Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Year 2020, Volume: 25 Issue: 2, 168 - 173, 07.12.2020

Sedat Severoğlu Mehmet Gullap

https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.735570
Cited By: 2

Abstract

References

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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, 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.
  • Enright, N.J., B.P. Miller and R. Akhter. 2005. Desert vegetation and vegetation-environment relationships in Kirthar National Park, Sindh, Pakistan. J. Arid Environ, Vol. 61, pp 397-418
  • Gulcur, F. 1974. Physical and Chemical Soil Analysis Methods. IU Faculty of Forestry. Arrow. No. 1970. Forestry Faculty Publ. No. 201, Istanbul, XXIV, 225 p.
  • Gullap, M.K. 2010. Effect of Different Grazing System Applications on Kargapazarı Mountain Pasture Vegetation. Ataturk University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Field Crops, Erzurum.
  • Gursoy, E. and M. Macit 2017. Comparison of some forage grasses that grow naturally in the meadows and pastures of Erzurum in terms of relative feed values. Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Agricultural Sciences 27,3, 309-317.
  • Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper and C.H. Herbel. 2004. Range Management: Principles and Practicies. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 607 p.
  • Ispirli, K., F. Alay, F. Uzun and N. Cankaya. 2016. The effect of grazing and topography on vegetation cover and structure in natural pastures. Turkey Agricultural Research Journal, 3:14-22.
  • Kacar, B. 1972. Chemical Analysis of Plants and Soil: II. Plant Analysis. Ankara Univ. Faculty of Agriculture Publ. No:453, Ankara, 464 p.
  • Kamstra, L.D., D.L. Schentzel, J.K. Lewis and R.L. Elderkin. 1968. Maturity studies with western wheatgrass. J. Range Manage., 21: 235-239.
  • Karan, H. and M. Basbag. 2018. Comparison of Forage Quality in Protected and Grazing Pastures. Firat Univ. Eng. Sci. Journal, 30(1), 125-132.
  • Koc, A. 1995. Effects of Some of Topography and Soil Moisture and Temperature on Pasture Vegetation Properties. Ataturk University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Field Crops, Erzurum.
  • Koc, A., A. Gokkus, A. Bakoglu, A. Ozaslan. 2000. Seasonal change of some chemical properties of forages on Palandoken Rangelands in grazing season, International Animal Nutrition Congress 2000, Isparta, 471-478.
  • Koc, A. 2001. Autumn and spring drought periods affect vegetation on the high elevation rangelands of Turkey. J. Range Manage., 54: 622-627.
  • Koc, A., M. Sürmen and K. Kacan 2005. Current situation of pastures in Erzincan plain. Turkey VI. Field Crops Congress, 5-9 Eylül 2005, Antalya, Vol., II, pp., 847-850.
  • Koc, A., M. Tan, M.K. Gullap and Gul, I. 2007. Change in agricultural indicators of Eastern Anatolia Region in recent years. Turkey VII. Field Crops Congress, 25-27 June 2007, Erzurum.
  • Lacefield, G.J., C. Henning, M. Collins and L. Swetnam. 1999. Quality hay production. Cooperative Extension Service, Univ. Kentucky, Coll. Agric., Agr., 62, 3 (77): 1-4.
  • Lyons R,K, and R.V. Machen. 2015. Livestock grazing distribution: Considerations and management. Texas Cooperative Extension http://texaserc.tamu.edu /cnrit.tamu.edu/ganlab/filecabinet/12. (Accessed May 09, 2020)
  • Miao, F., Z. Guo, R. Xue and Y. Shen. 2015. Effects of grazing and precipitation on herbage biomass nutritive value and yak performance in an Alpine meadow on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Plos One, 10(6), 1-15.
  • Molinar, F., D. Galt and J. Holechek. 2001. Grazing management practices can be key to accumulating mulch–vegetation residue–which is beneficial for decreasing soil erosion, improving water infiltration and increasing forage production on rangelands. Rangelands, 23 (4) 3-7.
  • Olsen, S.R. and L.E. Summer. 1982. Phosphorus Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. (2nd Edition). Agronomy No: 9: 403427, Madison, Wisconsin USA, 1159.
  • Pieper, R.D., R.J. Kelsey and A.B. Nelson. 1974. Nutritive quality of nitrogen fertilized and unfertilized blue grama. J. Range Manage., 27: 470-472
  • Rayburn, E.D. 2004. Forage Management, Understanding Forage Analysis Important to Livestock Producers. West Virginia Univ. Extension Service. http://www.wvu.edu/agexten/forglvst/analysis.pdf (Accessed October 21, 2015)
  • Rohweder, D.A, R.F. Barnes and N. Jorgensen. 1978. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science 47, 747-759.
  • Saglam, M.T. 1994. Chemical Analysis Methods of Soil and Water. Trakya Uni., Agriculture Faculty Publishing No; 189, Tekirdag.
  • Sen, C., S. Gunay, C. Kurt and Y.T. Tuna. 2017. Effects of some breeding methods on vegetation in protected and grazed pastures of different slope degrees. KSU Journal of Natural Sciences, 20 (private issue),52-59.
  • Severoglu, S. 2018. Changes of Vegetation along Slope Gradient on The Rangelands. Ataturk University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Master Thesis, Department of Field Crops, Erzurum.
  • Skomik, S., M. Vidrih and M. Kaligaric. 2010. The effect of grazing pressure on species richness, composition and productivity in North Adriatic Karst pasture. Palnt Biosystem, 144: 355-364.
  • Sleugh, B., K.J. Moore, J.R. George and E.C. Brummer. 2000. Binary legume-grass mixtures improve forage yield, quality and seasonal. distribution. Argon. J., 92:24-29.
  • Surmen, M. and E. Kara 2018. Yield and quality characteristics of pasture vegetations at different slopes in the ecological conditions of Aydin province. Derim, 35(1): 67-72.
  • SPSS Inc (1999). SPSS for Windows: Base 10.0 Applications Guide. Chicago, Illinois.
  • Taiz, L. and E. Zieger. 2008. Plant physiology. Translation editor Ismail Turkan. Palme Publishing, Ankara, 689.
  • Tamartash, R., H. Jalilvand and M.R. Tatian. 2007. Effect of grazing on chemical soil properties and vegetation cover. Pakistan J. Biolog. Sci., 10: 4391-4398.
  • TUIK, 2018. Turkey Statistical Institute, Crop Production Statistics.https: // biruni. tuik. gov. tr/ bitkisel app/ bitkisel. zul/.
  • Van Soest, P.J., J.B. Robertson and B.A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides concerning animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3583-3597.
  • White, M.R., R.D. Pieper, G.M. Donart and L.W. Trifaro. 1991. Vegetal response to the short duration and continuous grazing in southcentral New Mexico J. Range Manage., 44: 399-403.

