Effect of grass species and different levels of maize bran on silage quality

B J Lyimo, E J Mtengeti, N A Urio and E E Ndemanisho

Mvomero District council, P O Box 663, Morogoro, Tanzania.
bmwaluka2003@yahoo.com
Department of Animal, Aquaculture and Range Sciences, College of Agriculture, Sokoine University of Agriculture, P O Box 3004, Morogoro, Tanzania.

Abstract

The composition of tropical grasses as fodder for dairy cattle produces low quality silages without the use of additives. Maize bran additive have been used by smallholder dairy farmers to improve the quality of silages. However, the effect of different levels of maize bran on various grass silages quality is rarely documented. This study therefore was conducted to investigate the effect of grass species and different levels of maize bran on silage quality in smallholder dairy farms. Elephant (Pennisetum purpureum), guatemala (Tripsacum laxum) and rhodes grasses (Chloris gayana) were established and harvested when they were at the age of 120, 63 and 56 days respectively. Nutritive value declines quickly as plant matures thus were harvested at respective recommended stages of growth for each grass. The harvested grasses were chopped into 4cm and subdivided into four portions each of which was treated with a different level of maize bran (0, 5, 10, and 15%). The chopped materials were ensiled in portion of 5kg in plastic bag silo. Treatments were assigned to a completely randomized design in factorial arrangement (3 x 4) as three grasses (elephant, guatemala and rhodes grasses) and four maize bran additive levels (0, 5, 10 and 15%) with two replications. The silage was opened after 60 days, sampled and analyzed for chemical composition, fermentation, sensoric qualities and in vitro DM digestibility (IVDMD).

Elephant grass produced higher quality silages than those produced by guatemala and rhodes grasses as indicated by higher sensoric qualities, crude protein (CP), lactic acid and stability but lower pH and NH₃N. Maize bran at 10% level produced higher quality and preserved better than maize bran at 0, 5 and 15% levels as indicated by higher sensoric scores, CP, WSC, lactic acid, acetic acid and stability but lower NDF, pH and NH₃N. The interaction between grass species and different maize bran levels showed that, elephant grass silage with maize bran at 10% level produced best silage as indicated by highest sensoric scores, CP, lactic acid and stability but lowest pH. Therefore, elephant grass mixed with maize bran at 10% level was the most optimal combination techniques to achieve high quality silage under smallholder farmers.

Key words: Chloris gayana, Pennisetum purpureum, smallholder dairy farmers, Trypsacum laxum

Introduction

In Tanzania, dairying is one of the fast growing enterprises in the livestock sector contributing 30% of the livestock Gross Domestic Product (URT 2012). Despite the high benefits obtained from dairying, the problem of feed shortage during dry season constraint the sector. To mitigate this, silage is one of the alternative feed from otherwise wasted surplus herbage from the rainy season (Lyimo 2010). However, making silage in small African farms is not easy, one of the problem of ensiling fodder grasses within smallholder’s fodder garden, is the available biomass at a particular time that may be enough to use trench or earth pit silos which may require at least half a tone of ensiling forage materials (Mtengeti et al 2013). In solving this problem plastic bags have been used elsewhere (Mtengeti and Urio 2006, Delacollette et al 2005 and Ashbell et al 2001). In Tanzania, the high-yielding fodder grass species that have been grown by smallholder dairy farmers are elephant, guatemala and rhodes grasses (Lyimo 2004, Mtengeti et al 2006). Ensiling those fodder grass could prolong their shelf life and increased their nutrient composition and digestibility. Ensiling is a preservation method for moist forage crops. However, the composition of the herbages makes them difficult to produce high quality silage without the use of additives. Additives applied to herbage during silage-making are used primarily to reduce conservation losses and therefore retain as much as feasible the nutritive values of the ensiled herbage. Thus, their mode of action can include limiting respiration or proteolysis by plant enzymes, manipulating fermentation, inhibiting the activity of aerobic micro-organisms such as yeast and mould, and reducing effluent output (Kung et al 2003). According to Kung et al (2003) various nutritive additives have been added to forage to maintain or improve the nutritive value of a crop as silage.

