Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.43

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.5 (2023)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 50 issue 6 (december 2016) : 947-950

Determination of the yield characteristics and in vitro digestibility of barley forage harvested in different vegetation periods

Mehtap Guney*, Cagri Kale, Duran Bolat, Suphi Deniz
1<p>Department of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,&nbsp;Yuzuncu Yil University, Van, Turkey</p>
Cite article:- Guney* Mehtap, Kale Cagri, Bolat Duran, Deniz Suphi (2016). Determination of the yield characteristics and in vitro digestibility of barleyforage harvested in different vegetation periods . Indian Journal of Animal Research. 50(6): 947-950. doi: 10.18805/ijar.9365.

This study planned to determine the differences among nutrient composition, in vitro digestibility, energy content, digestible dry matter and organic matter yields of barley forage harvested at three different stages of maturity. Each vegetation period (heading stage, seed formation stage and mature stage) was randomly assigned to 5 replication from 1 square meter area and fifteen samples were harvested in total. DM, ADF (p<0.001), and NDF (p<0.05) contents were different in each stages of barley forage. In vitro dry matter (IVDMD), organic matter digestibility (IVOMD), metabolizable energy (ME), and net energy for lactation (NEL) values of samples were determined to be lower than the other two stages at the mature stage (p<0.05). Yield parameters of barley were significantly affected by vegetation period (p<0.001). It can be concluded that all three vegetation period had significantly higher digestibility. Digestible DM, OM and energy yields were higher when harvested at the mature stage of vegetation.  

  1. Aguilar-Lopez, E. Y., Bórquez, J. L., Domínguez, I. A., Morales-Osorio, A., Gutiérrez-Martínez, M. G. and Ronquillo, M. G. (2013). Forage yield, chemical composition and in vitro gas production of triticale (x triticosecale wittmack) and barley (hordeum vulgare) asociated with common vetch (vicia sativa) preserved as hay or silage. J of Agric. Sci. 5: 227-238. 

  2. Akbag, H. I., Turkmen, O. S., Baytekin, H. and Yurtman, I. Y. (2014). Effects of harvesting time on nutritional value of hydroponic barley production. T. J of Agric. and Nat. Sci., Special Issue: 2. 

  3. Amanullah, S. M., Kim, D. H., Lee, H. J., Joo, Y. H., Kim, S. B. and Kim, S. C. (2014). Effects of microbial additives on chemical composition and fermentation characteristics of barley silage. Asian australas. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 511-517.

  4. Anderson, V., Lardy, G., Bauer, M., Swanson, K., Zwinger, S. (2012). Barley grain and forage for beef cattle. North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station. AS 1609. 

  5. AOAC (1990). Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th Edition, AOAC, Washington, DC, 1: 69-79. 

  6. Canbolat O. (2012). Comparison of in vitro gas production, organic matter digestibility, relative feed value and metabolizable energy contents of some cereal forages. J of the Faculty of Vet. Med., Kafkas Univ. 18: 571-577.

  7. Demirel, M., Deniz, S., Yilmaz, I. and Nursoy, H. (2004). The effects of adding urea or urea+molasses in some sorghum varieties harvested at dough stage on silage quality and digestible dry matter yield. Turk J Vet. Anim. Sci. 28: 29-37.

  8. Deniz, S., Akdeniz, H., Avci, M. and Kara, M. A. (2005). Farkli Devrelerde Biçilen Korunganýn Verim Potansiyeli ile Sindirilebilirlik ve Enerji Düzeylerinin In vivo ve In vitro Yontemlerle Belirlenmesi. Vet. Bil. Der. 21: 47-55.

  9. Filya, I. (2004). Nutritive value and aerobic stability of whole crop maize silage harvested at four stages of maturity. Anim. Feed Sci. and Tech. 116: 141–150. 

  10. Hervas, G., Ranilla, M. J., Mantecón, A. R., Bodas, R. and Frutos, P. (2004). Comparison of in vitro digestibility of feedstuffs using rumen inoculum from sheep or red deer. J of Anim. and Feed Sci. 13: 91"94.