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

Year 2020, Volume: 25 Issue: 2, 168 - 173, 07.12.2020

Sedat Severoğlu Mehmet Gullap

https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.735570
Cited By: 2

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.

Keywords

Favorable Forage Yield Forage quality Rangelands Slope

References

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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, 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.
  • Enright, N.J., B.P. Miller and R. Akhter. 2005. Desert vegetation and vegetation-environment relationships in Kirthar National Park, Sindh, Pakistan. J. Arid Environ, Vol. 61, pp 397-418
  • Gulcur, F. 1974. Physical and Chemical Soil Analysis Methods. IU Faculty of Forestry. Arrow. No. 1970. Forestry Faculty Publ. No. 201, Istanbul, XXIV, 225 p.
  • Gullap, M.K. 2010. Effect of Different Grazing System Applications on Kargapazarı Mountain Pasture Vegetation. Ataturk University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Field Crops, Erzurum.
  • Gursoy, E. and M. Macit 2017. Comparison of some forage grasses that grow naturally in the meadows and pastures of Erzurum in terms of relative feed values. Yuzuncu Yil University Journal of Agricultural Sciences 27,3, 309-317.
  • Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper and C.H. Herbel. 2004. Range Management: Principles and Practicies. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. 607 p.
  • Ispirli, K., F. Alay, F. Uzun and N. Cankaya. 2016. The effect of grazing and topography on vegetation cover and structure in natural pastures. Turkey Agricultural Research Journal, 3:14-22.
  • Kacar, B. 1972. Chemical Analysis of Plants and Soil: II. Plant Analysis. Ankara Univ. Faculty of Agriculture Publ. No:453, Ankara, 464 p.
  • Kamstra, L.D., D.L. Schentzel, J.K. Lewis and R.L. Elderkin. 1968. Maturity studies with western wheatgrass. J. Range Manage., 21: 235-239.
  • Karan, H. and M. Basbag. 2018. Comparison of Forage Quality in Protected and Grazing Pastures. Firat Univ. Eng. Sci. Journal, 30(1), 125-132.
  • Koc, A. 1995. Effects of Some of Topography and Soil Moisture and Temperature on Pasture Vegetation Properties. Ataturk University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Field Crops, Erzurum.
  • Koc, A., A. Gokkus, A. Bakoglu, A. Ozaslan. 2000. Seasonal change of some chemical properties of forages on Palandoken Rangelands in grazing season, International Animal Nutrition Congress 2000, Isparta, 471-478.
  • Koc, A. 2001. Autumn and spring drought periods affect vegetation on the high elevation rangelands of Turkey. J. Range Manage., 54: 622-627.
  • Koc, A., M. Sürmen and K. Kacan 2005. Current situation of pastures in Erzincan plain. Turkey VI. Field Crops Congress, 5-9 Eylül 2005, Antalya, Vol., II, pp., 847-850.
  • Koc, A., M. Tan, M.K. Gullap and Gul, I. 2007. Change in agricultural indicators of Eastern Anatolia Region in recent years. Turkey VII. Field Crops Congress, 25-27 June 2007, Erzurum.
  • Lacefield, G.J., C. Henning, M. Collins and L. Swetnam. 1999. Quality hay production. Cooperative Extension Service, Univ. Kentucky, Coll. Agric., Agr., 62, 3 (77): 1-4.
  • Lyons R,K, and R.V. Machen. 2015. Livestock grazing distribution: Considerations and management. Texas Cooperative Extension http://texaserc.tamu.edu /cnrit.tamu.edu/ganlab/filecabinet/12. (Accessed May 09, 2020)
