Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Yem Bezelyesi Silajlarında Karbonhidrat Kaynağı Olarak Melas Kullanılma Olanakları

Year 2019, Volume: 22 Issue: 1, 122 - 130, 28.02.2019

Önder Canbolat , Kadir Cem Akbay Adem Kamalak

https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.455713
Cited By: 2

Abstract

Bu araştırma, yem bezelyesi (Pisum Sativum L.) silajına suda çözünür
karbonhidrat (ŞÇK)  kaynağı olarak melas
ilavesinin silo fermantasyonu, mikrobiyolojisi, in vitro gaz üretimi ve nispi yem değerleri (NYD) üzerine
etkilerini saptamak için düzenlenmiştir. Bu amaçla yem bezelyesi bakla doldurma
döneminde hasat edilmiştir. Hasat sonrası yaklaşık 1.5-2.0 cm boyutunda parçalanan
taze materyale 0 (kontrol), 15, 30, 45 ve 60 g/kg taze materyal (TM) düzeyinde
melas katılmıştır.

Melas ilavesi yem bezelyesi silajlarının ham
besin maddeleri bileşimini önemli derecede etkilemiştir (P<0.01). Melas
dozuna bağlı olarak silajların ham protein (HP), ham yağ (HY), nötr deterjan
lif (NDF), asit deterjan lif (ADF) ve asit deterjan lignin (ADL) içeriği
azalmış, kuru madde (KM), ham kül (HK) ve suda çözünebilir karbonhidrat (SÇK)
içeriği artmıştır (P<0.01). Melas ilavesi yem bezelyesi silajlarının
pH’sını, asetik asit, bütirik asit ve amonyak azotu (NH3-N)
içeriklerini düşürürken, laktik asit ve propiyonik asit içeriklerini
artırmıştır (P<0.01). Aynı şekilde melas ilavesi  yem bezelyesi silajlarının  in
vitro gaz üretimi, organik madde sindirim derecesini (OMSD) ve metabolik
enerji (ME) içeriklerini de artırmıştır
(P<0.01). Melas ilavesi ayrıca yem bezelyesi silajlarının nispi yem
değeri (NYD) ve kuru madde tüketimi (KMT)’ni olumlu yönde etkilemiştir
(P<0.01).





Araştırma sonucunda, melasın SÇK düzeyi düşük
olan yem bezelyesi silajlarında kullanılması, silajların yem değerini ve
fermantasyon özelliklerini iyileştirmiştir.

