Next Article in Journal
Using Image Texture Analysis to Evaluate Soil–Compost Mechanical Mixing in Organic Farms
Previous Article in Journal
Promising Strains of Hydrocarbon-Oxidizing Pseudomonads with Herbicide Resistance and Plant Growth-Stimulating Properties for Bioremediation of Oil-Contaminated Agricultural Soils
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Comparative Study on the Characteristics of Seeds and Phytomass of New High-Potential Fodder and Energy Crops

by
Valerian Cerempei
1,2,
Victor Țiței
1,
Valentin Vlăduț
3,* and
Georgiana Moiceanu
4,*
1
Plant Resources Laboratory, “Alexandru Ciubotaru” National Botanical Garden Institute of Moldova State University, MD-2002 Chisinau, Moldova
2
Department Fundamentals of Machine Design, Technical University of Moldova, MD-2045 Chisinau, Moldova
3
National Research-Development Institute for Machines and Installations Designed for Agriculture and Food Industry, 013813 Bucharest, Romania
4
Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, University Politehnica of Bucharest, 060042 Bucharest, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(6), 1112; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13061112
Submission received: 23 March 2023 / Revised: 19 May 2023 / Accepted: 19 May 2023 / Published: 23 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Technology)

Abstract

:
The purpose of this research is to capitalise on the potential of non-traditional plant species in the Republic of Moldova from the families Asteraceae (cup plant Silphium perfoliatum; cardoon Cynara cardunculus), Fabaceae (fodder galega Galega orientalis, sand sainfoin Onobrychis arenaria), Hydrophylaceae (phacelia Phacelia tanacetifolia), Malvaceae (curly mallow Malva crispa; Virginia mallow Sida hermaphrodita) and Poaceae (perennial sorghum Sorghum almum, pearl millet Pennisetum glaucum). The study presents the research results on the seed properties (dimensional parameters, structure, friability, apparent specific mass, mass of 1000 seeds) and on the phytomass quality of the above-mentioned plants. The obtained results demonstrate that the criterion of dimensional proportionality Kdp, proposed in this paper, effectively reflects the structure of the seeds; the seeds of new crops (except phacelia) have high friability (angle of repose α ≤ 33° and angle of static friction on steel α1 ≤ 27.8°, on wood α1 = 34.7°, on enamelled surface α1 = 30°). The natural fodder from the researched species is characterised by a crude protein content of 9.0–23.4%, dry matter digestibility of 56.0–66.5%, digestible energy load of 11.16–12.95 MJ kg−1, metabolizable energy of 9.16–10.63 MJ kg−1, net energy for lactation of 5.18–6.76 MJ kg−1, and relative feed value RFV = 74–129. The biochemical biomethane potential from studied vegetal substrates is 297–353 l kg−1 VS.

1. Introduction

The conservation and improvement of biodiversity has become a basic objective in science and the world economy [1], which requires the development of agriculture and forestry and the implementation of a set of measures to improve the efficiency of the management of technical systems and chemical agents, at the same time paying increased attention to the efforts of maintaining and developing biological systems. Therefore, in the last 20–30 years, a series of works dedicated to the in-depth studies of new plant species have been published, with the aim of mobilizing new plant genetic resources and capitalizing in the bioeconomic circuit of their polyvalent potential, being intended for feed, honey, energy, pharmaceuticals, food needs, and land improvements, including marginal and contaminated lands [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. At the same time, FAO specialists [18] point out that at the present moment, it is imperative not only to improve biodiversity and increase agricultural production but no less important to reduce the losses of agricultural raw materials and food products, which currently constitute approx. 1/3 of the obtained production, or 1.3 billion t year−1. The reduction in the above-mentioned losses will allow to improve the ecological situation and solve the socio-economic problems in the world economy.
Achieving the vital tasks specified by international organizations [1,2,3,18], adapting the agricultural sector to climate changes and mitigating them is possible by implementing new cultivars of non-traditional plant species in the agro-economic system and fulfilling their full potential based on in-depth studies of the elements of agrobiological and technical systems. In the technological chain of agricultural production, the process of sowing new crops is of particular importance, and the efficiency of this operation largely depends on the peculiarities and quality indices of the seeds. Therefore, studies on the physical and technological properties of the seeds of agricultural crops, particularly, the cultivars of new and non-traditional plant species, are of topical interest nowadays. The analysis of technical-scientific achievements demonstrates that there are papers [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26] that present the results of multilateral studies on the properties of the seeds of new plant species and techniques for incorporating them into the soil. The authors made substantial contributions to the field of agronomy, identifying the technological procedures for cultivating new plant species and determining optimal sowing dates and conditions for seed treatment, seed production, and seed storage. The physical and technological properties (dimensional parameters, friability) of the seeds of some new plant species are described in these papers [23,25,26,27].
The analysis of available sources of information demonstrates that the physical and, respectively, technological properties of seeds depend on the variety of plant species and the soil climatic conditions of plant cultivation. It is necessary to mention that the notion of “non-traditional plant species, new crops” in this paper is valid for the soil climatic zone of South-Eastern Europe (Romania, Ukraine, Republic of Moldova, etc.). At the same time, new and non-traditional plant species are native to America (Sida hermaphrodita, Silphium perfoliatum, Sorghum almum, and Phacelia tanacetifolia), Africa (Pennisetum glaucum), the Caucasus Mountains (Galega orientalis), and the Mediterranean Basin (Cynara cardunculus). Some new and non-traditional plant species, taking into account their importance, have been studied in the last 20–30 years under the conditions of Western and Central Europe [6,9,10,11,12,13,28,29]. In South-Eastern Europe, several studies on the properties of the component parts of new plants have been carried out [30,31,32,33,34,35,36]; however, these studies do not contain sufficient information for the inclusion of the mentioned plants in the bioeconomic circuit.
At the “Alexandru Ciubotaru” National Botanical Garden (Institute), Chisinau, for more than 70 years, research has been carried out on the mobilization and acclimatization of new plant species, contributing to the identification of valuable forms and the expansion of the gene pool of plant resources with multiple utilities for the national economy, and breeding activities were completed with the creation of new cultivars and, subsequently, to their homologation and patenting [37,38,39,40]. Among these cultivars, there are: ‘Vital’ of cup plant Silphium perfoliatum; ‘Melifera’ of lacy phacelia Phacelia tanacetifolia; ‘Energo’ of Virginia fanpetals Sida hermaphrodita; ‘Argentina’ of perennial sorghum Sorghum almum; ‘Sofia’ of fodder galega Galega orientalis, etc. Some agro-biological peculiarities of the newly created cultivars have been presented in our previous papers [41,42,43]. The important advantage of the mentioned plant species is that they can also be cultivated on degraded, polluted, or marginal lands where traditional crops have low yields or cannot be cultivated [42].
The experience obtained over several years proves that inclusion in the agro-economic system and making use of the full potential of the new non-traditional plant crops require a thorough and complex study of the features of seeds and the quality indices of the harvested phytomass. The knowledge of these peculiarities and quality indicators allows, on the one hand, the adequate adaptation of the techniques of sowing, harvesting, and handling in order to obtain a qualitative and profitable product, and, on the other hand, the mentioned knowledge is a strong argument for the economic agents to implement non-traditional species. Another reason why it is necessary to know the properties of the seeds is the fact that most of the non-traditional plant species and new homologated cultivars, except phacelia, are perennial; therefore, there are higher requirements for these seeds because the established plantations must be highly productive for about 10 years.
Based on the analysis carried out, the goal of our paper is to contribute to the fulfilment of the potential of some new crops, including fodder and energy biomass, by conducting a comparative study on the characteristics of the seeds and the quality indices of the plant mass obtained from the above-mentioned species in comparison with traditional crops.
Achieving the proposed goal is possible by measuring the dimensional (length, width, and thickness LWT), geometric (geometric mean diameter Dg, sphericity S), and mass (mass of 1000 M1000 seeds, apparent density ρv) parameters of the seeds. The need to study the above-mentioned parameters is determined by the fact that they, being dependent on the morphological structure and biochemical composition of the seeds, are used in the design and implementation of the technical operations of sowing, threshing, calibrating, storing, etc.

2. Materials and Methods

In order to achieve the above-mentioned goal, a methodology was developed that includes the following successive study stages: (a) measuring the physical properties of the seeds of traditional and new crops; (b) evaluation of the biochemical composition, fodder nutritional value, and its biochemical potential to obtain biomethane.
The seeds and phytomass obtained from taxa of the following families served as subjects of research:
(a)
Asteraceae (sunflower Helianthus annuus L. local variety “Ana”—control crop; cup plant Silphium perfoliatum L. local variety “Vital”; artichoke thistle Cynara cardunculus L. introduced taxa);
(b)
Fabaceae (soybean Glycine max L. Merr. local variety ‘Clavera’; and alfalfa Medicago sativa L. variety “Cezara”—control traditional crops; fodder galega Galega orientalis Lam. local variety “Sofia”; sand sainfoin Onobrychis arenaria (Kit.) DC local ecotype);
(c)
Hydrophylaceae (phacelia Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth local variety ‘Melifera’);
(d)
Malvaceae (curly mallow Malva crispa L. introduced taxa; Virginia mallow Sida hermaphrodita (L.) Rusby losal local variety ‘Energo’);
(e)
Poaceae (oat Avena sativa L., variety “Sorin”, common wheat Triticum aestivium L., local variety “Moldova 614”—control crops; the perennial sorghum Sorghum almum Parodi, local variety “Argentina”; pearl millet Pennisetum glaucum [L.] R.Br. introduced taxa).
The phytomass and the seeds were collected from studied plant species growing in the experimental plot of the National Botanical Garden (Institute) “Alexandru Ciubotaru”, Chişinău, latitude 46°58′25.7″ N and longitude 28°52′57.8″ E.

