Next Article in Journal
Relationship between Household Dynamics, Biomass Consumption, and Carbon Emissions in Pakistan
Previous Article in Journal
Optimal Operation of Microgrids with Demand-Side Management Based on a Combination of Genetic Algorithm and Artificial Bee Colony
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/su14116743
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainable Use of Legume Residues: Effect on Nutritive Value and Ensiling Characteristics of Maize Straw Silage

by
Onke Hawu
1,2,*,
Khuliso Emmanuel Ravhuhali
1,2,
Hilda Kwena Mokoboki
1,2,
Cornelia Kedidimetse Lebopa
1,2 and
Nkosomzi Sipango
1,2
1
Department of Animal Science, School of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University, Mmabatho 2735, South Africa
2
Food Security and Safety Niche Area, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University, Mafikeng 2745, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(11), 6743; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116743
Submission received: 10 May 2022 / Revised: 27 May 2022 / Accepted: 27 May 2022 / Published: 31 May 2022
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The objective of this study was to investigate the nutritive value, in vitro dry matter degradability (IVDMD), and ensiling characteristics of legume foliage–maize straw silages. For silage, the proportion of legume to maize was 20%:80% (maize–lablab (ML), maize–indigenous cowpea (MI), maize–Betswit (MB), and maize–Dr Saunders (MD)). Maize alone (M) was used as a control, making up five treatments. Silages were opened after 45 days, and samples were taken for chemical composition, IVDMD, and fermentation characteristics analysis. Other samples were put through a seven-day aerobic stability test. All data were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance, in a completely randomized design (CRD). For the nutritive value of the silage, the ML had the highest (p < 0.05) crude protein (CP) content, when compared with other silages. Maize–Betswit had the lowest (p < 0.05) neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) content, when compared with other silages. The lowest (p < 0.05) ether-extract (EE) and hemicellulose content was recorded for MI silage. The lowest (p < 0.05) pH was recorded for maize silage. All silages had similar (p > 0.05) amounts of lactic acid (LA), water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC), yeast, and mould counts. The MI had the lowest (p < 0.05) carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, when compared with other silages. The highest (p < 0.05) IVDMD was recorded for ML silage, from 24 h up to 72 h. The addition of legumes in maize straw resulted in improved silage quality and fermentation characteristics.

1. Introduction

Ruminant production boosts the socio-economic status of poor rural communities as well as food insecurity. Furthermore, it provides cash from the sale of products, such as skin, milk, and meat [1]. However, a large number of southern Africa’s rural community’s livestock are challenged by feed-insecurity problems, which, every so often, leaves the livestock starving and undernourished [2]. Their feed resources in tropical regions, usually, consist of natural pastures and poor-quality grasses, which are restricted in supply, especially throughout the dry season, due to climate change and overgrazing [3,4]; this adversely affects livestock production. Thus, ruminant feeding with preserved feeds, such as silage, has the potential to be an effective feeding stratagem, as it could be made available throughout the year.
Cowpeas and lablab residues (leaves and vines) are widely used as the source of protein for livestock around North West province, and South Africa as a whole, after fruit harvesting. Legume foliage and maize straws could be ensiled, to provide adequate fodder for ruminant production, throughout the dry periods. Silage is the product after a sequence of biochemical processes, in which a forage with moisture content is cut and fermented, to form a stable feed that will not degrade further in anaerobic storage [5]. Maize (Zea mays) straw silage is one of the most-used feeds across the world, due to its high energy content. However, it contains low CP content, less than 7 g/kg DM [6]. To meet the nutrient requirements for ruminants, the CP of maize straw silage must be increased to required levels. Goyal and Tiwana [7] stated that legume leaves are a great source of CP and minerals. However, legumes cannot be ensiled alone, due to their high buffering capacity as well as their low water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC) [8,9], with risks of producing butyric acid [10]. Mixing maize and legumes for silage production is a feasible strategy, for increasing the CP of maize silage [11,12].
Protein, fibre, and sugar fractions are anticipated to degrade, during the ensiling process, due to the activity of enzymes throughout fermentation [13,14,15,16]. Studies by Ozturk et al. [8] as well as Pursiainen and Tuori [17] have equated a variety of legume–cereal mixtures, in relation to fermentation characteristics, and have revealed that the proportion of legume to cereal has manifest impacts on fermentation.
The in situ nylon bag method [18] is the most commonly used method for nutrient-degradation kinetics [19]. As a result, ruminant-feed degradability is crucial for evaluating feed-ingredient utilization [20]. Chen et al. [21] stressed that ensiling could be advantageous to ruminal fermentation, since fibre decreases after ensiling [13,14]. Moreover, Peyrat et al. [22], noticed that substrates were degraded more speedily in silage than in un-ensiled forage. The data generated by in vitro ruminal fermentation procedures can be used to select forages/feeds/legumes that digest and degrade quicker, allowing ruminant production to be maximised. There is a need to continue evaluating the forage ensiling characteristics and their influence on in vitro ruminal fermentation as well as their impact on addressing feed shortages during the dry season. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the nutritive value, in vitro dry matter degradability, and ensiling characteristics of legume foliage residues–maize straw silages, while hypothesising that there’s a variation on nutritive value, in vitro dry matter degradability, and ensiling characteristics of legume foliage–maize straw silages.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site Description

The study was conducted at the North-West University farm, Mafikeng (25°49′22″ S and 25°36′54″ E), North West province of South Africa, with an altitude of about 1290 m above sea level. The area has an ambient temperature ranging between 11 °C and 38 °C, while receiving an average rainfall of 450 mm, yearly.

