Next Article in Journal
Diversity and Community Structure of Rhizosphere Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Songnen Grassland Saline–Alkali-Tolerant Plants: Roles of Environmental Salinity and Plant Species Identity
Previous Article in Journal
Monitoring Wolfberry (Lycium barbarum L.) Canopy Nitrogen Content with Hyperspectral Reflectance: Integrating Spectral Transformations and Multivariate Regression
Previous Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Fermentation Profile, Bacterial Community, and Co-Occurrence Network of Big-Bale Leymus chinensis Silage Treated with/Without Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus and Molasses
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/agronomy15092071
agronomy-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Nutritional Value and Aerobic Stability of Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) Silages Supplemented with Additives

by
Jonathan Raúl Garay-Martínez
1,
Fernando Lucio-Ruíz
2,
Juan Eduardo Godina-Rodríguez
3,
Xochilt Militza Ochoa-Espinoza
4,
Santiago Joaquín-Cancino
5,* and
José Felipe Orzuna-Orzuna
6,*
1
Campo Experimental Las Huastecas, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Altamira C.P. 89610, Tamaulipas, Mexico
2
Campo Experimental San Luis, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Palma de la Cruz C.P. 78432, San Luis Potosí, Mexico
3
Campo Experimental Valle de Apatzingán, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias, km 17.5 Carretera Apatzingán-Cuatro Caminos, Parácuaro C.P. 60781, Michoacán, Mexico
4
Campo Experimental Norman E. Borlaug, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Ciudad Obregón C.P. 85000, Sonora, Mexico
5
Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias, Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, Centro Universitario, Ciudad Victoria C.P. 87000, Tamaulipas, Mexico
6
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Chapingo C.P. 56230, Estado de México, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(9), 2071; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092071
Submission received: 20 July 2025 / Revised: 17 August 2025 / Accepted: 27 August 2025 / Published: 28 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovative Solutions for Producing High-Quality Silage)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of various additives on the nutritional value and aerobic stability of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) silages. Silages were prepared from whole safflower plants harvested 102 days after planting, which were chopped to a particle size of 2.0 ± 0.5 cm and fermented for 120 days in polyvinyl chloride microsilos (6” × 46 cm), evaluating the following treatments: (1) safflower silage (SS) without additives, (2) SS supplemented with Guanacaste tree (Enterolobium cyclocarpum) pod meal, (3) SS supplemented with corn meal, (4) SS supplemented with sorghum meal, (5) SS supplemented with molasses, (6) SS supplemented with homofermentative inoculant, and (7) SS supplemented with fermentative inoculant + molasses. Compared with SS without additives, the addition of all the evaluated additives increased (p < 0.0001) the crude protein content and the relative forage value, while simultaneously decreasing the pH in SS. In contrast, the use of Guanacaste tree pod meal, corn, and sorghum decreased (p < 0.0001) the neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber contents, while simultaneously increasing (p < 0.0001) the in vitro digestibility of dry matter in SS. All the evaluated additives increased (p < 0.05) the aerobic stability of the SS, which broke 42 h after opening the microsilos, whereas the silage without additives broke at 30 h. In conclusion, the use of Guanacaste tree pod meal, corn, and sorghum as additives improves the nutritive value and aerobic stability of safflower silage.

1. Introduction

According to Lelis et al. [1], silage is the primary source of forage used to feed ruminants under fully and semi-confined conditions. However, the increasing frequency of erratic weather patterns negatively affects forage production worldwide, mainly due to a lack of rainfall [2]. Drought periods have a direct impact on forage growth and quality, leading to reduced feed availability for ruminant livestock [3,4]. In most countries, drought periods occur annually and negatively impact ruminant production systems, decreasing production parameters and, in extreme cases, leading to the death of some animals due to starvation [5]. Likewise, the death of ruminants or their low productivity can have a negative impact on human food security by reducing the availability of meat and milk for human consumption [6]. Therefore, for several decades, strategies to improve forage availability during drought have been evaluated, including the development of forage silage and the creation of forage varieties with greater drought resistance [1,7].
According to some authors [8,9], ensiling is a method based on the fermentation of water-soluble carbohydrates in forage into lactic acid by the activity of lactic acid bacteria under anaerobic conditions. This method allows for the long-term preservation of forage by lowering the pH and inhibiting the growth of undesirable bacteria and yeasts [1]. On the other hand, the safflower plant (Carthamus tinctorius L.) exhibits high resistance to water stress under drought conditions and possesses agronomic attributes that make it a valuable option for producing forage in regions with limited water availability [10]. Safflower is characterized by its high hardiness, as it has a deep root system and low water demand, resulting in a forage dry matter (DM) yield of approximately 3.0 t/ha using only 150 mm of water during the crop cycle [11]. Furthermore, Ochoa-Espinoza et al. [7] recently developed the safflower forage variety FORRCART 2020, which is easy to manage and highly acceptable to ruminants due to its thornless nature. The safflower variety FORRCART 2020 has high DM yields (up to 10.5 t/ha); 1.35 Mcal/kg DM of metabolizable energy; and crude protein, neutral detergent fiber, and acid detergent fiber contents of 138, 445, and 374 g/kg DM, respectively [7].
Due to its productive capacity and nutritional profile, safflower forage is an option for ruminant feeding in areas or periods with low rainfall [11]. However, forage conservation techniques, such as ensiling, are required to preserve the nutritional value of safflower and ensure its availability during times of forage shortage [7,12]. It is important to consider that safflower forage contains a moderate amount of soluble carbohydrates, which could limit forage fermentation and preservation during ensiling [13].
Molasses, lactic acid bacterium inoculants, and high-starch cereal meals have been successfully used as ensiling additives for forages with low amounts of soluble carbohydrates to obtain high-quality and high-nutritional silages [6,14,15]. Molasses provides easily fermentable sugars that promote the growth and reproduction of lactic acid bacteria [16]. Lactic acid bacterium inoculants accelerate acidification and inhibit the growth of undesired microorganisms in silage [17], while cereal meals provide dry matter and soluble carbohydrates [15]. Likewise, protein- and carbohydrate-rich legume pods, such as Guanacaste tree (Enterolobium cyclocarpum) and mesquite (Prosopis juliflora), can be used as additives in silage to absorb moisture and improve the nutritional value and in vitro digestibility of dry matter [18,19]. Based on the literature reviewed during the current study, there are no previous studies on safflower silages, and the effect of additives on the nutritional value and aerobic stability of safflower silages has not been previously evaluated. The hypothesis of the present study states that the addition of various additives rich in fermentable carbohydrates or lactic bacteria will enhance the nutritive value and aerobic stability of safflower silage (Carthamus tinctorius L.), through changes in pH, in vitro digestibility, and nutrient content. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of various additives (molasses, corn meal, sorghum meal, and homofermentative inoculant) on the nutritional value and aerobic stability of safflower silages.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Location of the Experimental Site

