Agronomy Science, przyrodniczy lublin, czasopisma up, czasopisma uniwersytet przyrodniczy lublin
Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Agronomy Science Baner text

Vol. 79 No. 3 (2024)

Articles

Effect of different seed densities on biomass production and nutritive value of barley fodder quality grown in hydroponic systems

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24326/as.2024.5400
Submitted: July 1, 2024
Published: 13.01.2025

Abstract

We conducted this study to investigate the impact of various seed ratios on the growth rate, performance, nutritive value, and digestibility of fodder grown in a hydroponic system. Seeds were applied at 1000 g for high seed density treatment (HSD: 4.761 kg m–2) and 750 g for low seed density treatment in each tray (LSD: 3.571 kg m–2). Three harvest times (8th, 9th, and 10th day of germination) were evaluated to measure the shoot height, root length, and fodder yield. Nutritive value and in vitro digestibility were determined at 10 days of harvesting. The HSD treatment had higher fresh weight and root length but lower shoot height throughout the harvest time. A higher green fodder yield, dry matter content, dry matter yield, crude protein yield, and lower contents of dry matter and crude protein loss were observed in HSD treatment. The fodder of LSD treatment had a higher content of ether extract, crude ash, crude fibre, and a higher digestibility rate but a lower content of neutral detergent fibre and acid detergent fibre compared to those in the HSD fodder. Taking performance factors into account, the more efficient fodder seems to be barley green fodder with high-density sowing, but considering parameters regarding the nutritive value and feed digestibility such as NDF, ADF, and IVDMD, the more efficient fodder appears to be barley fodder with low-density sowing.

