You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Applied Sciences
  • Article
  • Open Access

12 November 2025

Fermentative Profile, Chemical Composition and In Situ Rumen Degradability of Capiaçu Elephant Grass Silage Wilted or with Added Cornmeal

,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa 36570-900, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Animal Nutrition: Latest Advances and Prospects

Abstract

Silage is an essential tool for maintaining productivity, especially during the dry season and when pasture availability is limited. However, it is necessary to establish increasingly efficient methods for producing this feed, seeking to minimize losses and provide maximum nutritional benefit. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of Cenchrus purpureus (Schumach.) Morrone cv. BRS Capiaçu silage with cornmeal addition or after 3 or 5 days of wilting, focusing on fermentative profile, chemical composition, and in situ degradation. A completely randomized design with four treatments and three replicates was used: Control (CON), ensilage with 8% ground cornmeal (SGC), wilting for 3 days (WI3), and wilting for 5 days (WI5), totaling 12 silos. After 120 days, the silages were analyzed for pH, volatile fatty acids, chemical composition, and rumen degradability using three cannulated cows. Data were subjected to ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). The SGC and WI3 treatments showed lower pH (4.55 and 4.52) and butyric acid (0.27 and 0.33%) and higher lactic acid (2.32 and 1.57%) contents compared with CON and WI5 (p < 0.001). They also presented higher dry matter (257.2 and 318.3 g/kg) and crude protein (63.8 and 58.5 g/kg) and lower fiber fractions (p < 0.001). For rumen degradability, SGC had the highest values for fraction “A” and effective degradability of dry matter at 5 and 8%/h passage rates (p = 0.001). Cornmeal addition and 3-day wilting improved silage quality, but only cornmeal enhanced degradability.

1. Introduction

The Brazilian livestock industry uses pastures as the main source of feed for ruminants [1]. However, tropical regions present seasonal variations, reducing the availability and quality of pastures, and impacting the profitability of production systems [2]. In this scenario, silage is a fundamental tool to maintain good production rates, particularly during periods of feed scarcity [3,4,5].
Elephant grass cv. BRS Capiaçu (Cenchrus purpureus (Schumach.) Morrone cv. BRS Capiaçu) is a forage with high potential for biomass production, capable of producing up to 50 ton/ha/year of dry matter (DM) [6]. However, ensiling process of tropical grasses is associated with challenges, such as low DM concentration (<300 g/kg DM), low soluble carbohydrate content (<40 g/kg DM), and high buffering capacity (>40 g of lactic acid/kg DM), which affects the quality of the silage [7,8,9].
To improve the quality of silage, additives such as bacterial inoculants or moisture sequestrant may be used [10,11]. Ground cornmeal, as a moisture sequestrant, reduces gas and effluent losses and increases DM recovery [12,13,14]. However, the addition of ground cornmeal can increase the cost of silage production.
Alternatively, wilting can achieve an adequate DM content [15,16], improving fermentation quality [17], and reducing losses due to gases and effluents [16]. Nevertheless, the quality of the silage can be impaired if the harvested forage is exposed to the sun for a prolonged period [18,19,20].
In this context, there is a lack of studies on the ensiling of elephant grass cv. BRS Capiaçu, particularly regarding ensiling methods. These include the use of moisture sequestrant and wilting over different periods, including 3 and 5 days. Therefore, it is necessary to develop efficient methods for the conservation of this forage to improve the quality of fermentation and thus the nutritional value of the silage produced.
This study was prepared under the hypotheses that: (1) the addition of ground cornmeal during the ensiling process promotes adequate fermentation of BRS Capiaçu elephant grass silage, resulting in a feed with better nutritional value, (2) the use of wilting grass for 3 or 5 days improves silage quality. Thus, the objective was to evaluate the effects of adding ground cornmeal as a moisture sequestrant or wilting grass for 3 or 5 days on the fermentation characteristics, chemical composition, and in situ degradation of BRS Capiaçu elephant grass silage.

2. Materials and Methods

All procedures involving animals were previously reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee for the Use of Production Animals of the Federal University of Viçosa, under protocol number 44/2024. During the experiment, the animals were maintained on a specific diet with ad libitum access to water and food, were housed in a compost barn system equipped with fans and maintained full productive life during and after the experiment.

2.1. Study Location, Design, and Treatments

The study was carried out at the Teaching, Research, and Extension Dairy Farm of the Federal University of Viçosa (UFV), Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil (20°45′14″ S, 42°52′55″ W). The region has a climate classified as Cwa (mesothermal) according to the [21], characterized by hot and rainy seasons (spring–summer) from October to March and cold and dry seasons (autumn–winter) from April to September, with an average temperature of 20.4 °C and an average annual rainfall of 1251 mm [22]. During the days in which the ensiling processes were carried out, the following data on total precipitation, average temperature, and average relative humidity were recorded (Table 1). These data were obtained by the automatic meteorological station in Viçosa, located 2.8 km away from the experiment [23].
Table 1. Data on maximum and minimum temperatures, average relative humidity, and daily rainfall from the weather station in Viçosa during the harvest and wilting periods.
The study was conducted in a completely randomized design evaluating four treatments with three replicates each: (i) control (CON; grass ensiled immediately after harvesting); (ii) grass ensiled after cutting with the addition of ground cornmeal (SGC; 8% in relation to the mass of natural matter); (iii) grass ensiled after wilting for three days (WI3); iv) grass ensiled after wilting for five days (WI5).

