Kanber KARA, Mehmet Akif KARSLI, Gökhan ŞEN, Kamil KARA, Taşkın EROL

Evaluating the effects of different silage additives on silage quality and in vitro digestion values of the silages of leguminous and gramineous forage plants grown without fertilizer and irrigation in central Anatolian arid conditions

The objective of this study was to determine the effects of molasses, and bacterial inoculants on silage quality, fermentation characteristics, nutrient contents, and in vitro digestibility of different forage species grown at terrestrial climate of Central Anatolia without any artificial fertilizer usage and irrigation. Forage peas (Pisum arvense L.), Hungarian vetch (Vicia pannonica Crantz), rye grass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) and triticale (xTriticosecale Wittmack) harvested at the dough stage of triticale and conserved in 1.5 kg jars. Silages were treated with no additive (control silage), 5% molasses and 10 g/t bacterial inoculant. Sensory, pH, organic acid, chemical analyses and in vitro digestibility of all silages were determined Forage peas silage had the highest lactic and acetic acid concentrations among all silages. Addition of both molasses and inoculant did not affect the lactic acid (LA) contents of silages (p > 0.05), but both them increased acetic acid contents (p < 0.05). Ammonia-N concentrations were higher in forage peas silage compared with other silages (p < 0.05). The concentrations of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and crude protein (CP) were significantly different among silages (p < 0.05). The addition of molasses significantly reduced the silage OM, NDF and ADF contents (p < 0.05). In vitro OM digestibilities and energy values of silage were significantly different among silages made from different forages (p < 0.05), but not affected by silage additives. It can be concluded that high quality silage can be prepared from legume forages such as peas and vetch and small cereal grains such as rye and triticale grown without fertilizer usage and irrigation in central Anatolian arid conditions without any silage additive application, and but silage additive use may improve silage quality.

PDF

___

1. Ergün A, Tuncer ŞD, Çolpan İ, Yalçın S, Yıldız G et al. Yemler, Yem Hijyeni ve Teknolojileri, 4. baskı. Ankara, Türkiye: Pozitif Yayınevi; 2011.
2. Bingol NT, Karsli MA, Yilmaz İH, Bolat D. The effects of planting time and combination on the nutrient composition and digestible dry matter yield of four mixtures of vetch varieties intercropped with barley. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences 2007; 31 (5): 297-302.
3. Jacobs JL, Ward GN. “Effect of cereal and pea monocultures and combinations and silage additives on whole-crop cereal silage nutritive and fermentation characteristics. Animal Production Science 2013; 53 (5): 427-436.
4. Jahanzad E, Sadeghpour A, Hashemi M, Keshavarz Afshar R, Hosseini MB et al. Silage fermentation profile, chemical composition and economic evaluation of millet and soya bean grown in monocultures and as intercrops. Grass and Forage Science 2015; 71: 584-594.
5. Dınıć B, Koljajıć V, Đorđevıć N, Lazarevıć D, Terzıć D. Pogodnost krmnih biljaka za siliranje. Savremena Poljoprivreda 1998; 1-2: 154-162.
6. Baytok E, Aksu T, Karslı MA, Muruz H. The effects of formic acid, molasses and inoculant as silage additives on corn silage composition and ruminal fermentation characteristics in sheep. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences 2005; 29: 469-474.
7. DLG. Energie- und Nahrstoffbedarf land wirtschaftlicher Nutztiere. 4. Schweine. DLG-Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany, 1987.
8. Polan CE, Stieve D, Garret JC. Protein preservation and ruminal degradation of ensiled forage treated with heat, formic acid, ammonia or microbial inoculant. Journal of Dairy Science 1998; 81: 765-776.
9. Filya I. The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri and Lactobacillus plantarum on the fermentation, aerobic stability, and ruminal degradability of low dry matter corn and sorghum silages. Journal of Dairy Science 2003; 86: 3575-3581.
10. Tekin M, Kara K. The forage quality and the in vitro ruminal digestibility, gas production, organic acids, and some estimated digestion parameters of tomato herbage silage with molasses and barley. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences 2020; 44: 201-213. doi.org/10.3906/vet-1908-47
11. Barnett AJ. The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in silage. Biochemistry Journal 1951; 49: 527-529. doi.org/10.1042/ bj0490527
12. Ersahince AC, Kara K. Nutrient composition and in vitro digestion parameters of Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) herbage at different maturity stages in horse and ruminant. Journal of Animal and Feed Science 2017; 26: 213- 225. doi.org/10.22358/jafs/76477/2017
13. AOAC. Official methods of analysis, 7th ed. Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists 1990.
14. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB. Systems of analyses for evaluation of fibrous feed. In: Pigden WJ, Balch CC. and Graham M (editors). Proc. Int. Workshop on Standardization of Analytical Methodology for Feeds, International Development Research Center, Ottawa, Canada 1979.
15. Goering HK, Van Soest PJ. Forage Fibre Analyses. Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures, and Some Applications, USDA Agriculture Handbook No. 379. 1970.
16. Tilley JM, Terry RA. A two-stage technique for in vitro digestion of forage, Journal of British Grassland Society 1963; 18: 104-111.
17. Marten GC, Barnes RF. Prediction of energy digestibility of forages with in vitro rumen fermentation and fungal enzyme systems. In: Pigden WJ, Balch CC, Graham M (editors). Proc. Int. Workshop on standardization of analytical methodology for feed. International Development Research Center, Ottawa 1980.
18. Weiss WP, Conrad HR, St. Pierre NR. A theoretically-based model for predicting total digestible nutrient values of forages and concentrates. Animal Feed Science Technology 1992; 39: 95-110.
19. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 5 ed., SAS inst., Inc., 1998, Cary, NC. 17.
20. Steel RG, Torrie JH. Principle and Procedures of Statistics. 2nd ed. New York, USA: McDonald Book Co., Inc., 1980.
21. Dinić B, Đorđević N, Terzić V, Blagojević M, Marković J et al. The effect of carbohydrate additive and inoculation on quality of red clover silage. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 2013; 29 (1): 105-114.
22. Pahlow G, Rammar C, Slottner D, Tuori M. Ensiling of legumes. Landbauforschung Völkenrode Sonderheft 2002; 234: 27-31.
23. Arslan Duru A, Aksu Elmalı D. Farklı katkı maddelerinin yonca silajlarında bazı kalite özellikleri üzerine etkisi. In: 1st of International Academic Research Congress; Antalya, Turkey; 2016; 216 (in Turkish).
24. Çetin İ, Aslan Duru A. Determination of some quality properties of ensiled forage turnip (Brassica rapa l.) with different additives. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 2020; 29 (4 A): 2766-2771.
25. Auerbach H, Weiss K, Theobald P, Nadeau E. Effects of inoculant type on dry matter losses, fermentation pattern, yeast count and aerobic stability of green rye silages. In: Proceedings of the 12. BOKU-Symposium Tierernährung; Vienna, Austria; 2013; 179-185.
26. Auerbach H, Theobald P. Additive type affects fermentation, aerobic stability and mycotoxin formation during air exposure of early-cut rye (Secale cereale l.) silage. Agronomy 2020; 10 (9): 1432-1450.
27. NRC. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. 7th ed. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press; 1996.
28. Mustafa AF, Christensen DA, McKinnon JJ. Effects of pea, barley, and alfalfa silage on ruminal nutrient degradability and performance of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 2000; 83: 2859-2865.
29. Kaplan M, Kökten K, Akçura M. Determination of silage characteristics and nutritional values of some triticale genotypes. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi 2014; 1 (2): 102-107.
30. Bengisu G. A Study on the silage properties of Hungarian vetch (Vicia pannonica crantz.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare l.) grass mixtures in different rates. Legume Research 2019; 42 (5): 680- 683. doi: 10.18805/LR-494
31. İleri O, Erkovan S, Erkovan Hİ, Koç A. Silage quality of second forage pea at different plant densities and cereal mixtures. Turkish Journal of Range and Forage Science 2020; 1 (2): 35- 45.
32. Akdeniz H, Karsli MA, Ülker M, Oral E. Effects of increasing levels of n fertilization on yields and nutrient content of different barley varieties grown under arid condition. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 2006; 5 (2): 150-155.
33. Mustafa AF, Seguin P. Chemical composition and ın vitro digestibility of whole-crop pea and pea–cereal mixture silages grown in south-western quebec. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 2004; 190: 416-421. doi.org/10.1111/j.1439- 037X.2004.00123.x
34. Nayigihugu V, Kellogg DW, Johnson ZB, Scott M, Anschutz KS. Effects of adding levels of molasses on composition of bermudagrass (cynodon dactylon) silage. Journal of Animal Science 1995; 73 (Suppl.) : 200.