:: Volume 3, Issue 7 (3-2016) ::
PEC 2016, 3(7): 59-72 Back to browse issues page
Comparing nutritional values of the three rangeland species; Hordeum bulbosum, Trifolium repens and Prangos ferulacea in different phenological stages in the rangelands of Bagh Shadi, Yazd province
Mohammad-Reza Tatian *, Reza Tamartash, Ali-B. Mirjalili
Sari University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, mr_t979@yahoo.com , mr_t979@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (4033 Views)

Determination of forage quality is one of the fundamental factors for the proper management of rangelands. In order to study the effect of phonological stages on forage quality, three species of rangeland in Yazd province including Hordeum bulbosum, Trifolium repens, and Prangos ferulacea were selected. Samples were collected in three phonological stages: vegetative growth, flowering and seed production. Plant samples were analyzed in the laboratory to determine crude protein percentage, acid detergent fiber, dry matter digestibility and metabolism energy. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Duncan test. The results showed that the effect of phonological stages on forage quality were significant (P<0.01). The forage qualities of three species were higher in vegetative stage. So, the highest percentage of protein and energy metabolism was related to Trifolium repens, Prangos ferulaceaand Hordeum bulbosum in the vegetative stage. The amount of CP, DMD and ME were decreased when the growth stage proceeds, while ADF contents increased. Also, Trifolium repens had the highest nutritive value and Prangos ferulacea and Hordeum bulbosum were in the next positions.

Keywords: Nutrition Value, Metabolism Energy, Forage Quality, Phenology.
Full-Text [PDF 323 kb]   (2219 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2016/05/14 | Accepted: 2016/05/14 | Published: 2016/05/14
1. Arzani H. 1994. Some aspects of estimating short term and long term rangeland carrying capacity in the Western Division of new South Wals. Ph.D. Thesis,University of New South Wals, Australia, 308p
2. Ayan Mut I.H., Onal-Asci O., Basaran U., Acar Z. 2010. Effects of manure application on the chemical composition of rangeland. J. Anim. Vet. Adv.,9(13): 1852-1857.
3. Ball D.M., Collins G.D., Laccefield N.P., Martens K.E., Olson D.H., Putnam D.J.Undersander M.W. 2001. Understanding forage quality American farm. Bureau Federation Publication 1-101, Park Ridge. 180P.
4. Chen C.S., Wang S.M., Kchange M. 2001. Climatic factors, acid detergent fiber,natural detergent fiber and crude protein contents in digit grass. Proceeding of the International Grassland Congress, Brazil, 632-634.
5. Crowder, L.V., Chheda H.R. 1982. Tropical grassland husbandry. Long Man Inc.NewYork, 127-159.
6. Ghadaki M.B., Van Soest P.J., MCDowell R.C., Malekpour B. 1974. Composition and invitro digestibility of some arid zone forage species of Iran. XII International Grassland Congress, Moscow, Vol. III, Part I, 542-549.
7. Goreallen V., Segarra E. 2001. Anti-quality factors in rangeland and pasture land forages. Boltin 73 of the Idaho Forest. Wildlife and Range Experiment Station University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 83pp.
8. Larbi A., Abd-Moneim E., Nakkoula H., Jammal B., Hassana, S. 2011. Intraspecies variations in yield and quality in Lathyrus species (sativus L.). Journal of Animal Feed Science and Technology, 161(20): 9-18.
9. Linn J.G., Martin N.P. 1999. Forage quality tests and interpretations. The College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Minnesota,Extension Service. 205pp.
10. Martiniello P., Teixeira da Silva J.A. 2011. Physiological and bio agronomical aspects involved in growth and yield components of cultivated forage species in Mediterranean environments: A review. European Journal of Plant Science Biotechnology, 5(2): 64-98.
11. May K.W. 1998. Growth and forage quality of three Bromus species native to western Canada. Plant Science, 78: 597-603.
12. Minson D.J. 1987. Estimation of the nutritive value of forage in temperate pasture,their production use and management Eds, J.L. Wheeler. C.J. Pearson and G.E.Roberts, Australian Wool Corporation, 415-422.
13. Norton B.W., Waterfall M.H. 2000. The nutritive value of Tipuana tipu and Calliandra calochrsus as supplements to low quality straw for goats. Small Ruminant Research, 38(2):175-182.
14. Oddy V.H., Robards G.E., Low S.G. 1983. Prediction of in vivo dry matter digestibility from the fiber nitrogen content of a feed, in feed information and animal production. Eds. G.E. Robards and R.G. Packham. Common Wealth Agricultural Breux, Australia, 295-298.
15. Panahi F., Assareh M.H., Jafari M. Ashraf Jafari A., Arzani H., Tavili A., Zandi Esfahan E. 2012. Phenological effects on forage quality of Salsola arbuscula,Salsola orientalis and Salsola tomentosa in three habitats in the central part of Iran. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 11(6): 800-807.
16. Stodart L.A., Cook C.V., Harris L.E. 1975. Determining the digestibility and metabolism able energy of winter range plant by sheep. Journal of Animal Science, 11: 578-590.
17. VanSoest P.J. 1982. Nutritional ecology of ruminant books, Ins. Corvallis, Oregon,USA, 374p.
18. Zandi Esfahan E., Assareh M.H., Jafari M., Jafari A., Javadi S.A. Karimi G. 2010.Phenological effects on forage quality of two halophyte species Atriplex leucoclada and Suaeda vermiculata in four saline rangelands of Iran. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 8(3,4): 999-1003.

XML   Persian Abstract   Print

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 3, Issue 7 (3-2016) Back to browse issues page