Use of appropriate additives can increase nutritional value and have positive effect on silage quality (Weinberg et al 2002). Several studies on grass silage reported to improved silage especially increase in WSC after mixing fodder grass with additives (Aminah et al 2000; Andrade and Melotti 2004; Iqbal et al 2005; Mtengeti et al 2006; Lyimo 2010 and Mtengeti et al 2013). Maize bran have been reported as silage additive, it is also used as absorbent water soluble carbohydrate and authors applied it at different levels (’t Mannetje 2000; Manyawu et al 2003; Mtengeti et al 2006; Lyimo 2010 and Mtengeti et al 2013). Maize bran is a product of milling of dried maize grain and is composed of the bran coating (with high fibre) and few maize germ and starch particles. It is a good source of energy in ruminant and non ruminant rations (Dotto et al 2004). It has 88%DM, 12% CP, 26 %NDF, 4.6% Ash, 11 %ME (Weisbjerg et al 2007); 89.5% DM, 10.7% CP, 75.7% CF, 6.18% Ash (Laswai et al 2002); has 11.8% CP, 79.5% CF, 25.9 % NDF, 6.5% Ash (Doto et al 2004). Silage production studies have verified its potential for promoting fermentation efficiency when mixed with grasses (Manyawu 2003; Lyimo 2010). In Tanzania maize bran is feed supplement materials that is locally available within most smallholder dairy farmers reach and could be used as low cost additive to improve the grass silage quality (Mtengeti et al 2013). According to Makkar and Ankers (2014) the efficient use of available feed resources is the key to efficient animal production and food security. However, the effect of maize bran on various grass silages quality and the optimal inclusive levels are rarely documented. Therefore, the study was conducted to investigate the effect of fodder grass species and different levels of maize bran on silage quality in smallholder dairy farms.

Materials and methods

Study area

This study was conducted at Magadu dairy farm in Department of Animal Science and Production (DASP) at Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA). The farm is located between 6^o and 7^o South and 37^o and 38^o east within an altitude of about 500 to 600m above sea level at the foot of Uluguru plateau mountains within Morogoro Municipality in Eastern part of Tanzania. It is characterized by ambient temperature between 20-27 ^oC in the coolest months of April to August and 30 - 35 ^oC during the hottest month of October to January. The annual rainfall ranges from 600-1000mm.

Experimental design and treatments

The study adopted a completely randomized design (CRD) with 12 treatment combinations of two factors (i.e. three grass species (Elephant grass, guatemala grass, rhodes grass) and four different levels of maize bran (0, 5, 10 &15%)) in two replications. The experiment had 12 treatments designated as elephant grass mixed with 0% maize bran (MB0%E), elephant grass mixed with 5% maize bran (MB5%E), elephant grass mixed with 10% maize bran (MB10%E), elephant grass mixed with 15% maize bran (MB15%E), guatemala grass mixed with 0% maize bran (MB0%G), guatemala grass mixed with 5% maize bran (MB5%G), guatemala grass mixed with 10% maize bran (MB10%G), guatemala grass mixed with 15% maize bran (MB15%G), rhodes grass mixed with 0% maize bran (MB0%R), rhodes grass mixed with 5% maize bran (MB5%R), rhodes grass mixed with 10% maize bran (MB10%R) and rhodes grass mixed with 15% maize bran (MB15%R).

Source, harvesting and preparation of ensiled grasses

The ensiled grass species used in study were elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum), guatemala grass (Trypsacum laxum) and rhodes grass ( Chloris gayana). All ensiled grass species were harvested from well established pasture plots. Each pasture plot for the grass specie covered an area of about 400m². The elephant grass was harvested at 1.5m of height (120 days after planting), guatemala grass was at 1.0 m of height (63 days) after planting whereas rhodes grass 0.5m of height (56 days) when it was at flowering stage of growth. Nutritive value declines quickly as plant matures thus were harvested at respective recommended stages of growth for each grass. The grasses were cut using the machete and thereafter each bundle of harvested grass specie was chopped by a machete into 4cm length. The harvested grass was chopped into 4cm and divided into two portions. One portion of the ensiling material was subdivided into four lots out of which each was treated with a different level of maize bran (0, 5, 10, and 15%) as additive (Table 1). The additives was mixed thoroughly with forage material and ensiled in small plastic bag silos of 5kg plastic bag.

Maize bran availability and affordability

In Tanzania, maize bran is cheap, affordable and locally available. For a smallholder farmer with only one cow, a 5kg of grass silage  could be appropriate since the animal may require only 5kg of silage per day since it should be combined with other feeds such as hay and concentrates for a healthy rumen. The 5kg of  elephant grass silage required 4.5kg of elephant grass mixed with 0.5kg of maize bran at 10% level with the price of 0.05  US$ /day or 125Tshs (Table 1). The price is affordable considering that, feed is the major cost item among variable costs and accounts for over 70% of the production costs (Norris et al 2002).  The productivity of dairy cattle under smallholder farmers has however, been low, producing  up to from 6 – 10 liters of milk in the rain season and 3–5 liters in the dry season due to unavailability of adequate quality feeds throughout the year (Kavana and Msangi 2005;  Hall et al 2007; Njarui et al 2009). This implies that, in average, the lowest income from milk production in dry season could be 3liters/day x 0.4US$/liter = 1.2US /day (1liter of milk = 0.4US$= 1000Tshs) and the highest income during   rainy season could be 10liters/day x 0.4US$/liter = 4US$/day. Therefore, smallholder farmer with the income of  1.2US$ can afford to make silage using maize bran at 10% with the price of 0.05 US$ /day even during dry season.

