Nutritional value of soybean and buffel grass silages in different proportions

Authors

  • Jonathan Raúl Garay-Martínez Campo Experimental Las Huastecas-INIFAP. Carretera Tampico-Mante km 55, Villa Cuauhtémoc, Altamira, Tamaulipas, México
  • Fernando Lucio-Ruíz Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias-Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas. Centro Universitario Campus Victoria, Edificio Centro de Gestión del Conocimiento, 4to. Piso. Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. CP. 87120
  • Juan Eduardo Godina-Rodríguez Uruapan Experimental Field-INIFAP. Colonia Revolution, Uruapan, Michoacán, Mexico. CP. 60150
  • Santiago Joaquín-Cancino Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias-Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas. Centro Universitario Campus Victoria, Edificio Centro de Gestión del Conocimiento, 4to. Piso. Ciudad Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. CP. 87120
  • Jorge Alonso Maldonado-Jáquez Campo Experimental La Laguna-INIFAP. Boulevard José Santos Valdez 1200 Pte. Matamoros, Coahuila. CP. 27440
  • Lorenzo Danilo Granados-Rivera Campo Experimental General Terán-INIFAP. General Terán, Nuevo León, México. CP. 67400.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29312/remexca.v15i2.3648

Keywords:

feed supplementation, forage conservation, ruminant nutrition

Abstract

The availability of forage decreases during the dry season, so it is advisable to conserve forage and preferably it should contain high nutritional value. The present study aimed to evaluate the nutritive value of silages in different proportions of soybean and buffel grass forage under subtropical conditions. The treatments were three forage combinations: S50B50 (50% soybean forage + 50% buffel grass forage), S25B75 (25% soybean forage + 75% buffel grass forage) and B100 (100% buffel grass forage ). The variables evaluated were: crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, ether extract, and metabolizable energy. Data were analyzed based on a completely randomized design with three repetitions and Tukey’s mean comparison (a= 0.05). The S50B50 treatment presented the highest values of CP (128 vs 65 g kg-1) and EE (28 vs 21 g kg-1), compared to B100, which had the highest values of neutral detergent fiber (692 vs 513 g kg-1) and acid detergent fiber (408 vs 355 g kg-1). S25B75 and B100 treatments presented similar ME values (p> 0.05), 1.43 and 1.54 Mcal kg-1, respectively, which were surpassed by S50B50 by 15% (1.71 Mcal kg-1). Soybean and buffel grass silage could be an alternative for ruminant feeding during the dry season; in particular, the combination of 50% soybean forage and 50% buffel grass obtains the best nutrient profile.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AFRC. 1993. Agricultural and food research council. Energy and protein requirements for ruminants. 1st Ed. CAB International, UK. 176 p.

AOAC. 2019. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official methods of analysis of aoac international. 21st Ed. AOAC International, USA. 700 p.

Ávila, J. M. 2013. Producción de semilla de los pastos Angleton y medio Bluestem. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP). México. 21 p.

Ávila, J. M.; Ascencio, G. y Maldonado, N. 2014. Producción y utilización de forraje de soya en bovinos. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP). México. 25 p.

Belachew, Z.; Yisehak, K.; Taye, T. and Janssens, G. P. J. 2013. Chemical composition and in Sacco ruminal degradation of tropical trees rich in condensed tannins. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 58(4):176-192. https://doi.org/10.17221/6712-CJAS.

Bernard, J. K. 2011. Feed concentrates: oilseed and oilseed meals. Ed. Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences. 2nd. Elsevier, USA. 349-355 pp.

Blaunt, A. R.; Wright, D. L.; Sprenkel, R. K.; Hewitt, T. D. and Myer, R. O. 2006. Forage soybeans for grazing, hay and silage. 1st. Ed. University of Florida, USA. 114 p.

Cheng, Q.; Li, P.; Xiao, B.; Yang, F.; Li, D.; Ge, G.; Jia, Y. and Bai, S. 2021. Effects of LAB inoculant and cellulase on the fermentation quality and chemical composition of forage soybean silage prepared with corn stover. Grassl. Sci. 67(1):83-90. https://doi.org/10.1111/grs.12289.

Díaz, M. F.; Padilla, C.; Torres, V.; González, A.; Curbelo, F. y Noda, A. 2003. Caracterización bromatológica de variedades de soya (Glycine max) en producción de forrajes, forrajes integrales y granos en siembras de verano. Rev. Cuba Cienc. Agric. 37(3):311-317.

Fehr, W. R.; Caviness, C. E.; Burmood, D. T. and Pennington, J. S. 1971. Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, Glycine max (L.) Merrill. Crop Sci. 11(6):929-931. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1971.0011183X001100060051x.

Garay, J. R.; Estrada, B.; Bautista, Y.; Bernal-Flores, Á.; Mendoza, S. I.; Martínez, J. C.; Sosa, E. and Joaquín, S. 2020. Forage yield and quality of buffel ‘H-17’ and Urochloa hybrids at different regrowth ages under semi-arid conditions. Grassl. Sci. 66(4):277-284. https://doi.org/10.1111/grs.12278.

Garay, J. R.; Joaquín, S.; Estrada, B.; Martínez, J. C.; Limas, A. G.; Hernández, J. y Rojas A. R. 2019. Producción y cambios morfológicos de Pennisetum ciliare cv. H-17 en función de la edad de rebrote y altura de pradera. Acta Universitaria. 29:e2306. https://doi.org/10.15174/au.2019.2306.

Garay-Martínez, J. R.; Joaquín-Cancino S.; Estrada-Drouaillet, B.; Martínez-González, J. C.; Joaquín-Torres, B. M.; Limas-Martínez, A. G. y Hernández-Meléndez, J. 2018. Acumulación de forraje de pasto buffel e híbridos de Urochloa a diferente edad de rebrote. Ecosist. Rec. Agropec. 5(15):573-581. https://doi.org/10.19136/era. a5n15.1634.

Garay-Martínez, J. R.; Joaquín-Cancino, S.; Estrada-Drouaillet, B.; Martínez-González, J. C. y Limas-Martínez, A. G. 2017. Importancia del pasto buffel (Pennisetum ciliare L.) en el estado de Tamaulipas, México. Agroproductividad. 10(10):110-115.

Garcés, A. M.; Roa, L.; Ruiz, S.; Serna de León, J. G. y Builes, A. F. 2004. Ensilaje como fuente de alimentación para el ganado. Revista Lasallista de Investigación. 1(1):66-71.

Jahanzad, E.; Sadeghpour, A.; Hashemi, M.; Afshar, R. K; Hosseini, M. B. and Barker, A. 2016. Silage fermentation profile, chemical composition and economic evaluation of millet and soya bean grown in monocultures and as intercrops. Grassl. Sci. 71(4):584-594. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12216.

Larsen, S. U.; Hiort-Gregersen, K.; Vazifehkhoran, A. H. and Triolo, J. M. 2017. Co-ensiling of straw with sugar beet leaves increases the methane yield from straw. Bioresour. Technol. 245(A):106-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017. 08.117.

Maldonado, N.; Ascencio, G. y Ávila, V. J. 2007. Guía para cultivar soya en el sur de Tamaulipas. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP). México. 83 p.

McDonald, P.; Edwards, R. A.; Greenhalgh, J. F. D. and Morgan, C. A. 2002. Animal nutrition. 6th. Ed. Longman scientific and technical, UK. 665 p.

Ni, K.; Zhao, J.; Zhu, B.; Su, R.; Pan, Y.; Ma, J.; Zhou, G.; Tao, Y.; Liu, X. and Zhong, J. 2018. Assessing the fermentation quality and microbial community of the mixed silage of forage soybean with crop corn or sorghum. Bioresour. Technol. 265:563-567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.097.

Rosa, L. O.; Pereira, O. G.; Ribeiro, K. G.; Filho, S. C. V. and Cecon, P. R. 2020. Chemical composition in soybean silages with inoculant and molasses. Cienc. Anim. Bras. 21:e-58211. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-6891v21e-58211.

SAS Institute. 2002. Statistical Analysis System. User’s Guide of SAS Institute Inc. Cary, USA. 550 p.

Touno, E.; Kaneko, M.; Uozumi, S.; Kawamoto, H. and Deguchi, S. 2014. Evaluation of feeding value of forage soybean silage as a substitute for wheat bran in sheep. Anim. Sci. J. 85(1):46-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12091.

Van Soest, P. J.; Robertson, J. B. and Lewis, B. A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74(10):3583-3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2.

Vargas, T. V.; Hernández, R. M. E.; Gutiérrez, L. J.; Plácido, D. C. J. y Jiménez, C. A. 2007. Clasificación climática del estado de Tamaulipas, México. CienciaUAT. 2(2):15-19.

Published

2024-04-02

How to Cite

Garay-Martínez, Jonathan Raúl, Fernando Lucio-Ruíz, Juan Eduardo Godina-Rodríguez, Santiago Joaquín-Cancino, Jorge Alonso Maldonado-Jáquez, and Lorenzo Danilo Granados-Rivera. 2024. “Nutritional Value of Soybean and Buffel Grass Silages in Different Proportions”. Revista Mexicana De Ciencias Agrícolas 15 (2). México, ME:e3648. https://doi.org/10.29312/remexca.v15i2.3648.

Issue

Section

Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)