2.1. Measurement of Physical Properties of Seeds

The dimensional parameters of the seeds (length, width, and thickness LWT) were measured, at the first stage, according to the recommendations [44,45,46] using a mechanical caliper 0–150 mm with the error limit Δlim = ±0.05 mm (producer—Tolsen). For each species, 25 seeds taken from the average sample were measured; the samples were sampled using the four-quarter method. At the second stage, 15 seeds were taken from each measured sample, for which the LWT dimensions were checked using the MMI-2 instrumental microscope with the error limit Δlim = ±0.004 mm (producer—Novosibirsk Instrument-Making Plant). The fixation of the seeds on their edges, in the process of measuring the thickness T, was performed with the help of two instrumental rulers (0–150 mm).
Based on the measured values of the LWT dimensional parameters, the geometric parameters of the seeds were calculated according to [44,45]:
-
geometric mean diameter
Dg = (LWT)1/3, [mm],
-
sphericity
S = (Dg/L) × 100, [%],
In addition to the geometric parameters mentioned in expressions (1, 2), for characterizing the shape of the seeds, the criterion of dimensional proportionality, which reflects the ratio between the main dimensions of the seeds, was developed and used:
Kdp = (L/T)/(W/T)/(T/T) = (L/T)/(W/T)/1,
The apparent density ρv was determined from five repetitions; for this purpose, seeds were poured into a vessel with a precise volume and then weighed with an error of ±1 g. The ρv value was calculated according to the expression:
ρv = m/V, [kg m−3],
where m is the mass of the seeds [kg] and V is the capacity of the vessel [m3].
The mass of the seeds was determined with the electronic scale EW-3000-2M (manufacturer—KERN & SOHN GmbH, Balingen, Germany), with the error limit Δlim = ±0.01 g.
The study of dimensional, mass, and friability parameters, as well as the morphological structure of the seeds, is necessary because it allows for the correct design and utilization of the technological processes for handling the seed material. The study of the seed structure was carried out based on the Kdp criterion and the classification, which divide seeds into the 5 types described by us in the article [47] by dividing the seeds into 5 types ((1) Spheroidal—L ⋍ W ⋍ T; (2) flattened—L ⋍ W >> T; (3) elliptical—L > W ⋍ T; (4) elongated—L >> W ≄ T; and (5) pyramidal). Also in the aforementioned publication, we have reflected methods for determining the mass for 1000 seeds, M1000, as well as the friability properties of the seed (the angle of repose α, the angle of static friction α1).
To measure friability, the following instruments and equipment were used: 0–250 mm depth caliper with error limit Δlim = ±0.05 mm (producer-Kalibr), instrumental ruler 0–400 mm, funnel, digital clinometer GIM 60, error limit Δlim = ±0.05 mm (producer-Bosch Profesional, Renningen, Germany). The value of the angle of repose was calculated according to the formula:
tg α = 2 h/D
The angle of static friction α1 was measured on low-carbon steel plates S235JR (EN 10025-2/2004) and enamelled steel with roughness Ra 0.63, and on wood—Ra 1.25.
The statistical processing of the results of measurements was carried out using the program Excel 2021 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA).

2.2. Evaluation of Biochemical Composition and Fodder Value, and Biochemical Biomethane Potential of Fresh Mass from Studied Plant Species

The samples of fresh mass for the evaluation of the biochemical composition were taken during the flowering period, in perennial species in the 3rd year of life, crushed and subjected to dehydration, at 60 °C, in special equipment, and then the plant samples were finely ground in a laboratory ball mill. The content of crude protein (CP), crude fiber (CF), crude ash (CA), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), acid detergent lignin (ADL), and total soluble sugars (TSS) was determined using the near-infrared spectrophotometry method with the use of PERTEN DA 7200 and standardised methods at the RDI for Grassland Brasov, Romania. The concentrations of cellulose (Cel), hemicellulose (HC), relative feed value (RFV), dry matter digestibility (DDM), fodder energy value (metabolizable energy (ME), digestible energy (DE), and net energy for lactation (NEl)) were estimated by applying the accepted equations. The carbon content of the organic matter was calculated according to Badger et al. [48]. Biochemical methane potential was evaluated according to Dandikas et al. [49].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physical Properties of Traditional and New Crops Seeds