  • Miao, F., Z. Guo, R. Xue and Y. Shen. 2015. Effects of grazing and precipitation on herbage biomass nutritive value and yak performance in an Alpine meadow on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Plos One, 10(6), 1-15.
  • Molinar, F., D. Galt and J. Holechek. 2001. Grazing management practices can be key to accumulating mulch–vegetation residue–which is beneficial for decreasing soil erosion, improving water infiltration and increasing forage production on rangelands. Rangelands, 23 (4) 3-7.
  • Olsen, S.R. and L.E. Summer. 1982. Phosphorus Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. (2nd Edition). Agronomy No: 9: 403427, Madison, Wisconsin USA, 1159.
  • Pieper, R.D., R.J. Kelsey and A.B. Nelson. 1974. Nutritive quality of nitrogen fertilized and unfertilized blue grama. J. Range Manage., 27: 470-472
  • Rayburn, E.D. 2004. Forage Management, Understanding Forage Analysis Important to Livestock Producers. West Virginia Univ. Extension Service. http://www.wvu.edu/agexten/forglvst/analysis.pdf (Accessed October 21, 2015)
  • Rohweder, D.A, R.F. Barnes and N. Jorgensen. 1978. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science 47, 747-759.
  • Saglam, M.T. 1994. Chemical Analysis Methods of Soil and Water. Trakya Uni., Agriculture Faculty Publishing No; 189, Tekirdag.
  • Sen, C., S. Gunay, C. Kurt and Y.T. Tuna. 2017. Effects of some breeding methods on vegetation in protected and grazed pastures of different slope degrees. KSU Journal of Natural Sciences, 20 (private issue),52-59.
  • Severoglu, S. 2018. Changes of Vegetation along Slope Gradient on The Rangelands. Ataturk University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Master Thesis, Department of Field Crops, Erzurum.
  • Skomik, S., M. Vidrih and M. Kaligaric. 2010. The effect of grazing pressure on species richness, composition and productivity in North Adriatic Karst pasture. Palnt Biosystem, 144: 355-364.
  • Sleugh, B., K.J. Moore, J.R. George and E.C. Brummer. 2000. Binary legume-grass mixtures improve forage yield, quality and seasonal. distribution. Argon. J., 92:24-29.
  • Surmen, M. and E. Kara 2018. Yield and quality characteristics of pasture vegetations at different slopes in the ecological conditions of Aydin province. Derim, 35(1): 67-72.
  • SPSS Inc (1999). SPSS for Windows: Base 10.0 Applications Guide. Chicago, Illinois.
  • Taiz, L. and E. Zieger. 2008. Plant physiology. Translation editor Ismail Turkan. Palme Publishing, Ankara, 689.
  • Tamartash, R., H. Jalilvand and M.R. Tatian. 2007. Effect of grazing on chemical soil properties and vegetation cover. Pakistan J. Biolog. Sci., 10: 4391-4398.
  • TUIK, 2018. Turkey Statistical Institute, Crop Production Statistics.https: // biruni. tuik. gov. tr/ bitkisel app/ bitkisel. zul/.
  • Van Soest, P.J., J.B. Robertson and B.A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides concerning animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3583-3597.
  • White, M.R., R.D. Pieper, G.M. Donart and L.W. Trifaro. 1991. Vegetal response to the short duration and continuous grazing in southcentral New Mexico J. Range Manage., 44: 399-403.
There are 45 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Articles
Authors