2.2. Sample Collection, Processing, and Ensiling

The elephant grass cv. BRS Capiaçu was harvested in winter at about 150 days of age and an average height of 4 m, which is within the recommended range to ensure good nutritional quality and productivity [6], and it presented approximately 22% DM. The grass was planted in an area of 0.7 ha, with a between rows of 1.30 m, and the number of seedlings used for the study was 6 tons/ha. The ensiling of treatments WI3 and WI5 was carried out at predetermined times to ensure that both treatments reached the established wilting time.
All treatments were harvested manually with a sickle, with the cut being made at a height of about 15 cm above ground. The grass was chopped to 20 mm in a silage chopper (Guarnieri MG—350), and then the Magniva Basic inoculant (Lallemand) was added according to the manufacturer’s recommendations, at a rate of 100 g per 50 tons of forage. This inoculant consists of a combination of the Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I-4622, with minimum-guarantee levels of 2.5 × 1010 UFC/g and Lactobacillus plantarum CNCM I-3736, with minimum-guarantee levels of 2.5 × 1010 UFC*/g strains. To evaluate the quality of the machine cut and mixtures with cornmeal, the Penn State method was used to check the size of the particles produced (Table 2) [24].
Table 2. Particle distribution in Penn State evaluation methodology of Cenchrus purpureus (Schumach.) Morrone cv. BRS Capiaçu grass with the addition of cornmeal and different wilting periods.
In the SGC treatment, cornmeal was added at 8% by mass of the fresh matter and manually mixed, aiming to increase the DM content of the material to 25%, bringing it within the recommended range of 25 to 35% for ensiling [25]. The wilting of elephant grass cv. BRS Capiaçu was done by spreading the plant in thin layers, allowing air to circulate and promoting moisture loss. The exposure time of the grass under these conditions varied according to treatments WI3 (3 days) and WI5 (5 days), as described in Table 1.
After obtaining the material from each treatment, the material was ensiled in 10-litre experimental silos made of sealed plastic buckets. These experimental silos had a height of 29.5 cm, a top diameter of 24 cm and a bottom diameter of 22 cm. To ensure drainage of effluents produced during ensiling, 3.5 kg of fine sand was placed at the bottom of each mini silo. A layer of cotton was placed on top of the sand layer to prevent direct contact between the forage and the sand. The ensiled mass amounted to 4.5 kg and was compacted using wooden stakes 1.5 m long and 10 cm in diameter to achieve a density of almost 600 kg/m3 [26], filling the remaining volume in the bucket.
The experimental silos were then closed with a lid, and the seal was reinforced with transparent adhesive tape stored in a closed room at room temperature (23 ± 3 °C) for 120 days. After 120 days of fermentation, the experimental silos were opened and about 5 cm of the top layer of each silo was discarded to avoid possible contamination [13]. The other part of the silage was homogenized and sampled for later analysis. This procedure ensured that representative samples were obtained from each treatment to assess silage quality.

2.3. Dry Matter Losses

The determination of total DM losses was calculated by determining the difference between the initial and final gross DM weight in the silos in relation to the amount of ensiled feed mass:
D M l o s s e s = ( D M i D M f ) . D M i × 100 ,
where DMlosses = total DM loss (%); DMi = initial DM amount (weight of silo after filling (kg)—weight of empty set, without forage, before filling (dry tare) (kg) × DM content of the forage in silage (% DM); DMf = final DM quantity (weight of the full silo before opening (kg)—weight of the empty set, without forage, after opening the silos (wet tare) (kg) × DM content of the forage at opening (% DM).

2.4. pH, Organic Acids, and Chemical Composition

To evaluate the pH and concentration of organic acids in the ensiled materials, an aqueous extract was prepared from 25 g of ground silage in an industrial blender with 225 mL of distilled water for one minute. This extract was then subjected to pH evaluation using a digital potentiometer (Tecnal, model Tec-3MP). The extract was then acidified 1:1 with H2SO4, diluted with distilled water and frozen for later analysis of the organic acids (lactic, acetic, and butyric acids).
To quantify the organic acids, the samples were treated with calcium hydroxide and copper sulfate and analyzed by HPLC (SPD-10 AVP, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) according to the method described by [27]. The HPLC instrument was equipped with a refractive index detector and an Aminex HPX-87H column (BIO-RAD, Hercules, CA, USA), where the mobile phase contained 0.005 H2SO4 and had a flow rate of 0.7 mL/min at 45 °C.
Sampling of the fresh material was carried out before ensiling to determine the DM content. After opening, a new sampling was performed, the samples were partially dried at 55 °C for 72 h (method INCT-CA G-001/2) and then ground in a Willey-type knife mill with 2- and 1 mm sieves, respectively.
Samples ground to 1 mm were analyzed for DM (INCT-CA method G-003/1), crude protein (CP; INCT-CA method N-001/2), ether extract (EE; INCT-CA method G-005/2), and ash (INCT-CA method M-001/2) content [28]. In addition, the samples were analyzed for the content of neutral detergent fiber (NDF; INCT-CA method F-013/1), acid detergent fiber (ADF; INCT-CA method F-015/1), and lignin (INCT-CA method F-005/2) [28]. The samples ground to 2 mm were used to determine the indigestible neutral detergent fiber (NDFi) content (INCT-CA method F-009/2) as described by [28]. The samples were incubated in the rumen of two lactating Holstein cows through a rumen cannula for a period of 288 h, and the residual NDF was determined. Non-fibrous carbohydrate (NFC) was calculated using the equation proposed by [29]:
N F C = 100 ( N D F + C P + E E + A s h ) ,
where NFC = Non-fibrous carbohydrate (g/kg); NDF = Neutral detergent fiber (g/kg); CP = Crude protein (g/kg); EE = Ether extract (g/kg).

