Comparison of yield and fodder quality of six genotypes of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) in different stages of harvesting and irrigation with saline water

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Master's student, Department of Agrotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Agrotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran.

3 National Salinity Research Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Yazd, Iran.

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran.

Abstract

Background and Objectives:
Khorasan Razavi province, one of the main livestock production hubs, is currently facing a shortage of bulky forage, and its water and soil resources are increasingly becoming saline. The primary goal of this study was to select superior quinoa lines with higher production capacity and favorable quality traits and to investigate the potential for cultivating forage quinoa lines adapted to the climatic conditions of the region.
Materials and Methods:
This study was conducted during the 2022-2023 growing season at the Salinity Research farm of the Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. The experiment was carried out in a split-plot arrangement within a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. Six superior quinoa lines, selected from forage quinoa evaluation trials at the National Salinity Research Center of Yazd, including NSRCQF1 (line one), NSRCQF3 (line two), NSRCQF5 (line three), NSRCQF7 (line four), NSRCQF8 (line five), and NSRCQF11 (line six), were assigned to the main plots. Three harvest stages, including the early flowering, end of flowering, and dough grain stages, were assigned to the subplots. Forage was randomly harvested from each subplot over an area of one square meter, and agronomic traits such as fresh weight, dry weight per plant, dry matter percentage, leaf weight, stem weight, leaf-to-stem ratio, shoot crude protein content, acid detergent fiber and neutral detergent fiber, ash and fresh forage yield were measured.
Results:
The results indicated that harvesting at the end of flowering and dough grain stages yielded the highest forage production, which was statistically significant. Harvesting at the beginning of flowering produced the best forage quality in terms of crude protein content (16.89%), showing a statistically significant difference at the 5% probability level compared to other growth stages. Among the six lines evaluated, line NSRCQF3 showed superiority in forage production, while line NSRCQF11 excelled in forage protein content. The highest fresh forage yield (29 tons per hectare) was obtained at the dough grain stage. The highest leaf-to-stem ratio (50%) was achieved at the beginning of flowering, while the lowest ratio (39%) was observed at the dough grain stage.
Conclusion:
The results of this study demonstrated that harvest timing significantly affects the quantitative and qualitative performance of quinoa forage. Harvesting at the dough grain stage resulted in high forage yield, while harvesting at the flowering stage maximized crude protein content (16.89%), highlighting the importance of selecting the appropriate harvest time. Among the six lines evaluated, NSRCQF3 showed superiority in forage production, and NSRCQF11 excelled in forage protein content. Based on these findings, quinoa can be utilized as a salt- and drought-tolerant forage crop in saline and arid regions, although research in this area is still in its early stages and requires further extensive studies.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. FAO & CIRAD. (2015). State of the art report on quinoa around the world in 2013 (D. Bazile, D. Bertero, & C. Nieto, Eds.). Rome: FAO.
  2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2011). Quinoa: An ancient crop to contribute to world food security. Santiago, Chile: Regional Office for Latin America and the
  3. Salama, R., Yacout, M., Elgzar, M., & Awad, A. (2021). nutritional evaluation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) crop as unconventional forage resource in feeding ruminants. Egyptian Journal of Nutrition and Feeds, 24(1), 77-84.
  4. Najafinezhad, H., Javaheri, M. A., Koohi, N., & Shakeri, P. (2019). Forage yield and quality and water productivity of kochia, millet, sorghum and maize under water deficit stress conditions. Seed and plant production journal, 35(2), 261-283.
  5. Shah, S. S., Shi, L., Li, Z., Ren, G., Zhou, B., & Qin, P. (2020). Yield, agronomic and forage quality traits of different quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) genotypes in northeast China. Agronomy, 10(12), 1908.
  6. Baskota, S., & Islam, A. (2017). Evaluation of forage nutritive value of quinoa cultivars. Field Days Bulletin, LREC Long Reports.
  7. Cui, H., Yao, Q., Xing, B., Zhou, B., Shah, S. S., & Qin, P. (2024). The performance of agronomic and quality traits of quinoa under different altitudes in northwest of china. Agronomy, 14(6), 1194.
  8. Atis, I., Konuskan, O., Duru, M., Gozubenli, H., & Yilmaz, S. (2012). Effect of harvesting time on yield, composition and forage quality of some forage sorghum cultivars. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 14(6), 874-886.
  9. Gómez‐Pando, L. R., Álvarez‐Castro, R., & Eguiluz‐De La Barra, A. (2010). Effect of salt stress on Peruvian germplasm of Chenopodium quinoa: a promising crop. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 196(5), 391-396.