Sedat Severoğlu 0000-0002-9164-6557

Mehmet Gullap

Publication Date December 7, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020 Volume: 25 Issue: 2

Cite

APA Severoğlu, S., & Gullap, M. (2020). EFFECTS OF ANİMAL GRAZİNG ON FAVORABLE FORAGE YİELD AND QUALİTY OF RANGELANDS WİTH DİFFERENT SLOPE. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops, 25(2), 168-173. https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.735570
AMA Severoğlu S, Gullap M. EFFECTS OF ANİMAL GRAZİNG ON FAVORABLE FORAGE YİELD AND QUALİTY OF RANGELANDS WİTH DİFFERENT SLOPE. TJFC. December 2020;25(2):168-173. doi:10.17557/tjfc.735570
Chicago Severoğlu, Sedat, and Mehmet Gullap. “EFFECTS OF ANİMAL GRAZİNG ON FAVORABLE FORAGE YİELD AND QUALİTY OF RANGELANDS WİTH DİFFERENT SLOPE”. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops 25, no. 2 (December 2020): 168-73. https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.735570.
EndNote Severoğlu S, Gullap M (December 1, 2020) EFFECTS OF ANİMAL GRAZİNG ON FAVORABLE FORAGE YİELD AND QUALİTY OF RANGELANDS WİTH DİFFERENT SLOPE. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops 25 2 168–173.
IEEE S. Severoğlu and M. Gullap, “EFFECTS OF ANİMAL GRAZİNG ON FAVORABLE FORAGE YİELD AND QUALİTY OF RANGELANDS WİTH DİFFERENT SLOPE”, TJFC, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 168–173, 2020, doi: 10.17557/tjfc.735570.
ISNAD Severoğlu, Sedat - Gullap, Mehmet. “EFFECTS OF ANİMAL GRAZİNG ON FAVORABLE FORAGE YİELD AND QUALİTY OF RANGELANDS WİTH DİFFERENT SLOPE”. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops 25/2 (December 2020), 168-173. https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.735570.
JAMA Severoğlu S, Gullap M. EFFECTS OF ANİMAL GRAZİNG ON FAVORABLE FORAGE YİELD AND QUALİTY OF RANGELANDS WİTH DİFFERENT SLOPE. TJFC. 2020;25:168–173.
MLA Severoğlu, Sedat and Mehmet Gullap. “EFFECTS OF ANİMAL GRAZİNG ON FAVORABLE FORAGE YİELD AND QUALİTY OF RANGELANDS WİTH DİFFERENT SLOPE”. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops, vol. 25, no. 2, 2020, pp. 168-73, doi:10.17557/tjfc.735570.
Vancouver Severoğlu S, Gullap M. EFFECTS OF ANİMAL GRAZİNG ON FAVORABLE FORAGE YİELD AND QUALİTY OF RANGELANDS WİTH DİFFERENT SLOPE. TJFC. 2020;25(2):168-73.

Cited By

The role of slope as an environmental variable in plant biodiversity change in Aegean rangelands by SHE analysis: The case of Çakmar rangeland
Bilge International Journal of Science and Technology Research
https://doi.org/10.30516/bilgesci.1370407
The Current Situation, Problems, and Suggestions for Forage Crops in Muş Province
Turkish Journal of Range and Forage Science
Ayşe Nida KURT
https://doi.org/10.51801/turkjrfs.942253
 Download Cover Image

Turkish Journal of Field Crops is published by the Society of Field Crops Science and issued twice a year.
Owner : Prof. Dr. Behçet KIR
Ege University, Faculty of Agriculture,Department of Field Crops
Editor in Chief : Prof. Dr. Emre ILKER
Address : 848 sok. 2. Beyler İşhanı No:72, Kat:3 D.313 35000 Konak-Izmir, TURKEY
Email :  turkishjournaloffieldcrops@gmail.com contact@field-crops.org
Tel : +90 232 3112679
Tel/Fax : : +90 232 3432474