2.5. In Situ Rumen Degradability

Three rumen-fistulated lactating Holstein cows with an average body weight of 685 ± 119.1 kg and an average milk production of 37 ± 5.3 kg were used for the in situ incubation, which were kept in a compost barn system with ad libitum access to feed and water. The same ratio of corn silage to concentrate (45:55) was maintained throughout the assessment period of in situ rumen degradability and the animals were adapted for 14 days [30].
For incubation, samples were ground through a 2 mm sieve and approximately 4.5 g of each dried sample was individually weighed into nylon bags (16 × 10 cm, 50 μm pore size, Ankom Technology, Macedon, NY, USA). The samples were placed in the bags at a rate of 10 to 20 mg DM/cm2 of the usable area of the bags [31]. The bags were placed in the rumen in the reverse order of the incubation times and removed at the same time. The incubation times used were 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 30, 48, 72, 120, and 240 h [28]. The number of nylon bags used varied depending on the incubation time to ensure a sufficient number of residual samples after the process, which is influenced by the specific degradation rate of each feed. Therefore, four bags were used for the 72, 120, and 240 h incubation periods, and two bags were used for the remaining periods.
The samples were incubated in the rumen by attaching the nylon bags to a steel chain (90 × 2 cm2) [32] with a weight (300 g) at the end to ensure their immersion in the rumen contents. After removal, all bags were washed under running water to remove excess external residues and then washed in a washing machine (5 consecutive 1 min washes) [33]. The bags were then partially dried for 72 h at 55 °C in an oven with forced ventilation (INCT-CA method G-001/2) and then placed in an oven at 105 °C for 2 h to estimate the disappearance of DM in the rumen [32,33,34].
After drying and weighing the bags, the residue of each sample per treatment was removed from the nylon bags, ground in a Wiley mill (Fortinox, model STAR FT 50/6) with a 1 mm sieve and placed in a plastic bag labeled to obtain a sample from each animal and its respective incubation/treatment time. Subsequently, the residual samples were analyzed for DM and NDF content according to the methodology described by [28] and used to estimate the parameters of rumen-induced degradation of DM and NDF.
To estimate the in situ degradability of DM and NDF, the first-order asymptotic model proposed by Orskov and [35] was used, which utilizes the following equation:
D e g t = a + b 1 e c t ,
where Deg(t) = represents the degradability or disappearance of the nutrient (DM or NDF) from the feed, expressed as percentage; a = fraction of the feed that is soluble in water at time zero; b = fraction that is insoluble in water but potentially degradable in the rumen at a given time; c = rate of degradation of the potentially degradable fraction in the rumen (b); t = incubation time (hours).
The parameters a, b, and c of DM and NDF determined for each incubation period and each animal were organized for subsequent statistical analysis. In addition, the potentially degradable fraction and estimated degradation for passage rates of 2, 5, and 8%/h were calculated as described below:
P D = a + b D e g = a + ( b × c / ( c + k p ) ,
where PD = represents the potentially degradable fraction; a = fraction of the feed that is soluble in water at time zero; b = fraction that is insoluble in water but potentially degradable in the rumen at a given time; Deg = represents the estimated degradable fraction according to the estimated parameters; c = degradation rate of the potentially degradable fraction in the rumen (b); kp = passage rate, which in this case can take a value of 2, 5, or 8%/h.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Data related to the fermentation profile and chemical composition were subjected to analysis of variance using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS [36] using the normal distribution for all variables analyzed. The data on the in situ degradation parameters were subjected to an analysis of variance using the lm package of R [37]. In all analysis, the F-test was used at a significant level of 5% according to the model below.
Y i j = μ + α i + ε i j
in which Yij is the measured response variable that received the ith treatment, μ is the general constant, αi is the fixed effect of the ith treatment, and εij is the random error term.
To compare the means between treatments, the Tukey test was used, and effects were considered significant at p ≤ 0.05 and trend at 0.05 < p ≤ 0.10.

3. Results

The mean values of pH, DM loss, and concentration of lactic, acetic, and butyric acids differed significantly among treatments (p < 0.01 for all variables; Table 3). The SGC and WI3 treatments had the lowest pH values, with 4.55 and 4.52, respectively. Additionally, SGC and WI3 treatments also had the lowest DM loss, with values of 1.69 and 1.64%, respectively. Lactic acid was higher in the SGC treatment, while the acetic acid had the lowest value in the CON treatment (Table 3). The butyric acid concentration was lower in the SGC and WI3 treatments, with 0.27 and 0.33%, respectively.
Table 3. pH, DM loss, and concentration of lactic, acetic, and butyric acid in Cenchrus purpureus (Schumach.) Morrone cv. BRS Capiaçu silage with addition of cornmeal and different wilting periods.
The contents of DM, ash, CP, EE, NDF, ADF, lignin, NFC, and NDFi were different among treatments (p < 0.01; Table 4). Treatments WI3 and WI5 presented the greatest DM values with 318.3 and 305.4 g/kg, respectively. Treatment WI5 presented the lowest CP value among treatments, with 51.4 g/kg, while the other treatments average 60.2 g/kg. Treatments CON and SGC had the greatest values of EE. When evaluating the NDF, ADF, and NDFi contents, the SGC treatment had the lowest values (700.2 g/kg, 453.3 g/kg, and 355.0 g/kg, respectively). The SGC and WI3 treatments had the lowest values of lignin, with 82.1 and 88.4 g/kg, respectively. The greatest value of NFC was observed in SGC treatment (138.6 g/kg), while the other treatments averaged 61.3 g/kg (Table 4).
Table 4. Chemical composition of Cenchrus purpureus (Schumach.) Morrone cv. BRS Capiaçu silage with the addition of cornmeal and different wilting periods.
For the in situ rumen degradability evaluation, only the fraction “a” of DM (p < 0.01) and the effective degradability of DM at passage rates of 5 and 8%/h (p = 0.01) showed significant differences between treatments and a tendency towards the rate of 2%/h (Table 5 and Table 6). The fraction “a” of DM of the SGC treatment was 289 g/kg, while the other treatments averaged 227 g/kg, which was about 21.2% lower (Table 5). Treatments WI3 and WI5 showed greater values for the fraction “a” of DM when compared to the CON treatment (Table 5). No differences (p > 0.05) were observed among treatments in terms of the potentially degradable fraction in the rumen (fraction b) and the rate of degradation of the potentially degradable fraction in the rumen (c) of the DM. Similarly, there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) among treatments for the degradation of fractions “a”, “b” and the degradation rate of NDF (Table 5).
Table 5. In situ degradation parameters of DM and NDF of Cenchrus purpureus (Schumach.) Morrone cv. BRS Capiaçu silage with the addition of cornmeal and different wilting periods.
Table 6. Effective degradability of DM and NDF at three passage rates of Cenchrus purpureus (Schumach.) Morrone cv. BRS Capiaçu silage with the addition of cornmeal and different wilting periods.
No significant differences (p > 0.05; Table 5) were found between the treatments regarding the potential degradation of DM and NDF. The effective degradability of DM at rates of 5% and 8%/h in the SGC treatment was greater than in the other treatments (Table 6).

4. Discussion

The material was harvested with 22% DM, which is below the range recommended by [25] (25–35%) for the anaerobic fermentation of grasses at the time of ensiling. Tropical grasses with a DM content lower than 25% have a higher potential for nutrient losses as gases and effluents, which can affect the nutritional quality of the silage, as some of the carbohydrates and proteins are lost in the effluents [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38].
The lower pH values found in the SGC and WI3 treatments are consistent with those of [25], who prepared a review on the interpretation of the chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of different types of silage. For grass silage, prior literature indicates that at a DM content of 25–35%, the optimal pH lies between 4.3 and 4.7. Under these benchmarks, the SGC and WI3 treatments consistently exhibited pH values that fell within the recommended interval, indicating superior fermentation quality relative to established guidelines.
The pH values observed in SGC and WI3 likely stem from reduced grass moisture, which concentrated soluble carbohydrates and thereby increased the silage’s osmolarity. These factors probably promoted a reduction in buffering capacity and exacerbated the drop in pH [39]. Lowering the pH helps to prevent the growth of spoilage microorganisms such as yeasts, molds, and undesirable aerobic bacteria, thus helping to preserve the nutritional value of the ensiled material [40].
The lower DM loss in the SGC and WI3 treatments could be related to the DM content of these treatments at the ensiling time. Tropical forages with a dry matter content lower than 25% may experience significant nutrient losses due to the release of gases and/or effluents, which negatively affect the nutritional value of the silages, as some of the carbohydrates and proteins present in the forages are released in the effluents during the fermentation process [25].
Amaral et al. [41] characterized the population of lactic acid bacteria in the fermentation of elephant grass and selected promising lines for inoculants to evaluate their effect on silages of the BRS Capiaçu variety harvested at 22% DM. These authors found DM losses between 3.8 and 12.3% in the different treatments. In the present study, lower DM losses were observed in the SGC and WI3 treatments, possibly due to the greater DM concentration at harvest, the addition of cornmeal, and the wilting process. Our results are consistent with those of [13], who showed that the addition of ground cornmeal minimizes losses and suggest that adjustments to the ensiling material and substrate conditions can optimize lactic acid production, regardless of the initial lactic acid bacteria population.
According to Bates et al. [42], DM loss in wilted silages may be increased due to less intensive fermentation characterized by lower acid production compared to non-wilted silages or silages that have been wilted for a shorter time. Our results confirm this observation and show that when comparing treatments WI3 and WI5, longer wilting resulted in greater DM loss.
The greatest lactic acid concentrations were observed in treatments with greater DM content, which underlines the expected relationship between greater lactic acid production and greater DM content. In addition, the increase in lactic acid production could be due to the fact that the ensiled material had a greater amount of non-fibrous carbohydrates due to the addition of cornmeal, providing more fermentable carbohydrates for lactic bacteria [10,43,44].
Kung et al. [25], considered the ideal lactic acid concentration ranging from 6 to 10% for grass silage with a DM content of 25 to 35%. Therefore, none of our treatments had concentrations within this ideal range. This low lactic acid concentration may be directly related to the lower concentration of water-soluble carbohydrates (WSCs) found in tropical forages. As WSC are the main substrate utilized by the lactic acid bacteria during the silage fermentation process [45]. During wilting, enzymatic respiration occurs, which leads to the loss of WSC [46], which also explains the lower concentration of lactic acid in treatments WI3 and WI5 compared to SGC. When comparing the CON treatment with WI3 and WI5, we found that the treatments that underwent the wilting process had greater lactic acid levels. References [42,43,44,45,46,47] suggest that wilting lowers silage water activity, hindering Clostridium proliferation during fermentation. This condition favors lactic acid bacteria and affords them more time to generate adequate organic acids, which are crucial for effective silage preservation. However, lower lactic acid likely stems not only from low WSC but also from higher DM after pre-wilting, the strong buffering of C4 grasses, a more heterofermentative microbiota, and management/fermentation factors (packing, O2, temperature, time).
According to Santos et al. and Ferreira et al. [48,49], greater lactic acid production can lead to lower DM losses in grass silages. This occurs because lactic acid fermentation causes only minimal losses, whereas acetic and butyric fermentation are associated with secondary processes and DM losses as gaseous emissions. Regarding acetic acid concentration, the values in all treatments were below the reference value proposed by [25] for grass silages with a DM content between 25 and 35%, with the ideal range being 1 to 3% of DM. In contrast, the values found are greater than those observed by [50] in wilted elephant grass silages or with the addition of cassava bran, which had an average of 0.47% acetic acid. Acetic acid plays an important role in the preservation of silage, especially after opening the silo, as it inhibits filamentous fungi, moulds, and yeasts in the silage and thus contributes to greater aerobic stability [51].
It is worth mentioning that acetic acid also contributes to the preservation of ensiled material. However, greater concentrations indicate that undesirable changes may occur in the ensiling process. The ideal fermentation should take place with a greater amount of lactic acid to ensure a better quality of the fermented material [52]. The lower concentration of butyric acid in the silage could be related to the decrease in pH, which may have inhibited the growth and proteolytic activity of microorganisms such as Clostridia [53,54]. When considering the butyric acid concentrations proposed by [25], only the CON treatment showed production above the maximum limit of 1% recommended as a quality parameter for this type of silage.
As described by Jobim et al. [55], the ash content in silages can indicate losses of organic compounds due to contamination of the forage with sand during cutting, which normally occurs in the ensiling process. These losses lead to an increase in ash content and can have a negative effect on the pH buffering capacity of the silage. In addition, this increase in ash content may also be related to a dilution effect due to the lower water concentration of these treatments compared to the control, resulting in less dilution of this component.
Regarding CP, a similar result was observed by [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. Paula et al. [14], investigated the bromatological composition of BRS Capiaçu elephant grass silage with cornmeal added in proportions of 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20%. The authors found that the addition of ground corn to the silages had a linear effect, resulting in higher CP levels, as the cornmeal contained a greater proportion of this component compared to the elephant grass cv. BRS Capiaçu. In this study, the addition of 10% of cornmeal led to an increase of 0.93 percentage points in the CP content of the DM, while in our study the addition of 8% cornmeal led to an increase of 0.54 percentage points in the CP content of the DM. However, the SGC treatment CP was similar to CON and WI3 treatments. The lower CP content in the WI5 treatment can be attributed to the prolonged wilting time. According to [57], a wilting period of several days can result in a loss of water-soluble carbohydrates and a reduction in proteins due to the deamination of amino acids, which can lead to increased ammonia-nitrogen production during silage fermentation.
A similar result was observed by [14] regarding the EE content, who found that despite the numerical increases in EE levels in the silage with the inclusion of ground cornmeal, there was no significant difference compared to the control treatment. The lowest EE content was observed in treatments WI3 and WI5, which can be attributed to wilting time. Studies suggest that wilting the material before ensiling reduces the EE content, resulting in significant losses of specific fatty acids, such as α-linolenic acid and linoleic acid [58,59,60]. These losses are associated with the lipoxygenase system, a plant defense mechanism that is activated in damaged tissues [59].
The addition of 8% cornmeal in the SGC treatment decreased the fibrous fractions, with a reduction of 1.16%, 0.87%, and 0.82% for NDF, ADF, and NDFi, respectively, for each 1% of cornmeal added. These results can be explained by a dilution effect, as cornmeal contains lower levels of these fractions compared to BRS Capiaçu grass [14]. In contrast, the greater levels of these components observed in treatments CON, WI3, and WI5 may be related to the loss of WSC during silage fermentation [61]. The NDF and ADF content is an indicator of the quantity and quality of fiber contained in the material, as a high NDF content may limit intake, while a low ADF content indicates fiber of good quality [62].
When evaluating the use of citrus pulp and wilting on the quality of elephant grass silage, ref. [63] found that citrus pulp reduced the lignin content due to the dilution effect. On the other hand, wilting increased the lignin content, a change that was not observed in the WI3 treatment of the present study. In contrast, refs. [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64] found no significant differences between wilted and non-wilted grasses. As plant tissue matures, secondary cell wall thickness increases, leading to an increase in NDF and lignin concentration at the expense of cell content [62,65,66].
When evaluating the rumen degradability, the fraction “a” of DM corresponds to the proportion of the feed that is readily available for the action of the microorganisms in the rumen. This increase in fraction “a” can be attributed to the inclusion of ground cornmeal, an ingredient with high values of the water-soluble fraction in its composition [67]. The fraction “a” of DM for SGC treatment was 289 g/kg, a result similar to the found by [67], who evaluated the in situ rumen degradability of elephant grass silages supplemented with corn bran and autochthonous microbiota inoculant using 60-day-old grass. These authors observed higher values of fraction “a” in the grass silage with the addition of ground cornmeal, with average values of 273 and 257 g/kg for the treatments without and with inoculant, respectively.
The values of the fraction “a” of DM for WI3 and WI5 treatments did not agree with the results of [16], who found no significant effects of wilting times on the rumen kinetics parameters of DM. The authors attributed this pattern to the decrease in CP and EE content with increasing wilting time. However, this pattern was not observed in the present study, because despite the reduction in CP and EE contents, the WI3 and WI5 treatments still showed greater values for the fraction “a” of DM compared to the CON treatment. This pattern could be due to the greater DM content in both treatments. According to [68], in their meta-analysis on the effects of wilting on silage quality, the authors concluded that during wilting, the concentration of carbohydrates, including WSC, increases as the forage loses moisture. In addition, wilting slows down the respiration of plant cells, which leads to a reduction in carbohydrate consumption. This reduction in respiration favors the conservation of carbohydrates, including WSC, which contributes to a greater content of soluble fractions in the forage [10].
Regarding the NDF degradation rate, it is important to emphasize that according to [69], the NDF degradation rate must be between 0.02 and 0.06%/h for bulky feeds to be considered of high quality, and only the SGC treatment was within this recommended range, which highlights that the treatments did not change fiber structure.
Ribas et al. [16] reported an average potential DM degradability of 515.9 g/kg for BRS Capiaçu grass silage, a value that the authors classified as low and possibly related to the high iNDF content. This result is close to the average value of 571 g/kg found in our study. The greater effective degradability of the DM in the SGC treatment can be attributed to the better degradability of corn compared to elephant grass, as it has easily soluble components compared to the BRS Capiaçu variety [70].
It is worth noting that although the wilting of the forage was performed for 3 days and 5 days during the winter, the time required to reach the desired dry matter content may vary depending on local climatic conditions. In warmer regions, with higher average temperatures, fewer days may be necessary to achieve the same dry matter. Therefore, it is important to consider other factors such as the dry matter content of the plant, local climate, and environmental conditions when adapting the wilting time for different regions, thus ensuring silage quality without compromising the efficiency of the process.

