Yield and Quality Features of Buckwheat-Soybean Mixtures in Organic Agricultural Conditions

Bu çalışma Aydın ekolojik koşullarında yetiştirilebilecek alternatif kaliteli kaba yem kaynaklarını belirlemek amacıyla 2014 yılı yaz üretim sezonunda yürütülmüştür. Araştırmada karabuğday ve soya yalın ve 3 farklı karışım (%25 Karabuğday - %75 Soya, %50 Karabuğday - %50 Soya, %75 Karabuğday - %25 Soya,) ve 2 farklı hasat zamanının (%50-%100 çiçeklenme/karabuğday) verim ve kalite özelliklerine etkileri incelenmiştir. Ölçüm sonuçlarına göre en yüksek yaş ot verimi ortalaması ikinci hasatta %75 Karabuğday - %25 Soya uygulamasında (3100 kg/da) elde edilmiştir. Kuru ot verim ortalamaları incelendiğinde yaş ot verimine benzer sonuçlar ADF ve NDF incelendiğinde en yüksek değerler ikinci hasatlarda, ham protein oranları incelendiğinde ikinci hasatlarda düşüşler görülmüş, en yüksek değer ise ilk hasatta %100Soya uygulamasında (%21,08) tespit edilmiştir. Sindirilebilir Kuru Madde (SKM) ve Nispi Yem Değeri (NYD) incelendiğinde en yüksek değerler ilk hasatta %100Soya uygulamalarında tespit edilmiş olup karışım uygulamaları incelendiğinde en yüksek değerlerin %75 Karabuğday - %25 Soya uygulamasından elde edildiği gözlenmiştir. Çalışmanın sonucunda ikinci hasatta elde edilen verimlerin daha yüksek ancak yem kalitesinde düşüşler tespit edilmiştir. Karışımlar incelendiğinde ise en iyi uygulamanın %75 Karabuğday + %25 Soya olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Vejetasyon süresinin kısa olması ve kalite özellikleriyle gündemde olan karabuğdayın, kalite özellikleriyle ön planda olan soya ile yaptığı karışımlar bu çalışmada incelenmiştir. Kısa sürede ve ara dönemlerde ekstra kaliteli kaba yem kaynağı elde etmeye yönelik olarak bu karışımların önemli olabileceği tespit edilmiştir.

Organik Tarım Koşullarında Karabuğday-Soya Karışımlarının Verim ve Kalite Özellikleri

This study was carried out during the summer of 2014 to determine alternative quality forage sources that could be grown in the Aydın ecological conditions. In the study, effects of 3 different mixtures and 2 pure species (100% Buckwheat, 25% Buckwheat -75% Soybean, 50% Buckwheat -5 0% Soybean, 75% Buckwheat - 25% Soybean, 100% Soybean) and 2 different harvesting times (50%-100% flowering/buckwheat) on yield and quality characteristics were investigated. According to measurements, the highest average herbage yield was obtained from 75% Buckwheat-25% Soybean application (3100 kg/da) at 2nd harvest time. When the average of hay yield was examined, the results were similar to herbage yield. When ADF and NDF were examined, the highest values were seen at the 2nd harvest. When the crude protein ratios were examined, it was found that they decreased at the 2nd harvesting time and the highest value was determined at 100% soybean application at the 1st harvesting time (21.08%). When Digestible Dry Matter (DDM) and Relative Feed Value (RFV) were examined, the highest values were determined in 100%Soybean applications at first harvest time and when the mixture applications were examined, the highest values were determined to be 75% Buckwheat - 25% Soybean application. As a result of the study, it was determined that the yields obtained at the 2nd harvest time were higher but the forage quality decreased. When the mixtures were examined, it was determined that the mixture having the highest roughage value was 75% buckwheat + 25% soybean application. In this study, the buckwheat which have short vegetation and good quality and the soybean, which is infront of with high quality, mixtures were examined. It has also been found that these mixtures may be important for obtaining high-quality forage in the short and intermediate periods.