2.2. Planting

Four legume species (Lablab purpureus and Vigna unguiculata (Dr Saunders, Betswit, and indigenous cowpea varieties)) were grown under the same soil and management conditions as a monoculture in a trial field. They were consigned to the plots, in relation to a randomised-complete-block design. Each block had 4 plots (each plot size 13 m × 7 m) for each of the 4 different species, thus, there were 16 plots. The legumes were sowed in rows with inter-row spacing of 30 cm. Maize was sowed in rows, with an intra-row spacing of 17 cm and an inter-row spacing of 90 cm, in a space of 25 m × 20 m. Harvesting was done after the reproductive stage (after fruit harvesting). The legume foliage and maize straw were harvested from the plots, respectively, and were left to dry at room temperature for two weeks, before being ground for the chemical composition of the raw materials. The samples were ground in a Wiley Mill, to pass through a 1-mm sieve, and placed in airtight containers, pending chemical analysis.

2.3. Silage Preparation

Freshly harvested and chopped whole maize straws and legume foliage residues, with an average of 65% moisture content, were used as raw materials for the silage. After harvesting, each legume and the maize were sliced into 3 cm pieces, by a motorized chopper and mixed with the maize, so that each legume percentage was 20% to 80% [23] maize, maize alone (M) (control), maize–lablab (ML), maize–indigenous cowpea (MI), maize–Betswit (MB), and maize–Dr Saunders (MD). Each legume was mixed thoroughly with maize on plastic sheets, before being packed in plastic bags, up to a mass of 1 kg each. Each treatment was replicated 5 times. Compaction as well as the elimination of air from the bags was accomplished by hand squeezing, to eliminate as much air as possible, and, then, the bags were tied using twine to ensure airtightness. The silages were opened, subsequently, 45 days later. Samples from the silages were taken, to determine silage chemical composition after ensiling, fermentation characteristics, and dry-matter degradability.

2.4. Nutritive Value Analysis

One (1) gram of every sample was weighed into pre-weighed crucibles and put in an oven for 12 h at 105 °C, to determine the dry matter (DM) [24]. Organic matter (OM) was determined by burning (ash) the samples in a muffle furnace, for 6 h at 550 °C, and the weight loss was calculated as OM content [24]. Neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and ADF were determined by an ANKOM2000 Fiber Analyzer (ANKOM Technology, Macedon, NY, USA). Acid detergent lignin (ADL) was determined, using H2SO4 (72%) for 3 h [25]. Total nitrogen (N) was determined, by the standard macro Kjeldahl method [24], and was converted to CP, by multiplying the % N content by a factor of 6.25. Ether extract (EE) was determined, using the Soxhlet method [24]. Hemicellulose and cellulose were calculated: hemicellulose = NDF-ADF and cellulose = ADF-ADL, as outlined by Javier-Astete [26].

2.5. Fermentation Characteristics and Aerobic Stability Determination

The pH of the silages was determined, using an Orion digital pH meter 611, on the silage aqueous extract. The LA was determined utilising the colourimetric technique of Barker and Summerson [27], as improved by Pryce [28]. The WSCs were determined, utilising the phenol-sulphuric acid technique of Dubois et al. [29]. Yeasts plus mould counting was done on a potato–dextrose–agar spread-plate, acidified with LA (85%). The plates were incubated at 28 °C, the yeasts were counted at 48 h, and the counting mould was counted at 96 h. Log-transforming occurred for the yeast and mould microbiological data [30].
Silage (500 g) samples were loosely packed in an open plastic jar, to determine aerobic stability, which was shielded with 2 layers of cheesecloth and stowed at room temperature. The production of CO2 [31] was determined after the 7-day aerobic exposure, as described by the IDF [32] technique.

2.6. In Vitro Ruminal Dry Matter Degradability

In vitro dry-matter degradability of the samples from all the forages was determined, using the ANKOM Daisy11 Incubator, comprising a thermostatic chamber (39 °C) with four circling jars, according to ANKOM [33]. The samples (0.45–0.5 g) were weighed into ANKOM F57 filter bags, and they were heat-sealed and put in digestion jars. Buffer solutions (2) were prepared and combined, at a ratio of 1:5, and 1600 mL of the combined buffers were added to every jar, which was warmed at 39 °C. Rumen fluid was collected from a fistulated Bonsmara cow (~550 kg). The cow was reared on a mixed diet of blue buffalo grass and lucerne hay. Rumen fluid was collected into two pre-warmed thermos flasks and, promptly, transported to the laboratory, where it was mixed and strained through two layers of warm muslin cloth. Rumen inoculum (400 mL) was added to every jar, which contained ANKOM buffer (1600 mL) and F57 bags. To maintain anaerobic conditions, the jars were, continually, purged with CO2 gas, and incubation was performed at 39 °C. The F57 filter bags were withdrawn after 6 h, 12 h, 24 h, 36 h, 48 h and 72 h of incubation. At 0 h, samples were washed with distilled water for 20 min, and for other withdrawal periods, the bags were washed with distilled water for 20 min, using an ANKOM2000 Fiber Analyzer; the bags were, then, desiccated for 12 h at 105 °C, having been weighed earlier for IVDMD. In vitro DM degradability was calculated, using this formula:
% I V D M D = ( 100 − ( W 3 − ( W 1 × C 1 ) ) ) ( W 2 × D M ) × 100
where, W1—bag tare weight, W2—sample weight, W3—final bag weight after in vitro treatment, and C1—blank bag correlation factor (final over dried weight/original blank weight).

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Data were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance [34], in a CRD. The following general linear model (GLM) procedure was used:
Y i j = µ + E i + E i j
where; Yij—he response variable, µ—the overall mean, Di—treatment effect, and Eij—random error.
For a statistical test, significance was declared at p < 0.05. The separation of the means was done, using the Duncan test.

