J Agri Pro   |  ISSN: 2757-6620

Original article | Journal of Agricultural Production 2020, Vol. 1(1) 1-4

Evaluation of Early Spring Grazing on Meadow in Erzurum, Turkey

Mahmut Taşçı & Zeynep Altunok

pp. 1 - 4   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/agripro.2020.341.1   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2104-12-0005

Published online: December 31, 2020  |   Number of Views: 34  |  Number of Download: 81


Abstract

This study was conducted in irrigated meadow with deep water table level in 2014 in Erzurum, Narman, Demirdag, and aimed to evaluate the effects of early spring grazing on meadows. Soil properties and dry matter yield and some quality parameters such as dry hay yield, crude protein, ADF, NDF and crude ash rates were assessed in meadow. Average dry matter yield was lover in spring grazed site than that of the ungrazed meadow site. Crude protein content was determined as 8.25%, 8.35% in grazed and ungrazed meadow sites, respectively. In spring grazed site ADF and NDF ratio were lower than that of the ungrazed one (36.95%, 36.72%; 55.98%, 56.82%). In grazed meadow site digestible dry matter ratio (60.29%) was lower than that of the ungrazed site (61.40%). Based on the results of the study, it is important to prevent of spring grazing in meadows for increasing of dry matter yield and forage quality.

Keywords: Meadow, Spring grazing, Dry matter yield, Forage quality


How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Tasci, M. & Altunok, Z. (2020). Evaluation of Early Spring Grazing on Meadow in Erzurum, Turkey . Journal of Agricultural Production, 1(1), 1-4. doi: 10.29329/agripro.2020.341.1

Harvard
Tasci, M. and Altunok, Z. (2020). Evaluation of Early Spring Grazing on Meadow in Erzurum, Turkey . Journal of Agricultural Production, 1(1), pp. 1-4.

Chicago 16th edition
Tasci, Mahmut and Zeynep Altunok (2020). "Evaluation of Early Spring Grazing on Meadow in Erzurum, Turkey ". Journal of Agricultural Production 1 (1):1-4. doi:10.29329/agripro.2020.341.1.

References
  1. Altın, M., Gökkuşa, A., & Koç, A. (2005). Çayır Mera Islahı, T.C. Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı Yay., Ankara, 5 s. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anonymous (1995). Acid detergent and neutral detergent fiber using ANKOM's fiber analyzer F200. Ankom Technology Corporation, Fairport, NY. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gee, G. W., & Bauder, J. W. (1986). Particle-size analysis. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd Edition. Agronomy No: 9. 383-411, Madison, Wisconsin USA, p. 1188. [Google Scholar]
  4. Gökkuş, A. (1989). Gübreleme, sulama ve otlatma uygulamalarının Erzurum ovasındaki çayırların kuru ot ve ham protein verimlerine etkileri. Doğa Tu. Tar. ve Orm. Dergisi, 13(36): 1002-1020. [Google Scholar]
  5. Jones, J. B. Jr. (2001). Laboratory Guide for Conducting Soil Tests and Plant Analysis. Ch. 3: 191-239. [Google Scholar]
  6. McLean, E. O. (1982). Soil pH and lime requirement. methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd Edition. Agronomy No: 9: 199-224, Madison, Wisconsin USA, p. 1159. [Google Scholar]
  7. Moore, J. E., & Undersander, D. J. (2002). Relative Forage Quality: An Alternative to Relative Feed Value and Quality Index. Proceedings 13th Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, pp 16-32. [Google Scholar]
  8. Nelson, R. E. (1982). Carbonate and gypsum. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd Edition. Agronomy No: 9. 181-197, Madison, Wisconsin USA, p. 1159. [Google Scholar]
  9. Nelson, D. W., & Sommers, L. E. (1982). Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd Edition. Agronomy No: 9. 539-579, Madison, Wisconsin USA. p. 1159. [Google Scholar]
  10. Olsen, S. R., & Sommers, L. E. (1982). Phosphorus. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd Edition. Agronomy No: 9: 403-427, Madison, Wisconsin USA, p. 1159. [Google Scholar]
  11. Schroeder J. W. (1994). Interpreting Forage Analysis. Extension Dairy Specialist (NDSU), AS-1080, North Dakota State University Cooperation Extention Service Publications, North Dakota. [Google Scholar]
  12. Thomas, G. W. (1982). Exchangeable Cations. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd Edition. Agronomy No: 9: 159-165, Madison, Wisconsin USA, p. 1159. [Google Scholar]
  13. Topcu, G. D., & Özkan, S. Z. (2007). Türkiye ve Ege Bölgesi çayır-mera Alanları ile yem bitkileri tarımına genel bir bakış. ÇOMÜ Zir. Fak. Derg.pp. 21-28. [Google Scholar]
  14. Wenick, J. J., Svejcar, T., & Angell, R. (2007). The effect of grazing duration on forage quality and production of meadow foxtail. Can. J. Plant Sci. pp. 85-92. [Google Scholar]