The current study was carried out under rainfed conditions from November 2023 to June 2024 at the Sitio Experimental Aldama, belonging to the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP), located at the geographic coordinates 22°51′47.38″ N and 98°14′14.20″ W, at 98 masl. The climate of the Experimental Site is classified as warm subhumid with summer rains (Aw0); the average annual precipitation and temperature are 657 mm and 23.4 °C, respectively [20]. The maximum and minimum precipitation and temperatures recorded during the study are shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Sowing and Characteristics of Safflower Forage Before Ensiling

Safflower sowing was carried out on 21 November 2023, with a distance between plants and furrows of 0.10 and 0.80 m, respectively, with a density of ≈125,000 plants/ha. The crop was not fertilized, no weeds were present, and no apparent damage from pests or diseases was observed throughout the experimental phase. To determine the characteristics of the forage used, four samples of safflower forage were harvested one day before making the silage and separated into morphological components: the leaf, stem, and inflorescence. The yield and dry matter content of the safflower forage were determined following the methodology described in detail by Garay-Martínez et al. [21]. The characteristics of the safflower forage prior to silage production are shown in Table 1.

2.3. Silage Preparation and Treatments Evaluated

To prepare the silage, forage was harvested at 10 ± 5 cm above ground level when 10% of the flower heads had exposed their petals, which occurred 102 days after sowing. Subsequently, the whole safflower plants were chopped to a particle size of 2.0 ± 0.5 cm. Polyvinyl chloride microsilos (6” × 46 cm, with a fixed lid at one end) were used, in which forage was deposited alone or with the corresponding additive (Table 2). Finally, the forage was compacted, and the microsilos were sealed with a layer of polyethylene secured with duct tape. The density of the silages was 752 ± 19 kg/m3. In all the treatments (control and additive-added), all the silage samples were placed in expanded polystyrene containers of the same size and surface area (dimensions: 20 cm × 20 cm × 10 cm, with a 4 L capacity). Each container was filled with 2.5 kg of material, which allowed maintaining a similar headspace between units and avoiding excessive compression of the forage. The containers were kept in a closed, air-conditioned room at a stable temperature (~26 °C), without forced ventilation. Therefore, the airflow was natural and homogeneous among all the containers in all the treatments. These conditions were maintained during the 96 h aerobic evaluation to ensure homogeneous environmental conditions in all the treatment replicates and samples. Each treatment had four completely independent replicates (one replicate = one microsilo). To ensure homogeneity, fresh forage and additive samples were hand-mixed for each replicate within each treatment. The location of the microsilos was completely randomized during the storage period and also during the aerobic evaluation phase. This randomization minimizes potential effects due to location or batch, ensuring that the results obtained are statistically valid [22,23,24]. Each replicate was treated and managed as an independent unit throughout the experiment.

2.4. Evaluation of Nutritive Value and Aerobic Stability

The microsilos were opened after 120 days of storage to take samples and evaluate their nutritional value and aerobic stability. The crude protein (CP) content (g/kg of DM) of the silages was determined using the method described in detail by AOAC [22]. The neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were determined using the method described by Van Soest et al. [23] adapted for the “Ankom 200 Fiber Analyzer” equipment (Ankom Technology, Fairport, NY, USA). Hemicellulose (HEM) was estimated by the difference using the equation Hemicellulose = NDF − ADF [24]. The in vitro digestibility of dry matter (IVDMD) was determined using the methodology described by Tilley and Terry [25], adapted for the “Ankom Daisy II” equipment (Ankom Technology, Fairport, NY, USA). The rumen fluid used to determine the IVDMD was obtained directly from the rumens of two adult cattle (550 ± 18 kg) immediately after slaughter at a commercial slaughterhouse. Immediately after collection, the fluid from both animals was pooled, filtered with gauze, and transported immediately to the laboratory at 39 °C for further use [26]. The two cattle that donated the rumen fluid were free-range on native grass pastures and supplemented with 6 kg/d of sorghum silage. Likewise, the equation Intake (%) = 120/NDF (%) proposed by Mertens [27] was used to estimate intake values. The intake and IVDMD values obtained previously were used to estimate the relative forage value (RFV) through the equation RFV = (Intake × Digestibility)/1.29 [28].
The aerobic stability of silages was evaluated following the methodology proposed by Ashbell et al. [29]. Briefly, 2.5 kg silage samples (4 replicates/treatments) were placed in 4 L expanded polystyrene containers, and paper towels (Sanitas®, Kimberly-Clark, Mexico City, Mexico) were placed on top to prevent moisture loss. The silages were stored in a temperature-controlled room at approximately 26 °C. Silage temperature measurements were taken at the geometric center of the silage mass every six hours (until 96 h) using a digital thermometer (TAYLOR®, model 9878E, Seattle, WA, USA). Additionally, a silage sample was taken at each temperature reading to determine the pH, following the methodology described in detail by Lucio-Ruiz et al. [24]. The aerobic stability was calculated as the number of hours recorded from the start of the silage’s exposure to ambient air until the internal silage temperature exceeded the ambient temperature by more than 2 °C [30]. This threshold was used as an indicator of microbial activity and the onset of aerobic deterioration [24]. Once the internal silage temperature exceeded the ambient temperature by 2 °C, the silage was considered to have lost aerobic stability, and the hours recorded up to that point were declared the duration of the silage’s aerobic stability [29].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Silage nutritional value variables were analyzed using the PROC GLM procedure of SAS version 5.4 [31] in a completely randomized design with four replicates (microsilos) within each treatment. When statistical differences were detected, treatment means were compared using the Tukey test (ɑ = 0.05). Likewise, to represent the behavior of temperature and pH after the opening and exposure of the silage to air, a group aggregation model was used for each combination of treatment and time, with a 95% confidence interval added using the Student t distribution [32]. Additionally, principal component analysis (PCA) [33,34] and Pearson correlation [35] were performed to examine the relationships between the components of silage nutritional value. PCA and Pearson correlation were performed using the Python programming language (version 3.10) and the specialized libraries pandas, numpy, matplotlib, and scipy.stats [36].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Nutritional Value of Safflower Silage

Table 3 shows that, compared to the control treatment silage without additives, the addition of all the evaluated additives increased (p < 0.0001) the CP content in safflower silages. All the evaluated additives contained soluble sugars or lactic acid bacteria, which help to accelerate the acidification of silage and thus prevent the growth of Clostridium and Enterobacteriaceae, which degrade silage proteins into ammonia [37]. Among all the evaluated treatments, the highest CP value (142 g/kg DM) was observed in the silage supplemented with Guanacaste tree pod meal. This high CP content may be related to the condensed tannins present in the pods of the Guanacaste tree [18], as condensed tannins form stable tannin–protein complexes at acidic pH levels (3.5 to 7.0) that prevent protein degradation during silage fermentation [38]. On the other hand, the use of Guanacaste tree pod meal, corn, and sorghum decreased (p < 0.0001) the NDF and ADF contents in safflower silages. These three additives cannot directly modify the NDF and ADF contents in the silage; however, they are rich in soluble sugars and low in NDF and ADF (mainly lignin and cellulose) [18,39,40], which could dilute the NDF and ADF concentrations in safflower silages.
In the current study, compared with silage without additives, the use of Guanacaste tree pod meal increased (p < 0.0001) the hemicellulose content of safflower silage. Ekanem et al. [39] mentioned that Guanacaste tree pod meal contains bioactive compounds, mainly tannins. These bioactive compounds could decrease the fermentation of hemicellulose during the safflower silage fermentation process and increase its content in the final product. Similarly, Grote et al. [38] reported that the addition of condensed tannins in Schedonorus arundinaceus silage increases the hemicellulose content by decreasing its fermentation by lactic acid bacteria during the ensiling process. On the other hand, the use of Guanacaste tree pod meal, corn, and sorghum increased (p < 0.0001) the IVDMD in safflower silages (Table 3). This effect could be explained by the lower NDF and ADF contents observed in safflower silages supplemented with Guanacaste tree pod meal, corn, and sorghum, as Sandoval et al. [41] reported a negative correlation (r = −0.563 to −0.772) between the IVDMD and NDF and ADF contents in forages. Likewise, a higher IVDMD value is directly associated with higher nutritional value and greater utilization of silage nutrients by ruminants [2,42].
The RFV increased (p < 0.0001) with the addition of all the evaluated additives (Table 3), with the highest values (>110) of VFR obtained in silages supplemented with Guanacaste tree pod meal, corn, and sorghum. The RFV is an indicator that practically summarizes the quality of a forage based on its digestibility and its potential to be consumed by ruminants [28]. According to the criteria proposed by Undersander et al. [28], forages with RFVs between 110 and 124 are classified as having “regular quality”; those with RFVs between 125 and 150 are considered “good quality” forages, and those with RFVs greater than 150 are classified as “excellent quality” forages. It is essential to note that, although the RFV is an indirect estimate of animal intake based on NDF and IVDMD data, it does not replace a direct measurement of actual intake [28], which can also be influenced by the organic acid content of the silage, which affects the satiety center [2,12]. Therefore, it is recommended that future experiments include intake and acceptability tests for safflower silage to validate its true forage value.
Compared with the control treatment of silage without additives, the addition of all the evaluated additives decreased (p < 0.0001) the pH in safflower silage (Table 3). However, except for the silage supplemented with Guanacaste tree pod meal, all the silages had pH values above the optimal range (3.8 to 4.2) for high-quality silages [2]. The pH (4.25) of the silage supplemented with Guanacaste tree pod meal suggests that the fermentation process in this silage was adequate [37,43]. In contrast, the excessively high pH (>5.0) observed in the silage from the control treatment without additives may indicate poor fermentation or deterioration of the silage [2]. This hypothesis of a high pH resulting from inappropriate lactic acid fermentation in silage without additives is supported by the lack of additives with fermentable sugars or lactic acid bacteria, which were added to the silages of the other treatments. According to previous studies [43,44], the low availability of fermentable sugars or lactic acid bacteria in silages commonly results in incomplete fermentations, leading to high pH values (>4.5). The pH of the silage is also a crucial parameter that determines its shelf life after opening the silo or microsilo, as silages with high pH have a greater risk of microbial deterioration, which decreases their shelf life and nutritional quality [45]. Finally, although the silages supplemented with additives in the current study showed pHs within the optimal range for good fermentative quality [2], their VFR values correspond to silages with “regular” nutritional quality [28].
The biomass ratio of different plant parts directly influences the nutritive value and aerobic stability of silage, since a higher proportion of parts low in soluble sugars decreases the nutritive value and aerobic stability of silage [12]. Furthermore, excessive precipitation can dilute forage nutrients and increase silage moisture, promoting unwanted fermentation [8]. Likewise, high ambient temperatures accelerate silage fermentation and promote aerobic deterioration when the silo is opened [14]. However, in the current study, the forage used to make silage was grown and harvested under the same experimental conditions of temperature and precipitation.