5. Conclusions

The wilting of BRS Capiaçu elephant grass for 3 days before ensiling or the addition of cornmeal with the aim to increasing the DM content are strategies that improve the fermentation quality of the ensiled material and enable better forage conservation. However, only the SGC treatment showed better degradation of dry matter. It is important to highlight that wilting is an advantageous technique, especially in situations where family labor is used, since the cost is lower, and the results of silage quality are similar to those obtained with the addition of cornmeal. However, it is worth noting that, as mentioned earlier, the results depend on the wilting time, which must be adjusted according to the specific conditions of the plant and climate. On the other hand, the addition of moisture sequestrants can improve silage quality without major issues caused by rainfall in the harvest. However, this can also significantly increase the cost of silage production.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.I.M.S., B.G.C.H. and A.L.d.S.; methodology, M.I.M.S., P.P.R. and A.L.d.S.; software, M.I.M.S. and A.L.d.S.; validation, P.P.R., B.G.C.H. and A.L.d.S.; formal analysis, P.P.R., B.G.C.H. and A.L.d.S.; investigation, M.I.M.S., B.B.d.S., J.V.F.V., C.d.S.B., J.V.C.R., W.P.F.A. and A.C.O.R.; resources, P.P.R. and B.G.C.H.; data curation, M.I.M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.I.M.S.; writing—review and editing, B.B.d.S., J.V.F.V., C.d.S.B., J.V.C.R., W.P.F.A., A.C.O.R., P.P.R., B.G.C.H. and A.L.d.S.; visualization, M.I.M.S., P.P.R., B.G.C.H. and A.L.d.S.; supervision, A.L.d.S.; project administration, A.L.d.S. 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 animal study protocol was approved by the Institutional ethics committee of animal use and care of Federal University of Viçosa, under protocol number 44/2024 with approval date on 4 September 2024.

Data Availability Statement

The entire dataset supporting the results of this study was published in the article itself.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the following Brazilian foundations for their help with this study: the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), the Higher Educational Personnel Improvement Coordination (CAPES), the Minas Gerais State Research Support Foundation (FAPEMIG), and the Institute of Science and Technology of Animal Science (INCT–CA).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Sampaio, R.L.; de Resende, F.D.; Reis, R.A.; de Oliveira, I.M.; Custódio, L.; Fernandes, R.M.; Pazdiora, R.D.; Siqueira, G.R. The Nutritional Interrelationship between the Growing and Finishing Phases in Crossbred Cattle Raised in a Tropical System. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2017, 49, 1015–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Millen, D.D.; Pacheco, R.D.L.; Meyer, P.M.; Rodrigues, P.H.M.; De Beni Arrigoni, M. Current Outlook and Future Perspectives of Beef Production in Brazil. Anim. Front. 2011, 1, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kemboi, D.C.; Antonissen, G.; Ochieng, P.E.; Croubels, S.; Okoth, S.; Kangethe, E.K.; Faas, J.; Lindahl, J.F.; Gathumbi, J.K. A Review of the Impact of Mycotoxins on Dairy Cattle Health: Challenges for Food Safety and Dairy Production in Sub-Saharan Africa. Toxins 2020, 12, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rodríguez-Blanco, M.; Ramos, A.J.; Sanchis, V.; Marín, S. Mycotoxins Occurrence and Fungal Populations in Different Types of Silages for Dairy Cows in Spain. Fungal. Biol. 2021, 125, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aranega, J.P.R.B.; de Oliveira, C.A.F. Occurrence of Mycotoxins in Conserved Grass and Legume Forages—A Systematic Review. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2024, 24, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pereira, A.V.; José, F.; Ledo, S.; José, M.; Morenz, F.; Luiz, J.; Leite, B.; Magno, A.; Santos, B.D.; Martins, C.E.; et al. BRS Capiaçu: Cultivar de Capim-Elefante de Alto Rendimento Para Produção de Silagem. Embrapa Gado Leite. 2016. Available online: https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicacao/1056288/brs-capiacu-cultivar-de-capim-elefante-de-alto-rendimento-para-producao-de-silagem (accessed on 9 November 2025).
  7. Nussio, L.G.; Paziani, S.D.F.; Nussio, C.M.B. Ensilagem de Capins Tropicais. In Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste. In Proceedings of the Reunião Anual Da Sociedade Brasileira De Zootecnia, Recife, Brazil, 29 July–1 August 2002; p. 39. [Google Scholar]
  8. Gomes, A.L.M.; Auerbach, H.U.; Lazzari, G.; Moraes, A.; Nussio, L.G.; Jobim, C.C.; Daniel, J.L.P. Sodium Nitrite-Based Additives Improve the Conservation and the Nutritive Value of Guinea Grass Silage. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2021, 279, 115033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Moraes, A.; Auerbach, H.U.; Bragatto, J.M.; Piran Filho, F.A.; Silva, S.M.S.; Nussio, L.G.; Jobim, C.C.; Daniel, J.L.P. Effect of Application Rate of Sodium Nitrite and Hexamine on the Fermentation and the Chemical Composition of Guinea Grass Silage Harvested at Different Stages of Maturity. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2023, 302, 115667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Borreani, G.; Tabacco, E.; Schmidt, R.J.; Holmes, B.J.; Muck, R.E. Silage Review: Factors Affecting Dry Matter and Quality Losses in Silages. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 3952–3979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. 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]
  12. Andrade, A.P.; de Quadros, D.G.; Bezerra, A.R.G.; Almeida, J.A.R.; Silva, P.H.S.; Araújo, J.A.M. Aspectos qualitativos da silagem de capim-elefante com fubá de milho e casca de soja. Semin. Ciências Agrárias 2012, 33, 1209–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bezerra, H.F.C.; Santos, E.M.; Oliveira, J.S.; Carvalho, G.G.P.; Pinho, R.M.A.; Silva, T.C.; Pereira, G.A.; Cassuce, M.R.; Zanine, A.M. Fermentation Characteristics and Chemical Composition of Elephant Grass Silage with Ground Maize and Fermented Juice of Epiphytic Lactic Acid Bacteria. South Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 49, 522–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Paula, P. Composição Bromatológica Da Silagem de Capim- Elefante BRS Capiaçu Com Inclusão Fubá de Milho. Pubvet 2020, 14, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Barcelos, A.F.; de Carvalho, J.R.R.; Tavares, V.B.; Gonçalves, C.C. de M. Valor Nutritivo E Características Fermentativas da Silagem de Capim-Elefante Com Diferentes Proporções de Casca de Café. Ciência Anim. Bras. 2018, 19, e-27432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ribas, W.F.G.; Monção, F.P.; Júnior, V.R.R.; de Albuquerque Maranhão, C.M.; Ferreira, H.C.; dos Santos, A.S.; Gomes, V.M.; Rigueira, J.P.S. Effect of Wilting Time and Enzymatic-Bacterial Inoculant on the Fermentative Profile, Aerobic Stability, and Nutritional Value of BRS Capiaçu Grass Silage. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2021, 50, e20200207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. MARSH, R. The Effects of Wilting on Fermentation in the Silo and on the Nutritive Value of Silage. Grass Forage Sci. 1979, 34, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pahlow, G.; Muck, R.E.; Driehuis, F.; Oude-Elferink, S.J.W.H.; Spoelstra, S.F. Microbiology of Ensiling. In Silage Science and Technology; Buxton, R.E., Muck, D.R., Harrison, J.H., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Brüning, D.; Gerlach, K.; Weiß, K.; Südekum, K.H. Effect of Compaction, Delayed Sealing and Aerobic Exposure on Maize Silage Quality and on Formation of Volatile Organic Compounds. Grass Forage Sci. 2018, 73, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Köppen, W.; Geiger, R. Das Geographische System Der Klimate. Handb. Der Klimatol. 1936, Band I, 7–30. [Google Scholar]