References

  1. Afzalinia S., Karimi A., 2020. Barley cultivars and seed rates effects on energy and water productivity of green fodder production under hydroponic condition. Indian J. Agric. Res. 54(6), 792–796. https://doi.org/10.18805/IJARe.A-554 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/IJARe.A-554
  2. Akbağ H.I., Türkmen O.S., Bayteki̇n H., Yurtman İ.Y., 2014. Effects of harvesting time on nutritional value of hydroponic barley production. Turkish J. Agric. Nat. Sci. 1, 1761–1765.
  3. Akman M., Güzel Ş., Gümüş H., 2021. Comparison of the plant heights and relative feed values of triticale and vetch mixtures produced by a hydroponic system. Kocatepe Vet. J. 14(1), 77–82. https://doi.org/10.30607/kvj.860663 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30607/kvj.860663
  4. Al-Karaki G.N., Al-Hashimi M., 2012. Green fodder production and water use efficiency of some forage crops under hydroponic conditions. ISRN Agron. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/924672 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/924672
  5. Al-Momani N., Al-Karaki G.N., 2011. Evaluation of some barley cultivars for green fodder production and water use efficiency under hydroponic conditions. Jordan J. Agric. Sci. 7(3), 448–457.
  6. AOAC, 2005. Official method of Anlaysis. 18th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemist., Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA: AOAC International
  7. Assefa G., Urge M., Animut G., Assefa G., 2020. Effect of variety and seed rate on hydroponic maize fodder biomass yield, chemical composition, and water use efficiency. Biotechnol. Anim. Husb. 36, 87–100. https://doi.org/10.2298/BAH2001087A DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/BAH2001087A
  8. El-Morsy A.T., Abul-Soud M., Emam M.S.A., 2013. Localized hydroponic green forage technology as a climate change adaptation under Egyptian conditions. Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 9(6), 341–350.
  9. Emam M.S.A., 2016. The sprout production and water use efficiency of some barley cultivars under intensive hydroponic system. Middle East J. Agric. Res. 5(2), 161–171.
  10. Fazaeli H., Golmohammadi H.A., Shoayee A.A., Montajebi N., Mosharraf S., 2011. Perfor-mance of feedlot calves fed hydroponics fodder barley. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 13(3), 367–375.
  11. Fazaeli H., Golmohammadi H.A., Tabatabayee S.N., Asghari-Tabrizi M., 2012. Productivity and nutritive value of barley green fodder yield in hydroponic system. World Appl. Sci. J. 16(4), 531–539.
  12. Gebremedhin W.K., Deasi B.G., Mayekar A.J., 2015. Nutritional evaluation of hydroponically grown barley fodder. J. Agric. Eng. Food Technol. 2(2), 86–89.
  13. Girma F., Gebremariam B., 2018. Review on hydroponic feed value to livestock production. J. Sci. Innov. Res. 7(4), 106–109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31254/jsir.2018.7405
  14. Godde C.M., Mason-D’Croz D., Mayberry D.E., Thornton P.K., Herrero M., 2021. Impacts of climate change on the livestock food supply chain; a review of the evidence. Glob. Food Sec. 28, 100488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100488 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2020.100488
  15. Gümüş H., Bayir A.M., 2020. Hasılmatikte üretilen arpa ve yulaf yeşil hasılının farklı günlerdeki besin madde değerleri [The nutrient values of barley and oat green fodder pro-duced by hasılmatik at different days]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Univ. J. Heal. Sci. Inst. 8(2), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.24998/maeusabed.725541 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24998/maeusabed.725541
  16. Hussain A., Iqbal K., Aziem S., Mahato P., Negi A.K., 2014. A review on the science of grow-ing crops without soil (Soilless Culture) – A novel alternative for growing crops. Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci. 7(11), 833–842.
  17. IBM, 2021. IBM Corp. Released 2021. SPPS Statistics for, Windows, 28edt. Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp.
  18. Karaşahin M., 2016. Farklı gübreleme uygulamalarının hidroponik mısır (Zea mays L. indentata S.) çimi üzerine etkileri [The Effects of different fertilization on hydroponic maize (Zea mays L. indentata S.)]. Grass. Res. J. Biol. Sci. 9(1), 29–32.
  19. Morgan J., Hunter R., O’Haire R., 1992. Limiting factors in hydroponic barley grass produc-tion. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Congress on Soilless Culture. Hunter’s Rest, South Africa, 241–261.
  20. Mukherjee S., Mishra A., Trenberth K.E., 2018. Climate change and drought: a perspective on drought indices. Curr. Clim. Chang. Reports 4, 145–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0098-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0098-x
  21. Naik P.K., Dhuri R.B., Swain B.K., Singh N.P., 2012. Nutrient changes with the growth of hydroponics fodder maize. Indian J. Anim. Nutr. 29(2), 161–163.
  22. Paudel S., Raj B.B., Bhusal K., Hari G.S., Raj P.Y., Prasad A.D., Hamal P., 2021. Study on effects of different seed rates in hydroponic fodder production and its composition in Chitwann. Int. J. Vet. Sci. Agric. Res. 3(1), 1–7.
  23. Peer D.J., Leeson S., 1985. Feeding value of hydroponically sprouted barley for poultry and pigs. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 13(3–4), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(85)90021-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(85)90021-5
  24. Pereira L.S., Cordery I., Iacovides I., 2012. Improved indicators of water use performance and productivity for sustainable water conservation and saving. Agric. Water Manag. 108, 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.08.022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.08.022
  25. Saidi A.M.A., Omar J., 2015. The biological and economical feasibility of feeding barley green fodder to lactating Awassi ewes. Open J. Anim. Sci. 5(9), 99–105. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2015.52012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2015.52012
  26. Sarıçiçek B.Z., Yıldırım B., Hanoğlu H., 2018. The comparison of nutrient composition and relative feed value of barley grain, barley green food and silage grown with grounded sys-tem of barley grass grown with hydroponic system. Black Sea J. Agric. 1, 102–109.
  27. Shit N., 2019. Hydroponic fodder production: An alternative technology for sustainable live-stock production in India. Explor. Anim. Med. Res. 9(2), 108–119.
  28. Sneath R., McIntosh F., 2003. Review of hydroponic fodder production for beef cattle. Department of Primary Industries: Queensland Australia 84. McKeehen, p. 54.
  29. Van Soest P.J., Robertson J.B., Lewis B.A., 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74(10), 3583–3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  30. Vogel K., Pedersen J., Masterson S., Toy J., 1999. Evaluation of a filter bag system for NDF, ADF, and IVDMD forage analysis. Crop Sci. 39(1), 276–279. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1999.0011183X003900010042x DOI: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1999.0011183X003900010042x

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

<< < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.