Keywords

Yem bezelyesi melas silaj fermantasyonu in vitro gaz üretimi nispi yem değeri

References

  • Adesogan AT, Sollenberger LE, Moore JE 2006. Forage quality. In, Chambliss CG (Ed): Florida forages handbook. Univ of Florida, Cooperative Extension Services.
  • Alçiçek A, Karaayvaz K 2003. Sığır besisinde mısır silajı kullanımı, Animalia, 20(3): 18-76.
  • AOAC 2000. Official Methods of Analysis, 17th Edition, Association of Official Analytical Chemist International, Washington DC.
  • Ay U, Altın M, Şen C 2017. Kırklareli koşullarında yem bezelyesi (Pisum arvense l.)-buğday’ın (Triticum aestivum L.) farklı karışım oranları ve biçim zamanlarının ot verimi ve kalitesine etkisi, Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 14 (3): 80-85.
  • Barker SB, Summerson WH 1941. The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in biological material, Journal of Biological Chemistry, 138: 535-554.
  • Bastida Garcia JL, González Ronquillo M, Dominguez VIA, Romero BJ, Castelán OO 2011. Effect of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) level on intake, digestion, ruminal fermentation and in vitro gas production in sheep fed maintenance diets, Animal Science Journal, 82: 654-662.
  • Blagojević,M, Đorđević N, Bora D, Marković J, Vasić T, Milenković J, Petrović M 2017. Determination of green forage and silage protein degradability of some pea (Pisum sativum L.)+oat (Avena sativa L.) mixtures grown in Serbia, Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 23(4): 415-422.
  • Boğa M 2014. Zeytinyağı yan ürünlerinin ruminant beslemede kullanım olanakları, Türk Tarım-Gıda Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 2(3): 137-143.
  • Bolsen KK, Ashbell G, Weinberg ZG 1996. Silage fermentation and silage additives, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 9(5): 483-493.
  • Borreani G, Cavallarin L, Antoniazzi S, Tabacco E 2006. Effect of the stage of growth, wilting and inoculation in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) silages. I. Herbage composition and silage fermentation, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 86: 1377-1382.
  • Canbolat Ö, Kalkan H, Filya İ 2013. Yonca silajlarında katkı maddesi olarak gladiçya (Gleditsia Triacanthos) kullanılma olanakları, Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2): 291-297.
  • Canbolat Ö, Kalkan H, Karaman Ş, Filya İ. 2010. Üzüm posasının yonca silajlarında karbonhidrat kaynağı olarak kullanılma olanakları. Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(2): 269-276.
  • Dubois M, Giles KA, Hamilton JK, Rebes PA, Smith F 1956. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances, Analytical Chemistry, 28: 350-356.
  • Filya İ, Ashbell G, Weinberg ZG, Hen Y 2001. Hücre duvarını parçalayıcı enzimlerin yonca silajlarının fermantasyon özellikleri, hücre duvarı kapsamı ve aerobik stabiliteleri üzerine etkileri, Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(3): 81-87.
  • Göçmen N, Özaslan Parlar A 2017. Yem bezelyesi ile arpa, yulaf ve tritikale karışım oranlarının belirlenmesi, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1): 119-124.
  • Jian W, Lei C, Xian-jun Y, Gang G, Jun-feng LI, Yun-feng B, Tao S 2017. Effects of molasses on the fermentation characteristics of mixed silage prepared with rice straw, local vegetable by-products and alfalfa in Southeast China, Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 16(3): 664-670.
  • Kaiser AG 2004. Silage additives. Chapter 7 in Successful Silage. Kaiser AG, Piltz JW, Burns HM, Griffiths NW. (eds). Dairy Australia and New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. New South Wales, Australia.
  • Kamalak A, Aydın R, Bal MA, Atalay Aİ 2009. Gladiçya meyvesinin katkı maddesi olarak yonca silajında kullanımı, Tübitak, Proje No: 107 0 401. 1-67.
  • Kocer A, Albayrak S 2012. Determination of forage yield and quality of pea (Pisum Sativum L.) mixtures with oat and barley, Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 17(1): 96-99.
  • Li M, Zi X, Zhou H, Hou G, Cai Y 2014. Effects of sucrose, glucose, molasses and cellulase on fermentation quality and in vitro gas production of king grass silage, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 197: 206-212.
  • Limin Kung JR, Tung RS, Maciorowski KG, Buffum K, Knutsen K. Aimutis WR. 1991. Effects of plant cell-wall-degrading enzymes and lactic acid bacteria on silage fermentation and composition, Journal of Dairy Science, 74(12): 4284-4296.
  • Limin Kung JR, Stokes MR, Lin CJ 2003. Silage additives. D.R. Buxton, R.E, Muck, H, Harrison (Eds.), Silage science and technology (Agronomy Series No. 42), American Society of Agronomy, Madison, 305-360.
  • McDonald P, Henderson AR, Heron SJE 1991. The Biochemistry of Silage. 2nd edn. Chalcombe Publications; Bucks, England.
  • Menke K, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Schneider W 1979. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolisable energy content ofruminant feeding stuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor, Journal of Agricultural Science, 93(1): 217-222.
  • Menke K, Steingass H 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value from chemical composition and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid, Animal Research and Development, 28: 7-55.
  • Moore JE, Undersander DJ 2002. Relative Forage Quality: An alternative to relative feed value and quality index. Proceedings 13th Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, 16-32. 10-11 January, Gainesville.
  • Ni K, Wang F, Zhu B, Yang J, Zhou G, Pan Y, Tao Y, Zhong J 2017. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and molasses additives on the microbial community and fermentation quality of soybean silage, Bioresource Technology, 238: 706-715.
  • Rohweder DA, Barnes RF, Jorgensen N 1978. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science, 47(3): 747-759.
  • Rooke JA, Hatfield RD 2003. Biochemistry of Ensiling. Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty, 1399.
  • SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems) 2004. ‘SAS procedures guide. Release 9.1.’ (SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC)
  • Seale DR, Pahlow G, Spoelstra SF, Lindgren S, Dellaglio F, Lowe JF 1990. Methods for the microbiological analysis of silage, Proceeding of The Eurobac Conference, 147, Uppsala.
  • Tjandraatmadja M, Norton B, Mac W, Rae IC 1994. Ensilage of tropical grasses mixed with legumes and molasses, World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 10(1): 82-87.
  • Tyrolová Y, Výborná A 2011. The effects of wilting and biological and chemical additives on the fermentation process in field pea silage, Czech Journal of Animal Science, 56(10): 427-432.
  • Umana R, Staples CR, Bates DB, Wilcox CJ, Mahanna WC 1991. Effects of a microbial inoculants and (or) sugarcane molasses on the fermentation, aerobic stability, and digestibility of bermudagrass ensiled at two moisture contents, Journal of Animal Science, 69(11): 4588-4601.
  • Van Soest PJ 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd Edition, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 476.
  • Van Soest PJ, Robertson JD, Lewis BA 1991. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition, Journal of Dairy Science, 74(10): 3583-3597.
  • Wamatu J, Alkhtib A, Abate D, Kemal SA, Rischkowsky B 2017. Nutritive value of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) straw as influenced by variety, season, botanical fractions and urea pretreatment, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 225: 54-61.
  • Yavuz M 2005. Bazı ruminant yemlerinin nispi yem değeri ve in vitro sindirim değerlerinin belirlenmesi, Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1): 97-101.
  • Yavuz T 2017. Farklı Biçim Zamanlarının Yem Bezelyesi (Pisum sativum L.) ve Yulaf (Avena sativa L.) Karışımlarında ot verim ve kalitesi üzerine etkileri, Tarla Bitkileri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 26(1): 67-74.

Possibilities of Use of Molasses as Carbohydrate Source in Pea Silages

Year 2019, Volume: 22 Issue: 1, 122 - 130, 28.02.2019

Önder Canbolat , Kadir Cem Akbay Adem Kamalak

https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.455713
Cited By: 2

Abstract

This research was designed to determine the effects
of molasses supplementation as a water-soluble carbohydrate source on silo
fermentation, microbiology, in vitro gas production and relative feed values of
pea (Pisum Sativum L.) silage. For
this purpose, pea plant was harvested during the pod period. After harvesting,
they were crushed to a size of 1.5-2.0 cm and molasses were added at 0
(control), 15, 30, 45 and 60 g/kg fresh material, respectively.



Molasses
supplementation affected (P<0.01) the composition of nutrients of pea
silage. Depending on level of molasses supplementation, crude protein, crude oil,
neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber and acid detergent lignin
contents of pea silage decreased, dry matter, crude ash and water soluble carbohydrate
contents of pea silage increased (P<0.01). Molasses supplementation
decreased pH, acetic acid, butyric acid and ammonia nitrogen contents of pea
silage, whereas lactic acid and propionic acid contents of pea silage increased
(P<0.01). Likewise, the supplementation of molasses increased (P<0.01) in
vitro gas production, organic matter digestibility and metabolizable energy
contents of pea silage.  In addition,
molasses supplementation positively affected (P<0.01) the relative feed value
and dry matter intake of pea silages.  As
a result of the research, the use of molasses in water soluble carbohydrate
(WSC) insufficient pea silage, improved the feed value and fermentation
characteristics of pea silages.

Keywords

Fed peas molasses silage fermentation in vitro gas production relative feed value