Ensiling procedure and storage

The ensiling was done by filling the chopped grass materials in the ensiling plastic bag silo with 30 nm thickness. Air was removed and the neck of the bag was twisted, turned over and tied with a rubber band. Thereafter, the ensiling plastic bag was labeled for treatment identity. Each bag was then inserted into a second empty shopping plastic bag which was also tied and labeled and put in a hessian bag to protect it from rupturing. Hessian bags were then stored in thatched barn. Thatched barn is cheaper and can be affordable compared with earth-pit (Lyimo 2010). In the thatched barn, the hessian bags were carefully stacked on a wooden rack to allow ventilation and lower the temperature. Chicken wire mesh surrounded the wooden rack protecting the bags against rats, mice and birds, especially the crow who would view the bags as bin bags full of kitchen waste to consume.

Data collection procedures

After 60 days of fermentation, the plastic bag silos were opened and spoiled silage was separated from well preserved silage. Samples (weighing 500 g) from each bag were collected placed in polythene bags and immediately placed in a cool ice box and taken to the analytical laboratory. The sample was sub-divided into two samples. One sample was used for organoleptic test and pH determination. The other sub-samples were put in plastic bags and stored in a deep freezer at -10°C until when they were used for chemical composition analysis and determination of in-vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD).

The DM of the fresh ensiling material and silages were determined by drying in an oven at 65°C for 48 h (AOAC 1984). The silages were freeze-dried in a Lyphilizer maintained at -40 ºC for 24 hrs according to Snowman (1988) so as to get a dry sample for ash, crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), water soluble carbohydrates (WSC) analysis and IVDMD determination. Ammonia-nitrogen (NH₃N) was analyzed from fresh silage samples. The ash, CP and NH₃N were analyzed according to AOAC (2005) procedures while WSC was analyzed according to Thomas (1977). The NDF was analyzed according to Van Soest et al (1991). A pH meter (model 219-MK 2; Pye Unicam) was used to measure the pH of the fresh silages samples. Samples of 40g from each silo were soaked in 200 ml of cool distilled water for 12 hours then filtered and the supernatant used for the determination of the pH. The IVDMD of the silages were determined according to the two stage technique developed by Tilley and Terry (1963) and modified by Salabi et al (2010). The silages were analyzed for volatile fatty acid according to Shirlaw‘s (1967) procedure. Gas Chromatograph analyses were performed on a wide bore fused silica Cp-sil 19CB column, gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) 512x10^-12 Afs. The technique used was gas chromatograph capillary column (10 m, 0.53 mm fused silica WCOT Cp-Sil 19CB (2.0 μm Cat.no.7647). The injector and detector temperatures were 275°C and 300°C respectively. The carrier gas was H₂ 40kPa (0.4bar) 170 cm/s. The analyses were performed using a temperature programme: a linear gradient from 80°C to 280°C at 25°C min^-1. In each case a 0.1μL of sample was injected (a flow splitting 1:10). Silage stability was determined by observing the change of pH of exposed silage after sixty days of fermentation. Each day the pH of each treatment was recorded for 7 days consecutively.

Organoleptic Test

The organoleptic test was carried out at the Department of Animal Sciences laboratory of SUA by thirty assessors of Animal Science Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. Each assessor assessed the silage from each treatment and scored its physical/sensoric characteristics in terms of appearance, texture and smell (Lyimo 2010). Appearance score No.1 (poor) indicated spoiled silage which was dark brown in color with mould growth, score No. 2 (moderate) greenish in colour with some mould growth, score No. 3 (good) yellowish green to brown colour and score No.4 (very good) indicated well pickled yellowish green to light brown colour silage. Smell score No.1 (poor) indicated foul smell associated with putrefaction, score No. 2 ( moderate) pungent smell of ammonia, score No. 3 (good) pleasant aroma and score No.4 (very good) pleasant estery aroma typically silage smell. Texture score, No.1 (poor) slimy and watery, score No.2 ( moderate) less slimy and wet No.3 (good) non-slippery and wet No.4 (very good) non-slippery and slightly wet. The test was carried once after 60 days of fermentation, when ensiling bags (silos) were opened and spoiled silage separated from well preserved silage.

Data analysis

Collected data were entered in coded excel sheets then transferred to SAS for General Linear Model procedure of Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 2008) for analysis of variance of means. Means of factors were then separated using Multiple Duncan Range test. The model used to study effect of maize bran at different levels of elephant, guatemala and rhodes grasses was: The statistical model:- Y_ijkl = µ + Gi + L (A)_jk + (GA)_ij + E_ijkl; whereby Y_ijkl = observation taken on the l^th replicate sample taken from the k^th level of the j^th additive applied on the i^th grass species; µ= general mean common to all observation; Gi= effect of the _i ^th grass species; A_j = effect of the j^th additive; L(A)_jk = effect of the k^th level of application of the j^th additive; (GA)_ij = interaction between the i^th grass specie and j^th additive; L(A)_jk and (GA)_ij are two-factor interactions involving grass species and additive level as indicated by corresponding symbols; E_ijkl= random effect peculiar to each observation.

Results and Discussion

Chemical composition and digestibility of fodder grasses at the time of ensiling

The results revealed that, elephant grass had higher CP and ash but lower DM & digestibility than guatemala and rhodes grasses (Table 2). Maize bran had relative higher DM and CP than grasses.

Effect of grass specie and different levels of maize bran on organoleptic of silage quality

Elephant grass silage produced silage with higher sensoric scores than guatemala and rhodes grasses (Table 3). Higher scores possibly were due to improved fermentation condition in elephant grass silages which leads to efficient fermentation than in the other two grass silages. This was in consistence with Mtengeti et al (2013) who observed good physical scoring of elephant grass silage.

Maize bran at 10% level had higher sensoric scores than the other treatments probably due to optimal substrate provided to fermenting microbes’ leads to efficient fermentation condition resulted to good color. Similar result has also been reported by Lyimo (2010) who observed improvement after adding 10% maize bran to fodder grass silages and claimed that, maize bran is used as absorbent WSC as it has ability to absorb moisture which could adversely affect the fermentation process.

Effect of interaction of grass specie and different levels of maize bran on organoleptic test of silage quality

The interaction of elephant grass and 10% level of maize bran produced silage with higher sensoric scores than other interaction (Table 4). Higher scores possibly was due to improved fermentation condition in elephant grass mixed with maize bran at 10% level which leads to efficient fermentation than in the other eleven mixed interactions. This was in agreement with Manyawu et al (2003) who found good sensoric scoring after mixing elephant grass with 10% level of maize bran.

Effect of grass species and different levels of maize bran on chemical composition and in vitrodry matter digestibility

The CP and ash concentrations of elephant grass silages were higher but DM and WSC were lower than those of guatemala and rhodes grass silages (Table 5). This is related to the original chemical composition of individual grass specie before preparation of the silage. There was no difference among elephant, guatemala and rhodes grasses in terms of NDF. Maize bran at 10 and 15% level had higher DM and digestibility but lower NDF than the other treatments. Higher DM probably was due to ability of maize bran to absorb moisture from silage than other levels. Maize bran at 10% level had higher CP than other treatments. Increased CP could be due to efficient fermentation and early stability of silage which inhibit proteolytic activity during fermentation process (According to Kung et al 2000). The results were inconsistent with those found by Lyimo (2010) and Mtengeti et al (2013) who found higher CP in silages treated with maize bran at 10% level than those without maize bran. The observed higher WSC in silages with maize bran additive level 10% than other levels might have be due to increased substrate for fermentation leads to rapid pH reduction and when the process stops WSC remains as recovery substrate. This was in agreement with McDonald et al (2002) who observed good fermentation after adding more WSC to the herbage with high water and low WSC. There was no difference between additive levels in terms of ash. Reduced NDF may be explained by the hydrolysis of NDF-N bound during fermentation (Jaakkola et al 2006, Huisden et al 2009). Higher digestibility could be attributed to the provision of useful energy substrate for ruminal microbes and thus improve their effectiveness in digesting feed particles. These results were in agreements with those reported by Manyawu et al (2003), Mtengeti et al (2006), Lyimo (2010), Mtengeti et al (2013), who found an improvement of the IVDMD of the elephant grass silage with addition of maize bran at 10% level.

Effect of interaction of grass specie and different levels of maize bran on organoleptic test of silage quality

The interaction of elephant grass and maize bran at 10% level produced silage with higher CP than other interactions (Table 6). Higher CP possibly was due to improved fermentation condition in elephant grass mixed with maize bran at 10% level which leads to efficient fermentation than other eleven interactions. The results implicated that nutrient of the grass silage vary depending on the specie and silage additives levels. The results are related to those of Rinne et al (2002) who found that, nutrient contents of the grass silage vary depending on the specie, vegetation period and silage additives.

Effects of species and different levels of maize bran on fermentative quality of fodder grass silages

Elephant grass silage had lower pH and NH₃N but higher lactic acid than guatemala and rhodes grass silage (Table 7). The results indicated that, elephant grass preserved better than these two fodder grasses. Low pH and NH₃N could be due to higher lactic acid in elephant grass which allows fermentation and increases acids that could preserve fodder grass well. According to Ranjit and Kung (2000) in silage, lack of oxygen and the accumulation of lactic acid inhibit its microbial metabolism and preserves nutrients. Low NH₃N means less proteolysis in elephant grass than in the other grasses. Many researchers have found that silage made from tropical crops generally have high pH values (Imura et al 2001). Thus, it is difficult to ensure good quality silage using tropical pasture crops because they usually have low lactic acid.

Maize bran additive level 10% had higher lactic acid and acetic acid but lower pH and NH₃N than other levels (0%, 5% and 15%). This might be due to achievement of optimal maize bran level for satisfactory fermentation. The results were nearly similar to those found by’t Mannetje (2000) who reported that energy supplied by the additives create more conducive environment for the anaerobic fermentation bacteria. Similar observations have been reported in the country and elsewhere (Manyawu et al 2003; Mtengeti and Urio 2006; Mtengeti et al 2013). Reduced silage NH₃N and increased WSC suggested a decreased fodder grass proteolysis by elevated external WSC supply and a hastened lactic acid bacteria settlement. Ammonia nitrogen (NH₃-N) works as an important indicator of proteolytic activity during the fermentation process. According to Whiter and Kung (2001) silage NH₃N is reduced when plant enzyme activity, nitrate reduction and proteolysis decrease. The butyric acid concentration is an important indicator of proteolytic activity in the materials. Butyrates were not detected in the additive level 10% silages and were significantly lower in treated silages compared to untreated silages. This indicated that, additives restrict the development of yeast which could increase butyric acid but optimal additive level hinders the development of yeast completely and promote adequate fermentation patterns. Rapid drop in pH during ensiling and increasing organic acid concentration can inhibit the growth of undesirable microorganisms (Pahlow et al 2003).

Effect of interaction grass specie and different levels of maize bran on fermentative quality of silage

The interaction of elephant grass and 10% level of maize bran produced silage with significantly lower pH but higher CP than other combinations (Table 8). Higher CP possibly was due to improved fermentation condition in elephant grass mixed with maize bran at 10% level which leads to efficient fermentation than other eleven mixed combinations. The results implicated that nutrients and pH of the grass silage vary depending on the specie and silage additives levels. The results are related to those of Baytok and Muruz (2003) who found that, both nutrients and pH of the grass silage vary depending on the specie, vegetation period and silage additives.

Effect of species and different levels of maize bran on fodder grass silages stability during feed out

Aerobic stability is a term used to define the length of time that silage remains cool and does not spoil after it is exposed to air. Stability helps farmer to prepare how to handle silage. It prevents silage from spoiling when exposed to air and by doing so, it can improve the efficiency of a farm by preserving forage as high quality silage that is palatable to cows. The measurement of forage pH along with moisture can be used to evaluate whether silage is stable or prone to spoilage (David and Casper 2002). Normally, assays of aerobic stability for silage produced in tropical climates are carried out for five or more days (Pedroso et al 2008, Basso et al 2012, Rabelo et al 2015). Therefore, the aerobic stability assay was performed for seven days because it is representative of the majority of dairy farmers in tropical areas (Table 9). A pH below 5 indicates stable silage (Lyimo 2010). The results showed that, elephant grass silage had higher stability than guatemala and rhodes grass silage. Elephant grass silage was stable up to fourth day. Guatemala grass silage up to third day and rhodes grass silage up to second day. Good condition in elephant grass allows fermentation and increases acids that could preserve fodder grass and prevent growth of yeasts which could cause early deterioration of silage (Weissbach 2003). The results implied that, fodder grasses silage should be fed within four days for elephant grass, three days for guatemala and one day for rhodes grass silage, thereafter deterioration becomes unbearable and the silage becomes unsuitable for feeding the animals. The results were similar to those observed by Lyimo (2010) who dealt with elephant grass silage stability and observed stable silages from elephant grass.

The results indicated that, maize bran at 10% level silage was stable up to fourth day, at 15% up to third day and at 5% level was stable up to second day. Silage at 0% level seemed to be unstable from day 0 as it had pH higher than 5 from day 0. This implied that additives levels have an influence on the stability of grass silage that was more stable with maize bran at 10% level than with other treatments. This was in consistence with other workers elsewhere (Lyimo 2010, Mtengeti et al 2013) who found good fermentation after 10% maize bran additive level was applied to the fodder grass. These observations were also in agreement with those observed by Jaurena and Pichard (2001) and ‘t Mannetje (2000) who reported an influence of additives on the stability of the silage quality during the feeding out. The concomitant production of lactic acid and acetic acid is considered positive because acetic acid increases the aerobic stability due to the inhibition of spoilage organisms (Danner et al 2003).

Effect of grass specie and different levels of maize bran on stability of silage

The interaction of elephant grass and 10% level of maize bran produced silage with lowest pH (Table 10). Lowest pH possibly was due to improved fermentation condition in elephant grass mixed with maize bran at 10% level which leads to efficient fermentation. The results showed that, the interaction of elephant grass and maize bran at 10% level were stable from day 0 up to day 5 as it was indicated by pH below 5. This implied that, the silage from elephant grass mixed with maize bran at 10% level can remain stable for five days without deterioration after opening the silo and it is safe ly for feeding the dairy cattle. On the other hand the silages from elephant grass mixed with maize bran at level 0%, 5%, 15% and silages from guatemala and rhodes grasses had pH below 5 before day five.

Conclusion

• Elephant grass silage had higher appearance, smell, texture scores, CP, lactic acid and stability but lower pH and NH₃N than grass silages treated with maize bran at 0%, 5% and 15% levels
  
  
• Maize bran at 10% levels had higher appearance, smell and texture scores, CP, WSC, lactic acid, acetic acid and stability but lower NDF, pH and NH ₃N than guatemala and rhodes grass silage. ‘
  
  
• The interaction between grass species and different maize bran levels showed that, elephant grass silage with maize bran at 10% level produced best silage as indicated by highest sensoric scores, CP, lactic acid and stability but lowest pH.
  
  
• It was concluded that, elephant grass mixed with maize bran at 10% level was the most optimal combination techniques to achieve high quality silage under smallholder farmers compared to maize bran at 0%, 5% and 15% levels mixed with guatemala and rhodes grasses.

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their sincere thanks to staff members of Department of Animal, Aquaculture and Range Sciences, for their technical assistance and Magadu Dairy farm of Sokoine University of Agriculture for their assistance in silage making, storing and sampling.

References

Aminah A, Abu Bakar C and Izham A 2000 Silages from tropical forages: nutritional quality and milk production. In: L.‘t Mannetje (ed.) Proc. of the FAO Electronic Conference on Tropical Silage. September 1- December 15. pp. 51-54.

Andrade S and Melotti I 2004 Effect of some additives on the quality of elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum,) silage. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal Science, 41, 409–415.

AOAC 1984 Official methods of Analysis. 14^th ed. Association of Official and Analytical Chemists; Arlington, Virginia, USA.

AOAC 2005 Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis. Inc. Washington, DC,USA. 957 pp.

Ashbell G, Kipnis T, Titterton M, Hen Y, Azrieli A and Weinberg Z G 2001 Examination of a Technology for Silage Making in Plastic Bags. Animal Feed Science and Technology (91): 213-222.

Basso F C, Bernardes T F, Roth A P T P, Rabelo C H S, Ruggieri A C and Reis R A 2012 Short Communication: Fermentation and aerobic stability of high-moisture corn silages inoculated with different levels of Lactobacillus buchneri. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 41:2369-2373.

Baytok E and Muruz M 2003 The effects of formic acid or formic acid plus molasses additives on the fermentation quality and DM and ADF degradabilities of grass silage. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci., 27: 425-431.

Danner H, Holzer M, Mayrhuber E and Braun R 2003 Acetic acid increases stability of silage under aerobic conditions. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69: 562-567.

David P and Casper P A S 2002 Forage fermentation profiles. Journal of Dairy Science 26: 96 - 93.

Delacollette S A, Agnesens R and Buldgen A 2005 Ensilage of Tropical Grasses and Legumes Using Small-scale Technique. In: Silage Production and Utilization. (Edited by Park R. S. and Stronge, M.D.). Proceeding of the XIV^th International Silage Conference, a Satellite Workshop of the XX^th International Grassland Congress July 2005, Belfast, Northern Ireland. pp. 246 - 260.

Dotto S P, Kimambo A E, Mgheni D M , Mtenga L A, Laswai G H, Kurwijila L R, Pereka A E, Kombe R A, Weisjerg M R, Hvelplund T, Madsen J and Petersen P H 2004 Tanzania Feedstuff Table for Ruminants 2004. Sokoine University of Agriculture. Morogoro, Tanzania. 71pp

Hall T M, Haine M, Holzer D A, LeBel F, Terenzi D and Waugh W 2007 Ventilation rates estimated from tracers in the presence of mixing . J. Phys. Oceanogr., 37, 2599-2611, doi:10.1175/2006JPO3471.1.

Huisden C M, Adesogan A T, Kim S C and Ososanya T 2009 Effect of applying molasses or inoculants containing homofermentative or heterofermentative bacteria at two rates on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage. J Dairy Sci. 2009; 92: 690–697.

Imura Y, Namihira T and Kawamoto Y 2001 Fermentation quality of phase bean and guinea grass silages. In: Gomide, J.A.; Mattos, W.R.S.; and da Silva, S.C. (eds). Proc. 19^th Int. Grasslands Congress, Piracicaba,São Pedro, São Paulo, Brazil, 10-21 February 2001, pp. 784-5, Fundação de Estudos Agrários Luiz de Queiroz (FEALQ), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.

Iqbal S, Bhatti S A, Mahr-un-Nisa and Sarwar M 2005 Influence of varying levels of organic greenculture and enzose on silage characteristics of mottgrass and its digestion kinetics in Nili-Ravi buffalo bulls. Int. J. Agri. Biol., 7(6): 1011-1014.

Jaakkola S, Kaunisto V and Huhtanen P 2006 Volatile fatty acid proportions and microbial protein synthesis in the rumen of cattle receiving grass silage ensiled with different rates of formic acid. Grass and Forage Sci. 2006;61: 282–292.

Jaurena G and Pichard G 2001 Contribution of storage and structure polysaccharides to the fermentation process and nutritive value of lucerne ensiled alone or mixed with cereal grains. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 92:159-173.

Kavana P Y and Msangi B S J 2005 Dairy cattle feeding experience in eastern zone of Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 17 (6) pp.651-657. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/6/kava17062.htm

Kung L Jr, Treacher R J, Nauman G A, Smagala A M, Endres K M and Cohen M A 2000 The effect of treating forages with fibrolytic enzymes on its nutritive value and lactation performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 83:115-122.

Kung L K Jr, Stokes M R and Lin C J 2003 Silage additives. In Silage Science and Technology. D.R. Buxton, R.E. Muck and J.H. Harrison, eds. ASA – CSSA – SSSA Publishers, Madison, W1. Ch. 7 Pages 305 – 360.

Laswai G H, Mutayoba S K, Temu A K and Kusolwa P M 2002 Chemical composition of poultry feedstuffs in Tanzania: Feed Table. SUA and ASARECA/FOODNET project. 24 pp.

Lyimo B J 2004 Investigation on the type, quantity and quality of feeds available to dairy cattle in Morogoro Municipality from October to December 2003.A special project for award of BSc. at Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, 71 pp.

Lyimo B J 2010 Effects of Additives and Storage Positions on in-Bag Grass Silage Quality in Small-Scale Dairy Farms in Mvomero District. Dissertation for Award of MSc. at Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, 108 pp.

Makkar H P S and Ankers P 2014 A need for generating sound quantitative data at national levels for feed-efficient animal production. Animal Production Science 54:1569-1574.

Manyawu G J, Sibanda S, Mutisi C, Chakoma I C and Ndiweni P N B 2003 The effect of pre-wilting and incorporation of maize meal on the fermentation of Bana grass silage.Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 16(6): 843 - 851.

McDonald P, Edwards R A, Greenhalgh J F D and Morgan C A 2002 Animal Nutrition (6^th Edition). Longman Scientific a Technical. Harlow, England.

Mtengeti E J and Urio N A 2006. Feeding Strategies for the Dry Season: A Case Study of Silage and Hay Making by Smallholder Farmers in Tanzania. In: Prospects for Growth and Contribution of the Dairy Industry Towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in Tanzania (Edited by Msangi, B. S.). Sixth National. Dairy Development Conference. 2^nd June 2006, Morogoro Hotel, Morogoro. pp. 31 – 96.

Mtengeti E J, Kavana P Y, Urio N A and Shem M N 2006 Chemical composition and fermentative quality of fodder grasses ensiled with derinded fresh sugar cane crush Tropical and Subtropical Agroeconosystems, ano/vol.06, numeral 003 universdad, Autonoma de Ucatan, Ucatan Mexico. pp157-165.