3. Results

The chemicals’s composition varied significantly (p < 0.05) among the forages (Table 1). Dr Saunders had the highest (p < 0.05) CP content, while maize had the lowest (p < 0.05) CP content. The highest (p < 0.05) ash weight was obtained from Betswit. Lablab had the lowest (p < 0.05) EE and ADF content, when compared with all other forages. Dr. Saunders had the lowest NDF, cellulose and hemicellulose content, when compared with other forages.
There was a significant variation (p < 0.05) in the chemical composition between silages (Table 2). Maize–Dr Saunders had the highest (p < 0.05) ash content, when compared with all other silages. The ML had the highest (p < 0.05) CP content than other silages. Maize–Betswit had the lowest (p < 0.05), NDF, ADF, and ADL content, when compared with other silages. The lowest (p < 0.05) EE and hemicellulose content was recorded for MI silage.
The results for fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability are presented in Table 3. The lowest (p < 0.05) pH was recorded for maize silage. All silages had similar (p > 0.05) amounts of LA, WSC, yeast, and mould counts. The MI had the lowest (p < 0.05), when compared with other silages.
The results for in vitro dry matter degradability are presented in Table 4. The highest IVDMD was recorded for ML silage, from 24 h up to 72 h.

4. Discussion

4.1. Nutritive Value

Information on chemical composition and dry-matter degradability of potential feeds is significant, for them to be used optimally in ruminant rations [35]. According to Ahmed et al. [36], the ash content found in feeds plays a vital role in stimulating balanced animal growth. The ash content of silages in the current study ranged between 135.8 and 160.9 g/kg DM. These values were found to be higher than the range (59.0–70.0 g/kg DM) reported by Edson et al. [37], for maize and maize–legume silages. These high ash values could be attributable to high mineral concentrations. The highest concentration of ash is, directly, linked to the high proportion of minerals, such as calcium, phosphorous, potassium, and the large fraction of silica [38,39,40,41]. This could be an added benefit, when supplemented to ruminants fed on roughages of poor quality, which are lacking minerals [39]. The higher ash content in these silages suggests that there may not be any necessity to supplement with commercial minerals, if these silages are used. Conversely, Mugweni et al. [42] stated that there would be a necessity to analyze for minerals required by ruminants, to determine the adequacy of these silages.
The CP content (69 g/kg DM) obtained in this study for maize silage was similar to the 69 g/kg DM, reported by Phiri et al. [13] and Contreras-Govea et al. [6], and was lower than the 99.9 g/kg DM obtained by Young et al. [43]. The differences in maize varieties, the phase at which the crop was harvested, and the duration of the ensiling process could be ascribed to the differences. The CP, gradually, declines as forage matures, due to protein synthesis being limited by weak photosynthesis [44]. The CP content of a feed is one of the most critical factors in improving ruminant performance, and low concentrations can have a detrimental impact on animal performance. Moreover, silages with CP content of <70 g/kg DM may not promote optimal rumen fermentation and may lead to a reduction in diet intake by livestock [45]. In the current study, the CP content of MD, MB, MI, and ML was greater than this threshold, which is considered enough for optimal ruminal microorganisms’s activity. This is a sign that maize ensiled alone could not be considered as a sole feed. The inclusion of legumes in maize increased the CP content of the silages. This did not come as a surprise, since previous studies have shown that the addition of legumes in maize increases CP content. These results were similar to the results of Contreras-Govea et al. [6] and Stoltz et al. [46], where the inclusion of legumes in maize increased CP in the silages. The CP content of ML (116.0 g/kg DM) was similar to the value (113 g/kg DM), which is considered as a proposed minimum requirement for growth in ruminants [47].
The EE content of silages, except for MD, from this study was similar to the values obtained by Htet et al. [48]. The EE content of MD (35.2 g/kg DM) was comparable to the EE content (33.3 and 30.1 g/kg DM) obtained by Erdal et al. [49] and Tharangani et al. [50], respectively. The EE contents of all silages in the present study were, also, similar to the values obtained by Edson et al. [37] and Qu et al. [51], from maize–legume silages. The EE content in these silages shows that the silages have high-energy content and can be used as a source of energy in ruminant nutrition [52]. Nevertheless, silages high in EE content can, also, reduce ruminant feed intake and disrupt the normal functioning of the rumen [53], so a certain level of high-protein diet to low-protein diet, such as maize, might be introduced, to avert the negative impact that high EE might have on livestock.
The inclusion of legumes in maize resulted in decreased fibre concentration, in the silages. The current observations agreed with those by Phiri et al. [13], who reported that the addition of legumes in maize reduced the fibre concentrations, after ensiling. This could be due to hemicellulose hydrolysis into monosaccharides, which offer extra carbohydrates (sugar) for lactic acid (LA)-generation, throughout fermentation. The reduced fibre concentrations in silage might lead to increased DM intake and digestibility, since fibre concentrations have a negative association with DM intake as well as digestibility [49,53]. The NDF content of maize–legume silages ranged between 493.1–515.5 g/kg DM, which is lower than the raw and ensiled maize straws. According to Msiza et al. [54], this range indicates better feed intake, though the recommended one is 300–450 g/kg DM, as indicated by Ball et al. [55] and Van Saun [56]. The NDF content (493.1 g/kg DM) of MB was similar to the NDF content (491 g/kg DM), obtained by Phiri et al. [13], in Leucaena leucocephala-maize silage. The NDF content (515. 5 g/kg DM) of ML was similar to the NDF content (531 g/kg DM), obtained by Balezentiene and Mikulioniene [57], in galega–maize silage. Erdal et al. [49] stated that the ADF content of silages is, usually, between 25–50%. The current results for ADF content in the silages ranged from 343.8 g/kg DM to 394.7 g/kg DM, and it falls between the reported ranges. Since low concentrations of fibre constituents’s aid with better digestion, it appears that the addition of legumes in maize outperformed the control, in terms of ADF and NDF.
Lignin is an important plant component, as it performs various activities for the plant, so it provides rigidity, by giving strength to the cell wall, transporting the necessary nutrients needed by the plants, hence, lignin is higher in legumes than in grasses and maize straws [58,59]. Forages become more lignified as forages mature, and this has an adverse effect on the degradability of substrates [60]. The ADL contents of the silages were lower than the values obtained by Amole et al. [61] and Contreras-Govea et al. [62], from maize–lablab and maize–cowpea silage. This variation might be caused by the stage at which the forages were harvested, as well as the duration of fermentation. The lignin concentration in the substrates or silage might be shadowed by high CP concentration from legumes, and this might stimulate the increase in microbes to breakdown lignin in the diet. Cattle have greater amounts of microbes in their digestive tract than sheep and goats, allowing them to properly break down the extremely lignified silages, which are extremely resilient to chemical and enzymatic degradation [54,63].