References

  • Adesogan AT, Sollenberger LE, Moore JE 2006. Forage quality. In, Chambliss CG (Ed): Florida forages handbook. Univ of Florida, Cooperative Extension Services.
  • Alçiçek A, Karaayvaz K 2003. Sığır besisinde mısır silajı kullanımı, Animalia, 20(3): 18-76.
  • AOAC 2000. Official Methods of Analysis, 17th Edition, Association of Official Analytical Chemist International, Washington DC.
  • Ay U, Altın M, Şen C 2017. Kırklareli koşullarında yem bezelyesi (Pisum arvense l.)-buğday’ın (Triticum aestivum L.) farklı karışım oranları ve biçim zamanlarının ot verimi ve kalitesine etkisi, Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 14 (3): 80-85.
  • Barker SB, Summerson WH 1941. The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in biological material, Journal of Biological Chemistry, 138: 535-554.
  • Bastida Garcia JL, González Ronquillo M, Dominguez VIA, Romero BJ, Castelán OO 2011. Effect of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) level on intake, digestion, ruminal fermentation and in vitro gas production in sheep fed maintenance diets, Animal Science Journal, 82: 654-662.
  • Blagojević,M, Đorđević N, Bora D, Marković J, Vasić T, Milenković J, Petrović M 2017. Determination of green forage and silage protein degradability of some pea (Pisum sativum L.)+oat (Avena sativa L.) mixtures grown in Serbia, Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 23(4): 415-422.
  • Boğa M 2014. Zeytinyağı yan ürünlerinin ruminant beslemede kullanım olanakları, Türk Tarım-Gıda Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, 2(3): 137-143.
  • Bolsen KK, Ashbell G, Weinberg ZG 1996. Silage fermentation and silage additives, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 9(5): 483-493.
  • Borreani G, Cavallarin L, Antoniazzi S, Tabacco E 2006. Effect of the stage of growth, wilting and inoculation in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) silages. I. Herbage composition and silage fermentation, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 86: 1377-1382.
  • Canbolat Ö, Kalkan H, Filya İ 2013. Yonca silajlarında katkı maddesi olarak gladiçya (Gleditsia Triacanthos) kullanılma olanakları, Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2): 291-297.
  • Canbolat Ö, Kalkan H, Karaman Ş, Filya İ. 2010. Üzüm posasının yonca silajlarında karbonhidrat kaynağı olarak kullanılma olanakları. Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(2): 269-276.
  • Dubois M, Giles KA, Hamilton JK, Rebes PA, Smith F 1956. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances, Analytical Chemistry, 28: 350-356.
  • Filya İ, Ashbell G, Weinberg ZG, Hen Y 2001. Hücre duvarını parçalayıcı enzimlerin yonca silajlarının fermantasyon özellikleri, hücre duvarı kapsamı ve aerobik stabiliteleri üzerine etkileri, Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 7(3): 81-87.
  • Göçmen N, Özaslan Parlar A 2017. Yem bezelyesi ile arpa, yulaf ve tritikale karışım oranlarının belirlenmesi, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(1): 119-124.
  • Jian W, Lei C, Xian-jun Y, Gang G, Jun-feng LI, Yun-feng B, Tao S 2017. Effects of molasses on the fermentation characteristics of mixed silage prepared with rice straw, local vegetable by-products and alfalfa in Southeast China, Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 16(3): 664-670.
  • Kaiser AG 2004. Silage additives. Chapter 7 in Successful Silage. Kaiser AG, Piltz JW, Burns HM, Griffiths NW. (eds). Dairy Australia and New South Wales Department of Primary Industries. New South Wales, Australia.
  • Kamalak A, Aydın R, Bal MA, Atalay Aİ 2009. Gladiçya meyvesinin katkı maddesi olarak yonca silajında kullanımı, Tübitak, Proje No: 107 0 401. 1-67.
  • Kocer A, Albayrak S 2012. Determination of forage yield and quality of pea (Pisum Sativum L.) mixtures with oat and barley, Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 17(1): 96-99.
  • Li M, Zi X, Zhou H, Hou G, Cai Y 2014. Effects of sucrose, glucose, molasses and cellulase on fermentation quality and in vitro gas production of king grass silage, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 197: 206-212.
  • Limin Kung JR, Tung RS, Maciorowski KG, Buffum K, Knutsen K. Aimutis WR. 1991. Effects of plant cell-wall-degrading enzymes and lactic acid bacteria on silage fermentation and composition, Journal of Dairy Science, 74(12): 4284-4296.
  • Limin Kung JR, Stokes MR, Lin CJ 2003. Silage additives. D.R. Buxton, R.E, Muck, H, Harrison (Eds.), Silage science and technology (Agronomy Series No. 42), American Society of Agronomy, Madison, 305-360.
  • McDonald P, Henderson AR, Heron SJE 1991. The Biochemistry of Silage. 2nd edn. Chalcombe Publications; Bucks, England.
  • Menke K, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Schneider W 1979. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolisable energy content ofruminant feeding stuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor, Journal of Agricultural Science, 93(1): 217-222.
  • Menke K, Steingass H 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value from chemical composition and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid, Animal Research and Development, 28: 7-55.
  • Moore JE, Undersander DJ 2002. Relative Forage Quality: An alternative to relative feed value and quality index. Proceedings 13th Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, 16-32. 10-11 January, Gainesville.
  • Ni K, Wang F, Zhu B, Yang J, Zhou G, Pan Y, Tao Y, Zhong J 2017. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and molasses additives on the microbial community and fermentation quality of soybean silage, Bioresource Technology, 238: 706-715.
  • Rohweder DA, Barnes RF, Jorgensen N 1978. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science, 47(3): 747-759.
  • Rooke JA, Hatfield RD 2003. Biochemistry of Ensiling. Publications from USDA-ARS / UNL Faculty, 1399.
  • SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems) 2004. ‘SAS procedures guide. Release 9.1.’ (SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC)
  • Seale DR, Pahlow G, Spoelstra SF, Lindgren S, Dellaglio F, Lowe JF 1990. Methods for the microbiological analysis of silage, Proceeding of The Eurobac Conference, 147, Uppsala.
  • Tjandraatmadja M, Norton B, Mac W, Rae IC 1994. Ensilage of tropical grasses mixed with legumes and molasses, World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 10(1): 82-87.
  • Tyrolová Y, Výborná A 2011. The effects of wilting and biological and chemical additives on the fermentation process in field pea silage, Czech Journal of Animal Science, 56(10): 427-432.
  • Umana R, Staples CR, Bates DB, Wilcox CJ, Mahanna WC 1991. Effects of a microbial inoculants and (or) sugarcane molasses on the fermentation, aerobic stability, and digestibility of bermudagrass ensiled at two moisture contents, Journal of Animal Science, 69(11): 4588-4601.
  • Van Soest PJ 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant, 2nd Edition, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 476.
  • Van Soest PJ, Robertson JD, Lewis BA 1991. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition, Journal of Dairy Science, 74(10): 3583-3597.
  • Wamatu J, Alkhtib A, Abate D, Kemal SA, Rischkowsky B 2017. Nutritive value of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) straw as influenced by variety, season, botanical fractions and urea pretreatment, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 225: 54-61.
  • Yavuz M 2005. Bazı ruminant yemlerinin nispi yem değeri ve in vitro sindirim değerlerinin belirlenmesi, Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1): 97-101.
  • Yavuz T 2017. Farklı Biçim Zamanlarının Yem Bezelyesi (Pisum sativum L.) ve Yulaf (Avena sativa L.) Karışımlarında ot verim ve kalitesi üzerine etkileri, Tarla Bitkileri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi, 26(1): 67-74.
There are 39 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section RESEARCH ARTICLE
Authors