3.2. Evaluation of Aerobic Stability and pH

Figure 2 shows the temperature dynamics of safflower silage after opening the microsilos. Different thermal patterns were observed between treatments, indicating differences in microbial activity, aerobic stability, and the degree of fermentation. The silage from the control treatment exhibited a marked increase in temperature starting 18 h after opening; however, at 30 h, its temperature was 2 °C above the ambient temperature, indicating that its aerobic stability was broken [30]. This behavior could be related to the high pH (>5.0) of the silage at the time of opening, as a high pH in silage is positively correlated (r = 0.668 to 0.840) with the growth of yeasts and molds [46,47]. Likewise, yeasts and molds ferment residual sugars and lactic acid in silage, which favors their growth and reproduction, leading to an increase in silage temperature [48]. In fact, the presence of yeasts and molds in silages has been positively correlated (r = 0.588 to 0.606) with silage temperature [47]. Similar to the results of the current study, other authors [6] reported lower aerobic stability in amaranth (Amaranthus spp.) and corn straw silages with low acidity (high pH).
On the other hand, in all the silage treatments with additives, aerobic stability was broken up to 42 h after opening the microsilos (Figure 2). This greater aerobic stability compared to that with silage without additives (30 h) could be explained by the low pH values (<5.0) of the silage microsilos with additives after opening (Figure 3), since, according to Borreani and Tabacco [47], low pH values represent a less favorable environment for the growth of yeasts and molds that increase the temperature in silages. Similarly, other authors [6,17] reported greater aerobic stability in whole-plant amaranth and corn silages that had a pH lower than 5.0 at the beginning of the aerobic stability test. On the other hand, during the aerobic exposure stage of silage, a low pH may be associated with a high concentration of lactic acid [16], which, under aerobic conditions, is an important substrate for the growth of harmful microorganisms [12]. However, lactic acid was not measured in the current study.
Although short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs; acetic, propionic, and butyric) were not measured in the current study, additives rich in soluble sugars (corn, sorghum, and Guanacaste tree flour) were used, which could increase the concentration of SCFAs in silages [6,14]. Additionally, Guanacaste tree pod meal contains condensed tannins [18], which enhance the production of acetic acid in grass silages [38]. A higher concentration of SCFAs in the safflower silage with additives (corn, sorghum, and Guanacaste tree meal) from the current study could explain its greater aerobic stability since, according to Liu et al. [8], SCFAs (mainly acetic acid) improve the aerobic stability of silages exposed to oxygen by inhibiting the growth of yeasts and molds responsible for aerobic deterioration.
A gradual increase in silage pH was observed after the microsilos were opened (Figure 3). This effect occurs because microorganisms that remain inactive (yeasts and molds) in the silage are reactivated upon contact with oxygen and degrade the organic acids that maintain an acid environment [37,47], negatively affecting the aerobic stability and nutritional value of the silage [49]. In the current study, the silage subjected to the control treatment had an initial pH of 5.07, which could facilitate the development of unwanted microorganisms and accelerate the deterioration process of the silage. In contrast, the silage treatments with additives resulted in low initial pH values (between 4.25 and 4.63), which likely helped to slow the growth of bacteria, yeasts, and molds. For example, in silages with a pH of approximately 5.0, bacteria such as Clostridium, Bacillus, and Paenibacillus commonly find suitable conditions for multiplication, producing undesirable compounds that have adverse effects on animal health [37,49]. Likewise, some yeasts (Candida, Pichia, and Kazachstania) grow and reproduce rapidly in silages with a pH greater than 5.0 and accelerate the process of aerobic and nutritional deterioration in silage [50]. Furthermore, when silage has a high pH, excess moisture, and available oxygen, fungi of the genus Aspergillus may appear, producing mycotoxins that are toxic to animals [51].

3.3. Principal Component Analysis and Pearson Correlation

Figure 4 shows the PCA plot of the nutritional value of safflower silages. PCA allowed reducing the dimensionality of the physicochemical variables evaluated in the safflower silage treatments, facilitating the multivariate interpretation of the nutritional and fermentative behavior of the silages. The first two principal components together explained 91.8% of the total variability (PC1 = 83.3%, PC2 = 8.5%), indicating a reliable representation of the main patterns that distinguish the evaluated treatments [52]. Likewise, in the PCA plot, the control silage without additives was located in the quadrant associated with high NDF, ADF, and pH values, indicating lower fermentation efficiency and digestibility. These results are consistent with those reported in the literature for forages with high NDF and ADF contents, which show low IVDMD and a high risk of aerobic deterioration [53]. On the other hand, silages with Guanacaste tree pod meal, sorghum, and corn clustered in the region influenced by CP, IVDMD, and RFV within the PCA graph, suggesting higher nutritional quality in these silages. Previous studies have reported that the inclusion of cereal meals rich in starch and legume pod meals, which are rich in carbohydrates, protein, and bioactive compounds, can improve the fermentation and nutritional value of tropical grass and legume silages [37]. In particular, Guanacaste tree (E. cyclocarpum) pod meal has shown beneficial effects on microbial activity and aerobic stability in forage grass silages, in addition to providing highly bioavailable nitrogen [18].
On the other hand, silage supplemented with Insilate AL + molasses was located in an intermediate but favorable position within the PCA graph, which associates it with high IVDMD and high aerobic stability. These positive effects are consistent with those reported by Xie et al. [16], who observed high efficacy of the combination of homofermentative inoculants and molasses in improving the fermentative quality of temperate forages. Furthermore, in the current study, the opposite orientation between the ADF/NDF and IVDMD/RFV vectors indicates an inverse relationship between the structural carbohydrate content and IVDMD of safflower silages, which is consistent with data widely reported in studies on the nutritive value of forages and silages [14,54]. Finally, the clear separation of the treatments within the PCA graph demonstrates the usefulness of PCA for comparing different silage treatments, as it allows several aspects of silage quality to be assessed simultaneously.
Positive and negative correlations were observed between the evaluated physicochemical parameters in the silages (Figure 5), suggesting a dependency between attributes related to the nutritional value, fermentation, and aerobic stability of safflower silages. The CP content of safflower silages was positively correlated with the RFV (r = 0.96) and IVDMD (r = 0.95), suggesting that an increase in CP in safflower silage improves its digestibility and nutritional value. Similarly, other authors [37,55] reported that the CP content has a positive association with the dry matter digestibility and nutritional value of silages made from tropical grasses and legumes. In contrast, the NDF and ADF were negatively correlated with the CP (r = −0.92), IVDMD (r = −0.89 to −0.84), and RFV (r = −0.93 to −0.96), confirming their role in silage nutritive quality. Similarly, other studies [53,54] reported that high NDF and ADF contents decrease the nutritive value and IVDMD in grass forages and silages, leading to lower forage energy utilization. The pH of safflower silages was negatively correlated with the CP (r = −0.98), IVDMD (r = −0.95), and RFV (r = −0.96) contents. These associations indicate that silages with lower fermentation capacity have greater loss of nutritive value [2]. Furthermore, the onset of the loss of aerobic stability (LAS) was positively correlated with the CP content (r = 0.76) and IVDMD (r = 0.78) of safflower silages. However, the onset of LAS was negatively correlated with the pH (r = −0.79) of the silages, suggesting that more efficient fermentation may contribute to greater aerobic stability of the silage after exposure to oxygen [39].

