The effects of adding molasses and inoculant to silages of fodder pea and rye grass in different proportions on silage quality


Published: Apr 19, 2024
Keywords:
Fodder pea inoculant molasses rye grass silage quality
G Şen
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6222-6986
Ş Evci
K Kara
K Kara
T Erol
Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of adding melas and microbial inoculant to the mixed silages of different proportions fodder pea (FP) and rye grass (RG) grown in arid conditions on silage quality and in vitro digestibility. For this purpose, silages containing fodder pea and rye grass at 20, 40, 60 and 80% ratios were prepared in jars with additives 5% molasses and 10 g/t inoculant (1.25×1011 CFU/g) and waited 60 days.  At the end of the study, among groups was determined a significant difference in the pH value, lactic acid (LA), acetic acid (AA) and ammonia-N levels of the mixed silages (p<0,05). It was determined that inoculant was effective on LA level (p<0,05). Mixture level x additive interaction was observed at pH value, LA, and ammonia-N levels (p<0.05). In vitro digestibility, energy values, and nutrient contents of silages showed significantly change among groups (p<0.05). While molasses significantly increased the dry matter levels, it decreased the acid detergent fiber (ADF) level (p<0.05). Mixture level x additive interaction was observed at only neutral detergent fiber (NDF) level (p<0.05). While the structure was positively affected in silages containing 80% FP, the Flieg score decreased in silages containing 60% FP (p<0.05). With addition of molasses increased the Flieg score of silages, and it had mixture level x additive interaction (p<0.05). As a result, although mix silages containing 80% FP had high ammonia-N, excellent fermentation was observed with low pH value and high LA level. In addition, although NDF and ADF levels increased, mix silages with FP at 80% levels have higher in vitro digestibility and energy levels. Each of additives had a positive effect on silages, but molasses was determined to be more effective.

Article Details
  • Section
  • Research Articles
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Acar Z, Bostan M (2016) The effects of some natural additives on quality
of alfalfa silage (in Turkish). ANAJAS, 31 (3):433-440. doi: 10.7161/
omuanajas.269998
AOAC (2005) Official methods of analysis, Association of Official AnalyticalChemists, 18th ed, Chapter 4:1-72.
Arslan M, Erdurmuş C, Öten M, Aydınoğlu B, Çakmakçı S (2016) Determination of nutritive value of maize silages ensiled with soybean
at different rate. ANAJAS, 31 (3):417-422 (in Turkish).doi: 10.7161/
anajas.2016.31.3.417-422
Ayan I, Acar Z, Mut H, Can M, Kaymak G, Tunalı U (2020) Current situation sustainability and future in meadow and pasture areas. Türkiye
ZiraatMühendisliği IX.TeknikKongresi, 105 (in Turkish).
Aykan Y, Saruhan V (2018) Determination of silage quality features field
pea (Pisum sativum L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) mixtures
ensiling at different rates. Dicle Üniv Vet Fak Derg, 11 (2):64-70 (in
Turkish).
Barnett AJ (1951) The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in silage.
Biochem J; 49:527-529. doi: 10.1042/ bj0490527
Boga M, Ayasan T (2022) Determination of nutritional value of alfalfa
varieties and lines by using the in vitro method and gas production technique. Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society, 73(1):3613-3620. doi: 10.12681/jhvms.24674
Chaji M, Direkvandi E, Salem AZ (2020) Ensiling of Conocarpus erectus tree leaves with molasses, exogenous enzyme and Lactobacillus
plantarum impacts on ruminal sheep biogases production and fermentation. Agrofor Syst, 94(4):1611-1623.
Demirci M, Kara K, Karsli MA (2023) Determination of quality and
nutrient content of artichoke by-products ensilaged with barley and
molasses. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 32(3):324-330.doi:10.22358/jafs/159346/202
DLG (1987) B wertung von Grünfutter, Silage und Heu, Merkblatt,
No:224, DLG Verlag, Deutschland.
Ergün A, Tuncer ŞD, Çolpan İ, Yalçın S, Yıldız G, Küçükersan MK,
Küçükersan S, Şehu A, Saçaklı P (2013) Feeds, Feed Hygiene and
Technology, 5th edition. Ankara, Turkey, Pozitif Publisher, (in Turkish).
Garipoglu AV, Can M, Kaymak G, Ozturk E, Acar Z, Ayan I (2020) Determining Nutritive Value of Mixed Silage of Forage Rape, Forage
Pea and Oat Supplemented with Molasses and Tea Wastes. Fresenius
Environ Bull, 29(1):178-183.
Gelir G, Denli M (2018) Determination of silage quality characteristics
of feed peas (Pisum sativum supsparvense L.), triticale and mixtures
grown in Diyarbakir conditions. MEJS, 4 (2):99-103.doi: 10.23884/
mejs.2018.4.2.05
Geren H (2014) An investigation on some quality characteristics of ensilaged giant kinggrass (Pennisetum hybridum) with different levels of
leguminous forages, Ege Univ Ziraat Fak Derg, 51 (2):209-217.doi:
20289/euzfd.74743
Goering HK, Van Soest PJ (1970) Forage Fibre Analyses. Apparatus, Reagent, Procedures and Applications, USDA Agricultural Handbook
No. 379.
Gümüştaş M, Turan N (2022) Investigation of the effect of some cereals
mixing with different proportions of feed pea (Pisum sativum L.) on
silage quality. JAS, 6(1):118-130 (in Turkish). doi: 10.46291/ISPECJASvol6iss1pp118-130
Gürsoy E, Sezmiş G, Kaya A (2023) Effect of urea and molasses supplementation on in vitro digestibility, feed quality of mixed forage silages. Czech J Anim Sci, 68(6):266-276. doi: 10.17221/212/2022-cjas
Kara K, Kara K, Erol T, Şen G, Karslı MA (2021) Evaluating the effects of
different silage additives on silage quality and in vitro digestionvalues of the silages of leguminous and gramineous forage plants grown
withoutfertilizer and irrigation in central Anatolian arid conditions,
Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 45 (6):989-998.doi:10.3906/vet-2104-70
Kiraz AB, Kutlu HR (2016) Effects on fermentation properties use of
bacterial inoculants in silage. Harran TarımveGıdaBilimleriDerg,
(3):230-238 (in Turkish).doi: 10.29050/harranziraat.259118
Kung JR L, Shaver RD, Grant RJ, Schmidt RJ (2018) Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of
silages. J Dairy Sci, 101 (5):4020-4033.doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13909
Kurtoğlu V (2011) Silage and silage additives, Aybil Publisher, Konya,
(in Turkish).
Öten M, Kiremitçi S, Çınar O (2016) Determination of silage quality of
some forage crops and mixtures by different methods. ANADOLU, J
of AARI, 26 (2):33-43 (in Turkish).
Marten GC and Barnes RF (1979) Prediction of energy digestibility of
forages with in vitro rumen fermentation and fungal enzyme systems.
In: Pigden WJ, Balch CC, Graham M (editors). Proc. Int. Workshop
on standardization of analytical methodology for feed. International
Development Research Center, Ottawa.
Nascimento RRd, Edvan RL, Nascimento KdS, Barros LdS, Bezerra
LR, Miranda RdS, Perazzo AF, Araújo MJd (2023) Quality of Silage
with Different Mixtures of Melon Biomass with Urea as an Additive.
Agronomy, 13:293.doi:10.3390/agronomy13020293
Nkosi BD, Meeske R (2010) Effects of ensiling totally mixed potato hash
ration with or without a heterofermentative bacterial inoculant on
silage fermentation, aerobic stability, growth performance and digestibility in lambs. Anim Feed Sci Technol, 161 (1-2):38-48.doi:
1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.07.015
SAS (1998) User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 5 ed., SAS inst., Inc., Cary,
NC. 17.
Seydosoglu S (2019a) Effects of different mixture ratios of grass pea
(Lathyrus sativus L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) on quality of silage. Legum Res, 42 (5):666-670.doi: 10.18805/LR-468
Seydoşoğlu S (2019b) Investigation of the effect of fodder pea (Pisum
sativum L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) herbages mixed at different rates on silage and feed quality. EgeÜniv. Ziraat Fak Derg, 56
(3):297-302 (in Turkish).doi: 10.20289/ zfdergi.485698
Şen G, ErolT, Kara K, Demirci M, Karslı MA (2022) The effect of microbial inoculants and molasses on quality and in vitro digestibility of
silages prepared with different proportions of rye grass and Hungarian vetch. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 46 (4):629-637.doi:10.55730/1300-
4234
Tassone S, Fortina R, Peiretti PG (2020) In vitro techniques using the
DaisyII incubator for the assessment of digestibility: A review. Animals, 10 (5):775. doi: 10.3390/ani10050775
Tekin M, Kara K (2020) The forage quality and the in vitro ruminal digestibility, gas production, organic acids, and some estimated digestion parameters of tomato herbage silage with molasses and barley.
Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 44 (2):201-213.doi:10.3906/vet-1908-47
Tilley JM, Terry RA (1963) A two-stage technique for in vitro digestion of
forage. J Br Grassl Soc, 18: 104-111.
Turan N (2019) Determination of chemical composition and quality
properties of silage produced by mixing green Hungarian vetch and
barley in various proportions. EJOSAT, 17:787-793 (in Turkish).doi:
31590/ejosat.643509
Turan N (2020) Determination of Quality and Chemical Composition of
Silages Obtained from Narbonne Vetch (Vicia narbonensis) and Barley (Hordeum vulgare) Composition. Legum. Res., 43 (5):1-5.doi:
18805/LR-545
Uygur MA (2019) Determination of silage quality by physical and chemical methods. https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/etae/Belgeler/EgitimBrosur/127-ciftcibro.pdfErişimtarihi: 20.09.2022 (in Turkish).
Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB (1979) Systems of analyses for evaluation
of fibrous feed. In: Pigden WJ, Balch CC. and Graham M (editors).
Proc. Int. Workshop on Standardization of Analytical Methodology
for Feeds, International Development Research Center, Ottawa, Canada.
Zhao J, Dong Z, Li J, Chen L, Bai Y, Jia Y, Shao T (2019) Effects of sugar
sources and doses on fermentation dynamics, carbohydrates changes,
in vitro digestibility and gas production of rice straw silage. Ital J
Anim Sci, 18(1):1345-1355.doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2019.1659106
Most read articles by the same author(s)