  11. Karsli, M. A., Akdeniz, H., Levendoglu, T. and Terzioglu, O. (2005). Evaluation of the nutrient content and protein fractions of four different common vetch varieties. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 29: 1291-1297.

  12. Kilic, A. (1986). Silo Yemi (Ogretim, ögrenim ve uygulama önerileri). Bilgehan Press, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey. p.327.

  13. Kocer, A. and Albayrak, S. (2012). Determination of forage yield and quality of pea (Pisum sativum L.) Mixtures with oat and barley. T. J of Field Crops. 17: 96-99. 

  14. Kowalski, Z. M., Ludwin, J., Gorka, P., Rinne, M., Weisbjerg, M. R. and Jagusiak, W. (2014). The use of cellulase and filter bag technique to predict digestibility of forages. Anim. Feed Sci. and Tech. 198: 49–56.

  15. Kutlu, H. R. (2008). Yem Degerlendirme ve Analiz Yöntemleri. Ç.U. Ziraat Fak. Zootekni Bolumu, Lecture note. p.65, Adana, Turkey. 

  16. Kun, E. (1988). Serin iklim tahillari. AU Ziraat Fakultesi publications. Textbook, p.299, Ankara, Turkey.

  17. Lithourgidis, A. S., Vasilakoglu, I. B., Dhima, K. V., Dordas, C. A. and Yiakoulaki, M. D. (2006). Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding rations. Field Crops Res. 99: 106-113. 

  18. Marten G. C. and Barnes R. F. (1980). Prediction of energy digestibility of forages with in vitro rumen fermentation and fungal enzyme systems. (in) Proc. Int. Workshop on Standardization of Analytical Methodology for Feed by Pigden, W. J., Balch, C. C. and Graham, M. (ed). Int. Dev. Res. Center, Ottawa, Canada.

  19. McCartney, D. H. and Vaage, A. S. (1993). Comparative yield and feeding value of barley, oat and triticale silages. Can. J of Anim. Sci. 74: 91-96.

  20. Poland, W., Peterson, H., Ashley, R. and Tisor, L. (2004). Relationship of IVDMD to ADF in oat (Avena sativa) and barley (Hordeum vulgare l.) forage. American Soc. of Anim. Sci. 55: 249-252. 

  21. Rosser, C. L. (2014). Effect of the maturity at harvest of whole-crop barley and oat on dry matter intake, forage selection, and digestibility when fed to beef cattle. University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Sk. Master Thesis.

  22. SAS (2014). SAS/STAT Software: Hangen and Enhanced, Version 9.4, SAS, Inst. Inc., Cary, N.C. USA.

  23. Sayim, I. and Balabanli, C. (2006). Arpa çesit ve hatlarinin tane, silaj verimi ve verim komponentlerinin belirlenmesi üzerine bir araþtirma. Selçuk Univ., Veteriner Fakultesi Derg. 20: 93-104.

  24. Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie J. H. (1980). Principles and procedures of statistics: A biometrical approach [H. (ed)] by McGraw, p.633, New York, USA. 

  25. Tekce E. and Gul, M. (2014). Ruminant beslemede ADF ve NDF’nin onemi. Ataturk Universitesi Veteriner Bilimleri Derg. 9: 63-73.

  26. Tilley J. M and Terry R. A. (1963). A two-stage tecnique for in vitro digestion of forage. J Br Grassl. Soc. 18: 104-111.

  27. Türkmen, I. (2001). Ruminantlarda yem degerlendirme sistemleri ve karma yem hammaddeleri. Ciftlik hayvanlarýnýn beslenmesinde temel prensipler ve karma yem üretiminde bazý bilimsel yaklaþýmlar by Yavuz, H. M. (ed), 605-    641p. Istanbul, Turkey. Istanbul.

  28. Van Soest, P. J. and Robertson, J. B. (1979). Systems of analyses for evaluation of fibrous feed. In: “Proc. Int. Workshop on standardization of analytical methodology for feeds” by Pigden, W. J., Balch, C.C., Graham M. (ed), Int. Dev. Res. Center. Ottowa.

Editorial Board

View all (0)