Önder Canbolat 0000-0001-7139-1334

Kadir Cem Akbay 0000-0003-3903-8690

Adem Kamalak 0000-0003-0967-4821

Publication Date February 28, 2019
Submission Date August 29, 2018
Acceptance Date October 1, 2018
Published in Issue Year 2019Volume: 22 Issue: 1

Cite

APA Canbolat, Ö., Akbay, K. C., & Kamalak, A. (2019). Yem Bezelyesi Silajlarında Karbonhidrat Kaynağı Olarak Melas Kullanılma Olanakları. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım Ve Doğa Dergisi, 22(1), 122-130. https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.455713

Cited By

Farklı Biçim Devresinin ve Arpa Kırması Uygulamalarının Tek Yıllık Yem Bitkileri Karışımının Silaj Özelliklerine Etkileri
Türkiye Tarımsal Araştırmalar Dergisi
https://doi.org/10.19159/tutad.958720
Yeni Laktik Asit Bakteri İzolatlarının Farklı Kuru Madde İçeriğine Sahip Yonca (Medicago sativa L.) Silajında Mikrobiyel İnokulant Olarak Kullanılma Olanakları*
Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım ve Doğa Dergisi
Mustafa KIZILSIMSEK
https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.691853
 Download Cover Image


International Peer Reviewed Journal
Free submission and publication
Published 6 times a year



88x31.png


KSU Journal of Agriculture and Nature

e-ISSN: 2619-9149