4. Conclusions

The use of corn, sorghum, or Guanacaste tree meal as an additive improves the nutritional value and aerobic stability of safflower silage by increasing its protein content and in vitro dry matter digestibility, while simultaneously decreasing its pH, neutral detergent fiber, and acid detergent fiber content.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.R.G.-M. and S.J.-C.; methodology, J.R.G.-M.; software, F.L.-R. and J.E.G.-R.; validation, X.M.O.-E., S.J.-C. and J.F.O.-O.; formal analysis, F.L.-R.; investigation, J.R.G.-M.; resources, J.R.G.-M., X.M.O.-E. and S.J.-C.; data curation, J.E.G.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, J.R.G.-M.; writing—review and editing, F.L.-R., J.E.G.-R., X.M.O.-E., S.J.-C. and J.F.O.-O.; visualization, F.L.-R. and J.E.G.-R.; supervision, S.J.-C. and J.F.O.-O.; project administration, S.J.-C. and J.F.O.-O.; funding acquisition, J.R.G.-M., S.J.-C. and J.F.O.-O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions on privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
SSSafflower silage
DMDry matter
CPCrude protein
NDFNeutral detergent fiber
ADFAcid detergent fiber
HEMHemicellulose
IVDMDIn vitro dry matter digestibility
RFVRelative forage value
PCAPrincipal component analysis