The results of the studies demonstrate that the dimensional characteristics of the seeds of crops from the Asteraceae family have the following values (Table 1): Helianthus annuus—LWT = 9.2 × 5.6 × 4.2 mm; Silphium perfoliatum—LWT = 11.05 × 5.85 × 1.30 mm; Cynara cardunculus—LWT = 7.55 × 3.45 × 2.45 mm. The criterion of dimensional proportionality varies within the following limits: the minimum value Kdp = 2.19/1.33/1 for Helianthus annuus seeds (S = 65.2%) and the maximum—Kdp = 8.4/4.46/1 for cup plants (S = 39.8%). A mutual dependence is observed, a link between the values of the Kdp criterion and the sphericity S: the closer the seed structure is to the spherical shape, the higher the sphericity value becomes, approaching 100%, and the lower—the Kdp value, evolving towards the ideal 1/1/1 ratio (Table 1).
The identified values of the dimensional parameters for the seeds of crops from the Asteraceae family correlate to a large extent with the results mentioned in the literature. According to the data [50,51], seeds of different Helianthus annuus hybrids have the following dimensions: LWT = (9.31–12.1) × (4.5–5.9) × (2.95–4.87) mm. In the papers [23,52], the following values of the sizes of Silphium perfoliatum seeds are presented: in natural form, LWT = (9–15) × (4.5–9) × (≤1–1.5) mm; in mechanically treated and coated form, LWT = (8.4–9) × (4.7–5.2) × (1.3–2.6) mm.
The values of the criterion of dimensional proportionality Kdp for the seeds of Cynara cordunculus, Helianthus annuus, and Silphium perfoliatum plants demonstrate that they belong to type (4). Elongated, in which all three dimensions are distinguished from each other, with length having the highest value (L > W ≄ T). However, unlike Helianthus annuus seeds, Cynara cordunculus seeds do not have a shell (capsule), having a smooth coat. The Silphium perfoliatum seeds have palea/husks on the outer surface (such as maple seeds), and that is why, after falling, these seeds tend to form piles in layers.
The seeds of crops in the Fabaceae family have the following values of dimensional characteristics (Table 1): Glycine max—LWT = 7.1 × 5.4 × 5.2 mm; Medicago sativa—LWT = 2.15 × 1.20 × 1.05 mm (Dg = 1.48 mm); Galega orientalis—LWT = 3.55 × 1.9 × 1.45 mm; Onobrychis arenaria—LWT = 5.6 × 3.95 × 2.35 mm. The results obtained in this work are included in the results of other research. For a series of Glycine max hybrids and cultivars, the authors [53,54] present the following dimensional parameters: LWT = (6.1–8.19) × (4.5–7.12) × (4.4–6.23) mm. In paper [55] the Medicago sativa seed dimensions are given: LWT = (2.36–2.72) × (1.39–1.47) × (1.07–1.35) mm.
The values of the criterion Kdp = 1.36/1.04/1.0 for Glycine max seeds (S = 82.5%) convincingly show that they belong to type (3). Elliptical (L > W ⋍ T), which is specific for leguminous crops. The pods of Onobrychis arenaria, which are characteristic of plants from the leguminous family, according to their morphological structure, register type (2). Flattened (L ⋍ W >> T) with the criterion value Kdp = 2.41/1.7/1 and the sphericity S = 66.4%. The skin of the pods in these seeds has macro-irregularities (macro-asperities). The structure of the Medicago sativa and the Galega orientalis seeds corresponds to the same type (3). Elliptical with the criterion values Kdp = 2.03/1.12/1 and Kdp = 2.47/1.31/1, respectively, the sphericity has values S = 68.2% and S = 59.8%, respectively. It should be noted that in the Fabaceae family, Glycine max and Medicago sativa seeds are best classified, according to their shape, as type (3). Elliptical, and in other studied seeds, the difference between the values of width and thickness is slightly greater.
In the Hydrophylaceae family, the properties of the seeds of a single representative, Phacelia tanacetifolia, were studied, which have some of the lowest values of the dimensional characteristics (Dg = 1.57 mm) (Table 1): LWT = 2.55 × 1.5 × 1.0 mm and the criterion Kdp = 2.51/1.45/1 specific for type (3). Elliptical (L > W ⋍ T) with sphericity S = 61.3%. The specificity of Phacelia tanacetifolia seeds lies in the fact that their coat is coarse.
In this research, the Malvaceae family had two representatives, the seeds of which are characterised by the following values of dimensional characteristics (Table 1): Malva crispa—LWT = 2.1 × 2.1 × 1.45 mm (S = 88.9%); Sida hermaphrodita—LWT = 2.2 × 2.05 × 1.45 mm (S = 85.1%). The structure of Malva crispa and Sida hermaphrodita seeds with the criterion values Kdp = 1.41/1.41/1 and Kdp = 1.52/1.43/1, respectively, belongs to type (2). Flattened (L ⋍ W >> T). The external aspect of Sida hermaphrodita seeds also tends a little towards type (5). Pyramidal (triangular), having both concave and convex surfaces on the same grain. The coat surface of Malva crispa seeds is coarse, while in Sida hermaphrodita seeds it is smooth, as in the seeds of the Fabaceae family (Glycine max, Medicago sativa, Galega orientalis, and Onobrychis arenaria), stimulating high values of friability.
The seeds of crops from the Poaceae family have the following dimensional characteristics: Avena sativa—LWT = 9.6 × 2.8 × 2.0 mm; Triticum aestivium—LWT = 6.4 × 3.25 × 3.0 mm; Sorghum almum—LWT = 5.6 × 2.8 × 2.4 mm; Pennisetum glaucum—LWT = 3.0 × 2.25 × 2.15 mm. The authors [56] present the following dimensional parameters for Sorghum bicolor seeds with different moisture levels, 10.9%–24.2% (d.b.): LWT = (5.02–5.69) × (4.25–4.63) × (3.22–3.53) mm. The papers [53,57,58] show the dimensional values of Pennisetum glaucum seeds of various varieties and moisture: LWT = (3.0–4.46) × (2.30–3.39) × (1.54–2.51) mm.
The criterion of dimensional proportionality and sphericity in the studied seeds has the following values: Avena sativa—Kdp = 4.8/1.4/1 and S = 39.3%; Triticum aestivium—Kdp = 2.13/1.08/1 and S = 62.0%; Sorghum almum—Kdp = 2.33/1.16/1 and S = 59.6%; Pennisetum glaucum—Kdp = 1.39/1.05/1 and S = 81.5%. The analysis of the values of the Kdp criterion and of the sphericity demonstrates that the morphology of the Avena sativa seeds belongs to type (4). Elongated with characteristic dimensional ratios for cereals: L >> W ≄ T. The structure of the seeds of Triticum aestivium, Pennisetum glaucum, and Sorghum almum falls into type (3). Elliptical (L > W ⋍ T), having the shape of a circumference in the transverse section of the seeds.
The analysis of the mass parameters of the studied seeds (Table 1) demonstrates that their values for traditional and new crops correlate with the structure and geometric parameters. The seeds of crops from the Asteraceae family have the geometric mean diameter Dg, with values at the upper level in relation to seeds from other families, and, respectively, the values of the mass of 1000 seeds belong to the same level: Helianthus annuus seeds—Dg = 6.0 mm (S = 65.2%), M1000 = 68.5 g; Cynara cordunculus seeds—Dg = 3.99 mm (S = 52.8%), M1000 = 48.89 g; Silphium perfoliatum seeds—Dg = 4.39 mm (S = 39.8%), M1000 = 21.31 g.
The obtained results coincide with those presented in the literature: the values of the geometric and mass parameters for Helianthus annuus seeds are equal—Dg = (5.12–6.5) mm, S = (31.3–60.8)%, M1000 = (41.8–89.0) g, apparent density ρv = 330.1–449.86 kg m−3 [50,51]; for Silphium perfoliatum seeds in their natural form, the values of the mass of 1000 seeds vary approximately within the limit of 14–21.5 g [23,52]. In the case of seeds from the Asteraceae family, there is a tendency to decrease the M1000 mass from 68.5 g (sunflower) to 21.31 g (cup plant), one of the causes of this tendency being the decrease in the values of the diameter Dg from 6.0 mm to 3.99 mm and of the sphericity S = 65.2%→39.8%.
The above-mentioned hypothesis is also confirmed in the case of Glycine max seeds (Fabaceae family), which have the highest mass value M1000 (147.2 g) with the geometric parameters: diameter Dg = 5.83 mm and sphericity S = 82.5%. These seeds are also distinguished by their dense structure, lacking a shell/pod.
The following crops have the smallest dimensions and, respectively, the smallest mass values per thousand seeds: Medicago sativa—Dg = 1.48 mm (S = 68.2%), M1000 = 1.78 g; Phacelia tanacetifolia—Dg = 1.57 mm (S = 61.3%), M1000 = 1.53 g; Malva crispa—Dg = 1.85 mm (S = 88.9%), M1000 = 2.68 g; Sida hermaphrodita—Dg = 1.88 mm (S = 85.1%), M1000 = 4.81 g; Galega orientalis—Dg = 2.13 mm (S = 59.8%), M1000 = 6.27 g; Pennisetum glaucum—Dg = 2.43 mm (S = 81.5%), M1000 = 5.47 g. The seeds of other studied crops demonstrated intermediate values of the geometric and mass parameters: Sorghum almum—Dg = 3.34 mm (S = 59.6%), M1000 = 6.99 g; Onobrychis arenaria—Dg = 3.73 mm (S = 66.4%), M1000 = 14.63 g; Avena sativa—Dg = 3.77 mm (S = 39.3%), M1000 = 32.75 g; Triticum aestivium—Dg = 3.97 mm (S = 62.0%), M1000 = 35.50 g (Table 1). Therefore, the results of the measurements demonstrate that, in the case of seeds with small and medium dimensions, the existence of a correlation between the values of the geometric parameters and the mass parameters is also confirmed. At the same time, for the studied seeds, their morphological structure also has an influence on the M1000 mass values. For example, the seeds of Malva crispa (Dg = 1.85 mm, S = 88.9%) and Sida hermaphrodita (Dg = 1.88 mm, S = 85.1%) have almost equal values of the geometric parameters, but the values of the mass of 1000 seeds essentially differ: M1000 = 2.68 g and M1000 = 4.81 g, respectively. This is because Sida hermaphrodita seeds have a denser structure with a smooth outer surface.
The morphology of the seeds most influences the values of apparent density ρv (kg m−3), which is the highest in seeds with a dense structure and a smooth outer surface: Medicago sativa—ρv = 818.7 kg m−3, Galega orientalis—ρv = 784.2 kg m−3, Glycine max—ρv = 719.2 kg m−3 (all seeds from the Fabaceae family); Triticum aestivium—ρv = 772.2 kg m−3. The seeds that contain in their structure the palea/husks of the fruit/pod have the lowest value of the apparent density (kg m−3): Silphium perfoliatum—ρv = 230.1 kg m−3, Helianthus annuus—ρv = 445.0 kg m−3, Onobrychis arenaria—ρv = 370.8 kg m−3, Avena sativa—ρv = 381.0 kg m−3. Malva crispa and Phacelia tanacetifolia seeds also have low apparent density values (ρv = 428.9 and 543.3 kg m−3, respectively) because of their loose structure and coarse outer surface. Other plant species (Cynara cardunculus, Sorghum almum, and Pennisetum glaucum) have seeds with an apparent density in the range of ρv = 637.5–675.0 kg m−3.
