Fermentation Quality of Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and Bromegrass (Bromus inermis leyss) Mixed Silage

Article Preview

Abstract:

To assess the fermentation quality of mixed silage with alfalfa (Medicago sativa) and bromegrass (Bromus inermis leyss), they were mixed and ensiled in different proportions (100:0, 75:25, 50:50, 25:75 and 0:100 respectively). 15 bag silos were prepared for each treatment and three bag silos per treatment were randomly opened after 3, 7, 14, 28 and 56 days of ensiling and the contents were processed for quality assessment and laboratory analysis. Results indicated as follows, (1) compared with alfalfa silage (0:100), all treatments improved fermentation quality and attained lower pH. The 100:0 treatment had the lowest (P10 cfu/g fresh material) varied from 7.8 to 9.2., while that of the 100:0 and 75:25 treatments kept the highest (P<0.05) level during almost all ensiling periods. No yeast was detected in all silages after 14 days of post-ensiling and mold was below detected level at all ensiling periods. All the results indicated that the 100:0 and 75:25 treatments tended to have the best fermentation quality in this study. Overall, increasing proportions of bromegrass in the mixed silage could improve the fermentation quality.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Advanced Materials Research (Volumes 524-527)

Pages:

2242-2245

Citation:

Online since:

May 2012

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2012 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

[1] G.D. Lacefield, J.C. Henning, M. Rasnake, M. Collin, AGR-76. University of Kentucky, Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture (2005)

Google Scholar

[2] Information on http://www.caf.wvu.edu/~forage/library/forglvst/bulletins/salfalfa.pdf

Google Scholar

[3] Information on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfalfa

Google Scholar

[4] Y.P. Zao, B.L. Qi, G.C. Gao, Q.L. Piao, Y. Zhang, J. Sang, Jilin Forestry Sci. Tech. 34 (2005) 5-7, 12 (In Chinese)

Google Scholar

[5] C.X. Pei, K.H. Dong, H. Fan, Grassland of China. 24 (2002) 32-37 (In Chinese)

Google Scholar

[6] C. Xu, Y. Cai, N. Moriya, M. Ogawa, Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 138 (2007) 228-238.

Google Scholar

[7] AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis. 15th ed. Arlington, VA, USA, 1990.

Google Scholar

[8] P.J. Van Soest, J.B. Robertson, B.A. Lewis, J. Dairy Sci. 74 (1991) 3583-3597.

Google Scholar

[9] P. McDonald, A.R. Henderson, J. Sci. Food Agr. 15 (1964) 395-398.

Google Scholar

[10] Y. Cai, Y. Benno, M. Ogawa, S. Ohmomo, S. Kumai, T. Nakase, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64 (1998) 2982-2987.

DOI: 10.1128/aem.64.8.2982-2987.1998

Google Scholar

[11] C. Xu, H. Wang, F. Yang, Zh. Yu, J. Anim. Feed Sci. 20 (2011) 449-460.

Google Scholar

[12] P. McDonald, A.R. Henderson , S.J.E. Heron, The Biochemistry of silage. 2nd ed. Chalcombe Publ., Cambrian Prrinters, Ltd., Merlow, Bucks, Aberystwyth, Wales, UK, 1991.

Google Scholar