirements of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 100(5), 3851-3863.
• 20. Minson, D.J. (2018). Forage in Ruminant Nutrition. Academic Press.
• 21. Moustafa, E.S.A., El-Sobky, E.S.E.A., Farag, H.I.A., Yasin, M.A.T., Attia, A., Rady, M.O.A., Awad, M.F., Mansour, E. (2021). Sowing date and genotype influence on yield and quality of dual-purpose barley in a salt-affected arid region. Agronomy, 11(4), 717.
• 22. Nair, J., Christensen, D., Yu, P., Beattie, A., McAllister, T.A., Damiran, D., Preston, N., Fuhr, L., McKinnon, J. (2016). A nutritional evaluation of common barley varieties grown for silage by beef and dairy producers in Western Canada. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 96(3), 360-367.
• 23. Naser, M., Badran, M., Abouzied, H., Ali, H., Elbasyoni, I. (2018). Phenotypic and Physiological Evaluation of Two and Six Rows Barley under Different Environmental Conditions. Plants, 7(2), 39.
• 24. NRC (National Research Council). (2021). Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle (8th ed.). National Academies Press.
• 25. Pswarayi, A., van Eeuwijk, F., Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., Comadran, J., Russel, J., Francia, E., Pecchioni, N., Li Destri Nicosia, O., Akar, T., Al-Yassin, A., Benbelkacem, A., Choumane, W., Karrou, M., Ouabbou, H., Bort, J. (2008). Barley adaptation and improvement in the Mediterranean basin. Plant Breeding, 124(6), 554-560.
• 26. Sadeghpour, A., Jahanzad, E., Esmaeili, A., Hosseini, M.B., Hashemi, M. (2013). Forage yield, quality and economic benefit of intercropped barley and annual medic in semi-arid conditions: Additive series. Field Crops Research, 148, 43-48.
• 27. SAS. (2013). SAS V.9.3 User Guide, Copyright © 2013, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
• 28. Sheaffer, C.C., Peterson, M.A., Mccalin, M., Volene, J.J. Cherney, J.H. (1995). Acid detergent fiber, neutral detergent fiber concentration and relative feed value. In: North American Alfalfa Improvement Conference, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
• 29. Tremblay, M. (1998). A tool for determining alfalfa quality. Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food. Saskatchewan.
• 30. Underwood, E.J., Suttle, N.F. (1999). The mineral nutrition of livestock. CABI.
• 31. Van Soest, P.J. (1994). Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. Cornell University Press.
• 32. Wilkinson, J.M. (2011). Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal, 5(7), 1014-1022.