  10. Tan, M., & Temel, S. (2019). Quinoa in every aspect: importance, use and cultivation. Ankara, Turkey: IKSAD Publishing House.
  11. Yilmaz, Ş., Ertekin, I., & İbrahim, A. (2021). Forage yield and quality of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) genotypes harvested at different cutting stages under Mediterranean conditions. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops, 26(2), 202-209.
  12. Üke, Ö., Kale, H., Kaplan, M., & Kamalak, A. (2017). Effects of maturity stages on hay yield and quality, gas and methane production of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). Kahramanmaraș Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 20(1), 42-46.
  13. Wei, Y., Yang, F., Liu, W., Huang, J., & Jin, Q. (2018). Regulation of nutrient accumulation and distribution in quinoa at different growth stages. Pratacultural Science, 35(7), 1720-1727.
  14. Liu, M., Yang, M., & Yang, H. (2021). Biomass production and nutritional characteristics of quinoa subjected to cutting and sowing date in the midwestern China. Grassland Science, 67(3), 215-224.
  15. Saadat, S., Rezaei, H., Esmaeilinejad, L., Mirkhani, R. & Bagheri, Y. R. (2023). Soil Salinity Map of Agricultural Lands in Iran. Karaj: Soil and Water Research Institute. [In Persian]
  16. Salehi, M., & Dehghany, F. (2023). Determination of salinity stress tolerance threshold of quinoa genotypes under field conditions. Environmental Stresses in Crop Sciences, 16(4), 1123-1137. [In Persian]
  17. Kaya, E., & Aydemir, S. K. (2020). Determining the forage yield, quality and nutritional element contents of quinoa cultivars and correlation analysis on these parameters. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 57(2), 311-317.
  18. Saberi, A. R., & Kiani, A. (2023). Effects of irrigation intervals and plant density on forage yield and relative water content of quinoa, kochia, and forage sorghum cultivars in Golestan. Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 17(1), 56–67. [In Persian]
  19. Najafinezhad, H., Shakeri, P., & Amirpour Robat, M. (2021). Effect of planting date and plant density on forage yield and quality of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) varieties in cold temperate region of Kerman Province in Iran. Seed and Plant Journal, 36(4), 439- 460. [In Persian]
  20. Shakeri, P., Aghashahi, A., Bahrami Yekdangi, M., & Shakeri, A. A. (2024). Evaluation of forage yield and digestibility of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) in dry and silage forms. Journal of Research in Ruminants, 12(1), 51–68. [In Persian]
  21. AOAC (2019) Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 21st Edition, AOAC, Washington DC.
  22. Van Soest, P. v., Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of dairy science, 74(10), 3583-3597.
  23. Ruiz, R. A., & Bertero, H. D. (2008). Light interception and radiation use efficiency in temperate quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) cultivars. European Journal of agronomy, 29(2-3), 144-152.
  24. Jacobsen, S. E., Jørgensen, I., & Stølen, O. (1994). Cultivation of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) under temperate climatic conditions in Denmark. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 122(1), 47-52.
  25. Pulvento, C., Riccardi, M., Lavini, A., d’Andria, R., Iafelice, G., & Marconi, E. (2010). Field trial evaluation of two chenopodium quinoa genotypes grown under rain‐fed conditions in a typical Mediterranean environment in South Italy. Journal of agronomy and crop science, 196(6), 407-411.
  26. Peiretti, P., Gai, F., & Tassone, S. (2013). Fatty acid profile and nutritive value of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa ) seeds and plants at different growth stages. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 183(1-2), 56-61.
  27. Temel, S., & Yolcu, S. (2020). The effect of different sowing time and harvesting stages on the herbage yield and quality of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 25(1), 41-49.
  28. Ramos, N., & Cruz, A. (2002). Evaluation of seven seasonal crops for forage production during the dry season in Cuba. Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science, 36(3), 271-276.
  29. Schooten, H. V., & Pinxterhuis, J. B. (2003). Quinoa as an alternative forage crop in organic dairy farming. Research Institute for Animal Husbandry, Lelystad, NL.
  30. Çarpıcı, E. B., Erol, S., Aşık, B. B., & Arslan, Ö. (2023). Influences of sowing date and harvest stage on dry matter yield and forage quality of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 28(1), 26-36.
  31. Chaves, M., Flexas, J., & Pinheiro, C. (2009). Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Annals of botany, 103(4), 551-560.
  32. Kaplan, M., Kara, K., Unlukara, A., Kale, H., Beyzi, S. B., Varol, I., Kizilsimsek, M., & Kamalak, A. (2019). Water deficit and nitrogen affects yield and feed value of sorghum sudangrass silage. Agricultural Water Management, 218, 30-36.
  33. Paterson, J., Funston, R., & Cash, D. (2001). Forage quality influences beef cow performance and reproduction. In Intermountain Nutrition Conference Proceedings, Utah State University Publication, 169, 101-111.
Journal of Crop Production
Volume 17, Issue 4
December 2025
Pages 107-124

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics