Katarzyna PANASIEWICZ, Gra?yna SZYMANSKA, Marek SELWET, Agnieszka FALIGOWSKA

QUALITY AND HYGIENIC CONDITIONS OF WHITE LUPIN SILAGE, AFFECTED BY FORAGE STAGE OF GROWTH AND USE OF SILAGE ADDITIVES

A two-factor field experiment with white lupin cv. Butan was carried out. The first factor was the green forage harvest date (the flat pod stage – Cut 1 and the stage of green ripe seeds – Cut 2), while the second one – application of silage additives: biological (strains of lactic acid bacteria) and chemical (a mixture of organic acids), and the control treatment (without additives). In Cut 2 higher fresh matter (FM) and dry matter (DM) yields were obtained. Silage inoculated with the biological additive contained a significantly greater count of lactic acid bacteria. Both additives reduced counts the Clostridium bacteria, yeasts and mould fungi. The silage with the chemical additive had a three-fold higher content of water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC), while the biological additive increased lactic acid (LA) levels. White lupin can be used as a silage raw material, but plants before ensiling should be partially wilted and silage additives should be applied

PDF

___

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis AOAC. Arlington, USA.
Borreani, G., L. Cavallarin, S. Antoniazzi and E. Tabacco. 2006. Effect of the stage of growth, wilting and inoculation in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) silages. I. Herbage composition and silage fermentation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 86: 1377-1382.
Borreania, G., A. Revello Chiona, S. Colombinib, M. Odoardi, R. Paoletti and E. Tabaccoa. 2009. Fermentative profiles of field pea (Pisum sativum), faba bean (Vicia faba) and white lupin (Lupinus albus) silages as affected by wilting and inoculation. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 151: 316-323.
Budakli Carpici, E., N. Celik and G. Bayram. 2010. Yield and quality of forage maize as influenced by plant density and nitrogen rate. Turk. J. Field Crops, 15(2): 128-132.
Carruthers, K., B. Prithiviraj, Q. Fe, D. Cloutier, R.C. Martin and D.L. Smith. 2000. Intercropping of corn with soybean, lupin and forages: silage yield and quality. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 185 (3): 177-185.
Conway, E.J. 1962. Microdiffusion analysis and volumetric error. Crosby Lockwood. London.
Doležal, P., L. Zeman and J. Skládanka. 2008. Effect of supplementation of chemical preservatives on fermentation process of lupin silage. Slovak J. Anim. Sci. 1: 30-38.
Dumont, L.J., G.R. Anrique and C.D. y Alomar. 2005. Effect of two systems of dry matter determination on the chemical composition and quality of direct cut oat silage at different phenological stages. Agric. Tec. (Chile) 65:388-396.
Egorov, I.F. and N.P. Myskov. 2001. Silage from narrow–leaved lupin and its mixtures. In: Kormoproizvodstvo, 5: 27-28.
Faligowska, A. and M. Selwet. 2012. Quality and hygienic condition of yellow lupine silages depending on the harvest date of green forage and additive to ensilaging. Nauka Przyr. Technol., http://www.npt.up-poznan.net/pub/art_6_15.pdf, (Accessed October 17 2011) (in Polish).
Fraser, M.D., R. Fychan and R. Jones. 2001. The effect of harvest date and inoculation on the yield, fermentation characteristics and feeding value of forage pea and field bean silages. Grass Forage Sci. 56: 218-230.
Fraser, M.D., R. Fychan and R. Jones. 2005a. The effect of harvest date and inoculation on the yield and fermentation characteristics of two varieties of white lupin (Lupinus albus) when ensiled as a whole-crop. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 119: 307-322.
Fraser, M.D., R. Fychan and R. Jones. 2005b. Comparative yield and chemical composition of two varieties of narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus angustifolius) when harvested as whole-crop, moist grain and dry grain. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 120: 43- 50.
Gallo, M., L. Rajčáková and R. Mlynár. 2006. Effect of different dry matter and biological additives application on fermentation process in red clover silages. Slovak J. Anim. Sci. 39 (1-2): 89-92.
Huyghe, Ch. 1997. White lupin ( Lupinus albus L.). Field Crops Res. 53: 147-160.
Idziak, R., W. Skrzypczak, H. Waligóra and Z. Woznica. 2013. The effect of mesotrione applied with adjuvants on weed control efficacy and forage sorghum tolerance. Turk J. Agric. For. 37: 265-270.
Iptas S. and M. Yavuz. 2008. Effect of pollination levels on yield and quality of maize grown for silage. Turk J. Agric. For. 32: 41-48.
Karadag, Y. and U. Buyukburc. 2003. Effects of seed rates on forage production, seed yield and hay quality of annual legume-barley mixtures. Turk. J. Agric. For. 27: 169-174.
Kusaksiz, T. 2010. Adaptability of some new maize (zea mays l.) cultivars for silage production as main crop in Mediterranean environment. Turk. J. Field Crops, 15(2): 193-197.
McDonald, P., A.R. Henderson and S.J.E. Heron. (1991). The Biochemistry of Silage. 2nd edn. Chalcombe Publications, Marlow.
Mcdonald, P. and A.R. Henderson. 1964. Determination of water-soluble carbohydrates in grass. J. Sci. Food Agric. 15: 395-398.
McNaughton, D. 2011. The use of lupins as an alternative to imported soya in UK livestock systems. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Lupin Conference Poznań (Poland) l. 30
Mihailović, V., G.D. Hill, A. Mikić, B. Ćupina and S. Vasiljević. 2008. White lupin as a forage crop on alkaline soils. In: Lupins for Health and Wealth, Proceedings of the 12th International Lupin Conference, Fremantle, Western Australia. International Lupin Association, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Mustafa, A.F., P. Seguin, D.R. Ouellet and I. Adelye. 2002. Effects of cultivars on ensiling characteristics, chemical composition and ruminal degradability of pea silage. J. Dairy Sci. 85: 3411-3419.
Reta Sánchez, D.G., J.T. Espinosa Silva, A. Palomo Gil, J.S. Serrato Corona, J.A. Cueto Wong and A. Gaytán Mascorro. 2010. Forage yield and quality of intercropped corn andsoybean in narrow strips. Span. J. Agric. Res. 8 (3): 713- 721.
Rojas G.C., S.A. Catrileo, B.M., Manríquez and F.F. y Calabí. 2004. An evaluation of the cutting stage on triticale (X Triticosecale Wittmack) for silage. Agric. Tec. (Chile) 64:34-40.
Turk M., S. Albayrak and O. Yuksel. 2011. Effect of seeding rate on the forage yields and quality in pea cultivars of differing leaf types. Turk. J. Field Crops, 16(2): 137-141.
Turk, M. and S. Albayrak. 2012. Effect of harvesting stages on forage yield and quality of different leaf types pea cultivar. Turk. J. Field Crops, 17(2): 111-114.
Voytekhovich, I. 2000. Ensilage of narrow–leaved lupin. Vestsi Akademii Agrarnych Nauk Respubliki Belarus 3: 46-49.