Effects of Different Harvest Stages on Forage Yield and Quality of Soybean Cultivars Grown as Second Crops
Author:
ZORER ÇELEBİ Şeyda1ORCID, ŞAHAR Ahmet Korhan2ORCID
Affiliation:
1. VAN YÜZÜNCÜ YIL ÜNİVERSİTESİ 2. DOĞU AKDENİZ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, LİSANSÜSTÜ EĞİTİM, ÖĞRETİM VE ARAŞTIRMA ENSTİTÜSÜ, DOĞU AKDENİZ ARAŞTIRMALARI (YL) (TEZLİ) (İNGİLİZCE) (ÜCRETLİ)
Abstract
In this study, the effect of three different harvesting stages [full bloom stage (R2), full pod stage (R4), and full seed stage (R6)] on forage yield and quality of three soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) cultivars (Adasoy, Derry and Yeşilsoy) were evaluated under Mediterranean climate conditions in Adana, Türkiye in second crop seasons. Plant height, green herbage yield, dry matter yield, crude protein (CP), crude protein yield (CPY), leaf and stem ratio, dry matter intake (DMI), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), digestible dry matter (DDM) and relative feed value (RFV) were determined. The results showed that the average plant height of three soybean cultivars was 106.5-203.5 cm and green herbage yield was 190 42-603 50 kg ha-1. The highest values were obtained from cv. Derry at R4 and R6 harvest stages. In both years, the highest CPY values were determined from the R6 harvest stages. Obtained ADF, NDF, DMI, DDM, and RFV values were found to be between 32.8-47.1%, 41.1-59.3%, 2.0-3.6%, 52.1-63.3%, 83.0-180.2%, respectively, and the best results were obtained from the R6 harvest stage of cv. Yeşilsoy. According to these results, in second crop conditions, while cv. Derry came to the fore of soybean yield, cv. Yeşilsoy stands out in terms of quality. As a result, it is thought that it is appropriate to harvest soybean in the R6 harvest period, the use of soybean as a green herbage should be expanded and its addition to feed rations can provide positive contributions.
Funder
Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Kontrol Birimi, TAGEM
Publisher
Yuzuncu Yil Universitesi Tarim Bilimleri Dergisi
Subject
General Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Reference32 articles.
1. Acikgoz, E. (2001). Forage Crops (3rd Ed.). Uludag University, Strengthening Foundation Publication, Number: 182, Bursa. 2. Acikgoz, E., Sincik, M., Wietgrefe, G., Sürmen, M., Çeçen, S., Yavuz, T., Erdurmuş, C., & Göksoy, A. T. (2013). Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 37(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.3906/tar-1204-58 3. Acikgoz, E., Sincik, M., Oz, M., Albayrak, S., Wietgrefe, G., Turan, Z. M., Goksoy, A. T., Bilgili, U., Karasu, A., Tongel, O., & Canbolat, O. (2007). Forage soybean performance in mediterranean environments. Field Crops Research, 103(3), 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FCR.2007.06.006 4. Allen, M. S. (1996). Physical constraints on voluntary intake of forages by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science, 74(12), 3063–3075. 5. Anderson, E. J., Ali, M. L., Beavis, W. D., Chen, P., Clemente, T. E., Diers, B. W., Graef, G. L., Grassini, P., Hyten, D. L., McHale, L. K., Nelson, R. L., Parrott, W. A., Patil, G. B., Stupar, R. M., & Tilmon, K. J. (2019). Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] breeding: History, improvement, production and future opportunities. Advances in Plant Breeding Strategies: Legumes, 7, 431–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23400-3_12/COVER
|
|