Determination of the Effects of Grape Pomace Addition to Sorghum Sudan Grass on Silage Quality

Year 2023, Volume: 63 Issue: 1, 47 - 54, 30.06.2023

Recep Bulut Mehmet Akif Karslı Hasan Hüseyin Şenyüz

https://doi.org/10.46897/livestockstudies.1325043

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the silage quality and in situ degradability of silages prepared with addition of grape pomace into variety of sorghum-sudan grass as rapid fermentable carbohydrate source. Grape pomace obtained at the region was ensiled with sorghum- sudan grass grown at Keskin Fodder Plants Production and Processing Facility at same period at the levels of 0, 10, 20 and 40%. Glass jars (1L) were used for ensiling of silages. Four silage samples were prepared for each treatment groups. After 45 days of ensiling, silage samples were opened and pH, organic acid, nutrient contents, and in situ degradation levels were determined. Among silage fermentation parameters, pH and volatile fatty acid concentrations did not differ among silage prepared from different sorghum-sudan grass varieties (P>0.05), grape pomace significantly increased the pH of sorghum-sudan grass silages and decreased lactic acid concentrations of sorghum-sudan grass silages (P<0.05). Nutrient contents, except CP content, significantly differed between sorghum-sudan grass varieties, addition of grape pomace into sorghum-sudan grass significantly alter the nutrient contents of silages (P<0.05). While in situ OM, NDF and ADF degradabilities were similar between sorghum-sudan grass varieties, addition of grape pomace significantly decreased OM degradability in both sorghum-sudan grass varieties (P<0.05). In conclusion, addition of grape pomace into sorghum-sudan grass up to 40% had some negative effects on silage quality, but it was taught that grape pomace can be utilized as alternatve feedstuffs for ruminants by adding sorghum-sudan grass up to 20%.

Keywords

Silage, Sorghum-sudan grass, Grape pomace, In-situ degradation

References

• Akdeniz, H., Karslı, M. A., & Yılmaz, İ. (2005). Effects of harvesting different sorghum-sudan grass varieties as hay or silages on chemical composition and digestible dry matter yield. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 4(6), 610-614.
• Alçiçek, A., Kılıç, A., Ayhan, V., & Özdoğan, M. (2010). Türkiye’de kaba yem üretimi ve sorunları. Türkiye Ziraat Mühendisliği VII. Teknik Kongresi, 11(15), 1-10.
• AOAC. (1990). Association of Official Analitical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed. Washington, DC. 1, p: 69-79.
• Arslan, M., & Çakmakçı, S. (2011). Mısır (Zea mays) ve sorgumun (Sorghum bicolor) farklı bitkilerle birlikte yapılan silajlarının karşılaştırılmaları. Akdeniz Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(1), 47-53.
• Bingöl, N. T., Karslı, M. A., & Akça, İ. (2010). Yerelması (heliantus tuberosus l.) hasılına katılan melas ve formik asit katkısının silaj kalitesi ve sindirilebilirliği üzerine etkileri. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 21(1), 11-14.
• Canbolat, Ö. Kalkan, H., Karaman, Ş., & Filya, İ. (2010). Üzüm posasının yonca silajlarında karbonhidrat kaynağı olarak kullanılma olanakları. Kafkas Üniv. Vet. Fak. Derg. 16 (2): 269-276. DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2009.679
• Çetinkaya, N. (1992). Yem maddelerinin değerlendirilmesinde naylon torba metodunun kullanılması. Yem Magazin Dergisi, 1(4), 28-30.
• Çiğdem, İ., & Uzun, F. (2006). Samsun ili taban alanlarında ikinci ürün olarak yetiştirilebilecek bazı silajlık sorgum ve mısır çeşitleri üzerine bir araştırma. Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, 21(1), 14-19.
• Ensminger, M. E., Oldfield, J. E., & Heinemann, W. W. (1990). Feeds and Nutrition, 1286, Vol.2., The Ensminger Co, California.
• Ergün A., Tuncer, Ş. D., Çolpan, İ., Yalçın, S., Yıldız, G., Küçükersan, M. K., Küçükersan, S., Şehu, A., & Saçaklı, P. (2011). Yemler, Yem Hijyeni ve Teknolojileri, 4. baskı, Pozitif Yayınevi, Ankara, s: 3-5, 122, 155, 353, 359-360.
• Famuyiwa O., & Ough, C. S. (2015). Grape Pomace: Possibilities as Animal Feed. American Journal Enology and Viticulture, 33, 44-46, 1982. http://www.ajevonline.org/content/33/1/44.abstract; Date of acc.: 01.12.2015.
• FAOSTAT. (2011) http://faostat.fao.org. Date of acc.: 29.12.2016
• Filya I., (2003). The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri and Lactobacillus plantarum on the fermentation, aerobic stability, and ruminal degradability of low dry matter corn and sorghum silages. Journal of Dairy Science, 86, 3575-3581.
• Goering H. K., & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage Fiber Analyses. Apparatus,Rreagent, Procedures and Applications, USDA Agric. Handbook No. 379.
• Hoffman, P. C., Sievert, S. J., Shaver, R. D., Welch, D. A., & Combs, D. K. (1993). In situ dry matter, protein and fiber degradation of perennial forages. Journal of Dairy Science, 76(9), 2632-2643.
• Karadağ, Y., & Özkurt, M. (2014). İkinci ürün olarak yetiştirilebilecek silajlık sorgum (Sorghum Bicolor (L). Moench) çeşitlerinde farklı sıra aralıklarının verim ve kalite üzerine etkisi. Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2014(1), 19-24.
• Karsli, M. A., & Russell, J. R. (1998). The effects of maturity and frost killing of forages on degradation kinetics and escape protein concentration,” Beef Research Report, AS639, 82-89.
• Keskin, B., Yılmaz, İ. H., Karsli, M. A.& Nursoy, H. (2005). Effects of urea plus molasses supplementation to silages with different sorghum varieties harvested at the milk stage on the quality and ın vitro dry matter digestibility of silages. Turk Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science, 29, 1143-1147.
• Kılıç Ü., & Abdiwali, M. A. (2016). Alternatif kaba yem kaynağı olarak şarapçılık endüstrisi üzüm atıklarının in vitro gerçek sindirilebilirlikleri ve nispi yem değerlerinin belirlenmesi. Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(6), 895-901, DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2016.15617.
• Leventini M. W., Hunt, C. W., Roffler, R. E., & Casebolt, D. G. (1990). Effect of dietary level of barley-based supplements and ruminal buffer on digestion and growth by beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 68, 4334-4344.
• Ørskov E. R. (1985). Evaluation of crop residues and agroindustrial by-product using the nylon bag method. F.A.O. Animal Productions and Health Paper, 50: 153-161. Özdüven, M. L., Coşkuntuna, L., & Koç, F. (2005). Üzüm posası silajının fermantasyon ve yem değeri özelliklerinin saptanması. Trakya Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(1), 45-50.
• Polan C. E., Stieve, D., & Garret, J. C. (1998). Protein preservation and ruminal degradation of ensiled forage treated with heat, formic acid, ammonia or microbial inoculant. Journal of Dairy Science, 81, 765-776. Rotz C. A., & Muck, R. E. (1994). Changes in forage quality during harvest and storage. In: Fahey, G C., Jr. (Ed.) Forage Quality, Evaluation nd Utilization. American Society of Agronmy, Inc. Crop Science Society of America, Inc. Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, WI, pp:828-868.
• Salman, A., & Budak, B. (2015). Farklı sorgum x sudanotu melezi (sorghum bicolor x sorghum sudanense stapf.) çeşitlerinin ege sahil kuşağındaki verim ve verim özellikleri üzerine bir araştırma. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 93-100.
• Sarıçiçek B. Z. & Kılıç, Ü. (2002). Üzüm posasinin in situ rumen parçalanabilirliğinin belirlenmesi. Atatürk Üniv. Ziraat Fak. Derg. 33(3), 289-292.
• SAS, 1995: Statistical Analysis Software, Programme User Guide. Statistics (Version 5 Ed.), SAS Inst., Inc. Carry, NC. Steel, R. G. D., & Torries, J. H. (1980). Principles and Procedures of Statistic a Biomatereal Approach., McGrow-Hill. New York: USA.
• TÜİK. (2015) www.tuik.gov.tr ; Date of acc.: 29.12.2016
• Winkler A, Weber, F., Ringseis, R., Eder, K., & Dusel, G. (2015) Determination of polyphenol and crude nutrient content and nutrient digestibility of dried and ensiled white and red grape pomace cultivars. Archives of Animal Nutrition, 69(3), 187-200. DOI: 10.1080/1745039X.2015.1039751.