Yield, composition and digestibility of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) at different harvesting stages | ||
| تولیدات دامی | ||
| Article 16, Volume 17, Issue 2, October 2015, Pages 335-345 PDF (629.21 K) | ||
| Document Type: Research Paper | ||
| DOI: 10.22059/jap.2015.53443 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Nader Papi* 1; Farokh Kafilzadeh2; Hasan Fazaeli3 | ||
| 1Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran | ||
| 2Professors, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran | ||
| 3Professor, Section of Nutrition and Physiology, Animal Science Research Institute, Karaj - Iran | ||
| Abstract | ||
| This research was assigned to study the top crop yield potential and nutritive value of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus), using a completely randomized designed with three treatments and four replications. The forage was cut at three growing stages where plant high, fresh and dry forage yield and leave/steam ratio were recorded. First and second cut were made when the plant heights were 100-150 and 150-200 cm, respectively. Forage from the third cut was at the early bloom stage (200-250cm). Then the cuts were chopped and sampled and nutrient contents and in vitro digestibility of the samples were determined. The amount of fresh and dry forage yield were 45.20 and 15.95 (ton/h) in first cut, and 64 and 29.85 (ton/h) in the last cut (flowering stage), respectively. Yield of second cut was significantly higher (p | ||
| Keywords | ||
| digestibility; Gas production; Helianthus tuberosus; Non-fibrous carbohydrates; Nutrients | ||
| References | ||
|
1 . جعفری ه، فضائلی ح، موسوی م ع و ورمقانی ص (1388) تعیین گوارشپذیری آزمایشگاهی و تولید گاز علوفۀ مرتعی استان ایلام. علوم دامی (پژوهش و سازندگی). 85(4): 8-1. 2 . طباطبایی س م م، نجفنژاد ب، زمانی پ، تقیزاده ا، احمدی ا و عربی ح ع (1390) برآورد ترکیبات شیمیایی، تجزیهپذیری و تولید گاز شبدر ایرانی در مراحل مختلف برداشت. علوم دامی ایران. 42(3): 264-255.
3 . لشکری س و تقیزاده ا (1392) تخمین ترکیب شیمیایی، تجزیهپذیری و فراسنجههای تخمیری تفاله مرکبات با استفاده از روش کیسههای نایلونی و تولید گاز. پژوهشهای علوم دامی. 23(1): 28-15. 4 . ملتی ف، نقدی ن و ولیزاده ر (1392) ترکیب شیمیایی و ارزش تغذیهای گون اسپرسی (Astragalus brevidens Freyn & Sint) و مازندرانی(Astragalus masenderanus Bunge) در شرایط برونتنی. پژوهشهای علوم دامی ایران. 5(2): 156-147. 5 . Bruckner PL and Hanna WW (1990) In Vitro digestibility fresh leaves and steam of small-grain species and genotypes. Crop Science. 30: 196-202.
6 . Chabbert N, Braun P, Guiraud JP, Arnoux M / and Galzy P (1983) Productivity and fermentability of Jerusalem artichoke according to harvest date. Biomass. 3: 209-224.
7 . Dubois M, Gilles KA, Hamilton JK, Rebers PA and Smith F (1956) Colorimetric method for determination of sugar and related substances. Analytical chemistry. 25: 350-356.
8 . Julkunen-Tito R (1985) Phenolic constituents in the leaves of northern willos: Methods for the analysis of certain phenolic. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. 33: 213-217.
9 . Kosaric N, Cosentino GP, Wieczorek A and Duvnjak Z (1984) The Jerusalem artichoke as an Agricultural Crop. Biomass. 5: 1-36.
10 . Laberge C and Sackeston WE (1987) Adaptability and diseases Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 67: 349-352.
11 . Makkar HPS, Borrowy NK and Becker K (1992) Quantitation of polyphenols in animal feedstuffs. Proc, XVI Int Confof group of polyphenol. Lisbon. 13-17 July.
12 . Menke KH and Steingass YH (1988) Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research and Developments. 28: 7-55.
13 . Perston RL (2006) Typical Composition of commonly used feed for Sheep and Cattle. Columbia Court, Pagosa Spring, Co. 76500-81147.
14 . Prabhu DR and Robert MH (1985) Extraction of a high-protein isolate from Jerusalem Artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus) tops and evaluation of its nutrition potential. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. 33: 31-33.
15 . Schittenhelm S (1999) Agronomic performance of root chicory, Jerusalem artichoke, and sugar beet in stress and non-stress environments. Crop Science. 39: 1815-1823.
16 . Seiler GI and Campbell LG (2004) Genetic variability for mineral element concentrations of wild Jerusalem artichoke forage. Crop Science. 44: 289-292.
17 . Seiler GJ (1990) Protein and Mineral Concentrations in Tuber of Selected Genotypes of Wild and Cultivated Jerusalem artichoke. Economic Biology. 44: 322-335.
18 . Stanley JK and Stephen FN (2008) Biology and chemistry of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.). CRC Press. Taylor and Francis group.
19 . Stauffer MD, Chubey BB and Dorrell DG (1975) Jerusalem artichoke. Agriculture Canada Report No. 164, Canadex Field Crops.
20 . Swanton CJ and Cavers PB (1989) Biomass and nutrient allocation patterns in Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus). Canadian Journal of Botany. 67: 2880-2887.
21 . Tilley YMA and Terry RAA (1963) A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal ofBritish Grassland Society. 18: 104-111.
22 . Traub HP, Thor C, JWillaman JJ and Oliver R (1929) Storage of truckcrops: The girasole, Helianthus tuberosus. Plant Physiology. 4: 123.
23 . Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB and Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science. 74: 3583-3597.
24 . Wolin MJ (1960) A theoretical rumen fermentation balance. Journal of Dairy Science. 43: 1452-1459. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 2,628 PDF Download: 926 |
||