0.917
IF5
1.024
IF
Q2
JCR
0.90
CiteScore
0.489
SJR
Q2
SJR
20
MNiSW
142.18
ICV
SHORT COMMUNICATION
 
CC-BY 4.0
 
 

Effects of ensiling density on chemical and microbiological characteristics of sorghum silage

M.V. Santos 1,  
L.D. da Silva 1  ,  
R.R. Silveira 1,  
T.G.S. Braz 2,  
 
1
Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, MG, 39100-000, Brazil
2
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Montes Claros, MG, 39404-547, Brazil
3
Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia Fluminense, Bom Jesus do Itabapoana, RJ, 28300-000, Brazil
J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2017;26(1):65–69
Publish date: 2017-03-21
KEYWORDS:
TOPICS:
ABSTRACT:
The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of ensiling density on chemical and microbiological characteristics of sorghum silage. Thirty-six minisilos made of PVC with a volume of 3.1 dm3 were used. A completely randomized design was used with six replications per each treatment. The treatments differed in packing density: 300, 375, 450, 525, 600 and 675 kg of fresh forage per m3. The contents of dry matter (DM), crude protein and the count of lactic acid bacteria tended to increase with increasing packing density. The highest DM contents were observed for silages with density of 525 kg · m−3. The contents of organic matter, water-soluble carbohydrates, ammoniacal nitrogen, acid detergent fibre, hemicellulose, cellulose and nitrogen insoluble in neutral and acid detergents were not affected by silage density. However, the contents of neutral detergent fibre, lignin, pH values, yeast and mould counts and the DM losses tended to decrease together with increasing silage density. It was observed that the silage with the highest density resulted in lower DM losses when compared to the silage densities lower than 525 kg · m−3. So, it can be stated that the minimum density of sorghum silage ensuring its quality is 525 kg · m−3.
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
L.D. da Silva   
Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri, Diamantina, MG, 39100-000, Brazil
 
REFERENCES:
1. AOAC, 1990. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 15th Edition. Arlington, VA (USA)
2. DuBois M., Gilles K.A., Hamilton J.K., Rebers P.A., Smith F., 1956. Colorometric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal. Chem. 28, 350–356, https://doi.org/10.1021/ac60111a017
3. Getachew G., Putnam D.H., De Ben C.M., De Peters E.J., 2016. Potential of sorghum as an alternative to corn forage. Am. J. Plant. Sci. 7, 1106–1121, https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2016.77106
4. Gxasheka M., Tyasi T.L., Qin N., Lyu Z.-C., 2015. An overview of tannins rich plants as alternative supplementation on ruminant animals: A Review. Int. J. Agric. Res. Rev. 3, 343–349
5. Licitra G., Hernandez T.M., Van Soest P.J., 1996. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 57, 347–358, https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(95)00837-3
6. McDonald P., Henderson A.R., Heron S.J.E. (Editors), 1991. The Biochemistry of Silage. 2nd Edition. Chalcombe Publications. Mallow, Bucks (UK), https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700023115
7. Mertens D.R., 2002. Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fibre in feeds with refluxing in beaker or crucibles: collaborative study. J. AOAC Int. 85, 1217–1240
8. Muck R.E., Holmes B.J., 2000. Factors affecting bunker silo densities. Appl. Eng. Agric. 16, 613–619, https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.5374
9. Pahlow G., Muck R.E., Driehuis F., Oude Elferink S.J.W.H., Spoelstra S.F., 2003. Microbiology of ensiling. In: D.R. Buxton, R.E. Muck, J.H. Harrison (Editors). Silage Science and Technology. American Society of Agronomy, Inc, Crop Science Society of America, Inc., Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Publishers. Madison, WI (USA), pp. 31–94
10. Robertson J.B., Van Soest P.J., 1981. The detergent system of analysis and its application to human foods. In: W.P.T. James, O. Theander (Editors). The analysis of dietary fibre in food. Marcel Dekker. New York, NY (USA), pp. 123–158
11. Ruppel K.A., Pitt R.E., Chase L.E., Galton D.M., 1995. Bunker silo management and its relationship to forage preservation on dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci. 78, 141–153, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(95)76624-3
12. Sucu E., Kalkan H., Canbolat O., Filya I., 2016. Effects of ensiling density on nutritive value of maize and sorghum silages. R. Bras. Zootec. 45, 596–603, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-92902016001000003
13. Valadares Filho S.C., Machado P.A.S., Chizzotti M.L., Amaral H.F., Magalhães K.A., Rocha V.R. Jr., Capelle E.R., 2016. Table of Food Composition for Cattle – CQBAL 3.0. Available on www.ufv.br/cqbal (Accessed on February 05, 2017)
14. Velho J.P., Mühlbach P.R.F., Nörnberg J.L., Velho I.M.P.H., Genro T.C.M., Kessler J. D., 2007. Chemical composition of maize silages with different packing densities (in Portuguese). R. Bras. Zootec. 36, 1532–1538, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982007000700011
15. Woolford M.K., 1990. The detrimental effects of air on silage. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 68, 101–116, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1990.tb02554.x
ISSN:1230-1388