PDF

___

Acar R. 2009. Cultivation of buckwheat. Konya Comm. Exch. J., 31:30-37.
Açıkgöz E, Sincik M, Karasu A, Töngel O, Wietgrefe G, Bilgili U, Oz M, Albayrak S, Turan ZM, Göksoy AT. 2009. Forage soybean production for seed in mediterranean environments. Field Crop. Res., 110: 213-218.
Açıkgöz E, Sincik, M, Wietgrefe G, Sürmen M, Çeçen S, Yavuz T, Erdurmuş C, Göksoy AT. 2013. Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. Turk J Agric For., 37: 22-32.
Albayrak S, Mut Z, Töngel Ö. 2006. Hay and grain yields with some agricultural traits of Triticale (XTriticosecale Wittmack) lines. SDU J. Fac. of Agric., 1(1):13-21.
Anonymous. 2017a. Buckwheat: Easy Summer Forage. https://www.qdma.com/buckwheat-easy-summer-forage/ accesed at 25.08.2017.
Anonymous. 2017b. Buckwheat for Forage. http://www.hort.cornell.edu/bjorkman/lab/buck/guide/forage .php accessed at 25.08.2017.
Assaeed AM, Saiady MY, El-Shawaf II. 2000. Yield and quality of soybean forage as affected by harvesting time and cultivar. Res. Bult., No (89), Agric. Res. Center, King Saud Univ., (5-13).
AOAC. 2003. Official methods of analysis of AOAC International. 17th Ed. 2nd Rev. Gaithersburg, MD, USA, Association of Analytical Communities.
Björkman T, Shail JW. 2010. Cover Crop Fact Sheet Series: Buckwheat. Available at http://covercrops.cals.cornell.edu /pdf/buckwheatcc.pdf (accessed 7 Aug 2014). Cornell University Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, NY.
Björkman. T, Chase L. 2013. Buckwheat for forage. http://www.hort.cornell.edu/bjorkman/lab/buck/guide/forage .php accessed at 22.10.2013.
Bilgili U, Sincik M, Göksoy AT, Turan ZM, Açıkgöz E. 2005. Forage and grain yield performances of soybean lines. Centr. Europ. Agricult., 6: 397-402.
Campbell CG. 1997. Buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench.) promoting the conservation and the use of underutilized and neglected crops. 19. IBPGR, Rome. Italy.
Clark A. (ed.) 2007. Managing Cover Crops Profitably. 3rd ed. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Handbook Series, bk 9. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, College Park, MD.
El Bassam N. 2010. Pseudocereals: Amaranthus, Buckwheat, Quinoa. Handbook of Bionergy Crops, London, UK. Earthscan.
Erdoğdu İ. 2004. The effect of dıfferent seedıng rates of ıntercropped cornand soybean on some plant characterıstıcs and forage yıeld. Ankara University Institute of Science and Technology (PhD Thesis).
Hintz RW, Albrecht KA, Oplinger ES. 1992. Yield and quality of soybean forage as affected by cultivar and management practices. Agron.J., 84:795-798.
Horrocks RD, Vallentine JF. 1999. Harvested Forages. San Diego, California, USA. Academic Press, 3-87,
Kara N, Yüksel O, 2014. Can we use buckwheat as an animal feed? Tur. J. of Agr. and Nat. Sci., 1(3): 295-300.
Keleş G, Ateş S, Güneş A, Halıcı I, 2012. Nutritive value and fermentation characteristics of buckwheat silage ensiled with chemical or biological additives. Selç. J. of Agri. and Food Sci., 26 (4): 33-36.
Myers RL, Meinke LJ. 1994. Buckwheat: A multi-purpose, short-season alternative. University of Missouri Extension Bulletin G4306. University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. Available at: http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/ DisplayPub.aspx?P=G4306 accessed 04. 09.2014.
Oplinger ES, Oelke EA, Brinkman MA, Kelling KA. 1989. Alternative Field Crops Manual: Buckwheat. Available at http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/buckwheat.html accessed 26.08.2017.
Özkan U, Demirbağ NS. 2016. Status Quo and Quality Roughage Resources in Turkey. Tur. J. of Sci. Rev., 9(1): 23-27.
Pavek PLS. 2014. Evaluation of Cover Crops and Plantings Dates for Dryland Eastern Washington Rotations. Plant Materials Technical Note No. 25. United States Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service. Spokane, WA.
Rigueira JPS, Pereira OG, Filho SCV, Ribeiro KG, Garcia R, Cezario AS, 2015. Soybean silage in the diet for beef cattle. Acta Scientiarum. Anim. Sci., 37(1) 61-65.
Tansı V. 1987. Investigations on the effect of grain and gross feed efficiency on the cultivation of corn and soybean as a second crop in different sowing systems in Çukurova region. Ç.Ü. Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Field Crops (PhD Thesis).
Van-Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA, 1991. Method for Dietary Fiber, Neutral Detergent Fiber, and Nostarch Polysaccharides in Relation to Animal Nutrition. J. Dairy Sci., 74:3583-3597.