4.2. Fermentation Characteristics and Aerobic Stability

The silage pH is a major indicator of good silage, when assessing silage quality; generally, the lower the pH is, the greater the conservation and the more stable the silage [64]. The silage pH values ranged from 3.66 to 4.75, and these low pH values are a sign of well-preserved silage. Gusha et al. [65] and Matlabe et al. [66] stressed that pH values lower than 4.8 could be considered appropriate for good quality silage production. The addition of legumes resulted in a pH increment; this was in agreement with the findings by Carpici [67]. The increment of the pH values was ascribed to the low DM and high buffering capacity of the legumes, primarily due to cation existence [5,13,68,69]. Furthermore, when cations encounter organic acids produced during fermentation, they neutralize them, preventing a pH drop [69].
According to Grant and Ferraretto [70], LA is the key fermentation end product in silage. Even though there was no significant difference among the treatments on LA concentration, the addition of legumes in maize in the present study slightly increased LA content in the silages, compared with the control. This was consistent with studies by Htet et al. [48] and Wang et al. [68]. The inclusion of legumes showed that legumes could stimulate LA fermentation, which might be linked to the associated influence of bacterial community from diverse forages [68]. Another reason for an increase in LA content of the silage could be ascribed to the high buffering capacity of legumes. Generally, legumes have a high buffering capacity, which results in high amounts of LA during fermentation, which is required to decrease the pH value for good silage preservation [71].
Silage aerobic stability is a critical aspect in ensuring that the ruminants receive well-preserved nutrients, with the least amounts of toxins and mould [72]. Increased CO2 production in silage shows yeast and mould activity, which raises the temperature and decreases silage quality [73]. Yeast and mould utilise residual LA and WSC for their metabolism [74]. With the addition of legumes to maize straws, the aerobic stability of silages deteriorated. Based on the current findings, ML and MI silages were stable, when compared with MB and MD; according to Wilkinson and Davies [72], silages that produce less than 10 g/kg of CO2 over 5 days are declared stable.

4.3. In Vitro Dry Matter Degradability

The degradability of substrates is significant, since it, usually, determines livestock performance; for instance, low degradable substrates adversely affect livestock performance [3]. The addition of legumes in maize in the current study resulted in the higher degradability of the silage than the control silage (maize alone). This can be explained by a slight increase in CP content, as this nutrient is highly digestible [45]. The ML silage had high IVDMD values at 24 h, 36 h, 48 h, and 72 h, so the CP content of this silage might have contributed to the high IVDMD of this silage. Lablab provided a source of N to microorganisms, which leads to high fibre degradation and, thus, high IVDMD [75]. Feeds with high CP content promote microbial proliferation, which affects the degree of fermentation [76]. The higher degradability of ML than all other silages suggests that this silage may improve livestock performance. These results reflected that legumes’s residues, such as cowpeas and lablab (leaves), can be used to enhance low-quality maize straws, for sustainable ruminant production.