  22. Climate-Data.Org. Clima Viçosa: Temperatura, Tempo e Dados Climatológicos. 2022. Available online: https://pt.climate-data.org/america-do-sul/brasil/minas-gerais/vicosa-25021/ (accessed on 9 November 2025).
  23. INMET Boletim Agroclimatológico/Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia. Inst. Nac. Meteorol. 2022; pp. 1–17. Available online: https://portal.inmet.gov.br/uploads/boletinsAgroclimatologicos/BoletimAgro_2022-02-versaofinal.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2025).
  24. Penn State Particle Separator. Available online: https://extension.psu.edu/penn-state-particle-separator (accessed on 30 September 2025).
  25. Kung, L.; Shaver, R.D.; Grant, R.J.; Schmidt, R.J. Silage Review: Interpretation of Chemical, Microbial, and Organoleptic Components of Silages. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 4020–4033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, J.; Hao, J.; Zhao, M.; Yan, X.; Jia, Y.; Wang, Z.; Ge, G. Effects of Different Temperature and Density on Quality and Microbial Population of Wilted Alfalfa Silage. BMC Microbiol. 2024, 24, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Siegfried, R.; Rückemann, H.; Stumpf, G. Method for the Determination of Organic Acids in Silage by High Performance Liquid Chromatography. Landwirtsch. Forsch. 1984, 37, 298–304. [Google Scholar]
  28. Detmann, E.; Silva, L.F.C.; Rocha, G.C.; Palma, M.N.N.; Rodrigues, J.P.P. Métodos Para Análise de Alimentos—INCT—Ciência Animal; Produção Independente: São Paulo, Brazil, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hall, M.B.; Hoover, W.H.; Jennings, J.P.; Webster, T.K.M. A Method for Partitioning Neutral Detergent-Soluble Carbohydrates. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1999, 79, 2079–2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Machado, M.G.; Detmann, E.; Mantovani, H.C.; Valadares Filho, S.C.; Bento, C.B.P.; Marcondes, M.I.; Assunção, A.S. Evaluation of the Length of Adaptation Period for Changeover and Crossover Nutritional Experiments with Cattle Fed Tropical Forage-Based Diets. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 222, 132–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nocek, J.E. In Situ and Other Methods to Estimate Ruminal Protein and Energy Digestibility: A Review. J. Dairy Sci. 1988, 71, 2051–2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Menezes, A.C.B.; Valadares Filho, S.C.; Carneiro Pacheco, M.V.; Pucetti, P.; Pereira, J.M.V.; Rotta, P.P.; Zanetti, D.; Silva, B.C.; Costa E Silva, L.F.; Detmann, E.; et al. Single Point Ruminal Incubation Times Necessary to Estimate Rumen Degradable Protein Content in Concentrate Feeds. Trans. Anim. Sci 2019, 3, 1686–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Vanzant, E.S.; Cochran, R.C.; Titgemeyer, E.C. Standardization of in Situ Techniques for Ruminant Feedstuff Evaluation. J. Anim. Sci. 1998, 76, 2717–2729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Silva, B.C.; Pacheco, M.V.C.; Godoi, L.A.; Silva, F.a.S.; Zanetti, D.; Menezes, A.C.B.; Pucetti, P.; Santos, S.A.; Paulino, M.F.; Filho, S.C.V. In Situ and in Vitro Techniques for Estimating Degradation Parameters and Digestibility of Diets Based on Maize or Sorghum. J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 158, 150–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Orskov, 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]
  36. SAS Institute Inc. SAS On Demand for Academics [Software]; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  37. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 30 September 2025).
  38. Batista, J.S.S.; Alves, D.D.; Rigueira, J.P.S.; Backes, A.A.; Silva, J.T.E.; de Jesus Silva, É.T.; Santos, G.C.R.V.; Fernandes, L.D.L.; Vasconcelos, A.M.; Monção, F.P. Elephant Grass Cv. BRS Capiaçu Silage with Inclusion of Different Proportions of Silk Cotton. Semin.Cienc. Agrar. 2022, 43, 179–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tavares, V.B.; Pinto, J.C.; Evangelista, A.R.; César, H.; Figueiredo, H.C.P.; Ávila, C.L.S.; Lima, R.F. Efeitos Da Compactação, Da Inclusão de Aditivo Absorvente e Do Emurchecimento Na Composição Bromatológica de Silagens de Capim-Tanzânia. Rev. Bras. De Zootec. 2009, 38, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  40. González-Jartín, J.M.; Ferreiroa, V.; Rodríguez-Cañás, I.; Alfonso, A.; Sainz, M.J.; Aguín, O.; Vieytes, M.R.; Gomes, A.; Ramos, I.; Botana, L.M. Occurrence of Mycotoxins and Mycotoxigenic Fungi in Silage from the North of Portugal at Feed-Out. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2022, 365, 109556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Amaral, R.C.; Carvalho, B.F.; Costa, D.M.; Morenz, M.J.F.; Schwan, R.F.; Ávila, C.L. da S. Novel Lactic Acid Bacteria Strains Enhance the Conservation of Elephant Grass Silage Cv. BRS Capiaçu. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2020, 264, 114472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bates, D.B.; Kunkle, W.E.; Chambliss, C.G.; Cromwell, R.P. Effect of Dry Matter and Additives on Bermudagrass and Rhizoma Peanut Round Bale Silage. J. Prod. Agric. 1989, 2, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Widyastuti, Y. Fermentasi Silase Dan Manfaat Probiotik Silase Bagi Ruminansia. Media Peternak. 2008, 31, 225–232. [Google Scholar]
  44. Silva, T.C.; Silva, M.V.B.; Ferreira, E.G.; Pereira, O.G.; Ferreira, C.L.L.F. Papel Da Fermentação Lática Na Produção de Silagem. Pubvet 2011, 5, Art-992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  45. Piltz, J.W.; Meyer, R.G.; Brennan, M.A.; Boschma, S.P. Fermentation Quality of Silages Produced from Wilted Sown Tropical Perennial Grass Pastures with or without a Bacterial Inoculant. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Muck, R.E.; Moser, L.E.; Pitt, R.E. Postharvest Factors Affecting Ensiling. Silage Sci. Technol. 2003, 42, 251–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Umaña, R.; Staples, C.R.; Bates, D.B.; Wilcox, C.J.; Mahanna, W.C. Effects of a Microbial Inoculant and(or) Sugarcane Molasses on the Fermentation, Aerobic Stability, and Digestibility of Bermudagrass Ensiled at Two Moisture Contents2. J. Anim. Sci. 1991, 69, 4588–4601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Santos, E.M.; Zanine, A.M.; Ferreira, D.J.; Oliveira, J.S.; Penteado, D.C.S.; Pereira, O.G. Inoculante Ativado Melhora a Silagem de Capim-Tanzania (“Panicum Maximum”). Arch. Zootec. 2008, 57, 35–72. [Google Scholar]
  49. Ferreira, D.d.J.; Lana, R.d.P.; Zanine, A.d.M.; Santos, E.M.; Veloso, C.M.; Ribeiro, G.A. Silage Fermentation and Chemical Composition of Elephant Grass Inoculated with Rumen Strains of Streptococcus Bovis. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2013, 183, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ferrari Júnior, E.; Lavezzo, W. Qualidade Da Silagem de Capim-Elefante (Pennisetum Purpureum Schum.) Emurchecido Ou Acrescido de Farelo de Mandioca. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2001, 30, 1424–1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Alencar, A.M.S.; Júnior, V.R.R.; Monção, F.P.; Cordeiro, M.W.S.; Santos, A.S.; Caldeira, L.A.; Oliveira, L.I.S.; Ananias, J.V.A.; Costa, M.D.; Souza, A.S.; et al. Quality of Mixed Silages of Sorghum, BRS Capiaçu Grass, and Cactus Pear in a Semiarid Region of Brazil. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2023, 51, 719–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mota, Á.D.S.; Rocha Júnior, V.R.; de Souza, A.S.; dos Reis, S.T.; Tomich, T.R.; Caldeira, L.A.; Menezes, G.C.d.C.; da Costa, M.D. Perfil de Fermentação e Perdas Na Ensilagem de Diferentes Frações Da Parte Aérea de Quatro Variedades de Mandioca. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2011, 40, 1466–1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  53. Arriola, K.G.; Kim, S.C.; Adesogan, A.T. Effect of Applying Inoculants with Heterolactic or Homolactic and Heterolactic Bacteria on the Fermentation and Quality of Corn Silage. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94, 1511–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. 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]
  55. Jobim, C.C.; Junior, C.M.; Júnior, V.H.B.; Oliveira, F.C.L. Semina: Ciências Agrárias. Semin. Ciências Agrárias 2010, 31, 773–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  56. Zanine, A.M.; Santos, E.M.; Ferreira, D.J.; Pereira, O.G.; Carlos, J.; Almeida, J.C.C. Efeito Do Farelo de Trigo Sobre as Perdas, Recuperação Da Matéria Seca e Composição Bromatológica de Silagem de Capim-Mombaça. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 2006, 43, 803–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  57. Henderson, N. Silage Additives. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 1993, 45, 35–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Boufaïed, H.; Chouinard, P.Y.; Tremblay, G.F.; Petit, H.V.; Michaud, R.; Bélanger, G. Fatty Acids in Forages. I. Factors Affecting Concentrations. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 83, 501–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dewhurst, R.J.; Shingfield, K.J.; Lee, M.R.F.; Scollan, N.D. Increasing the Concentrations of Beneficial Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids in Milk Produced by Dairy Cows in High-Forage Systems. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2006, 131, 168–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Van Ranst, G.; Fievez, V.; De Riek, J.; Van Bockstaele, E. Influence of Ensiling Forages at Different Dry Matters and Silage Additives on Lipid Metabolism and Fatty Acid Composition. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2009, 150, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Mills, J.A.; Kung, L. The Effect of Delayed Ensiling and Application of a Propionic Acid-Based Additive on the Fermentation of Barley Silage. J. Dairy Sci. 2002, 85, 1969–1975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Van Soest, P.J. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. Choice Rev. Online 1995, 32, 32–4505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gomes, R.d.S.; Almeida, J.C.d.C.; Carneiro, J.d.C.; Azevedo, F.H.V.; Lista, F.N.; Elyas, A.C.W.; de Oliveira, T.S. Impacts of Citrus Pulp Addition and Wilting on Elephant Grass Silage Quality. Biosci. J. (Online) 2017, 33, 675–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  64. de Carvalho, G.G.P.; Garcia, R.; Pires, A.J.V.; Pereira, O.G.; Azevêdo, J.A.G.; de Carvalho, B.M.A.; Cavali, J. Valor nutritivo de silagens de capim-elefante emurchecido ou com adição de farelo de cacau. R. Bras. Zootec. 2007, 36, 1495–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  65. Wilson, J.R. Cell Wall Characteristics in Relation to Forage Digestion by Ruminants. J. Agric. Sci. 1994, 122, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Zailan, M.Z.; Yaakub, H.; Jusoh, S. Yield and Nutritive Value of Four Napier (Pennisetum purpureum) Cultivars at Different Harvesting Ages. Agric. Biol. J. N. Am. 2016, 7, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bezerra, H.F.C.; Santos, E.M.; de Oliveira, J.S.; de Carvalho, G.G.P.; Cassuce, M.R.; Perazzo, A.F.; Freitas, D.d.S.S.; Santos, V.d.S. Degradabilidade ruminal in situ de silagens de capim-elefante aditivadas com farelo de milho e inoculante da microbiota autóctone. Rev. Bras. Saúde Prod. Anim. 2015, 16, 265–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ridla, M.; Albarki, H.R.; Risyahadi, S.T.; Sukarman, S. Effects of Wilting on Silage Quality: A Meta-Analysis. Anim. Biosci. 2024, 37, 1185–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Mertens, D.R. Kinetics of Cell Wall Digestion and Passage in Ruminants. In Forage Cell Wall Structure and Digestibility; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1993; pp. 535–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Passini, R.; Borgatti, L.M.O.; Ferreira, F.A.; Rodrigues, P.H.M. Degradabilidade no rúmen bovino de grãos de milho processados de diferentes formas. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 2004, 39, 271–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.