MEYAN OTUNUN (Glycyrrhiza Sp.) KABAYEM OLARAK KULLANILMA OLANAKLARI II

Authors : Macit ÖZHAN, Kazım GÖL
Pages : 0-0
View : 35 | Download : 13
Publication Date : 2010-12-26
Article Type : Other Papers
Abstract :Araştırmanın kesim dönemine kadar işlenen I. Kısım, Ziraat Dergisinin Mart 1975 Cilt 6, Sayı I. de yayınlanmıştır. POSSIBILITIES TO USE THE LIQUORICE HAY (Glycyrrhiza Sp.) AS A ROUGHAGE IN CATTLE RATIONS Liquorice plant covers more than one millions of acres of usable land in the south and south eastern part of 'Imkey. Altoughı it İs considered as a weed by the farmers but it wastıhought woıi1hwihile for ııS to lI1ves'tiıgate tıhe poSisiib'İHties rto use this plant as a roughage in cattle rations. The experiment was carrled out in tıhe Alparslan Sıtaie Farm .in Muş province. Fi!f.ty hea:d of eatde (30 Alberdeen Anıguses, 20 Herefords) we!'e diSltrilbuted 'İnto firve groups of ten each (4 Herefords 6 Anguses). Coneentrates fed to eadh group were compuselcI of barley, wheat bran, sunflower oil meal and containcd [2 % digestihle protein. Eadh ıgroup received the same amount of concentr:ates. Tihe roughage paNiün of tıhe ratian'S in the treatıınents were as fallow:s : Group 1 1.0 Kg. Liquorice hay + 3.0 Kg. pTairie hay » 2 2.0 ı> » » 2.0 » » » » 3 0.0 ı> » » + 4.0 ') ı> » » 4 4.0 » » » + 0.0 » » » » 5 3.0 » » » + 1.0 » » » After 100 daıys of feeıding tıhe eXlperiment ternıinated. The statistical analysis showed no significant dififerences 'between the groups. This resuLt indicated t!hat ·tihe Li.quoııİce hıay had no signıificanrt effect on the Hveweight gain.s. As II matter of .tact ,the daiıly g.ains in tftıe gr;oups were close to eadh other. The da'İly ıga~ns in ;the first and second groups were .8000 and .0795 Kg. respectively. Since no significant differences were obıserved between the rations it is then be possiibIe to caneIude I. The same result will also emilile US to say «The Liquorke hay can be substitute for straw in cattIe rations». At the end of the experiment the cattle were transportea to Meat Packing Plant in Erzurum province by lomes for slaughter. ,During tıhe process of slauıgihter, skinJ feet and Iirver weights we· re taken. The conclutions arri'Ved after applying sta:tİosticaI analys;is were giJven below. Skin weİghts. 11he d'ifferences in S'kin weights between· gnmps were found not S İgnificant, but '1!he dififerences betweenthe Ibreedıs 55 were significant (P < .05). The skin weights in all the groups were in favaur oc Herefurds. Head welghts. The calculatal ditferences between gııaups were rtot signi:ficant, 'but the differences , in head weights between the breeds were significant (P<.05) , and the weight' differences were in favour of Herefords. Feet welghts. Hereford feet weights were higher than Angu.s feet weights, and the differences were significant (P< .05). Furthermore the feed X breed interaetions were also significant. Liver weights. The differences between gtorups in liver weights we· re not sigrnficant Ibut between bıeeds 'were significant. In some groups Herm-<ırd liveJ1s were hea'Vıi· er filan Angu.'S TivellS and in· some onhers 'Vice· versa. Slnce Herefords we e hea'V.ier than Anguses funıdamentally their livers should also be heavier than Angus livers, but this trend were not observed. Fat thickness. In none of the groups fal tibkkness were O;Ter 4 mm. The hiıghest value cakulatal for the Berefords wa:s in the first and fifth groups aıs 3.6 mm. while for Angııses İn the .first .group alS 3.16 mm. ActualIy these figures are VeJ'Y 1O'W for 11ıe Mıgus and. Herefoııds, since dur natİve 'breeds yrields more faıt than tlhe bree.ds men'tioned above. Eye muscle atea. Eye mUS()le area for Herefordis weı::e 'm~er than Anguses İn 2 and 3 groups But the situadon was different 56 in ıst 3rd and 4th groups. Eye ı:rruscle area in ,rhese groups wer~ in favout of .Angus 'breed. Alclıough . the average figu.re for Herefor.ds Wa's very high 'in group :5 because ,of one animal lıav.ing very lal1ge eye muscle area. Kldney fat. No- biıg di.fiferenees were ohserved between gmups and . breeds for tlhi'S aharacter. Aotually it waS not possible to decide whether the differences were signifi~ cant, because no 'statistical analysis was applied. Confonnatlon. No confonnation differences between groups and between breeds were ohserved Homegenity in confoqnation was also noticed in both breeds. Fleshing. All the gmups and . the brl",ecis had almosıt saırne grades for Eleshing. A1thou.gh smaIl dilferenees ihaıd occuıred in some groups for both breeds, but Rerefords s.höwed more homogenlty. Cooler shrinkages. The d1fferences in codler shrinkage values between groups and between breeds were not signifıcant. The figures calculated for cooler shrinkages for the breeds vvere almost the same as in native bree'cJs. Boneless 'luts. Using the .data obta'ine:d from the carcass weight, r,~b eye area, internal faıt and fat t'hickneslS, the honeleıss cuts in dI1uck, rib, loin and rump were cal· cclated. S~nce the va'lues were not subjected to statistical arialysrrs, the calculated differences between groups and ·between breeds were used as descriptive data.
Keywords :

ORIGINAL ARTICLE URL