Citation of this paper |
In this study four maize silages from different hybrids were
evaluated in terms of chemical composition, dry matter yield (DMY),
metabolizable energy (ME) and in vitro dry matter digestibility
(IVDMD).
Crude fibre (CF) of the silages ranged from 23.0 to 25.4%. There were no differences between silages in terms of dry
matter (DM), crude protein (CP) and ether extract (EE). Dry matter
yield (DMY) ranged from 16425 to 19577 kg/ha-1.
Otello had a high index
value. Therefore it can be recommended for silage
production.
Maize silage is used extensively in diets for dairy and beef
cattle in most part of the world. Maize silage is normally a high
energy forage with high dry matter yield relative to the other
forage crops (Coors 1996). Hybrid selection is one of the most
important management decision which farmers have to decide every
year.
The introduction of new maize hybrids has provided new raw
materials with a range of nutritional characteristics. Large
differences in nutritional value may exist between silage made from
different maize hybrids (Hunt et al 1993). In
addition to the dry matter yield the digestibility and metabolizable energy
value of silages are important
parameters in ration preparation in practice. The two stage rumen inoculum-pepsin method (Tilley and Terry 1963) and Menke gas
production method (Menke et al 1979) have been established as accurate predictors of IVDMD and ME value of forages respectively.
The aim of this study was, therefore, to evaluate the dry matter
yield, chemical composition, in vitro dry matter digestibility and metabolizable energy value of silage from different maize
hybrids.
Four commercial maize hybrids were planted in 2002 in Osmaniye,
Turkey. Plot sizes were 10*10 m. Planting density was 70 000
ha-1 for all hybrids. The fertilizers used were: 100 kg/ha-1
P2O5 and 180 kg/ha-1 nitrogen.
A representative sample of the maize plants was harvested and weighed to determine dry matter yield (DMY) (kg/ha-1). All plants were passed through a commercial silage chopper, and a representative sample of the fresh material was ensiled in mini experimental silos (plastic jars) with a capacity of 5 kg (Photo 1). After approximately two months storage, the silos were opened. Representative samples were dried at 60 °C in a forced-air oven and ground to pass a 1 mm screen for chemical analysis.
Photo 1: The plastic jars used as mini-silos
DM contents of silages were determined by drying the samples at
105 °C overnight. Ash was determined and ash by igniting the samples in
a muffle
furnace at 525 °C for 8 h. Nitrogen (N) content was
measured by the Khjeldal method (AOAC 1990). CP content was
calculated as N*6.25. Crude fibre (CF) and ether extract (EF) were determined by the
method of AOAC (1990). The buffering capacity was determined by titration of a 10 ml of water extract with 0.1M HCl and 0.1 MNaOH (Playne and McDonald 1966). The pH
was determined using a combination electrode of a pH meter ( Pye
UNICAM, PHILLIPS).
For the determination of ME and IVDMD rumen fluid was obtained
from two fistulated sheep fed twice daily with a diet of alfalfa hay (60%) and concentrate (40%). The samples were incubated
with rumen fluid in calibrated glass syringes following
the procedures of Menke and Steingass (1988). The sample (0.200 g dry weight) was weighed in triplicate into calibrated glass
syringes of 100 ml. The syringes were pre-warmed at 39 °C
before the injection of 30 ml rumen fluid-buffer mixture into each
syringe followed by incubation in a water bath at 39 °C.
The syringes were gently shaken 30 min after the start of
incubation and every hour for the first 10 h of incubation. Gas production was recorded 24 h after incubation.
The estimated ME
value (MJ/kg DM) was calculated using the equations of Menke and Steingass.(1988) as follows:
ME (MJ/kg DM) = 2.20 + 0.136*GP + 0.057*CP + 0.0029*(CP)2
Where: GP is 24 h net gas production (ml/200 mg),
CP = Crude protein
Metabolizable Energy Yield (MEY) (kg) = DMY*ME
Samples of dry forages (0.5 g) were subjected to a 48 h digestion
period with the McDougall's buffer/rumen fluid mixture in sealed
glass bottles followed by 48 h digestion with pepsin in weak acid
(Tilley and Terry 1963).
IVDMD (%) = (DM input -DM remaining undigested) /
(DM
input)*100
Digestible DM yield (DDMY) (kg/ha-1) = DMY*IVDMD
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out on chemical
composition, DMY, IVDMD, ME, MEY and DDMY values using the General
Linear Model (GLM) of "Statistica for Windows" (Statistica 1993).
Significance of differences between individual means were identified using the Tukey's multiple range test (Pearse and
Hartley 1966)
There was a considerable variation between silages in terms of chemical composition and estimated parameters of nutritive value (Table 1). The crude fibre and ash contents of the silages were similar to those obtained by Stallings et al (1982). CP and pH, values obtained in this study were in agreement with those reported by Meeske et al (2000). All silage samples had a low pH and were well preserved.