5. Conclusions

All the legumes’s residues were capable of being used as silage, in enhancing low-quality maize straws for the sustainability of livestock, especially ruminant animals. In the present study, maize–lablab silage performed better in terms of CP and IVDMD (24–72 h). All silages had high ash content, which could be of benefit, when fed to ruminants given roughages lacking minerals, and this suggests that there might be opportunity to reduce commercial mineral supplements, when these silages are used. The silages had low pH values, which is a good indication of well-preserved silage. The inclusion of legumes showed that legume foliage could stimulate LA production, which could influence the bacterial community from diverse forages and can be ascribed to the high buffering capacity of legumes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.H., K.E.R., H.K.M. and C.K.L.; methodology, O.H., K.E.R., H.K.M., C.K.L. and N.S.; validation, H.K.M. and K.E.R.; formal analysis, O.H. and K.E.R.; investigation, O.H., K.E.R. and N.S.; data curation, O.H., K.E.R. and N.S.; writing–original draft preparation, O.H., K.E.R. and N.S.; writing–review and editing, O.H., K.E.R., H.K.M., C.K.L. and N.S.; visualization, H.K.M., K.E.R. and C.K.L.; supervision, H.K.M., K.E.R. and C.K.L.; project administration, H.K.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines provided by North-West University Research Ethics Committee, with an approval ethic no. NWU-02003-20-A5.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Authors fully acknowledge the financial support of the National Research Fund, Oil & Protein Seeds Development Trust, Oilseeds Advisory Committee post-graduate scholarship, and North-West University master’s bursary.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Brown, D.; Ng’ambi, J.W.; Norris, D. Effect of tanniniferous Acacia karroo leaf meal inclusion level on feed intake, digestibility and live weight gain of goats fed a Setaria verticillata grass hay-based diet. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2018, 46, 248–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Mudau, H.S.; Mokoboki, H.K.; Ravhuhali, K.E.; Mkhize, Z. Nutrients Profile of 52 Browse Species Found in Semi-Arid Areas of South Africa for Livestock Production: Effect of Harvesting Site. Plants 2021, 10, 2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mokgakane, T.J.; Mlambo, V.; Ravhuhali, K.E.; Magoro, N. Contribution of Soil Type to Quantity and Nutritional Value of Grass Species on the South African Highveld. Resources 2021, 10, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ravhuhali, K.E.; Mlambo, V.; Beyene, T.S.; Palamuleni, L.G. Effect of soil type on spatial distribution and nutritive value of grass species growing in selected rangelands of South Africa. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil. 2021, 38, 361–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Amuda, A.J.; Tanko, N. Physical properties of ensiled maize and legumes stover and acceptability by West African Dwarf goats. Niger. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2019, 2, 36–44. [Google Scholar]
  6. Contreras-Govea, F.; Muck, R.E.; Armstrong, K.L.; Albrecht, K.A. Nutritive value of corn silage in mixture with climbing beans. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2009, 150, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Goyal, M.; Tiwana, U.S. Ensiling legume with cereal fodder influences quality of silage mixtures. Indian J. Anim. Nutr. 2016, 33, 228–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ozturk, D.; Kizilsimsek, M.; Kamalak, A.; Canbolat, O.; Ozkan, C. Effects of ensiling alfalfa with whole-crop maize on the chemical composition and nutritive value of silage mixtures. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 19, 526–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sahoo, A. Silage for climate resilient small ruminant production. In Ruminants: The Husbandry, Economic and Health Aspects; Abubakar, M., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018; Volume 11, pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
  10. Heinritz, S.N.; Martens, S.D.; Avila, P.; Hoedtke, S. The effect of inoculant and sucrose addition on the silage quality of tropical forage legumes with varying ensilability. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2012, 174, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhu, Y.; Bai, C.S.; Guo, X.S.; Xue, Y.L.; Ataku, K. Nutritive value of corn silage in mixture with vine peas. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2011, 51, 1117–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gulumser, E.; Mut, H.; Başaran, U.; Doğrusöz, M. An assessment of ensiling potential in maize x legume (soybean and cowpea) binary mixtures for yield and feeding quality. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 2021, 45, 547–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Phiri, M.S.; Ngongoni, N.T.; Maasdorp, B.V.; Titterton, M.; Mupangwa, J.F.; Sebata, A. Ensiling characteristics and feeding value of silage made from browse tree legume-maize mixtures. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2007, 7, 149–156. Available online: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=93970301 (accessed on 25 January 2022).
  14. Campbell, M.; Ortuño, J.; Ford, L.; Davies, D.R.; Koidis, A.; Walsh, P.J.; Theodoridou, K. The Effect of Ensiling on the Nutritional Composition and Fermentation Characteristics of Brown Seaweeds as a Ruminant Feed Ingredient. Animals 2020, 10, 1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kondo, M.; Shimizu, K.; Jayanegara, A.; Mishima, T.; Matsui, H.; Karita, S.; Goto, M.; Fujihara, T. Changes in Nutrient Composition and in Vitro Ruminal Fermentation of Total Mixed Ration Silage Stored at Different Temperatures and Periods. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 1175–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Yang, H.; Wang, B.; Zhang, Q.; Cheng, H.; Yu, Z. Improvement of Fermentation Quality in the Fermented Total Mixed Ration with Oat Silage. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Pursiainen, P.; Tuori, M. Effect of ensiling field bean, field pea and common vetch in different proportions with whole-crop wheat using formic acid or an inoculant on fermentation characteristics. Gras. Forage Sci. 2008, 63, 60–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ørskov, E.R.; McDonald, I. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J. Agric. Sci. 1979, 92, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Nkosi, B.D.; Phenya, J.S.M.; Malebana, I.M.M.; Muya, M.C.; Motiang, M.D. Nutrient evaluation and ruminal degradation of dry matter and protein from amarula (Sclerocarya birrea), macadamia (integrifolia) and baobab (Adansonia digitata L.) oilcakes as dietary supplements for ruminants. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 1981–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lei, Y.G.; Li, X.Y.; Wang, Y.Y.; Li, Z.Z.; Chen, Y.L.; Yang, Y.X. Determination of ruminal dry matter and crude protein degradability and degradation kinetics of several concentrate feed ingredients in cashmere goat. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2018, 46, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Chen, L.; Dong, Z.; Li, J.; Shao, T. Ensiling characteristics, in vitro rumen fermentation, microbial communities and aerobic stability of low-dry matter silages produced with sweet sorghum and alfalfa mixtures. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 2140–2151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Peyrat, J.; Noziere, P.; Le Morvan, A.; Férard, A.; Protin, P.V.; Baumont, R. Effects of ensiling maize and sample conditioning on in situ rumen degradation of dry matter, starch and fibre. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2014, 196, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ngongon, N.T.; Mwale, M.; Mapiye, C.; Moyo, M.T.; Hamudikuwanda, H.; Titterton, M. Research note: Inclusion of lablab in maize and sorghum silages improves sheep performance. Trop. Grassl. 2008, 42, 188–192. [Google Scholar]
  24. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official’s Analytical Chemists, 18th ed.; Association of Official Analytical 438 Chemists: Arlington, VA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  25. Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides 440 in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Javier-Astete, R.; Jimenez-Davalos, J.; Zolla, G. Determination of hemicellulose, cellulose, holocellulose and lignin content using FTIR in Calycophyllum spruceanum (Benth.) K. Schum. and Guazuma crinita Lam. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0256559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Barker, S.B.; Summerson, W.H. The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in biological material. J. Biol. Chem. 1941, 138, 535–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pryce, J.D. A modification of the Barker-Summerson method for the determination of lactic acid. Analyst 1969, 94, 1151–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dubois, M.; Gilles, K.A.; Hamilton, J.K.; Rebers, P.T.; Smith, F. Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Anal. Chem. 1956, 28, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Basso, F.C.; Bernardes, T.F.; Roth, A.P.D.T.P.; Lodo, B.N.; Berchielli, T.T.; Reis, R.A. Fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage inoculated with Lactobacillus buchneri. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2012, 41, 1789–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Ashbell, G.; Weinberg, Z.G.; Azriel, A.; Hen, Y.; Horey, B. A simple system to study the aerobic deterioration of silages. Canad. Agric. Eng. 1991, 33, 391–393. [Google Scholar]
  32. IDF. International Standard 94B. Milk and Milk Products—Enumeration of Yeasts and Moulds. Colony Count Technique at 25 °C; International Dairy Federation: Brussels, Belgium, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  33. ANKOM Technology. In-Vitro True Digestibility Using the Daisy II Incubator; ANKOM Technology: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  34. SAS. Statistical Analysis System. Statistics Software. Release 10; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  35. Khan, N.A.; Sulaiman, S.M.; Hashmi, M.S.; Rahman, S.U.; Cone, J.W. Chemical composition, ruminal degradation kinetics, and methane production (in vitro) of winter grass species. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2021, 101, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ahmed, K.; Shaheen, M.; Mirzaei, F.; Khan, I.; Gondal, S.; Fardous, A.; Hussain, A.; Arshad, F.; Mehmood, T. Proximate analysis: Relative feed values of various forage plants for ruminants investigated in a semi-arid region of Punjab, Pakistan. Agric. Sci. 2013, 4, 302–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Edson, C.; Takarwirwa, N.N.; Kuziwa, N.L.; Stella, N.; Maasdorp, B. Effect of mixed maize-legume silages on milk quality and quantity from lactating smallholder dairy cows. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2018, 50, 1255–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Soetan, K.O.; Fafunso, M.A. Studies on the Proximate and Mineral Composition of Three Varieties of lablab beans (Lablab purpureus). Int. J. Appl. Agric. Res. 2010, 5, 291–300. Available online: http://www.ripublication.com/ijaar.htm (accessed on 25 January 2022).
  39. Gusha, J.; Halimani, T.E.; Ngongoni, N.T.; Ncube, S. Effect of feeding cactus-legume silages on nitrogen retention, digestibility and microbial protein synthesis in goats. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2015, 206, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rambau, M.D.; Fushai, F.; Baloyi, J.J. Productivity, chemical composition and ruminal degradability of irrigated Napier grass leaves harvested at three stages of maturity. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 46, 388–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Yusuf, K.O.; Ajeigbe, O.M.; Oyebo, A.T.; Aderinboye, R.Y.; Onwuka, C.F.I. Nutrients and anti-nutrients content of some crop by-products and residues for ruminant feeding in Nigeria. J. Anim. Prod. Res. 2017, 29, 321–334. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mugweni, B.Z.; Maasdorp, B.V.; Mupangwa, J.F.; Gandiya, F. The effects of feeding mixed cereal-tree forage legume silages on mild yield and composition in lactating. S. Afr. J. Educ. Sci. Technol. 2006, 1, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Young, K.M.; Lim, J.M.; Der Bedrosian, M.C.; Kung, L., Jr. Effect of exogenous protease enzymes on the fermentation and nutritive value of corn silage. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 6687–6694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Xie, Z.L.; Zhang, T.F.; Chen, X.Z.; Li, G.D.; Zhang, J.G. Effects of maturity stages on the nutritive composition and silage quality of whole crop wheat. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 25, 1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Malebana, I.M.M.; Langa, T.; Thomas, R.S.; Muya, M.C.; Meeske, R.; Van Niekerk, J.A.; Nkosi, B.D.; Motiang, M.D. Microbial additives affect silage quality and ruminal dry matter degradability of avocado (Persia americana) pulp silage. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 49, 997–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Stoltz, E.; Nadeau, E.; Wallenhammar, A.C. Intercropping maize and faba bean for silage under Swedish climate conditions. Agric. Res. 2013, 2, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Agricultural Research Council (ARC). The Nutrient Requirement of Ruminant Livestock. Supplement No-1; Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux: Slough, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  48. Htet, M.N.S.; Soomro, R.N. Effect of different planting structure of maize and soybean intercropping on fodder production and silage quality. Curr. Agri. Res. J. 2016, 4, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Erdal, S.; Pamukcu, M.; Curek, M.; Kocaturk, M.; Dogu, O.Y. Silage yield and quality of row intercropped maize and soybean in a crop rotation following winter wheat. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2016, 62, 1487–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tharangani, R.M.H.; Yakun, C.; Zhao, L.S.; Ma, L.; Liu, H.L.; Su, S.L.; Shan, L.; Yang, Z.N.; Kononoff, P.J.; Weiss, W.P.; et al. Corn silage quality index: An index combining milk yield, silage nutritional and fermentation parameters. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2021, 273, 114817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Qu, Y.; Jiang, W.; Yin, G.; Wei, C.; Bao, J. Effects of feeding corn-lablab bean mixture silages on nutrient apparent digestibility and performance of dairy cows. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 26, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Nkosi, B.D.; Meeske, R.; Langa, T.; Motiang, M.D.; Modiba, S.; Mutavhatsindi, T.F.; Malebana, I.M.M.; Groenewald, I.B. Effects of bacterial inoculation on the fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of ensiled whole plant soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr.). S. Afr. J. Anim Sci. 2016, 42, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Mciteka, H. Fermentation Characteristics and Nutritional Value of Opuntia ficusindica Var. Fusicaulis Cladode Silage. Master’s Dissertation, University of Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  54. Msiza, N.H.; Ravhuhali, K.E.; Mokoboki, H.K.; Mavengahama, S.; Motsei, L.E. Ranking Species for Veld Restoration in Semi-Arid Regions Using Agronomic, Morphological and Chemical Parameters of Selected Grass Species at Different Developmental Stages under Controlled Environment. Agronomy 2021, 11, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ball, D.; Collins, M.; Lacefield, G.; Martin, N.; Mertens, D.; Olson, K.; Putnam, D.; Undersander, D.; Wolf, M. Understanding Forage Quality; University of Kentucky: Lexington, Kentucky, 2001; Available online: http://www.uky.edu/Ag/Forage/ForageQuality.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2022).
  56. van Saun, R. What is Forage Quality and How does it Affect A Feeding Program? 2016. Available online: http://www.extension.psu.edu/animals/camelids/nutrition/what-is-forage-quality-and-how-does-it-effect-a-feeding-program (accessed on 25 January 2022).
  57. Balezentiene, L.; Mikulioniene, S. Chemical composition of galega mixtures silages. Agron. Res. 2006, 4, 483–492. [Google Scholar]
  58. Schuetz, M.; Benske, A.; Smith, R.A.; Watanabe, Y.; Tobimatsu, Y.; Ralph, J.; Demura, T.; Ellis, B.; Samuels, A.L. Laccases direct lignification in the discrete secondary cell wall domains of protoxylem. Plant Physiol. 2014, 166, 798–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Liu, Q.; Luo, L.; Zheng, L. Lignins: Biosynthesis and Biological Functions in Plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Markovi, J.P.; Scaron, R.T.; Terzi, D.V.; Djoki, D.J.; Vrvi, M.M.; Sanja, P. Changes in lignin structure with maturation of alfalfa leaf and stem in relation to ruminants nutrition. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2012, 7, 257–264. [Google Scholar]
  61. Amole, T.A.; Oduguwa, B.O.; Onifade, O.S.; Arigbede, O.M.; Jolaosho, A.O. Effect of sole maize and maize–lablab silage on the ruminal volatile fatty acids (VFAS) of grazing calves in the dry season. Niger. J. Anim. Prod. 2013, 40, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Contreras-Govea, F.E.; VanLeeuwen, D.M.; Angadi, S.V.; Marsalis, M.A. Enhances in crude protein and effects on fermentation profile of corn and forage sorghum silage with addition of cowpea. Forage Grazingland. 2013, 11, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ravhuhali, K.E.; Msiza, N.H.; Mudau, H.S. Seasonal dynamics on nutritive value, chemical estimates and in vitro dry matter degradability of some woody species found in rangelands of South Africa. Agroforest. Syst. 2021, 96, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jusoh, S.; Alimon, A.R.; Iman, M.N. Effect of Gliricidia sepium leaves and molasses inclusion on aerobic stability, value and digestibility of Napier grass silage. Mal. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 19, 33–42. [Google Scholar]
  65. Gusha, J.; Katsande, S.; Zvinorova, P.I.; Ncube, S. The nutritional composition and acceptability of cacti (Opuntia ficus indica)-legume mixed silage. Online J. Anim. Feed Res. 2013, 3, 116–120. [Google Scholar]