Mtengeti E J, Lyimo B J and Urio N A 2013 Effects of additives and storage positions on in-bag grass silage quality under smallholder farmer conditions in Mvomero district Tanzania.Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 25, Article #197. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/11/mten25197.htm

Njarui D M G, Gatheru M, Wambua J M, Nguluu S N, Mwangi D M and Keya G A 2009 Dairy Cattle Value Chain Assessment: Characterization of Milk Production in Semi-Arid Kenya. Kenya Arid and Semi-Arid Land Programme (KASAL). (In press).

Norris D J Macala J Makore T and Mosimanyana B 2002 Feedlot performance of various breed groups of cattle fed low to high levels of roughage. Livestock Research for Rural Development. [http://www.lrrd.org/lrr d14/6/norr146.htm] site visited on 1/3/2014.

Pahlow G, Muck R, Driehuis F, Oude Elferink S and Spoelstra S 2003 Microbiology of ensiling. In: Buxton, D.R., Muck, R.R. & Harrison, J.H. (eds). Silage science and technology Agronomy 42. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. p. 31–93

Pedroso A F, Nussio L G, Loures D R S, Paziani S F, Ribeiro J L, Mari L J, Zopollatto M, Schmidt P, Mattos W R S and Horii J 2008 Fermentation, losses, and aerobic stability of sugarcane silages treated with chemical or bacterial additives. Scientia Agricola 65:589-594.

Rabelo C H S, Rezende A V, Rabelo F H S, Basso F C, Härter C J and Reis R A 2015 Chemical composition, digestibility and aerobicstability of corn silages harvested at different maturity stages. Revista Caatinga 28:107-116.

Ranjit N K and L Kung Jr 2000 The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, L. plantarum, or a chemical preservative on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage. J. Anim. Sci. 83:526-535.

Rinne M, Huhtanen P and Jaakkola S 2002 Digestive processes of dairy cows fed silages harvested at four stages of grass maturity. J. Anim. Sci., 80: 1986-1998.

SAS 2008 Statistical Analysis System. User’s Guide for Personal Computers, Statistical Programme-windows version 9.2. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, North Corolina, USA.

Salabi F, Bojarpoor M, Nazari M and Tabatabaie S 2010 Comparing Digestibility of Triticale Grain, Barley Grain and Naked Barley Grain by Using in vitro Tilley and Terry Technique.Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(1): 186-189.

Shirlaw D W G 1967 The Commonwealth and International Library of Science Technology Engineering and Liberal Studies. A practical Course in Agricultural Chemistry. Department of Experimental Husbandry, Durham Agricultural college 2^nd edition , Pergamon

Snowman J W 1988 Lyophilization Freeze-Drying A Downstream Processes: Equipment and Techniques, Alan, Inc. pp 315-351.

t’ Mannetje L 2000 The Future of Silage Making in The Tropics. In: FAO Electronic Conference on Tropical Silage. (Edited by ’t Mannetje, L.), 1^st September -15^th December 1999. AGAP Grassland and Pasture Crops Group, AGPC Feed Resources Group. Plant Production and Protection Paper 161. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome. 2000. pp 169 – 171.

Thomas T A 1977 An automated procédures for the determination of soluble carbohydrates in herbage. Journal of Food Science and Agriculture, 28: 639 - 642.

Tilley J M and Terry R A 1963 A two-stage technique for the in intro digestion of forage crops. Journal of British Grassland Society 18: 104 - 111.

URT 2012 United Republic of Tanzania National Sample Census of Agriculture, Small holder agriculture Volume III: Livestock Sector. The National Bureau of Statistics and the Office of the Chief Government Statistician, Zanzibar pp.187.

Van Soest P J, Robertson J B and Lewis B A 1991 Methods for dietary fibre, neutral-detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74: 3583–3597.

Weinberg Z G G, Ashbell Y, Hen A, Azrieli G, Szakacs and Filya I 2002 Ensiling whole-crop wheat and corn in large scalecontainers with Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillusbuchneri. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 28: 7-11.

Weisbjerg M R, Hvelplund T, Madsen J, Mtenga L a and Mwilawa a J 2007 Evaluation and Combination of feeds for improved beef production . In: Proceedings of the 33rd TSAP Conference, ICC, Arusha, Tanzania 33: 35 – 39.

Weissbach F 2003 Theory and practice of ensuring good quality of silages from grass and legumes. In: Proc. 11thInt. Sci. Symp. Forage Conservation, Nitra, Slovakia, 31–36.

Whiter A G and Kung L J 2001 The effect of a dry or liquid application of Lactobacillus plantarum MTD1 on the fermentation of alfalfa silage. J. Dairy Sci. 84:2195-2202.

Received 23 June 2016; Accepted 12 July 2016; Published 1 September 2016

Go to top