Table 1. Mean values for chemical composition, pH and buffering capacity (BC) of silages from four maize hybrids |
||||||
|
Hybrids |
SEM |
Sig. |
|||
Otello |
Golden |
Broskov |
Maverik |
|||
DM, % |
22.6 |
22.6 |
22.3 |
21.9 |
1.23 |
NS |
As % of DM | ||||||
Crude fibre |
23.0a |
25.4b |
25.5b |
25.3b |
0.40 |
* |
Crude protein |
8.45 |
8.20 |
8.39 |
8.37 |
0.082 |
NS |
Ether extract |
3.70 |
3.07 |
3.18 |
3.43 |
0.219 |
NS |
Ash |
5.31ab |
5.10a |
5.35ab |
5.61ab |
0.076 |
* |
pH |
3.77a |
3.78a |
4.08b |
4.08b |
0.038 |
*** |
BC, meq/100 g DM |
15.3a |
18.2b |
8.71c |
16.7ab |
0.382 |
*** |
Means within the same row without superscript in common are different. SEM: Standard error of mean. NS: Non-significant. *P<0.05, ***P<0.001 |
The IVDMD and ME values obtained in this study
(Table 2) were in
agreement with those reported by Meeske et al (2000). Silage DMY
varied between 16425 and 19577 kg/ha-1. Generally the differences between silages from different maize
hybrids were small in terms of chemical composition whereas the
differences between silages in terms of DMY, ME and IVDMD were
large.
Table 2. Mean values for dry matter yield, estimated metabolizable energy content and in vitro dry matter digestibility of silages from four maize hybrids |
||||||
Parameters |
Hybrids |
SEM |
Sig. |
|||
Otello |
Golden |
Broskov |
Maverik |
|||
DMY, kg/ha-1 |
18634a |
19577c |
17580c |
16425d |
94.85 |
*** |
ME, MJ/kg DM |
9.41b |
8.58a |
9.13b |
9.06ab |
0.090 |
** |
IVDMD, % |
73.81a |
67.93b |
72.15a |
70.40ab |
0.840 |
** |
MEY, kg/ha-1 |
1375376a |
1329899b |
1268397c |
1156320d |
6832 |
*** |
DDMY, kg/ha-1 |
175346a |
167975b |
160505c |
148810d |
870 |
*** |
Means within the same row without superscript in common are different. SEM: Standard error of mean.. **P<0.01, ***P<0.001 |
High yields of maize biomass are necessary to reduce production cost and forage requirements. However, for dairy cattle small increases in milk production due to higher digestible energy content and (or) intake may have a greater economic importance than yield differences among maize hybrids (Allen 1996). It may be advantageous to sacrifice some yield potential for increased maize silage digestibility.
It was concluded that there were significant differences in crude fibre, ash, in vitro dry matter digestibility and estimated ME content among four maize hybrids available in Turkey.
Allen M 1996 Choosing corn hybrids for silage. Michigan.
Dairy Review. Volume 1. No1. pp.1-2. Michigan State
University.
Coors J G 1996 Findings of the Winconsin corn silage
consortium. In: Proceedings of Cornell Nutrition Conference Feed
Manufacture, Rochester, NY. Cornell University
pp.20-28
Hunt C W, Kezar W, Hinman D D, Comb J J, Loesche J A and Moen
T 1993 Effects of hybrid and ensiling with and without a
microbial inoculant on the nutritional characteristics of
whole-plant corn. Journal of Animal Science
71:38-34.
Meeske R, Basson H M, Pienaar J P and Cruywagen C W 2000
A comparison of the yield, nutritional value and predicted
production potential of different maize hybrids for silage
production. South African Journal of Animal Science
30(1):18-21.
Menke K H, Raab L L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D and
Schneider W 1979 The estimation of digestibility and
metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production
when incubated with rumen liqueur in vitro. Journal
of Agricultural Science. 93:217-220.
Menke K H, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D and
Schneider W 1988 Estimation of the energetic feed value
obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using
rumen fluid. Animal Research Development 28:7-55
Pearse E S and Hartley H O 1966 Biometrika tables for
statisticians. Volume 1. Cambridge University Press
Playne M J and McDonald P 1966 The buffering constituents
of herbage and silage. Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture 17: 264-268.
Stallings C C, Donaldson B M, Thomas J M and Rossman E C
1982 In vivo evaluation of brown midrib corn silage by sheep
and lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science
65:1945-1949.
Statistica 1993 Statistica for
Windows (Release 4.3), SatSoft, Inc. Tulsa. OK.
Tilley J M A and Terry R A 1963 A two stage technique for in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of British Grassland Society18:104-111.
Received 8 August 2003; Accepted 9 September 2003