For some plant species researched in this paper, there are data on the geometric and mass parameters of the seeds in the literature: Medicago sativa (moisture—7.98–22.1% d.b.)—Dg = (1.47–1.59) mm, M1000 = (1.797–2.295) g [55]; Pennisetum glaucum—Dg = (2.45–2.63) mm, S = (67.0–83.3)%, M1000 = (7.3–11.95) g, apparent density ρv = (646.4–827.5) kg m−3 [57,58]; Sorghum sp.—Dg = (4.09–4.53) mm, S = (81.8–79.6)%, apparent density ρv = (775.05–699.69) kg m−3 [56]; Glycine max—Dg = (4.9–7.14) mm, S = (80–91)%, M1000 = (83.96 ± 1.38) g, apparent density ρv = (719.0–766.12) kg m−3 [53,54].
The identified values of the apparent density ρv and of the mass of 1000 seeds M1000, specific to the studied seeds (Table 1), are of practical interest and are necessary for the dimensioning of storage spaces, the organization of transport, the calculation of machinery, and the appreciation of some technological norms. The M1000 mass values present an important physical index necessary for establishing the sowing rate and, simultaneously, an index of seed quality.
It is known that the factors that influence the flow property of the seeds are: the morphological structure, the size and condition of the surface of the seed coat, the moisture and their physical purity, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the condition of the surface (material, coarseness) of the machine on which the flow occurs. The seeds with a structure close to the spherical one, a smooth coat surface, low moisture, and a small amount of impurities showed high flow capacities. The seeds studied beforehand were conditioned according to moisture U and physical purity P. The surfaces on which the flow occurred were identical (steel S235JR, wood, and enamel) for all seeds. In the given conditions, the morphological structure and the state of their coat surface can influence the friability of the seeds.
In the Asteraceae family, the seeds demonstrated friability with the following values (Table 2):
(a)
Helianthus annuus seeds, the angle of repose α = 32.9° (general method) and α = 33.2° (local method); angle of static friction on steel α1 = 29.3°, on wood—α1 = 31.3°, on enamelled surface α1 = 25.2°;
(b)
Cynara cardunculus seeds, the angle of repose α = 28.2° (general method) and α = 29.0° (local method); angle of static friction on steel α1 = 27.7°, on wood α1 = 30.6°, on enamelled surface α1 = 26.3°;
(c)
Silphium perfoliatum seeds, the angle of repose α = 29.4° (general method) and α = 31.1° (local method); angle of static friction on steel α1 = 27.8°, on wood—α1 = 29.1°, on enamelled surface α1 = 26.3°. The higher values of the α angle in Helianthus annuus seeds are due to the micro-coarseness of the capsule surface, which increases the coefficient of friction between the seeds on the one hand and between the seeds and the inclined surface material on the other hand. Therefore, Helianthus annuus seeds showed values of the angle of repose α higher by 4.2–4.7° compared to Cynara cordunculus seeds, which have a smooth coat. The angle of static friction α1 is also higher in Helianthus annuus seeds (Table 2). Silphium perfoliatum seeds with a smooth coat have a friability between Cynara cardunculus and Helianthus annuus seeds.
In most of the studied seeds, a small difference is observed between the values of the angle α measured according to the general and the local method; this difference is 0.3° for Helianthus annuus, 1.7° for Silphium perfoliatum, and 0.8° for Cynara cordunculus (Table 2). The lower values of the angle α determined with the general method are probably caused by the lack of a well-defined peak at the seed cone, which reduces the height of the cone and, implicitly, the value of the angle of repose. The local method carried out with the digital device ensures a high measurement accuracy, but the lateral surfaces of the cones formed by the seeds are not uniform, especially in Silphium perfoliatum seeds; therefore, the deviations of the values of the α angles are greater in the case of the local method. Taking into account the fact that the difference between the values of the angle α, determined by the general and the local method is relatively small, for the analysis of the friability of the seeds, the average value of the angle α will be used, and, if necessary, the values α obtained by both methods will be used.
In the Fabaceae family, Glycine max seeds have the highest friability (the angle of repose α = 26.2° and the angle of static friction on steel α1 = 15.2°, on wood—α1 = 16.3°, on enamelled surface—α1 = 14.7°) (Table 2), which have the dimensional parameters and structure suitable for the flow conditions. The next highest level of friability, decreasing, was demonstrated by the seeds of Onobrychis arenaria (the angle of repose α = 30.1° and the angle of static friction on steel α1 = 23°, on wood—α1 = 29°, on enamelled surface—α1 = 22°), Medicago sativa (the angle of repose α = 30.9° and the angle of static friction on steel α1 = 27.3°, on wood α1 = 33.6°, on enamelled surface—α1 = 26.7°) and Galega orientalis seeds (α = 33.0° and α1 on steel—27.7°, on wood—α1 = 29.8°, on enamelled surface—α1 = 27.3°).
Phacelia tanacetifolia, Hydrophylaceae family, demonstrated the highest value of angle α (37.9°) and angle of static friction α1 (37.5° on steel, 39.1° on wood and 36.9° on enamel), the cause of this phenomenon being the rough, coarse coat.
The friability of Malva crispa seeds (α = 30.6°) and Sida hermaphrodita (α = 30.9°), Malvaceae family, is analogous to that of seeds from the families Asteraceae, Fabaceae (Table 2). In our opinion, this result is due, first of all, to the morphological structure of the seeds (in Malva crispa—sphericity S = 88.9% and in Sida hermaphrodita—S = 85.1%), the coat of these seeds is not covered in husk, as that of barley, oat, etc. grains. The relatively higher value of the flow angle on wood for Malva crispa seeds (α1 = 34.70) may be caused by coarseness on the outer surface of these seeds.
In the Poaceae family, the values of the angle of repose of the seeds vary within narrow limits—from α = 26.4° for Triticum aestivium to α = 30.0° for Avena sativa. The Avena sativa seeds had the highest values of the angle of static friction (on steel—α1 = 25.2°, on wood—α1 = 28.8°, on enamelled surface—23.7°). For the seeds of Triticum aestivium, Sorghum almum, and Pennisetum glaucum, the values of the angle of static friction vary within narrow limits (on steel—α1 = 18.7–21.8°, on wood—α1 = 22.7–24.2°, on enamelled surface—α1 = 19.1–22.2°). Despite the fact that the tip of most Sorghum almum seeds has a peduncle (the stalk of the fruit), the latter does not negatively influence the friability of the seeds. Avena sativa seeds in the given family have the lowest friability, the reason being the presence of the coating on these seeds and their structure that fully corresponds to type 4. Elongated (L >> W ≄ T) with sphericity S = 39.3%.
The analysis of the results obtained with the seeds from the 5 families (Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Hydrophylaceae, Malvaceae, and Poaceae) demonstrates that in most of the experiments performed (Table 2), the values of the angle of static friction α1 were lower than the values of the angle of repose α. The biggest difference between α and α1 was identified on the enamelled surface in the case of Helianthus annuus, Sorghum almum, Onobrychis arenaria (Δ = 7.8–8.1°) and Glycine max (Δ = 11.5°), in other cases this difference is less than 6°. On the wood surface, the difference α-α1 has negative values for the seeds of Cynara cardunculus (Δ = −2°), Medicago sativa (Δ = −2.7°), Phacelia tanacetifolia (Δ = −1,2°), Malva crispa (Δ = −4.1°). For other studied plant species, the difference α-α1 has positive values. The results obtained (Table 2) demonstrate that in most of the studied cases, the coefficient of internal friction between the seeds has higher values in relation to the coefficient of external friction (between the seeds and the sliding surface), i.e., α > α1.
The shape and condition of the surface on which the seeds flow influence their friability: on smooth surfaces with low coarseness, the friability of seeds is higher than on those with high coarseness. That is why, on the enamelled and steel surfaces, a better flow capacity of the seeds is recorded than in the case of those made of wood material (Table 2). The difference between the values of the angle of static friction α1 on wood surfaces, on the one hand, and on steel S235JR, enamelled ones, on the other hand, varies up to a maximum of 6–7°. The influence of the seed structure on the above-mentioned difference is observed: increasing the values of seed sphericity S has the effect of decreasing the difference between the values of angle α1 on wood surfaces and those on steel S235JR, enamelled surfaces.
In the literature, there is information on the friability of the seeds of the crops studied in this paper. The authors [32,33] established the following values of friability parameters for Glycine max seeds: the angle of repose α = 24.2–31.8°, angle of static friction α1 = 9.3–16.0° on steel with galvanic coating and α1 = 16.9–24.3° on wood. For Medicago sativa seeds, the angle of repose varies within the limit α = 27.05–33.21° [55], while Sorghum seeds showed the following values of friability parameters: α = 26.75–29.31°; α1 = 31–35.8° on soft steel and α1 = 35–37.6° on plywood [56]. The authors [27,57,58] determined for Pennisetum glaucum seeds the angle of repose α = 23.00–29.38°, angle of static friction on steel α1 = 13.4–25° and α1 = 12.5–21.7° on wood. The comparative analysis of the values of dimensional parameters, mass, and friability, determined by us and by specialists from other countries for the seeds of the studied crops, demonstrates that, although the plants were grown in different soil-climatic conditions with the variation of varieties and seed moisture, there is a sufficiently good correlation between the above-mentioned results, which proves the veracity of our results.
So, the results obtained in this paper demonstrate that both the seeds of traditional crops: sunflower Helianthus annuus, soybean Glycine max, alfalfa Medicago sativa, oat Avena sativa, common wheat Triticum aestivium and the seeds of new crops: cup plant Silphium perfoliatum, artichoke Cynara cardunculus, fodder galega Galega orientalis, sand sainfoin Onobrychis arenaria, phacelia Phacelia tanacetifolia, curly mallow Malva crispa; Virginia mallow Sida hermaphrodita, perennial sorghum Sorghum almum, pearl millet Pennisetum glaucum) have dimensional and mass parameters, structure, and friability that demonstrate the possibility of using the existing technical means in modern agriculture to carry out technological processes with the seeds of the above-mentioned crops.

3.2. Biochemical Composition and Fodder Value of Fresh Mass, and Biochemical Biomethane Potential of Fresh Mass Substrates from Studied Plant Species

We would like to mention that, at the time of harvesting the green mass, the studied species differed in height and leaf content in the forage. Thus, the plants of fam. Asteraceae: Silphium perfoliatum reached 248 cm with 57.7% leaves and heads in the fodder, Cynara cardunculus—195 cm with 59.7% leaves and heads in the fodder, and the control—Helianthus annuus—168 cm with 51.4% leaves and heads in the fodder; of fam. Fabaceae: Galega orientalis—148 cm with 59.1% leaves in the fodder, Onobrychis arenaria—88 cm with 54.3% leaves in the fodder, Glycine max—128 cm with 57.8% leaves and pods in the fodder, Medicago sativa 94 cm with 44.3% leaves in the fodder; of fam. Hydrophylaceae: Phacelia tanacetifolia plants achieved 92 cm with 56.4% leaves in the fodder; of fam. Malvaceae: Malva crispa reached 217 cm with 54.1% leaves in the fodder, Sida hermaphrodita—285 cm with 39.4% leaves in the fodder; of fam. Poaceae: Avena sativa reached 89 cm with 34.1% leaves in the fodder, Triticum aestivium—93 cm with 34.9% leaves in the fodder, Sorghum almum—248 cm with 33.4% leaves in the fodder, Pennisetum glaucum—135 cm with 74.6% leaves and panicle in the fodder.
The results regarding the biochemical composition and nutritional value of the freshly harvested mass of the researched species are presented in Table 3. It was established that natural fodder in terms of dry matter is characterised by 9.0–23.4% crude protein, 6.0–10.5% ash, 26.6–39.9% crude fiber, 47.2–69.7% NDF, 28.8–42.2% ADF, 3.3–6.2% ADL, 25.2–38.2% Cel, 16.3–27.5% HC, and 4.6–18.4% TSS, with a dry matter digestibility value of 56.0–66.5%, digestible energy load 11.16–12.95 MJ kg−1, metabolizable energy 9.16–10.63 MJ kg−1, net energy for lactation 5.18—6.76 MJ kg−1, the relative feed value RFV = 74–129. It could also be mentioned that a very high nutritional value can be seen in the fodder of the Fabaceae family, especially in fodder from Galega orientalis plants. Cynara cardunculus and Silphium perfoliatum fodder is characterised by a high crude protein content (15.4–16.4%) compared to Helianthus annuus fodder. Phacelia tanacetifolia fodder has a nutrient content at the level of alfalfa fodder. Fodder from Malvaceae family plants has a higher concentration of protein and a reduced concentration of structural carbohydrates compared to the researched plants of the Poaceae family. Analysing the results of evaluating the biochemical composition and nutritional value of the researched plants from the Poaceae family, it could be mentioned that Pennisetum glaucum fodder has the best protein supply, and according to the content of soluble and structural carbohydrates, digestibility of dry substances, and energy load, it is not essentially different from Avena sativa plant fodder. The natural fodder of Sorghum almum and Triticum aestivium is characterised by an optimal concentration of crude protein but a very high concentration of structural carbohydrates, which had a negative impact on the decrease in digestibility, energy load and relative feed value (RFV = 74–78).
Different results are presented in the literature regarding the biochemical composition and feed value. Thus, the natural fodder from Helianthus annuus has a content of 8.7–20.40% CP, 2.0–8.1% EE, 24.10–25.0% CF, 36.9–52.5% NDF, 27.6–48.9% ADF, 9.7% lignin, 8.14–19.5% ash, 56.38% NFE, 64.4% DOM, 17.7 MJ kg−1 GE, 11.0 MJ kg−1 DE and 8.9 MJ kg−1 ME [59,60,61,62,63]; the fodder from Cynara cardunculus respectively, 13.2–18.4% CP, 1.40–2.81% EE, 23.9–38.4% NDF; 16.2–28.9% ADF,2.6–13.3% ADL [6,64,65]; Silphium perfoliatum fodder 6.6–20.40% CP, 52.5–69.7% NDF, 29.4–41.1% ADF, 4.09–8.30% lignin, 4.60–11.35% ash, 52.2–69.7% DOM, 11.32 MJ kg−1 DE, 9.2 MJ kg−1 DE and 5.31 MJ kg−1 ME [28,29,30,35,66,67], natural fodder from Medicago sativa 14.50–20.26% CP, 2.49–2.90% EE, 26.70–33.31% CF, 37.20–39.41% NFE, 39.90–65.50% NDF, 30.90–55.70% ADF, 7.6% lignin, 7.02–11.50% ash, 68.50% OM, 18.1 MJ kg−1 GE, 11.9 MJ kg−1 DE and 9.4 MJ kg−1 ME [66,68,69,70,71], natural fodder from Galega orientalis 16.18–22.84% CP, 2.95–3.90% EE, 24.58–36.85% CF, 47.50–57.90% NDF, 28.90–43.90% ADF, 3.70–6.30% lignin, 10.2% sugar, 7.51–12.48% ash, 64–82% DMD, RFV = 97–133, 10.2 MJ kg−1 ME [7,8,9,36,72,73], natural fodder from Glycine max plans 11.40–21.90% CP, 1.70–6.80% EE, 21.40–30.00% CF, 43.90–47.50% NFE, 28.00–66.27% NDF, 22.00–49.64% ADF, 3.80–9.10% lignin, 14.00–37.20% Cel, 2.64–18.00% HC, 3.00–14.00% ash, 58.20–84.21% IVDMD [8,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81]; natural fodder from Onobrychis arenaria 14.51–20.60% CP, 1.00–4.16% EE, 21.24–32.40% CF, 46.70% NDF, 31.40% ADF, 4.80% lignin 34.00–46.00% NFE, 5.34–10.00% sugar, 26.90% Cel, 15.0% HC, 3.00–8.90% ash, 67.7% DMD, 12.52 MJ kg−1 DE, 9.81–10.78 MJ kg−1 ME, 6.56 MJ kg−1 NEl, RFV = 92 [62,82,83,84,85,86]; natural fodder from Phacelia tanacetifolia 9.65–21.26% CP, 1.61–3.20% EE, 23.50–27.09% CF, 41.42–48.50% NDF, 36.20–37.79% ADF, 1.64–7.6% lignin 32.80–47.20%NFE [87,88,89,90,91,92,93], natural fodder from Malva crispa 15.60–26.10% CP, 2.15–3.22% EE, 15.00–32.00% CF, 34.74–46.05% NFE, 7.50–8.22% soluble sugars, 9.95–12.05% ash, 8.54–11.60 MJ kg−1 ME [7,8,94,95,96,97], natural fodder from Sida hermaphrodita 15.94–19.90% CP, 3.99% EE, 33.86% CF, 40.3–52.9% NDF, 30.8–37.1% ADF, 3.80–6.00% ADL, 6.00–7.30% TSS, 38.78%NFE, 31.00% Cel, 15.8% HC, 6.00–8.43% ash, 9.21–9.78 MJ kg−1 ME [94,97,98,99,100], natural fodder from Avena sativa 6.56–11.90% CP, 1.60–3.40% EE, 28.20–30.34% CF, 54.20–62.46% NDF, 31.00–39.02% ADF, 4.50% ADL, 7.10 %TSS, 49.98% NFE, 6.73–10.1% ash, 59.04–67.0% DOM, 18.0 MJ kg−1 GE, 11.5 MJ kg−1 DE and 9.3 MJ kg−1 ME [101,102,103,104,105]; natural fodder from Triticum aestivium 6.79–11.00% CP, 2.70% EE, 28.00% CF, 56.40–70.60% NDF, 31.90–41.42% ADF, 4.60% ADL, 10.6% TSS, 4.31–8.20% ash, 59.84–69.20% DOM, 17.90 MJ kg−1 GE, 11.9 MJ kg−1 DE and 9.6 MJ kg−1 ME [103,104,105], natural fodder from Sorghum almum 7.70–19.90% CP, 2.65–4.72% EE, 50.58–70.00% NDF, 26.69–50.53% ADF, 2.92–7.51% ADL, 10.6% TSS, 6.70–8.20% ash, 26.40–43.25% Cel, 20.89–37.40% HC [106,107,108], fodder from Pennisetum glaucum plants 8.08–16.20% CP, 4.80% EE, 29.20–49.30% CF, 32.80–50.50%NFE, 54.50–77.49% NDF, 30.80–45.45% ADF, 69.10% DDM [109,110,111].
The capitalisation of energy biomass through anaerobic digestion is carried out in biogas plants with a wide variety of microorganisms, resulting in methane gas as a fuel for the production of heat and electricity and carbon dioxide. The digested residue is rich in macro- and micronutrients and is widely used in production farms as a fertiliser in organic farming. The results regarding the quality of the researched plant substrates and the biochemical potential for obtaining biomethane are presented in Table 4. The carbon/nitrogen ratio (C/N) is a basic factor that influences the correct course of digestion and biomethane yield. Methanogenic bacteria need an appropriate ratio of carbon to nitrogen for their metabolic processes, ratios greater than 30:1 proved to be unsuitable for optimal digestion, and ratios less than 10:1 proved to be inhibitory, due to low pH, poor buffering because of the high concentration of ammonia in the substrate. The nitrogen concentration in dry matter of the tested substrates varied from 14.40 g kg−1 to 37.40 g kg−1, and the estimated carbon content was from 497 g kg−1 to 519 g kg−1, C/N ratio being 13–36. The biochemical methane potential of the tested substrates ranges from 297 l kg−1 vs. (Helianthus annuus) to 353 l kg−1 vs. (Pennisetum glaucum). Data on biomethane production potential are presented in other publications. The Helianthus annuus substrates have a biomethane potential of 190–454 l kg−1 vs. [63,112,113,114]; Silphium perfoliatum substrate 280–300 l kg−1 vs. [10,28,29,33,41,42,43,115,116]; Cynara cardunculus substrates—209–293 l kg−1 vs. [117,118]; Medicago sativa substrates 248–410 l kg−1 vs. [71,92,97,119], Galega orientalis substrates 244–384 l kg−1 vs. [73,120], Glycine max substrate—266 l kg−1 vs. [121], Phacelia tanacetifolia substrates 217–300 l kg−1 vs. [42,92,122], Malva crispa substrate 237 l kg−1 vs. [97], Sida hermaphrodita substrates—131–394 l kg−1 vs. [28,41,42,43,97,100,115], Triticum aestivium substrate—369–390 l kg−1 vs. [119,123], Pennisetum glaucum substrates 257–278 l kg−1 vs. [63,119].

4. Conclusions

This research has demonstrated that the criterion of dimensional proportionality Kdp, proposed by the authors and used in this paper, effectively reflects the structure of the studied seeds from the Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Hydrophylaceae, Malvaceae, Poaceae families, the following types being identified: Flattened (L ⋍ W >> T, Onobrychis arenaria, Malva crispa and Sida hermaphrodita seeds), elliptical (L > W ⋍ T, Glycine max, Medicago sativa, Galega orientalis, Phacelia tanacetifolia, Triticum aestivium, Sorghum almum, Pennisetum glaucum seeds), and elongated (L > W ≄ T, a Cynara cardunculus, Helianthus annuus, Silphium perfoliatum, Avena sativa seeds). At the same time, a correlation is observed between the values of the Kdp criterion and those of sphericity S: the closer the seed structure is to the spherical shape, the higher the sphericity value becomes, approaching 100%, and the lower the Kdp value, evolving towards the ideal 1/1/1 ratio. The analysis of the mass parameters of the studied seeds (mass of 1000 grains M1000, apparent density ρv) demonstrates that their values for traditional and new crops correlate with the structure and geometric parameters (LWT, geometric mean diameter, Dg). The comparison of the geometric and mass parameters of the seeds of new and traditional crops widely used in modern agriculture makes it possible to forecast some properties of the seeds of new crops and to rationally develop the technological process routes for the production of these crops, as well as to correctly select the technical means for the realisation of these routes.
The seeds of the new plant species studied possess, in relation to the seeds of most traditional field crops, high friability capacities: the angle of repose α ≤ 33° and the angle of static friction on steel α1 ≤ 27.8°, on wood α1 = 34.7°, on enamelled surface α1 = 30°), one of the basic factors that influenced the friability of the seeds being their structure. In Phacelia tanacetifolia seeds, because of coarse coat morphology, the friability of the seeds is lower (α = 37.9° and α1 ≤ 39.1°). The analysis of the values of the angles of repose α and of the angle of static friction α1, recorded for the studied seeds, confirms the possibility of using the existing buildings and technical means in the agri-food sector for the transportation, processing, and storage of these seeds, which is very important for the capitalization of their biological potential with minimal expenses.
The researched new and non-traditional plant species are of economic interest as fodder plants to be administered in the rations of farm animals, but also as energy biomass substrates for biomethane production stations as an alternative energy source.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.C. and V.Ț.; methodology, V.C. and V.Ț.; software, V.V.; validation and formal analysis, V.Ț., V.V. and G.M.; investigation, V.C. and V.Ț.; writing—original draft preparation, V.C., V.Ț. and G.M.; writing—review and editing, V.V. and G.M.; supervision, V.Ț. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was created and published with the support of National Agency for Research and Development (Republic of Moldova), project “Mobilization of plant genetic resources, plant breeding and use as forage, melliferous and energy crops in bioeconomy”, code 20.80009.5107.02 and PubArt programme of UPB.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Strategy the European Environment Agency EEA–Eionet 2021–2030; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021; Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/ro/publications/strategia-aem2013eionet-202120132030 (accessed on 22 March 2023).
  2. Plant Genetic Resources Strategy for Europe. European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources; Plant Genetic Resources Strategy for Europe: Rome, Italy, 2021; Available online: https://www.ecpgr.cgiar.org/resources/ecpgrpublications/publication/plant-genetic-resourcesstrategy-for-europe-2021 (accessed on 15 January 2023).
  3. The EU Protein Deficit: What Solution for a Long-Standing Problem? European Parliament Resolution of 8 March on the EU Protein Deficit. 2011. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/146f1b4a-c767-11e1-b84a-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (accessed on 15 January 2023).
  4. European Parliament resolution of 17 April on a European Strategy for the Promotion of Protein Crops, 2018; Encouraging the Production of protein And Leguminous Plants in the European Agriculture Sector. 2018. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018IP0095 (accessed on 15 January 2023).
  5. Scholz, V.; Kern, J.; Kaulfuß, P. Environmental Effects of Energy Crop Cultivation—Results of a Long-term Field Trial. Agr. Res. 2010, 8, 445–452. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cajarville, C.; González, J.; Repetto, J.L.; Rodríguez, C.A.; Martinez, A.A. Nutritive Value of Green Forage and Crop By-Products of Cynara cardunculus. Ann. Zootech. 1999, 48, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Timofeev, N.P. Vegetable Protein Regulation its Level. 2003. Available online: https://leuzea.ru/sciens/181-timofeev_vegetable_protein_regulation_its_level.pdf (accessed on 15 January 2023). (In Russian).
  8. Avetisyan, A.T. Adaptability of the Non- Traditional, Rare Forage Crops in the Krasnoyarsk Region Agricultural Part. Bull. KrasGAU 2011, 3, 54–58. [Google Scholar]
  9. Żarczyński, P.; Sienkiewicz, S.; Wierzbowska, J.; Krzebietke, S. Fodder Galega—A Versatile Plant. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Haag, N.L.; Nägele, H.J.; Reiss, K.; Biertümpfel, A.; Oechsner, H. Methane Formation Potential of Cup Plant (Silphium perfoliatum). Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 75, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Frölich, W.; Brodmann, R.; Metzler, T. The Cup Plant (Silphium perfoliatum L.)—A Story of Success from Agricultural Practice. J. Kult. 2016, 68, 351–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Krička, T.; Matin, A.; Bilandžija, N.; Jurišić, V.; Antonović, A.; Voća, N.; Grubor, M. Biomass Valorisation of Arundo donax L., Miscanthus giganteus and Sida hermaphrodita for Biofuel Production. Int. Agrophys. 2017, 31, 575–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Emmerling, C. Soil Quality through the Cultivation of Perennial Bioenergy Crops by Example of Silphium perfoliatum—An Innovative Agroecosystem in Future. J. Kult. 2016, 68, 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Prelac, M.; Bilandžija, N.; Zgorelec, Ž. The Phytoremediation Potential of Heavy Metals from Soil Using Poaceae Energy Crops: A review. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2016, 17, 901–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nabel, M.; Schrey, S.D.; Poorter, H.; Koller, R.; Jablonowski, N.D. Effects of Digestate Fertilization on Sida hermaphrodita: Boosting Biomass Yields on Marginal Soils by Increasing Soil Fertility. Biomass Bioenergy 2017, 107, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mueller, A.L.; Biertümpfel, A.; Friedritz, L.; Power, E.F.; Wright, G.A.; Dauber, J. Floral Resources Provided by the New Energy Crop, Silphium perfoliatum L. (Asteraceae). J. Apic. Res. 2020, 59, 232–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sliz, M.; Wilk, M. A Comprehensive Investigation of Hydrothermal Carbonization: Energy Potential of Hydrochar Derived from Virginia mallow. Renew. Energy 2020, 156, 942–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The State of Food and Agriculture: Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016; p. 194. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6030e.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  19. Ene, T.A.; Mocanu, V. Production, Conditioning and Storage of Seeds of Perennial Grassland Grasses and Legumes—Technologies, Equipment and Facilities; ©Editura Ion Ionescu de la Brad: Iaşi/Brașov, Romania, 2016; p. 116. Available online: http://www.madr.ro/attachments/article/224/ADER-1112-ghid.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2023). (In Romanian)
  20. Jasinskas, A.; Šarauskis, E.; Domeika, R. Technological Evaluation of Non-Traditional Energy Plant Cultivation and Utilization for Energy Purposes in Lithuania. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Agricultural Engineering (AgEng), Zurich, Switzerland, 6–10 July 2014. [Google Scholar]
  21. Von Gehren, P.; Gansberger, M.; Mayr, J.; Liebhard, P. The Effect of Sowing Date and Seed Pretreatments on Establishment of the Energy Plant Silphium perfoliatum by Sowing. Seed Sci. Technol. 2016, 44, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Altuntas, E.; Karadag, Y. Some Physical and Mechanical Properties of Sainfoin (Onobrychis sativa Lam.), Grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.) and Bitter Vetch (Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd.) seeds. J. Appl. Sci. 2006, 6, 1373–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schäfer, A.; Damerow, L.; Schulze Lammers, P. Determination of the seed geometry of cup plant as requirement for precision seeding. Landtechnik 2017, 72, 122–128. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kaliniewicz, Z.; Markowski, P.; Anders, A.; Jadwisienczak, K. Frictional Properties of Selected Seeds. Tech. Sci. 2015, 18, 85–101. [Google Scholar]
  25. Krzaczek, P.; Szyszlak, J.; Zarajczyk, J. Assessment of the influence of selected operating parameters of S071/B KRUK seeder on seeding Sida hermaphrodita Rusby seeds. Int. Agrophys. 2006, 20, 297–300. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kowalczuk, J.; Zarajczyk, J.; Leszczyński, N.; Węgrzyn, A.; Niedziółka, I.; Szymanek, M.; Markowski, P. Comparison of the Quality of Seeding the Virginia Fanpetals Seeds by S071 Kruk Seeder in Laboratory and Field Conditions. TEKA-Comm. Mot. Energetics Agric. 2014, 14, 47–50. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jain, R.K.; Bal, S. Properties of Pearl Millet. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1997, 66, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cumplido-Marin, L.; Graves, A.R.; Burgess, P.J.; Morhart, C.; Paris, P.; Jablonowski, N.D.; Facciotto, G.; Bury, M.; Martens, R.; Nahm, M. Two Novel Energy Crops: Sida hermaphrodita (L.) Rusby and Silphium perfoliatum L.—State of Knowledge. Agronomy 2020, 10, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Peni, D.; Stolarski, M.J.; Bordiean, A.; Krzyżaniak, M.; Dębowski, M. Silphium perfoliatum—A Herbaceous Crop with Increased Interest in Recent Years for Multi-Purpose Use. Agriculture 2020, 10, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Puia, I.; Szabo, A.T. Culture experimentale d’une nouvelle espece fourragere- Silphium perfoliatum- dans le Jardin agrobotanquie de Cluj-Napoca. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici 1985, 15, 15–20. [Google Scholar]
  31. Rakhmetov, D.B. Genetic resources of plant species for energy use introduced in Ukraine. Plant Introd. 2007, 34, 3–9. [Google Scholar]
  32. Bolohan, C.; Marin, D.I.; Mihalache, M.; Ilie, L.; Oprea, A.C. Research on Cynara cardunculus L. species under the condition of Southeastern Romania area. Sci. Pap. Ser. A Agron. 2013, 56, 429–432. [Google Scholar]
  33. Roman, G.V.; Ion, V.; Epure, L.I.; Băşa, A.G. Biomass Alternative Energy Source; Biomasa Sursă Alternativă de Energie Universitară Publishing House: București, Romania, 2016; p. 432. (In Romanian) [Google Scholar]
  34. Kurylo, V.L.; Rakhmetov, D.B.; Kulyk, M.I. Biological features and potential of yield of energy crops of the thin-skinned family in the conditions of Ukraine. Bull. Poltava State Agrar. Acad. 2018, 1, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rakhmetov, D.B.; Vergun, O.M.; Stadnichuk, N.O.; Shymanska, O.V.; Rakhmetova, S.O.; Fishchenko, V.V. Biochemical study of plant raw material of Silphium L. spp. in M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden of the NAS of Ukraine. Plant Introd. 2019, 83, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rakhmetov, D.B.; Shymanska, O.V.; Bondarchuk, O.P.; Vergun, O.M.; Korablova, O.A.; Rakhmetova, S.O.; Fishchenko, V.V. Productivity of plant varieties of species of the genus Galega L. in the Right-Bank Forest-Steppe of Ukraine. Plant Var. Stud. Prot. 2021, 17, 274–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. The Official Bulletin of Intellectual Property (BOPI) Republic of Moldova. September 2016. Available online: http://agepi.gov.md/ro/bopi/9-2016 (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  38. The Official Bulletin of Intellectual Property (BOPI) Republic of Moldova. June 2019. Available online: http://www.agepi.md/ro/bopi/6-2019 (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  39. The Official Bulletin of Intellectual Property Republic of Moldova (BOPI). August, 2022. Available online: https://www.agepi.gov.md/sites/default/files/bopi/BOPI_8_2022.pdf#page=79 (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  40. Catalog of Plant Varieties for Year 2023 Republic of Moldova. Available online: https://cstsp.md/uploads/files/Registrul_2023_Tipar_Gray.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  41. Teleuţă, A.; Ţîţei, V. Mobilization, acclimatization and use of fodder and energy crops. J. Bot. 2016, 1, 112–120. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ţîţei, V.; Roşca, I. Good Practices for the Use of Degraded Lands in the Cultivation of Crops with ENERGY Biomass Potential; Unitatea Consolidată pentru Implementarea Programelor IFAD: Chişinău, Moldavia, 2021; p. 80. Available online: https://www.ucipifad.md/wpcontent/uploads/2018/12/Bunele-practici-de-utilizare-aterenurilor-degradate-%C3%AEn-cultivarea-culturilorcu-poten%C5%A3ial-de-biomas%C4%83-energetic%C4%83.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  43. Ţîţei, V. The mobilization of energy crop resources in Moldova. Rom. Agric. Res. 2023, 40, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  44. Mohsenin, N.N. Physical Properties of Plant and Animal Materials; Gordon and Breach Press: New York, NY, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  45. Mohsenin, N.N. Physical Properties of Plant and Animal Materials: Structure, Physical Characteristics and Mechanical Properties; (e-Book); New York Imprint Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; p. 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gheorghiev, N.; Starodub, V. Seed Study of Field Crops; Print-Caro: Chișinău, Moldavia, 2010; p. 168. (In Romanian) [Google Scholar]
  47. Cerempei, V.; Țîței, V.; Guțu, A.; Cârlig, N.; Gadibadi, M. Some Physical and Technological Properties of Seeds of Non-traditional Plant Species in the Republic of Moldova. Sci. Papers. Ser. A Agron. 2022, 65, 643–654. [Google Scholar]
  48. Badger, C.M.; Bogue, M.J.; Stewart, D.J. Biogas Production from Crops and Organic Wastes. N. Z. J. Sci. 1979, 22, 11–20. [Google Scholar]
  49. Dandikas, V.; Heuwinkel, H.; Lichti, F.; Drewes, J.E.; Koch, K. Correlation Between Biogas Yield and Chemical Composition of Grassland Plant Species. Energy Fuels 2015, 29, 7221–7229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Duca, M.; Glijin, A. The Broomrape Effect on some physical and Mechanical Properties of Sunflower Seeds. Sci. Ann. Alexandru Ioan Cuza Univ. Iași Sect. II Veg. Biol. 2013, 59, 75–83. [Google Scholar]
  51. Babić, L.J.; Radojčin, M.; Pavkov, I.; Babić, M. The Physical and Compressive Load Properties of Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Fruit Helia 2012, 35, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Höller, M.G. Phenotypic Analysis of Different Silphium perfoliatum L. Accessions and Evaluation as a Renewable Resource for Material Use. Master’s Thesis, Bonn University, Bonn, Germany, 2022; p. 131. Available online: https://bonndoc.ulb.uni-bonn.de/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11811/10441/6868.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  53. Chhabra, N.; Kaur, A. Studies on Physical and Engineering Characteristics of Maize, Pearl Millet and Soybean. J. Pharma Phytoche. 2017, 6, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kibar, H.; Öztürk, T. Physical and Mechanical Properties of Soybean. Int. Agrophys. 2008, 22, 239–244. [Google Scholar]
  55. Togo, J.M.; Wang, D.; Ma, W.; He, C. Effects of Moisture Content on Selected Physical and Mechanical Properties of Alfalfa Seeds. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2018, 8, 8–18. [Google Scholar]
  56. Kenghe, R.N.; Jadhav, M.S.; Nimbalkar, C.A. Physical Properties of Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) Grains as a Function of Moisture Content. IJESRT Int. J. Eng. Sci. Res. Technol. 2015, 4, 496–504. [Google Scholar]
  57. Prakash, O.; Jha, S.K.; Kar, A.; Sinha, J.P.; Satyavathi, C.T.; Iquebal, M.A. Physical Properties of Pearl Millet Grain Pantnagar. J. Res. 2019, 17, 129–137. [Google Scholar]
  58. Ojediran, J.O.; Adamu, M.A.; Jim-George, D.L. Some Physical Properties of Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) Seeds as a Function of Moisture Content. Afr. J. Gen. Agric. 2010, 6, 39–46. [Google Scholar]
  59. Heuzé, V.; Tran, G.; Hassoun, P.; Lebas, F.; Feedipedia. Sunflower Forage and Crop Residues. 2015. Available online: https://www.feedipedia.org/node/143 (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  60. Seiler, G.J.; Carr, M.E.; Bagby, M.O. Renewable Resources from Wild Sunflowers (Helianthus spp., Asteraceae). Econ. Bot. 1991, 45, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mello, R.; Nörnberg, J.; Restle, J.; Neumann, M.; Queiroz, A.; Costa, P.; Magalhães, A.; David, D. Sowing Dates Effects on the Phenology, Yield and Qualitative Traits of Sunflower Hybrids for Silage Making. Rev. Brasileira Zoot. 2006, 35, 672–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Trots, V.B.; Trots, N.M. Chemical Composition and Phytomass Food Value of Mixed Seeding of Silo Crops. Sel’skokhozyaistvennaya Biol. (Agric. Biol.) 2010, 6, 76–81. [Google Scholar]
  63. Kerckhoffs, L.H.; Shaw, S.; Trolove, S.N.; Astill, M.S.; Heubeck, S.; Renquist, R. Trials for Producing Biogas Feedstock Crops on Marginal Land in New Zealand. Agron. N. Z. 2011, 41, 109–124. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ferndndez, J.; Hidalgo, M.; del Monte, J.P.; Curt, M.D. Aprovechamiento del cardo (Cynara cardunculus L.) para la produccion de biomasa lignocelulosica, aceite y forraje verde. Inf. Tec. Econ. Agrar. Suppl. 1996, 17, 49–56. [Google Scholar]
  65. Romero, M.J.; Otal, J.; Lorenzo, I.; Pdrer, J.I. Utilizacion del cardo (Cynara cardunculus) como forraje de invierno en ganado ovino. Composicion quimica y digcstibilidad in vivo. Resultados preliminares. Inf. Tec. Econ. Agrar. Suppl. 1997, 18, 46–48. [Google Scholar]
  66. Han, K.; Albrecht, K.; Mertens, D.; Kim, D. Comparison of In Vitro Digestion Kinetics of Cup-Plant and Alfalfa. Anim. Biosci. 2000, 13, 641–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ţiţei, V.; Cîrlig, N.; Guţu, A. Some Biological Peculiarities and Economic Value of the Cultivation of Cup Plant, Silphium perfoliatum L. Stud. Univ. Mold. (Real Nat. Sci. Ser.) 2020, 6, 79–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Gryazeva, T.V. Breeding of Alfalfa and Sainfoin in the Conditions of the Rostov Region. Ph.D. Thesis, Agricultural Sciences, Rostov, Russia, 2005. Available online: https://www.dissercat.com/content/selektsiya-lyutserny-i-espartseta-v-usloviyakh-rostovskoi-oblasti (accessed on 22 March 2023). (In Russian).
  69. Stavarache, M.; Samuil, C.; Popovici, C.; Tarcau, D.; Vintu, V. The Productivity and Quality of Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) in Romanian Forest Steppe. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2015, 43, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Heuzé, V.; Tran, G.; Boval, M.; Noblet, J.; Renaudeau, D.; Lessire, M.; Lebas, F. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Feedipedia. 2016. Available online: https://www.feedipedia.org/node/275 (accessed on 22 March 2023).
  71. Teleuţă, A.; Ţîţei, V. Economic Value of Some Leguminous Plant Species of the Collections from the Botanical Garden (Institute) of the Academy of Sciences of Moldova. J. Plant Dev. 2016, 23, 27–35. [Google Scholar]
  72. Coşman, S.; Ciopată, A.C.; Coşman, V.; Bahcivanji, M.; Ţîţei, V. Study on the Chemical Composition and Nutritional Value of the Galega orientalis Lam. and the Prospects of its Valorification in the Republic of Moldova. Sci. Pap. Ser. D Anim. Sci. 2017, 60, 75–80. Available online: http://animalsciencejournal.usamv.ro/pdf/2017/Art12.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2023).
  73. Meripõld, H.; Tamm, U.; Tamm, S.; Võsa, T.; Edesi, L. Fodder Galega (Galega orientalis Lam.) Grass Potential as a Forage and Bioenergy Crop. Agr. Research. 2017, 15, 1693–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Undersander, D.; Jarek, K.; Anderson, T.; Schneider, N.; Milligan, L. A Guide to Making Soybean Silage. Online. Forage Grazinglands 2007, 5, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Blount, A.R.; Wright, D.L.; Sprenkel, R.K.; Hewitt, T.D.; Myer, R.O. Forage Soybeans for Grazing, Hay, and Silage; University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2013; Available online: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/AG184 (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  76. Heuzé, V.; Tran, G.; Hassoun, P.; Lebas, F. Soybean Forage. Feedipedia 2016. Available online: https://www.feedipedia.org/node/294 (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  77. Peiretti, P.G.; Meineri, G.; Longato, E.; Tassone, S. Nutritive Value and Fatty Acid Content of Soybean Plant [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] during its Growth Cycle. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 17, 347–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tabacco, E.; Comino, L.; Revello-Chion, A.; Borreani, G. Fermentative Profile, Microbial and Chemical Characteristics and Aerobic Stability of Whole Crop Soybean Silage Affected by the Stage of Growth and Inoculation with Lactic Acid Bacteria. In Proceedings of the XVIII International Silage Conference, Bonn, Germany, 24–26 July 2018; pp. 180–181. [Google Scholar]
  79. Islam, I.; Adam, Z.; Islam, S. Soybean (Glycine max): Alternative Sources of Human Nutrition and Bioenergy for the 21st Century. Am. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 7, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zanine, A.; Sene, O.; Ferreira, D.; Parente, H.; Parente, M.; Pinho, R.; Santos, E.; Nascimento, T.; Lima, A.G.; Perazzo, A.; et al. Fermentative Profile, Losses and Chemical Composition of Silage Soybean Genotypes Amended with Sugarcane Levels. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 21064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Iqbal, M.A.; Hussain, I.; Hamid, A.; Ahmad, B.; Ishaq, S.; Sabagh, A.E.; Barutçular, C.; Khan, R.D.; Imran, M. Soybean Herbage Yield, Nutritional Value and Profitability under Integrated Manures Management. Ann. Braz. Acad. Sci. 2021, 93, e20181384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Ignatiev, S.A.; Gryazeva, T.V.; Ignatieva, N.G.; Chesnokov, I.M. Evaluation of Productivity and Fodder Value of Sainfoin New Varieties. Don Agrar. Sci. Bull. 2010, 4, 69–72. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  83. Pankov, D.M. Efficiency of Cultivation of Sainfoin Sandy in the Conditions of Forest-Steppe of the Altai. Forage Prod. 2012, 10, 34–36. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  84. Voloshin, V.A. Preliminary Results of Studies into Hungarian Sainfoin in Perm Territory. Sib. Her. Agric. Sci. 2015, 1, 49–55. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  85. Demydas, G.I.; Lykhosherst, E.S.; Burko, L.M. Content of Organic and Mineral Substances in Feed from Different Types of Sainfoin Depending on Fertilizing. Bull. Um. Natl. Univ. Hortic. 2019, 1, 54–58. (In Ukrainian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ţîţei, V. Some Agrobiological Peculiarities and Potential Uses of Glycyrrhiza glabra L. and Onobrychis arenaria (KIT.) DC. in the Republic of Moldova. Sci. Papers. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agr. Rural. Dev. 2021, 21, 593–598. Available online: http://managementjournal.usamv.ro/pdf/vol.21_4/volume_21_4_2021.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2023).
  87. Ates, E.; Coskuntuna, L.; Tekeli, A.S. Plant Growth Stage Effects on the Yield, Feeding Value and some Morphological Characters of the Fiddleneck (Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth.). Cuban J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 44, 425–428. [Google Scholar]
  88. Fuksa, P.; Hakl, J.; Brant, V. Energy Balance of Catch Crops Production. Zemdirb.-Agric. 2013, 100, 355–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ates, E.; Tekeli, A.S.; Boynukara, B. Performance of Fodder Pea (Pisum arvense L.)—Fiddleneck (Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth.) Mixture under Different Nitrogen Doses. Romanian Agr. Res. 2014, 31, 213–218. Available online: https://www.incda-fundulea.ro/rar/nr31/rar31.26.pdf (accessed on 22 March 2023).
  90. Kalber, T.; Kreuzer, M.; Leiber, F. Milk Fatty Acid Composition of Dairy Cows Fed Green Whole-Plant Buckwheat, Phacelia or Chicory in Their Vegetative and Reproductive Stage. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2014, 193, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Herrmann, C.; Idler, C.; Heiermann, M. Biogas Crops Grown in Energy Crop Rotations: Linking Chemical Composition and Methane Production Characteristics. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 206, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Mazăre, V.; Ţîţei, V.; Mazăre, R. The Productivity and Quality of the Biomass of Phacelia tanacetifolia and its Potential Application. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Life Sciences, Timisoara, Romania, 24–25 May 2018; Filodiritto Editore: Bologna, Italy; pp. 624–632. [Google Scholar]
  93. Yıldız, N. Herbal Characteristics and Yield Parameters of Organically Grown Phacelia tanacetifolia Bentham. Int. J. Agric. Nat. Sci. 2022, 15, 42–48. [Google Scholar]
  94. Rakhmetov, D.B. Biological Foundations of Introduction and Cultivation of New Sorts of Annual and Perennial Species of Malvaceae Family in Forest Steppe of Ukraine. Ph.D. Thesis, Ukrainian Agricultural Academy Kiev, Kyiv, Ukraine, 2001; p. 44. (In Ukrainian). [Google Scholar]
  95. Rakhmetov, D.; Rakhmetova, S. Annual Mallows- much more Protein and Green Mass than Clover or Soybeans. 2011. Available online: http://www.zerno-ua.com/journals/2011/aprel-2011-god/malvy-odnoletnie-belka-i-zelenoy-massy-gorazdo-bolshe-chem-u-klevera-ili-soi (accessed on 22 March 2023). (In Russian).
  96. Kazarin, V.F.; Kazarina, A.V.; Frolova, L.F.; Gutsalyuk, M.I.; Agliulina, L.K.; Abramenko, I.S.; Kinel. Recommendations for Cultivation of Mallva for Forage and Seeds in the Forest-Steppe of the Middle Volga Region. Volga Research Institute of Selection and Seed Production named after P.N. Konstantinov. 2009; 30p. Available online: http://www.pniiss.ru (accessed on 20 January 2023). (In Russian).
  97. Ţîţei, V.; Teleuţă, A. Introduction and Economical Value of Some Species of the Malvaceae Family in the Republic of Moldova. Agric. Life Agric. Conf. Proc. 2018, 1, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Tarkowski, A.J.; Truchliński, A..J. Nutritional Value of Virginia Fanpetals (Sida hermaphrodita Rusby) Protein in Evaluation of Nitrogen Fertilization Effect on Environment. New Med. 2011, 15, 8–11. [Google Scholar]
  99. Fijalkowska, M.; Przemieniecki, S.W.; Kurowski, T.; Lipiński, K.; Nogalski, Z.; Purwin, C. Ensiling Suitability and Microbiological Quality of Virginia Fanpetals Biomass. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 97, 541–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gadibadi, M.; Ţîţei, V.; Cerempei, V.; Guţu, A.; Doroftei, V.; Covalciuc, D.; Lîsîi, R.; Mazăre, V.; Armaş, A. Some Agro-Biological Features and Potential Uses of Virginia Mallow, Sida hermaphrodita in Moldova. Sci. Papers. Ser. A Agron. 2021, 64, 687–694. [Google Scholar]
  101. Heuzé, V.; Tran, G.; Boudon, A.; Lebas, F.; Feedipedia. Oat Forage. 2016. Available online: https://www.feedipedia.org/node/500 (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  102. Jat, H.; Kaushik, M.K.; Choudhary, J.L. Agronomic Evaluation of Oat (Avena sativa L.) for Growth, Yield and Quality with Varying Levels of Irrigation and Nitrogen. Ann. Plant Soil Res. 2017, 19, 385–388. [Google Scholar]
  103. Heuzé, V.; Tran, G.; Baumont, R.; Feedipedia. Wheat Forage. 2015. Available online: https://feedipedia.org/node/363 (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  104. Askel, E.J.; Neumann, M.; Horst, E.H.; Vigne, G.L.D.; Pontarolo, G.B.; Amaral, B.H.C.; Costa, L.; Sandini, I.E. Chemical Composition of Forage and Haylage of Winter Cereals in Guarapuava-PR. 2017. Available online: http://www.isfqcbrazil.com.br/proceedings/2017/chemical-evaluation-offorages-and-haylage-of-different-winter-cultivars-193.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  105. Teixeira, C.; Fontaneli, R. Chemical Bromatological Evaluation of Biomass for Silage of the Winter Cereals. J. Chem. Chem. Eng. 2017, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Amador, A.; Boschini, C. Calidad nutricional de la planta de sorgo negro forrajero (Sorghum almun) para alimentación animal. Agron. Mesoam. 2000, 11, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Lanyasunya, T.P.; Rong Wang, H.; Mukisira, E.A.; Abdulrazak, S.A.; Ayako, W.O. Influence of Manure and Inorganic Fertilizer on Yield and Quality of Vicia villosa Intercropped with Sorghum almum in Ol-joro-orok, Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2006. Available online: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/10/lany18141.htm (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  108. Gumel, I.A.; Baba, M.; Abdurrahaman, S.L.; Ibrahim, A.A.; Babangida, L.; Kiri, I.Z.; Adamu, A.U.; Babandi, B.; Usman, I. Effect of Plant Spacing on Dry Matter Yield and Proximate Composition of Irrigated Columbus Grass (Sorghum almum). Nigerian J. Animal Sci. Tech. 2020, 3, 53–59. [Google Scholar]
  109. Sheta, B.T.; Kalyanasundaram, N.K.; Patel, K.C. Quality Parameters and Plant Nutrient Ratios of Forage Pearl Millet as Influences by Nitrogen, Potassium and Sulphur Levels in Loamy Sand Soils of Anand. Asian J. Soil Sci. 2010, 5, 116–121. [Google Scholar]
  110. Babiker, S.; Khair, M.A.M.; Tahir, I.S.A.; Elhag, F.M.A. Forage Quality Variations among some Sudan Pearl Millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br] Collection. Annu. Res. Rev. Biol. 2015, 5, 293–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Costa, R.R.G.F.; Costa, K.A.P.; Souza, W.F.; Epifanio, P.S.; Santos, C.B.; Silva, J.T.; Oliveira, S.S. Production and Quality of Silages Pearl Millet and Paiaguas Palisadegrass in Monocropping and Intercropping in Different Forage Systems. Biosci. J. 2018, 34, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Amon, T.; Amon, B.; Kryvoruchko, V.; Machmüller, A.; Hopfner-Sixt, K.; Bodiroza, V.; Hrbek, R.; Friedel., J.; Potsch, E.; Wagentristl, H.; et al. Methane Production through Anaerobic Digestion of Various Energy Crops Grown in Sustainable Crop Rotations. Biores. Tech. 2007, 98, 3204–3212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Mursec, B.; Vindis, P.; Janzekovic, M.; Brus, M.; Cus, F. Analysis of Different Substrates for Processing into Biogas. J. Achiev. Mat. Manuf. Eng. 2009, 37, 652–659. [Google Scholar]
  114. Sternberg, K.; Erdmann, G.; Kirchmeyr, F.; Collins, D.; Hofmann, F.; Pieroni, C.; Schlienger, M.; Verney, M.; Kovacs, A.; Scholwin, F. Report on Current and Future Sustainable Biomass Supply for Biomethane Production. 2015. Available online: http://www.aebig.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BIOSURF-D4.2.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  115. Schmidt, A.; Lemaigre, S.; Delfosse, P.; von Francken-Welz, H.; Emmerling, C. Biochemical Methane Potential (BMP) of Six Perennial Energy Crops Cultivated at Three Different Locations in W-Germany. Biomass Convers. Biorefinery 2018, 8, 873–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Von Cossel, M.; Pereira, L.A.; Lewandowski, I. Deciphering Substrate-Specific Methane Yields of Perennial Herbaceous Wild Plant Species. Agronomy 2021, 11, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Pesce, G.R.; Negri, M.; Bacenetti, J.; Mauromicale, G. The Biomethane, Silage and Biomass Yield Obtainable from Three Accessions of Cynara cardunculus. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 103, 233–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ferrero, F.; Dinuccio, E.; Rollé, L.; Tabacco, E.; Borreani, G. Biogas Production from Thistle (Cynara cardunculus L.) Silages. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Anaerobic Digestion, Turin, Italy, 4–7 June2018; p. 36. [Google Scholar]
  119. Lehtomäki, A. Biogas Production from Energy Crops and Crop Residues (No. 163); University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, 2006; Available online: https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/13152 (accessed on 20 January 2023).
  120. Dubrovskis, V.; Plume, I.; Adamovics, A.; Auzins, V.; Straume, I. Galega biomass for biogas production. In Proceedings of 7th International Scientific Conference Engineering for Rural Development, Jelgava, Latvia, 29–30 May 2008; pp. 1691–3043. [Google Scholar]
  121. Morozova, I.; Oechsner, H.; Roik, M.; Hulsemann, B.; Lemmer, A. Assessment of Areal Methane Yields from Energy Crops in Ukraine, Best Practices. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Molinuevo-Salces, B.; Ahring, B.K.; Uellendahl, H. Catch Crops as an Alternative Biomass Feedstock for Biogas Plants. In Proceedings of the International Anaerobic Digestion Symposium on Dry Fermentation, Substrate Treatment and Digestate Treatment within the BioGasWorld 2013, Berlin, Germany, 23–25 April 2013; pp. 92–98. [Google Scholar]
  123. Drazic, N.; Rakascan, N.; Radojevic, V.; Popovic, V.; Ignjatov, M.; Popovic, D.; Ikanovic, J.; Petkovic, Z. Cereals as Energy Sources in the Function of Circular Economy. Agric. For. 2021, 67, 7–18. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Values of seeds dimensional and mass parameters.
Table 1. Values of seeds dimensional and mass parameters.
Name of the SpeciesDimensional Parameters, mmGeometric ParametersMass Parameters
LWTCriterion KdpDg, mmS, %pv, kg m−3M1000, g
Asteraceae
Helianthus annuus9.20 ± 1.15.60 ± 0.34.20 ± 0.42.19/1.33/16.0 ± 0.5165.2445.0 ± 1.8668.5 ± 1.10
Silphium perfoliatum11.05 ± 0.95.85 ± 0.41.30 ± 0.058.4/4.46/14.39 ± 0.2639.8230.1 ± 1.1721.31 ± 0.06
Cynara cordunculus7.55 ± 0.93.45 ± 0.32.45 ± 0.183.11/1.42/13.99 ± 03752.8637.5 ± 1.4348.89 ± 0.22
Fabaceae
Glycine max7.10 ± 0.255.40 ± 0.275.20 ± 0.251.36/1.04/15.83 ± 0.2682.5719.2 ± 2.44147.2 ± 0.44
Medicago sativa2.15 ± 0.101.20 ± 0.061.05 ± 0.062.03/1.12/11.48 ± 0.0768.2818.7 ± 2.591.78 ± 0.03
Galega orientalis3.55 ± 0.41.90 ± 0.221.45 ± 0.072.47/1.31/12.13 ± 0.1859.8784.2 ± 3.776.27 ± 0.05
Onobrychis arenaria5.60 ± 0.33.95 ± 0.212.35 ± 0.152.41/1.7/13.73 ± 0.2166.4370.8 ± 2.7614.63 ± 0.12
Hydrophylaceae
Phacelia tanacetifolia2.55 ± 0.211.50 ± 0.161.00 ± 0.132.51/1.45/11.57 ± 0.1661.3543.3 ± 2.931.53 ± 0.01
Malvaceae
Malva crispa2.10 ± 0.082.10 ± 0.081.45 ± 0.131.41/1.41/11.85 ± 0.0988.9428.9 ± 2.132.68 ± 0.09
Sida hermaphrodita2.20 ± 0.122.05 ± 0.081.45 ± 0.11.52/1.43/11.88 ± 0.185.1704.6 ± 3.434.81 ± 0.12
Poaceae
Avena sativa9.60 ± 1.22.80 ± 0.42.00 ± 0.14.8/1.4/13.77 ± 0.3639.3381.0 ± 4.1832.75 ± 1.48
Triticum aestivium6.40 ± 0.423.25 ± 0.33.00 ± 0.192.13/1.08/13.97 ± 0.2962.0772.2 ± 3.7435.50 ± 1.63
Sorghum almum5.60 ± 0.152.80 ± 0.132.40 ± 0.092.33/1.16/13.34 ± 0.1259.6656.0 ± 3.896.99 ± 0.14
Pennisetum glaucum3.00 ± 0.122.25 ± 0.192.15 ± 0.161.39/1.05/12.43 ± 0.1581.5675.0 ± 1.895.47 ± 0.18
Table 2. Values of seeds friability parameters.
Table 2. Values of seeds friability parameters.
Name of the SpeciesThe Angle of Repose α, Grade,
Measurement Method
The Angle of Static Friction α1,
GeneralLocalAverageSteelWoodEnamelled
Asteraceae
Helianthus annuus32.9 ± 1.133.2 ± 1.833.129.3 ± 0.531.3 ± 0.625.2 ± 0.4
Silphium perfoliatum29.4 ± 1.531.1 ± 2.130.327.8 ± 0.329.1 ± 1.526.3 ± 0.8
Cynara cordunculus28.2 ± 1.329.0 ± 1.328.627.7 ± 0.830.6 ± 1.126.3 ± 0.8
Fabaceae
Glycine max27 ± 0.625.5 ± 0.726.215.2 ± 1.116.3 ± 0.914.7 ± 0.3
Medicago sativa30.2 ± 0.331.5 ± 0.430.927.3 ± 0.433.6 ± 0.926.7 ± 0.2
Galega orientalis32.5 ± 0.933.4 ± 0.833.027.7 ± 0.329.8 ± 0.827.3 ± 0.4
Onobrychis arenaria28.4 ± 0.731.8 ± 1.330.123 ± 0.129 ± 0.722 ± 0.1
Hydrophylaceae
Phacelia tanacetifolia37.5 ± 1.238.3 ± 1.537.937.5 ± 0.839.1 ± 1.136.9 ± 0.7
Malvaceae
Malva crispa29.2 ± 0.431.9 ± 0.930.627.7 ± 0.434.7 ± 0.430.0 ± 0.5
Sida hermaphrodita30.7 ± 0.931.1 ± 0.930.926.6 ± 0.429.4 ± 0.825.7 ± 0.4
Poaceae
Avena sativa29.2 ± 0.330.8 ± 0.630.025.2 ± 0.228.8 ± 1.223.7 ± 0.3
Triticum aestivium25 ± 0.227.7 ± 1.226.421.8 ± 0.422.7 ± 0.722.2 ± 0.4
Sorghum almum26.5 ± 0.927.2 ± 0.826.919.9 ± 0.324.2 ± 0.219.1 ± 0.3
Pennisetum glaucum26.9 ± 0.426.8 ± 0.726.918.7 ± 0.324.2 ± 0.721.0 ± 0.5
Table 3. Biochemical composition and nutritional value of natural fodder obtained from the researched species.
Table 3. Biochemical composition and nutritional value of natural fodder obtained from the researched species.
VariantCP
%
Ash
%
CF
%
ADF
%
ADL
%
NDF
%
TSS
%
Cel
%
HC
%
DDM
%
RFVDE
MJ kg−1
ME
MJ kg−1
NEl
MJ kg−1
Helianthus annuus9.06.735.836.56.355.86.330.219.360.39711.929.795.81
Silphium perfoliatum16.49.031.735.44.855.65.630.620.261.310312.119.945.96
Cynara cordunculus15.47.630.032.65.455.58.027.222.963.510612.5010.266.28
Medicago sativa17.29.133.134.75.851.08.328.916.361.911312.5010.266.04
Galega orientalis23.410.526.628.83.647.710.025.218.966.012812.9510.636.76
Glycine max17.89.428.631.04.948.414.226.117.464.812412.7310.456.46
Onobrychis arenaria15.69.327.530.04.547.218.425.517.265.512912.8610.566.58
Phacelia tanacetifolia17.010.432.435.95.653.82.630.316.960.910512.059.895.90
Malva crispa11.97.135.036.05.753.111.230.317.160.910712.039.885.89
Sida hermaphrodita14.46.037.937.76.254.64.631.516.959.510111.799.685.70
Avena sativa9.56.535.637.44.662.716.732.825.859.88911.849.725.73
Triticum aestivium10.17.939.942.24.069.77.938.227.556.07411.169.165.18
Sorghum almum10.69.639.242.14.567.011.037.624.956.17811.189.185.19
Pennisetum glaucum11.67.536.137.03.360.616.633.723.660.09211.889.755.78
Table 4. Biochemical potential of obtaining biomethane from the plant substrates of the researched species.
Table 4. Biochemical potential of obtaining biomethane from the plant substrates of the researched species.
VariantOM
%
CP
%
ADF
%
ADL
%
NDF
%
Cel
%
HC
%
C
%
N
%
C/NMethane
l kg−1 vs
Helianthus annuus95.39.036.56.355.830.219.351.81.4436297
Silphium perfoliatum91.016.435.44.855.630.620.250.62.6219337
Cynara cordunculus92.415.432.65.455.527.222.951.32.4621327
Medicago sativa90.917.234.75.851.028.916.350.52.7518321
Galega orientalis89.523.428.83.647.725.218.949.73.7413371
Glycine max90.617.831.04.948.426.117.450.32.8518337
Onobrychis arenaria90.715.630.04.547.225.517.250.42.5020339
Phacelia tanacetifolia89.617.035.95.653.830.316.949.92.7218324
Malva crispa92.911.936.05.753.130.317.151.61.9027312
Sida hermaphrodita94.014.437.76.254.631.516.952.22.3023309
Avena sativa93.59.537.44.662.732.825.851.91.5234329
Triticum aestivium92.110.142.24.069.738.227.551.21.6232341
Sorghum almum90.410.642.14.567.037.624.950.21.7030332
Pennisetum glaucum92.511.637.03.360.633.723.651.41.8628353
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cerempei, V.; Țiței, V.; Vlăduț, V.; Moiceanu, G. A Comparative Study on the Characteristics of Seeds and Phytomass of New High-Potential Fodder and Energy Crops. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1112. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13061112

AMA Style

Cerempei V, Țiței V, Vlăduț V, Moiceanu G. A Comparative Study on the Characteristics of Seeds and Phytomass of New High-Potential Fodder and Energy Crops. Agriculture. 2023; 13(6):1112. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13061112

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cerempei, Valerian, Victor Țiței, Valentin Vlăduț, and Georgiana Moiceanu. 2023. "A Comparative Study on the Characteristics of Seeds and Phytomass of New High-Potential Fodder and Energy Crops" Agriculture 13, no. 6: 1112. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13061112

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop