Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 44, Issue 7, pp 1547–1553 | Cite as

Rumen degradability characteristics of normal maize stover and silage, and quality protein maize silage-based diets offered to cows

  • Berhan Tamir
  • Ephrem Gebrehawariat
  • Azage Tegegne
  • Mohammed Y. Kortu
Original Research

Abstract

Rumen degradability characteristics of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM) and crude protein (CP) of normal maize (NM) stover (T1)-, NM silage (T2)- and quality protein maize (QPM) silage (T3)-based diets were studied using three rumen-fistulated Boran × Friesian non-lactating cows (371 ± 32.00 kg) in 3 × 3 Latin Square Design. Cows were supplemented with a similar concentrate mix. In sacco degradability of DM and OM indicated that the (a) values of DM (128) and OM (114) for NM stover were lower (P < 0.001) than that for NM silage (268 and 253) and for QPM silage (323 and 303), respectively. The (a) value for CP was lower (P < 0.05) for QPM silage (286) than for NM stover (404) and NM silage (326). The (b) values of DM in NM stover (597) and NM silage (535) were higher (P < 0.05) than in QPM silage (499). The (b) value of CP in NM stover (372) was lower (P < 0.05) than in NM silage (655) and in QPM silage (608). Rate of degradation of OM in NM stover and NM silage, each with 0.03, was faster (P < 0.01) than in QPM silage (0.02). Moreover, QPM silage had higher potentially degradable fraction for DM (821) (P < 0.05) and OM (840) (P < 0.01) than DM (725) and OM (712) in NM stover. The mean rumen ammonia concentration (209 mg/l) of QPM silage was higher (P < 0.05) than that of NM stover (179 mg/l) and NM silage (170 mg/l). The average rumen pH (6.1) in cows fed QPM silage was lowest (P < 0.05) compared to pH (6.3) in cows fed either NM stover or silage. The concentration of total volatile fatty acids (116 mmol/l) in the rumen of cows incubated with QPM silage was higher (P < 0.001) than in those incubated with NM stover (113 mmol/l) and NM silage (110 mmol/l). It was concluded that QPM silage-based diet was superior in DM and OM degradability, and had higher ammonia and VFA concentration than NM stover-based diet. No differences have been observed in all parameters measured between QPM and NM silages.

Keywords

Degradability characteristics Normal maize silage/stover Quality protein maize Rumen ammonia Volatile fatty acid 

Abbreviations

a

Washing loss

b

Insoluble but slowly degradable

c

Degradation rate per hour

PD

Potential degradability

L

Lag time in hours

ED

Effective degradability

ADF

Acid detergent fibre

ADL

Acid detergent lignin

NM

Normal maize

NDF

Neutral detergent fibre

OM

Organic matter

QPM

Quality protein maize

SEM

Standard error of the mean

NS

Not significant

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Debre Zeit Station, for providing financial support and facilities and Haramaya University for facilities. Professor Dr. Allan Degen is highly appreciated for reading and making valuable comments and suggestions.

References

  1. CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), 2000. CIMMYT in 1999–2000. Science and subsistence. Mexico D.F.: CMMYT. ISSN: 0188-9214, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar
  2. Gebrehawariat, E., Tamir, B. and Tegegne, A., 2010. Feed intake and production parameters of lactating crossbred cows fed maize-based diets of stover, silage or quality protein silage. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 42:1705–1710.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Goering, H.K. and Van Soest, P.J., 1970. Forage Fibre Analysis: Apparatus, Reagents, Procedures and Some Applications. (Agricultural Handbook No. 379, USDA, Washington, D.C., USA)Google Scholar
  4. Grant, R.J. and Mertens, D.R., 1992. Influence of buffer pH and raw corn starch addition on in vitro fibre digestion kinetics. Journal of Dairy Science, 75:2762.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. McDonald, P., Edwards, R.A., Greenhalgh, J.F.D. and Morgan, C.A., 1996. Animal Nutrition, 5th ed., Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex, England.Google Scholar
  6. Ndlovu, L.R., 1992. Complementarity of forages in ruminant digestion: Theoretical considerations. In: Proceedings of the Joint Feed Resources Network Workshop held in Gaborone, Botswana.Google Scholar
  7. Orskov, E.R., 1991. Protein Nutrition in Ruminants. (Academic Press, London).Google Scholar
  8. Orskov, E.R. and McDonald, P., 1979. The estimation of protein degradation in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge), 92:499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Orskov, E.R. and Ryle, M., 1990. Energy Nutrition in Ruminants. (Elsevier, Oxford).Google Scholar
  10. Orskov, E.R , Oiwang, I. and Reid, G.W., 1988. A study on consistency and differences between cows in rumen outflow rate of fibrous particles and other substrates and consequences for digestibility and intake of roughages. Animal Production, 47:45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. SAS, 2007. Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc. User’s Guide, Version 12, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Berhan Tamir
    • 1
  • Ephrem Gebrehawariat
    • 2
  • Azage Tegegne
    • 3
  • Mohammed Y. Kortu
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Veterinary MedicineAddis Ababa UniversityDebre ZeitEthiopia
  2. 2.Department of Animal Production, Faculty of AgricultureWollega UniversityNekemteEthiopia
  3. 3.International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)Addis AbabaEthiopia
  4. 4.Haramaya UniversityDire DawaEthiopia

Personalised recommendations