References

  1. Lelis, D.L.; Morenz, M.J.F.; Paciullo, D.S.C.; Roseira, J.P.S.; Gomide, C.A.d.M.; Pereira, O.G.; Oliveira, J.S.e.; Lopes, F.C.F.; da Silva, V.P.; da Silveira, T.C.; et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria on fermentation and nutritional value of BRS capiaçu elephant grass silage at two regrowth ages. Animals 2025, 15, 1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Silva, R.R.; Rodrigues, R.C.; Rodrigues, M.M.; Abdalla, A.L.; da Silva Cabral, L.; da Costa Araújo, D.L.; Olivera-Viciedo, D.; da Silva, E.C.; de Moura Zanine, A.; de Jesus Ferreira, D.; et al. Fermentation and nutritive value of pineapple stubble silage supplemented with leucaena hay. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Garay-Martínez, J.R.; Godina-Rodríguez, J.E.; Hernández-Rodríguez, B.; Maldonado-Torres, A.; López-Cantú, D.G.; Joaquín-Cancino, S. Caracterización de unidades de producción pecuaria en Aldama, Tamaulipas, México: Productores, hato y alimentación animal. Ecosist. Recur. Agropec. 2024, 11, e4091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Salmoral, G.; Ababio, B.; Holman, I.P. Drought impacts, coping responses and adaptation in the UK outdoor livestock sector: Insights to increase drought resilience. Land 2020, 9, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kahiu, N.; Anchang, J.; Alulu, V.; Fava, F.P.; Jensen, N.; Hanan, N.P. Leveraging browse and grazing forage estimates to optimize index-based livestock insurance. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 14834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ma, J.; Sun, G.; Shah, A.M.; Fan, X.; Li, S.; Yu, X. Silage additives improve fermentation quality, aerobic stability and rumen degradation in mixed silage composed of amaranth and corn straw. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1189747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ochoa-Espinoza, X.M.; Montoya-Coronado, L.; Reta-Sanchez, D.G.; Borbón-Gracia, A.; Aguilera-Molina, N.A.; Ávila-Casillas, E.; Cota-Barreras, C.I.; Cano-Ríos, P. FORRCART 2020, nueva variedad de cártamo forrajero en México. Rev. Fitotec. Mex. 2021, 44, 275–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, H.; Li, X.; Hu, J.; Zhao, J.; Xu, G.; Dong, D.; Jia, Y.; Shao, T. Fermentation quality and aerobic stability evaluation of rice straw silage with different ensiling densities. Fermentation 2024, 10, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xu, G.; Yang, F.; Hu, J.; Wang, Y.; Dong, D.; Dong, Z.; Li, J.; Shao, T. Effect of ensiling density on fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of Pennisetum giganteum silages. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mosupiemang, M.; Emongor, V.E.; Malambane, G. A review of drought tolerance in safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Int. J. Plant Sci. 2022, 34, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gültaş, H.T. Crop water stress index assessment of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) under limited water conditions. Sci. Agric. 2025, 82, e20230285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Muck, R.E.; Nadeau, E.M.G.; McAllister, T.A.; Contreras-Govea, F.E.; Santos, M.C.; Kung, L. Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 3980–4000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jabbari, H.; Golzardi, F.; Shariati, F.; Asadi, H. Effect of harvesting time on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of safflower cultivars forage in autumn planting. J. Crop Improv. 2023, 25, 65–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Khan, N.A.; Khan, N.; Tang, S.; Tan, Z. Optimizing corn silage quality during hot summer conditions of the tropics: Investigating the effect of additives on in-silo fermentation characteristics, nutrient profiles, digestibility and post-ensiling stability. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1305999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wu, C.; Sun, W.; Huang, Y.; Dai, S.; Peng, C.; Zheng, Y.; Chen, C.; Hao, J. Effects of different additives on the bacterial community and fermentation mode of whole-plant paper mulberry silage. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 904193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Xie, Y.; Bao, J.; Li, W.; Sun, Z.; Gao, R.; Wu, Z.; Yu, Z. Effects of applying lactic acid bacteria and molasses on the fermentation quality, protein fractions and in vitro digestibility of baled alfalfa silage. Agronomy 2021, 11, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yin, H.; Zhao, M.; Yang, R.; Sun, J.; Yu, Z.; Bai, C.; Xue, Y. Effect of regulation of whole-plant corn silage inoculated with LactoBacillus buchneri or Bacillus licheniformis regarding the dynamics of bacterial and fungal communities on aerobic stability. Plants 2024, 13, 1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Carbajal-Márquez, U.; Sánchez-Santillán, P.; Rojas-García, A.R.; Ayala-Monter, M.A.; Mendoza-Núñez, M.A.; Hernández-Valenzuela, D. Effect of parota (Enterolobium cyclocarpum) pod protein supplement on feed intake, digestibility and calf ruminal characteristics. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021, 53, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rêgo, A.C.D.; Paiva, P.C.D.A.; Muniz, J.A.; Van Cleef, E.H.C.B.; Machado Neto, O.R.; Mata Junior, J.I.D. Mesquite pod meal in elephant grass silages. Acta Sci. Anim. Sci. 2013, 35, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vargas, T.V.; Hernández, R.M.E.; Gutiérrez, L.J.; Plácido, D.C.J.; Jiménez, C.A. Clasificación climática del estado de Tamaulipas, México. Ciencia UAT 2007, 2, 15–19. [Google Scholar]
  21. Garay-Martínez, J.R.; Maldonado-Moreno, N.; Ascencio-Luciano, A.; Joaquín-Cancino, S.; Bautista-Martínez, Y.; Granados-Rivera, L.D. Potencial forrajero de líneas experimentales de soya (Glycine max). Ecosist. Recur. Agropec. 2021, 8, e2932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 21st ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  23. Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Lucio-Ruiz, F.; Joaquín-Cancino, S.; Godina-Rodríguez, J.R.; Garay-Martínez, J.R. Yield and chemical composition of forage and silage of native maize under irrigated semi-arid conditions. Agrociencia 2023, 57, 722–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tilley, J.M.A.; Terry, R.A. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass Forage Sci. 1963, 18, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fortina, R.; Glorio Patrucco, S.; Barbera, S.; Tassone, S. Rumen Fluid from Slaughtered Animals: A Standardized Procedure for Sampling, Storage and Use in Digestibility Trials. Methods Protoc. 2022, 5, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Mertens, D.R. Predicting intake and digestibility using mathematical models of ruminal function. J. Anim. Sci. 1987, 64, 1548–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Undersander, D.; Moore, J.E.; Schneider, N. Relative forage quality. Focus Forage 2002, 4, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ashbell, G.; Weinberg, Z.G.; Azrieli, A.; Hen, Y.; Horev, B. A simple system to study the aerobic determination of silages. Can. Agric. Eng. 1991, 33, 391–393. [Google Scholar]
  30. Aniceto, E.S.; Oliveira, T.S.; Meirelles, J.R.; Silva, I.N.; Mozelli Filho, E.J.L.; Gomes, R.S.; Arévalo, J.P.; Moraes, P.R. Evaluation of essential oils and their blends on the fermentative profile, microbial count, and aerobic stability of sorghum silage. Fermentation 2024, 10, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. SAS (Statistical Analysis System). SAS/STAT User’s Guide (Release 6.4); SAS Inst.: Cary, NC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  32. Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of Experiments, 9th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  33. Jolliffe, I.T.; Cadima, J. Principal component analysis: A review and recent developments. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2016, 374, 20150202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pedregosa, F.; Varoquaux, G.; Gramfort, A.; Miche, V.; Thirion, B.; Grisel, O.; Blonndel, M.; Prettenhofer, P.; Weiss, R.; Dubourg, V.; et al. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2011, 12, 2825–2830. [Google Scholar]
  35. Waskom, M.L. Seaborn: Statistical data visualization. J. Open Source Softw. 2021, 6, 3021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chaudekar, S. An overview of Python for data analytics. Int. J. Res. Eng. Technol. 2022, 9, 461–468. [Google Scholar]
  37. Silva, C.d.S.; Araújo, G.G.L.d.; Santos, E.M.; Oliveira, J.S.d.; Silva, T.G.F.d.; Araújo, C.d.A.; Novaes, J.J.d.S.; de Macedo, A.; de Araújo, J.S.; Lima, D.O.; et al. Fermentative characteristics, nutritional aspects, aerobic stability, and microbial populations of total mixed ration silages based on relocated sorghum silage and cactus pear for sheep diets. Agronomy 2025, 15, 506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Grote, A.J.; Nieman, C.C.; Thomas, I.R., Jr.; Coffey, K.P.; Muir, J.P.; Klotz, J.L. Effect of quebracho tannin (Schinopsis quebracho-colorado (Schltdl.) F.A. Barkley and T. Meyer) on silage nutritive value, ergovaline concentration, and fermentation parameters of tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus (Shreb.) Dumort) with two dry-matter levels. Agronomy 2023, 13, 694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ji, Z.; Shi, Y.; Jiang, L.; Wang, X.; Zhu, G.; Zhou, G. Double-cropping systems based on maize, sorghum, and alfalfa: Impact on nutritive value and silage fermentation quality. Agronomy 2025, 15, 630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ekanem, N.J.; Inyang, U.A.; Ikwunze, K. Chemical composition, secondary metabolites and nutritive value of elephant ear tree (Enterolobium cyclocarpum (Jacq.) Griseb): A review. Niger. J. Anim. Prod. 2022, 49, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sandoval-González, L.; Miranda-Romero, L.A.; Lara-Bueno, A.; Huerta-Bravo, M.; Uribe-Gómez, M.; Martínez-Martínez, M. In vitro fermentation and the correlation of the nutritional content of leucaena associated with star grass. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agrícolas 2016, 7, 3185–3196. [Google Scholar]
  42. Li, Y.; Du, S.; Sun, L.; Cheng, Q.; Hao, J.; Lu, Q.; Ge, G.; Wang, Z.; Jia, Y. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and molasses additives on dynamic fermentation quality and microbial community of native grass silage. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 830121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Oliveira, A.S.; Weinberg, Z.G.; Ogunade, I.M.; Cervantes, A.A.P.; Arriola, K.G.; Jiang, Y.; Kim, D.; Li, X.; Gonçalves, M.C.M.; Vyas, D.; et al. Meta-analysis of effects of inoculation with homofermentative and facultative heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and the performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 4587–4603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Neumann, M.; Baldissera, E.; Alessi Ienke, L.; Martins de Souza, A.; Piemontez de Oliveira, P.E.; Harry Bumbieris Junior, V. Nutritional Value Evaluation of Corn Silage from Different Mesoregions of Southern Brazil. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sallam, S.M.; Rady, A.M.S.; Attia, M.F.A.; Elazab, M.A.; Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E.; Kholif, A.E. Different maize silage cultivars with or without urea as a feed for ruminant: Chemical composition and in vitro fermentation and nutrient degradability. Chil. J. Agric. Anim. Sci. 2024, 40, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ren, X.; Tian, H.; Zhao, K.; Li, D.; Xiao, Z.; Yu, Y.; Liu, F. Research on pH value detection method during maize silage secondary fermentation based on computer vision. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Borreani, G.; Tabacco, E. The relationship of silage temperature with the microbiological status of the face of corn silage bunkers. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 2620–2629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. 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]
  49. Ávila, C.L.S.; Carvalho, B.F. Silage fermentation-updates focusing on the performance of micro-organisms. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 128, 966–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pang, H.; Zhou, P.; Yue, Z.; Wang, Z.; Qin, G.; Wang, Y.; Tan, Z.; Cai, Y. Fermentation characteristics, chemical composition, and aerobic stability in whole crop corn silage treated with lactic acid bacteria or Artemisia argyi. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gonda, M.; Rufo, C.; Gonzalez-Andujar, J.L.; Vero, S. Mitigating aflatoxin B1 in high-moisture sorghum silage: Aspergillus flavus growth and aflatoxin B1 prediction. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1360343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chaves, A.R.D.; Moraes, L.G.; Montaño, A.S.; da Cunha, F.F.; Theodoro, G.d.F. Analysis of principal components for the assessment of silage corn hybrid performance under water deficit. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Contreras-Govea, F.E.; Muck, R.E.; Broderick, G.A.; Weimer, P.J. Lactobacillus plantarum effects on silage fermentation and in vitro microbial yield. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2013, 179, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Van Soest, P.J. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant, 2nd ed.; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  55. Widodo, S.; Shiddieqy, M.I.; Wahyono, T.; Widiawati, Y.; Muttaqin, Z. Analysis of correlation between nutrient content, digestibility, and gas production of forages in Indonesia. Adv. Anim. Vet. 2023, 11, 1770–1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 02071 g001
Figure 1. Precipitation and temperature recorded during the study at the Sitio Experimental Aldama-INIFAP.
Figure 1. Precipitation and temperature recorded during the study at the Sitio Experimental Aldama-INIFAP.
Agronomy 15 02071 g001
Agronomy 15 02071 g002
Figure 2. Temperature dynamics (°C) in safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) silages supplemented with additives. The shaded bands indicate the 95% confidence interval for each time point; the lack of overlap between bands suggests significant differences among treatments. The horizontal dotted line at 2 °C represents a critical reference threshold for assessing thermal stability.
Figure 2. Temperature dynamics (°C) in safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) silages supplemented with additives. The shaded bands indicate the 95% confidence interval for each time point; the lack of overlap between bands suggests significant differences among treatments. The horizontal dotted line at 2 °C represents a critical reference threshold for assessing thermal stability.
Agronomy 15 02071 g002
Agronomy 15 02071 g003
Figure 3. pH dynamics in safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) silages supplemented with additives. The shaded bands indicate the 95% confidence interval for each time point; the lack of overlap between bands suggests significant differences between treatments. The horizontal dotted line at PH 4.5 represents a critical reference threshold for pH dynamics.
Figure 3. pH dynamics in safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) silages supplemented with additives. The shaded bands indicate the 95% confidence interval for each time point; the lack of overlap between bands suggests significant differences between treatments. The horizontal dotted line at PH 4.5 represents a critical reference threshold for pH dynamics.
Agronomy 15 02071 g003
Agronomy 15 02071 g004
Figure 4. Principal component analysis plot based on physicochemical variables of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) silage supplemented with various additives. CP: crude protein; NDF: neutral detergent fiber; ADF: acid detergent fiber; HEM: hemicellulose; IVDDM: in vitro digestibility of dry matter; RFV: relative forage value; pH: potential hydrogen; LAS: loss of aerobic stability.
Figure 4. Principal component analysis plot based on physicochemical variables of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) silage supplemented with various additives. CP: crude protein; NDF: neutral detergent fiber; ADF: acid detergent fiber; HEM: hemicellulose; IVDDM: in vitro digestibility of dry matter; RFV: relative forage value; pH: potential hydrogen; LAS: loss of aerobic stability.
Agronomy 15 02071 g004
Agronomy 15 02071 g005
Figure 5. Pearson correlation between the physicochemical variables of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) silage supplemented with different additives. CP: crude protein; NDF: neutral detergent fiber; ADF: acid detergent fiber; HEM: hemicellulose; IVDMD: in vitro dry matter digestibility; RFV: relative forage value; pH: potential hydrogen; LAS: loss of aerobic stability. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 5. Pearson correlation between the physicochemical variables of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) silage supplemented with different additives. CP: crude protein; NDF: neutral detergent fiber; ADF: acid detergent fiber; HEM: hemicellulose; IVDMD: in vitro dry matter digestibility; RFV: relative forage value; pH: potential hydrogen; LAS: loss of aerobic stability. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Agronomy 15 02071 g005
Table 1. Characteristics of safflower forage (Carthamus tinctorius L. var. FORRCART 2020) prior to silage production.
Table 1. Characteristics of safflower forage (Carthamus tinctorius L. var. FORRCART 2020) prior to silage production.
PH
(cm)		TFFTFDMLeafStemInflorescenceLeafStemInflorescence
t/ha%
91 ± 58.75 ± 0.582.64 ± 0.340.55 ± 0.041.18 ± 0.160.91 ± 0.1522 ± 144 ± 134 ± 1
CPNDFADFHEMIVDMDRFV
g/kg
129 ± 3.6532 ± 5.2241 ± 6.6291 ± 7.2524 ± 5.892 ± 4.2
PH: plant height; TFF: total fresh forage; TFDM: total forage dry matter; CP: crude protein; NDF: neutral detergent fiber; ADF: acid detergent fiber; HEM: hemicellulose; IVDMD: in vitro dry matter digestibility; RFV: relative forage value. Mean ± standard deviation.
Table 2. Treatments (additives) evaluated in safflower silages (Carthamus tinctorius L.).
Table 2. Treatments (additives) evaluated in safflower silages (Carthamus tinctorius L.).
TreatmentDescription
ControlSafflower silage without the addition of additives
Guanacaste tree *Safflower silage supplemented with Guanacaste pod meal [Enterolobium cyclocarpum (Jacq.) Griseb.]
Corn *Safflower silage supplemented with white corn meal
Sorghum *Safflower silage supplemented with red sorghum meal
Molasses ¥Safflower silage supplemented with molasses diluted with water (66% molasses and 34% water)
Insilato AL ¥Safflower silage supplemented with homofermentative inoculant dissolved in water (1.25 mL/L of water)
Insilato AL + molasses ¥Safflower silage supplemented with Insilato AL + molasses treatments
* It was applied to the forage in layers, every 10 cm, at a rate of 1.8% on a green matter basis (equivalent to 6.0% on a dry matter basis of safflower forage). Insilate AL: Commercial homofermentative inoculant composed of probiotic lactic acid bacteria (Pediococcus acidilactici 1 × 1011 CFU/mL and Bacillus coagulans 1 × 1011 CFU/mL). ¥ The solutions were applied to the forage in layers every 10 cm (0.5 L/m2) using a backpack sprayer.
Table 3. Nutritional value of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) silages with additives (values expressed on a dry matter basis).
Table 3. Nutritional value of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) silages with additives (values expressed on a dry matter basis).
TreatmentsCPNDFADFHEMIVDMDRFVpH
g/kg
Guanacaste tree142 a490 b195 d296 a618 a117 a4.25 e
Corn140 a488 b205 cd283 ab612 a116 ab4.43 d
Sorghum138 a494 b212 bc282 ab605 a113 b4.50 cd
Molasses128 c509 a221 a288 b584 b107 c4.73 b
Insilato AL131 bc504 a226 a278 b576 b106 c4.64 bc
Insilato AL + molasses133 b506 a223 ab283 ab572 b105 c4.63 bc
Control120 d511 a234 a278 b535 c97 d5.07 a
p-Value<0.0001<0.0001<0.00010.0297<0.0001<0.0001<0.0001
Superscripts (a, b, c, d, e) different between treatment means within each column indicate statistically significant differences (Tukey; ɑ = 0.05). CP: crude protein; NDF: neutral detergent fiber; ADF: acid detergent fiber; HEM: hemicellulose; IVDMD: in vitro dry matter digestibility; RVF: relative forage value; pH: potential hydrogen.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Garay-Martínez, J.R.; Lucio-Ruíz, F.; Godina-Rodríguez, J.E.; Ochoa-Espinoza, X.M.; Joaquín-Cancino, S.; Orzuna-Orzuna, J.F. Nutritional Value and Aerobic Stability of Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) Silages Supplemented with Additives. Agronomy 2025, 15, 2071. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092071

AMA Style

Garay-Martínez JR, Lucio-Ruíz F, Godina-Rodríguez JE, Ochoa-Espinoza XM, Joaquín-Cancino S, Orzuna-Orzuna JF. Nutritional Value and Aerobic Stability of Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) Silages Supplemented with Additives. Agronomy. 2025; 15(9):2071. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092071

Chicago/Turabian Style

Garay-Martínez, Jonathan Raúl, Fernando Lucio-Ruíz, Juan Eduardo Godina-Rodríguez, Xochilt Militza Ochoa-Espinoza, Santiago Joaquín-Cancino, and José Felipe Orzuna-Orzuna. 2025. "Nutritional Value and Aerobic Stability of Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) Silages Supplemented with Additives" Agronomy 15, no. 9: 2071. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092071

APA Style

Garay-Martínez, J. R., Lucio-Ruíz, F., Godina-Rodríguez, J. E., Ochoa-Espinoza, X. M., Joaquín-Cancino, S., & Orzuna-Orzuna, J. F. (2025). Nutritional Value and Aerobic Stability of Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) Silages Supplemented with Additives. Agronomy, 15(9), 2071. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15092071

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