  66. Matlabe, G.; Mokoboki, H.K.; Sebola, A.N.; Lebopa, C.K.; Ravhuhali, K.E.; Hawu, O. Effects of browse legume species addition on nutritional composition, fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of Opuntia cladodes silage. S. Afr. J. Sci. 2022, 118, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Carpici, E.B. Nutritive values of soybean silages ensiled with maize at different rates. Legume Res. Int. J. 2016, 39, 810–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Wang, S.; Yuan, X.; Dong, Z.; Li, J.; Shao, T. Effect of ensiling corn stover with legume herbages in different proportions on fermentation characteristics, nutritive quality and in vitro digestibility on the Tibetan Plateau. Grassl. Sci. 2017, 63, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. da Silva Brito, G.S.M.; Santos, E.M.; de Araújo, G.G.L.; de Oliveira, J.S.; de Moura Zanine, A.; Perazzo, A.F.; Campos, F.S.; de Oliveira Lima, A.G.V.; Cavalcanti, H.S. Mixed silages of cactus pear and gliricidia: Chemical composition, fermentation characteristics, microbial population and aerobic stability. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Grant, R.J.; Ferraretto, L.F. Silage review: Silage feeding management: Silage characteristics and dairy cow feeding behavior. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 4111–4121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Tao, Y.; Sun, Q.; Li, F.; Xu, C.; Cai, Y. Comparative analysis of ensiling characteristics and protein degradation of alfalfa silage prepared with corn or sweet sorghum in semiarid region of Inner Mongolia. Anim. Sci. J. 2020, 91, 13321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Wilkinson, J.M.; Davies, D.R. The aerobic stability of silage: Key findings and recent developments. Grass Forage Sci. 2013, 68, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nkosi, B.D.; Meeske, R.; Langa, T.; Motiang, M.D.; Modiba, S.; Mkhize, N.R.; Groenewald, I.B. Effects of ensiling forage soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) with or without bacterial inoculants on the fermentation characteristics, aerobic stability and nutrient digestion of the silage by Damara rams. Small Rumin. Res. 2016, 134, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mutavhatsindi, T.F.; Nkosi, B.D.; Baloyi, J.J.; Langa, T. Effects of a fibrolytic enzyme and bacterial inoculants on the fermentation, chemical composition and aerobic stability of ensiled potato hash. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 48, 244–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Mbukwane, M.J. Chemical Composition and In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation Characteristics of Cowpea Varieties in the Limpopo Province, South Africa. Master’s Dissertation, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  76. Mpanza, T.D.E.; Hassen, A.; Akanmu, A.M. Evaluation of Stylosanthes scabra Accessions as Forage Source for Ruminants: Growth Performance, Nutritive Value and In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation. Animals 2020, 10, 1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Chemical composition of legumes and maize straws, as g/kg DM, unless stated.
Table 1. Chemical composition of legumes and maize straws, as g/kg DM, unless stated.
SpeciesDMAshCPEENDFADFADLCelHemi
Maize915.2 a164.2 b70.6 e19.7 d622.6 a387.6 a141.2 c246.4 a235.0 a
Dr Saunders896.8 c136.8 c230.7 a19.5 d352.0 c316.4 c159.6 b156.8 e35.6 d
Lablab906.5 b101.8 d222.3 b16.7 c353.5 c302.7 d126.3 d176.4 c50.8 c
Indigenous cowpea894.2 c103.1 d152.8 c17.0 c387.1 b307.3 d116.7 e190.6 b79.8 b
Betswit896.5 c169.6 a180.7 d34.5 a394.1 b340.3 b176.7 a163.6 d53.8 c
SE1.491.501.040.852.552.432.492.163.63
a,b,c,d,e Means in the same column with different superscripts are different (p < 0.05). DM: dry matter, OM: organic matter, EE: ether extract, CP: crude protein, NDF: neutral detergent fibre, ADF: acid detergent fibre, ADL: acid detergent lignin, Cel: cellulose, Hemi: hemicellulose, SE: standard error.
Table
Table 2. Chemical composition of silages (g/kg DM), after 45 days of ensiling (n = 5).
Table 2. Chemical composition of silages (g/kg DM), after 45 days of ensiling (n = 5).
TreatmentsDMAshCPEENDFADFADLCelHemi
M270.9 a135.8 d69.0 d24.9 b619.2 a385.7 b140.0 a245.7 b233.5 a
MD260.7 a160.9 a112.8 a35.2 a510.5 b393.6 a126.8 ab266.8 a116.9 b
ML272.5 a138.7 d116.0 a22.8 b515.5 b394.7 a124.4 b270.3 a120.8 b
MI259.2 a153.0 b97.7 c21.0 b510.1 b389.9 ab128.9 ab261.0 ab120.2 b
MB270.6 a145.4 c102.8 b24.3 b493.1 c365.2 c118.6 b246.5 b128.0 b
SE4.391.651.421.255.832.124.064.666.24
a,b,c,d Means in same column with different superscripts are different (p < 0.05). SE: standard error, M: control maize, MD: maize–Dr Saunders, ML: maize–lablab, MI: maize–indigenous cowpea, MB: maize–Betswit.
Table
Table 3. Effect of legume foliage on maize straw, on fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability (g/kg DM, unless stated otherwise), after 45 days of ensiling (n = 5).
Table 3. Effect of legume foliage on maize straw, on fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability (g/kg DM, unless stated otherwise), after 45 days of ensiling (n = 5).
Fermentation CharacteristicsAerobic Stability
pHLAWSCLAB (cfu/g)Y and M (cfu/g)CO2
M3.66 b43.3 a9.0 a6289 bc<106.17 c
MD4.51 a48.0 a12.7 a30156 ab<1013.17 b
ML4.58 a44.0 a9.3 a35167 a<109.65 bc
MI4.68 a45.3 a11.0 a17667 abc<105.43 c
MB4.75 a65.3 a16.0 a660 c<1020.52 a
SE0.09 8.302.407880.52 1.88
a,b,c Means in same column with different superscripts are different (p < 0.05). pH: potential of hydrogen, LA: lactic acid, WSC: water soluble carbohydrates, LAB: lactic acid bacteria, Y and M: yeast and moulds, CO2: carbon dioxide, SE: standard error.
Table
Table 4. In vitro dry matter degradability of silages (g/kg DM).
Table 4. In vitro dry matter degradability of silages (g/kg DM).
0 h6 h12 h24 h36 h48 h72 h
M201.6 b230.2 ab236.4 a296.2 c391.2 c482.4 ab544.9 d
MD215.5 ab227.8 bc243.8 a333.4 a411.8 bc469.0 b591.6 b
ML209.3 ab231.7 ab251.6 a343.6 a469.1 a497.9 a628.5 a
MI202.3 b218.5 c237.5 a312.9 bc422.7 b493.3 a614.2 a
MB219.7 a241.2 a255.2 a326.8 ab433.1 b469.8 b570.0 c
SE4.383.386.815.376.765.226.15
a,b,c,d means with same superscripts in the same column are not different (p > 0.05). S.E: standard error.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hawu, O.; Ravhuhali, K.E.; Mokoboki, H.K.; Lebopa, C.K.; Sipango, N. Sustainable Use of Legume Residues: Effect on Nutritive Value and Ensiling Characteristics of Maize Straw Silage. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6743. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116743

AMA Style

Hawu O, Ravhuhali KE, Mokoboki HK, Lebopa CK, Sipango N. Sustainable Use of Legume Residues: Effect on Nutritive Value and Ensiling Characteristics of Maize Straw Silage. Sustainability. 2022; 14(11):6743. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116743

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hawu, Onke, Khuliso Emmanuel Ravhuhali, Hilda Kwena Mokoboki, Cornelia Kedidimetse Lebopa, and Nkosomzi Sipango. 2022. "Sustainable Use of Legume Residues: Effect on Nutritive Value and Ensiling Characteristics of Maize Straw Silage" Sustainability 14, no. 11: 6743. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116743

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop