Variety effects on fermentation quality and nutritive value of whole-plant maize silage

doi:10.11686/cyxb2018809

Abstract

Abstract: This experiment was conducted to investigate the fermentation quality and nutritive value of whole-plant maize silage made from different silage-specific varieties. Zheng Silage No.1, Jinling Silage No.17 and Jingke Silage No.516 were harvested at one-half to three-fourths milk line and ensiled in plastic bags (50 cm×80 cm) for 60 days, then sensory evaluation was performed and fermentation quality analyzed. Chemical composition and in vitro digestibility were carried out after air-drying of samples. All varieties performed well in the sensory evaluations, while the grain content and total score showed significantly differences among varieties (P<0.01), color and odor also differed (P<0.05). There were significantly differences in fermentation parameters among varieties (P<0.01), and when Flieg score (FS) was ≥ 110.00 points, fermentation quality was excellent. There were significantly differences among varieties in dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), water soluble carbohydrate (WSC), starch, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), acid detergent lignin (ADL), ash contents and relative feed value (RFV) (P<0.01), and RFV was >121.00 in all cases. There were also significantly differences in silage yield and energy values among varieties (P<0.01). The milk per ton index (MT), total digestible nutrients (TDN) and energy values of Zheng Silage No.1 were significantly higher (P<0.01), while DM yield and milk per acre index (MA) were significantly lower than other two varieties (P<0.01). The dry matter (DM) yield of Jinling Silage No.17 was significantly higher (P<0.01), MT, TDN and energy values were significantly higher than Jingke Silage No.516 (P<0.01), and milk per acre index (MA) was the highest. Carbohydrate fractions analysis, in vitro DM digestibility (IVDMD) and in vitro NDF digestibility (IVNDFD) showed significantly differences among varieties (P<0.01). The IVDMD and IVNDFD of Jinling Silage No.17 were significantly higher than other tested varieties (P<0.01). The IVDMD of Jingke Silage No.516 was significantly higher than Zheng Silage No.1 (P<0.01), while the IVNDFD of Zheng Silage No.1 was significantly higher than Jingke Silage No.516 (P<0.01). In conclusion, Jinling Silage No.17 performed better than the other two varieties in this experiment, and the second ranked performer was Jingke Silage No.516.

Key words: silage-specific maize, fermentation quality, nutritive value, in vitro digestibility

LIU Yue, WANG Guo-gen, WU Hao, MENG Qing-xiang, SONG En-liang, CHENG Hai-jian, ZHOU Zhen-ming. Variety effects on fermentation quality and nutritive value of whole-plant maize silage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(6): 148-156.

References

[1] Rabelo C H S, De Rezende A V, Rabelo F H S, et al. Chemical composition, digestibility and aerobic stability of corn silages harvested at different maturity stages. Revista Caatinga, 2015, 28(2): 107-116.
[2] Zhang J H, Lu Q F, Mao H M.Effect of whole-plant corn silage and corn stalk silage on dairy benefit. Sichuan Animal & Veterinary Sciences, 2017, 44(7): 25-26.
张继宏, 鲁琼芬, 毛华明. 饲喂全株玉米青贮与玉米秸秆青贮日粮对奶牛养殖效益的影响对比. 四川畜牧兽医, 2017, 44(7): 25-26.
[3] Yao S M, Zhuang H T, Cao Z G, et al. Effect of whole-plant corn silage fed to beef cattle on fattening performance. Modern Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2017, (1): 15-20.
姚思名, 庄洪廷, 曹治国, 等. 饲喂全株玉米青贮对肉牛育肥性能的影响研究. 现代畜牧兽医, 2017, (1): 15-20.
[4] He L W.Evaluation of quality of whole silage corn and its effect on fattening performance and beef quality of beef cattle. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2017.
和立文. 全株青贮玉米品质评价及其对肉牛育肥性能和牛肉品质的影响. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2017.
[5] Benefield B C, Lineiro M, Ipharraguerre I R, et al. Nutri dense corn grain and corn silage for dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2006, 89(5): 1571-1579.
[6] Thomas E D, Mandebvu P, Ballard C S, et al. Comparison of corn silage hybrids for yield, nutrient composition, in vitro digestibility, and milk yield by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2001, 84(10): 2217-2226.
[7] Weiss W P, Wyatt D J.Effect of oil content and kernel processing of corn silage on digestibility and milk production by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2000, 83(2): 351-358.
[8] AOAC International.Official methods of analysis. 17th edition. Gaithersburg M D: AOAC International, 2000.
[9] Bates G, SP434D Corn silage. The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service, SP434D-5M-9/98 E12-2015SP434D Corn silage. The University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service, SP434D-5M-9/98 E12-2015-00-082-99. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agexfora/6.
[10] Adesogan A T, Krueger N, Salawu M B, et al. The influence of treatment with dual purpose bacterial inoculants or soluble carbohydrates on the fermentation and aerobic stability of bermudagrass. Journal of Dairy Science, 2004, 87(10): 3407-3416.
[11] Broderick G A, Kang J H.Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. Journal of Dairy Science, 1980, 63(1): 64-75.
[12] Wang J, Chen L, Yuan X J, et al. Effects of molasses on the fermentation characteristics of mixed silage prepared with rice straw, local vegetable by-products and alfalfa in southeast China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2017, 16(3): 664-670.
[13] Porter M G, Murray R S.The volatility of components of grass silage on oven drying and the inter-relationship between dry-matter content estimated by different analytical methods. Grass & Forage Science, 2010, 56(4): 405-411.
[14] Van Soest P J, Robertson J B, Lewis B A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 1991, 74(10):3583-3597.
[15] Dubois M, Gilles K A, Hamilton J K, et al. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical Chemistry, 1956, 28(3): 350-356.
[16] Guo D S.Effect of dietary composition on rumen fermentation and available crude protein in ruminants. Beijing: China Agricultural University, 2004.
郭冬生. 反刍动物日粮组合效应对瘤胃发酵和可利用粗蛋白的影响研究. 北京: 中国农业大学, 2004.
[17] Rohweder D A, Barnes R F, Jorgensen N.Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science, 1983, 47(3): 747-759.
[18] The University of Wisconsin, corn.agronomy.wisc. edu/Season/DSS/Milk2006CornSilage_v313.xls.
[19] Weiss W P.Predicting energy values of feeds 1. Journal of Dairy Science, 1993, 76(6): 1802-1811.
[20] NRC. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 7th version. Washington D C: National Academy Press, 2000.
[21] Undersander D, Mertens D R, Thiex N.Forage analyses procedures. Omaha NE: National Forage Testing Association, 1993.
[22] NRC. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 8th version. Washington D C: National Academy Press, 2016.
[23] Sniffen C J, O’Connor J D, Van S P J, et al. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diet: II. carbohydrate and protein availability. Journal of Animal Science, 1992, 70(11): 3562-3577.
[24] Li D Y, Meng Q X, Cui Z L, et al. Effects of different plant extracts on rumen fermentation in vitro by using gas production technique. Journal of China Agricultural University, 2014, 19(2): 143-149.
李德勇, 孟庆翔, 崔振亮, 等. 产气量法研究不同植物提取物对瘤胃体外发酵的影响. 中国农业大学学报, 2014, 19(2): 143-149.
[25] Feng C S, Li J H, Wang E Y, et al. Comparison of different silage corn stalk silage effects. Chinese Journal of Herbivory Science, 2015, 35(3): 29-32.
冯长松, 李锦华, 王二耀, 等. 不同玉米品种去穗秸秆青贮效果比较. 中国草食动物科学, 2015, 35(3): 29-32.
[26] Bruning D, Gerlach K, Weiss K, et al. Effect of compaction, delayed sealing and aerobic exposure on maize silage quality and on formation of volatile organic compounds. Grass & Forage Science, 2018, 73: 53-66.
[27] Santos A O, Ávila C L, Schwan R F.Selection of tropical lactic acid bacteria for enhancing the quality of maize silage. Journal of Dairy Science, 2013, 96(12): 7777-7789.
[28] Wang Y, Mcallister T A, Zhong J X, et al. Effects of proanthocyanidins, dehulling and removal of pericarp on digestion of barley grain by ruminal micro-organisms. Journal of the Science of Food & Agriculture, 1999, 79(6): 929-938.
[29] Qiu X Y, Yuan X J, Guo G, et al. Effects of molasses and acetic acid on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of total mixed diet silage in Tibet. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2014, 23(6): 111-118.
邱小燕, 原现军, 郭刚, 等. 添加糖蜜和乙酸对西藏发酵全混合日粮青贮发酵品质及有氧稳定性影响. 草业学报, 2014, 23(6): 111-118.
[30] Nennich T D, Linn J G, Johnson D G, et al. Comparison of feeding corn silages from leafy or conventional corn hybrids to lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 2003, 86(9): 2932-2939.
[31] Andrae J G, Hunt C W, Pritchard G T, et al. Effect of hybrid, maturity, and mechanical processing of corn silage on intake and digestibility by beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 2001, 79(9): 2268.
[32] Hall M B, Eastridge M L.Invited review: Carbohydrate and fat: Considerations for energy and more. Professional Animal Scientist, 2014, 30(2): 140-149.
[33] Chackerian B, Rudensey L M, Overbaugh A J.Histochemical studies on forage digestion in the rumen: A Review. Journal of Japanese Society of Grassland Science, 1997, 43(10): 171-178.
[34] Zhang X, Gu H R, Ding C L, et al. Correlation of cell wall constituents to in vitro dry matter digestibility in elephant grass. Chinese Journal of Grassland, 2012, 34(1): 89-93.
张霞, 顾洪如, 丁成龙, 等. 象草细胞壁成分与干物质体外消化率关系分析. 中国草地学报, 2012, 34(1): 89-93.
[35] Freearetto L F, Shaver R D.Effects of whole-plant corn silage hybrid type on intake, digestion, ruminal fermentation, and lactation performance by dairy cows through a meta-analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 2015, 98(4): 2662-2675.