The Effect of Ensiling of Headless Confectionary Sunflower Crop Mixed with Various Additives on Silage Quality, In-Vitro Digestibility, and Energy Content

The original article was published on March 29, 2024. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/vanvetj/article/1361838

Erratum Note

The financial support institution information that should have been stated in the “ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND INFORMATION” section of the article published in our journal was inadvertently omitted. The correct statement should be as follows: “This research was supported by the Scientific Research Projects Coordination Office of Van Yüzüncü Yıl University as project number “FBA-2022-9810”. We apologize to our readers and the relevant institution for this error.

Abstract

The aim of the study was to investigate silage quality, in vitro digestibility, and energy content of headless confectionary sunflower (HCS) ensiled with different additives. HCS was shredded as silage material and mixed with 5% molasses or 4% crushed barley, and these groups were supplemented with 0 or 5 g/ton bacterial inoculant+enzyme mixture (BI+E). Thus, 6 groups were ensiled in 1-liter glass jars in 5 replicates. At the end of the 70-day incubation period, pH values, NH3-N, and VFA concentrations of silage liquids were measured. Crude nutrient analysis, in vitro digestibility, energy content, and Fleig scores of silage specimens were determined. As a result, considering the analysis values of the silages, quality silages were obtained from molasses, barley and BI+E mixtures and the additives used increased the silage quality. Especially, the silage supplemented with 4% barley and 5 g/ton BI+E had better results than the other silage groups regarding DM, LA, pH, Fleig score, DMD, OMD, DE, ME, and NEL values. Similar results were achieved in the group, where only 5% molasses was added to the sunflower crop. Furthermore, the addition of bacterial inoculant also positively improved the silage quality.

Keywords

• Digestion
• Energy
• In-vitro
• Quality
• Silage
• Sunflower

Tablası Alınmış Çerezlik Ayçiçek Hasılını Farklı Katkılarla Silolamanın Silaj Kalitesi, In-Vitro Sindirilebilirlikleri ve Enerji İçeriğine Etkisi

The original article was published on March 29, 2024. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/vanvetj/article/1361838

Erratum Note

Dergimizde yayımlanmış olan söz konusu makalenin “TEŞEKKÜR VE BİLGİLENDİRME” bölümünde belirtilmesi gereken mali destek kurum bilgisi sehven yazılmamıştır. Doğru ifade aşağıdaki şekilde olmalıdır: “Bu araştırma Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğü tarafından “FBA-2022-9810” numaralı proje olarak desteklenmiştir.” Bu hata için okuyucularımızdan ve ilgili kurumdan özür dileriz.

Abstract

Bu çalışma, tablası alınmış çerezlik ayçiçeği hasılının (TAÇAH) farklı katkılarla silolanmasının, silaj kalitesi, in-vitro sindirilebilirlik ve enerji içeriklerinin belirlenmesi amacıyla yürütülmüştür. TAÇAH silajlık materyal olarak parçalanarak, %5 melas ya da %4 arpa kırığı ile karıştırılmış ve bu gruplara 0 ya da 5 g/ton bakteriyel inokulant+enzim karışımı (Bİ+E) ilave edilmiştir. Böylece oluşturulan 6 grup 5’er tekerrür şeklinde 1 litrelik cam kavanozlara silolanmıştır. 70 günlük inkubasyon süresi sonunda silaj sıvılarının pH değerleri, NH3-N ve UYA konsantrasyonları belirlenmiştir. Silaj örneklerinde ham besin madde analizleri, in-vitro sindirilebilirlikleri ve enerji içerikleri ile silajların Fleig puanları belirlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak silajların analiz değerleri dikkate alındığında, melas, arpa ve Bİ+E karışımlarından kaliteli silajlar elde edilmiş ve kullanılan katkılar silaj kalitesini arttırmıştır. Özellikle, %4 arpa ve 5 g/ton Bİ+E ilavesiyle hazırlanan silaj KM, LA, pH, Fleig puanı, KMS, OMS, SE, ME ve NEL değerleri açısından, diğer silaj gruplarına nazaran daha iyi sonuç vermiştir. Ayçiçeği hasılına sadece %5 melasın ilave edildiği gruptan da benzer sonuçlar elde edilmiştir. Ayrıca, bakteriyel inokulant katkısı da silaj kalitesini olumlu yönde etkilemiştir.

Keywords

• Ayçiçeği
• Enerji
• In-vitro
• Kalite
• Sindirim
• Silaj

References

1. Amini-jabalkandi J, Pirmohammadi R, Razzagzadeh S (2007). Effects of different levels of sunflower residue silage replacement with alfalfa hay on Azari male buffalo calves fattening performance. Ital J Anim Sc, 6 (2), 495-498.
2. Ankom (2002). Operator’s Manual ANKOM ll 200/220 Fiber Analyzer. ANKOM Technology Corp, 2052 O’Neil Rd, Macedon NY 14502 Erişim tarihi: 28.10.2023 Erişim adresi: https://www.ankom.com/sites/default/files/document-files/A200_Manual.pdf.
3. Ankom (2023). ANKOM Technology Method Analytical Procedure XT10/XT10i/XT15/XT15i Erişim tarihi: 13.12.2023 Erişim adresi: https://www.ankom.com/sites/default/files/document-files/XT15_Manual.pdf.
4. AOAC (1990). Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis. Vol.1. 15th ed. AOAC, Arlington, VA.
5. Ayaşan T, Karakozak M (2012). İnokulant kullanımının değişik yem bitkilerinden oluşan silajlarda ham besin maddeleri ile kalite üzerine etkisi. F U Vet J Health Sci, 26 (2), 93-98.
6. Baytok E, Aksu T, Karslı MA, Muruz H (2005). The effects of formic acid, molasses and inoculant as silage additives on corn silage composition and ruminal fermentation characteristics in sheep. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 29 (2), 469-474.
7. Denek N, Can A, Tüfenk Ş (2004). Mısır, sorgum ve ayçiçeği hasıllarına değişik katkı maddeleri katılmasının silaj kalitesi ve in vitro kuru madde sindirimine etkisi. J Agric Fac HR U, 8 (2), 1-10.
8. Erdoğan S, Demirel M (2016). Conservation characteristics and nutritive value of sunflower silages as affected by the maturity stages and fibrolytic enzymes. Turkish JAF Sci Tech, 4 (6), 464-469.

9. Gholami-Yangije A, Pirmohammadi R, Khalilvandi-Behroozyar H (2019). The potential of sunflower (Helianthus annuus) residues silage as a forage source in Mohabadi dairy goats. Veterinary Research Forum, 10 (1), 59-65.
10. Goering MK, Van Soest PJ (1970). Forage fibre analysis. Agricultural Handbook, No.379. Agric. Res., U.S. Dep. Agric.
11. Ishler V, Heinrichs J, Varga G (2000). From feed to milk: Understanding rumen function. Penn State Uni. College of Agricultural Sci. Extension Circular 422. USA.
12. Kara B, Yıldız F, Özkul J (2013). Sebze olarak tüketilen bazı bitki hasat artıklarının silaj olarak değerlendirilme olanakları. SDÜ Fen Bil Enst Der, 17 (1), 76-80.
13. Karadağoğlu, Ö, Özdüven ML (2019). Effects of fermentation characteristics and feed value of some triticale cultivars ensiled at different stages of maturity. J of Turkish Vet Med Soc, 90 (2), 132-142.
14. Karakozak M, Aşayan T (2010). Effect of inoculant in silages in which different forage crops and their mixtures on Fleig point and crude nutrient content. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 16 (6), 987-994.
15. Kaya Y (2023). Türkiye'deki çerezlik ayçiçeği ve tohumculuğu. Erişim tarihi: 28.02.2023 Erişim adresi: https://arastirma.tarimorman.gov.tr/ttae/Sayfalar/Detay.aspx?SayfaId=52.
16. Kılıç A (1986). Silo Yemi. (Öğretim, Öğrenim ve Uygulama Önerileri), Ege Üniv. Ziraat Fak.Zootekni Bölümü, Bilgehan Basımevi, Bornova-İzmir, 327.
17. Koç F, Özdüven ML, Coşkuntuna L, Polat C (2009). The effects of inoculant lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation and aerobic stability of sunflower silage. Poljoprivreda, 15 (2), 47-52.
18. Konca (2015). Kaba yem üretiminde yeni alternatifler: Çerezlik kabak ve ayçiçeği artıklarından silaj yaparak yararlanma olanakları. Erişim tarihi: 28.02.2023 Erişim adresi: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284341100_Kaba_Yem_Uretiminde_Yeni_Alternatifler_Cerezlik_Kabak_Ve_Aycicegi_Artiklarindan_Silaj_Yaparak_Yararlanma_Olanaklari.
19. Konca Y, Beyzi SB, Kaliber M, Ülger İ (2015). Chemical and nutritional changes in sunflower silage associated with molasses, lactic acid bacteria and enzyme supplementation. Harran J Agri and Food Sci, 19 (4), 223-231.
20. Kung Jr L (2014). A review on silage additives and enzymes. Department of Animal and Food Sciences University of Delaware Newark, DE 19717-1303. Erişim tarihi: 28.02.2023 Erişim adresi: https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.cornell.edu /dist/e/4211/files/2014/04/A-Review-of-Silage-Additives-1dj7idb.pdf.
21. Laloğlu M (2015). Determination of Quality Features of Sunflower Silage Ensiled Different Additives. Erciyes University, Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Animal Nutrition and Nutritional Diseases, Master Thesis, May 2015, Kayseri.
22. Markham P (1942). A steam distilation apparatus suitable for micro-kjeldahl analyses. Journal Biochemistry, 36, 790-797.
23. Meeske R (2005). Silage additives: Do they make a difference? SA-ANIM SCI, vol 6: Erişim tarihi: 28.02.2023 Erişim adresi: http://www.sasas.co.za/ Popular/Popular.html 49.
24. Meral UB (2019). An overview of importance and production of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.,). Int J Life Sci Biotechnol, 2 (2), 58-71.
25. NRC (National Research Council) (2001). Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. 7th revised edn. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
26. Ozduven ML, Koc F, Polat C, Coskuntuna L (2009). The effects of lactic acid bacteria and enzyme mixture inoculants on fermentation and nutrient digestibility of sunflower silage. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 15 (2), 195-199.
27. Özdüven ML, Tepeli C, Okuyucu B (2017). The Effects of Lactic Acid Bacterial Inoculants on the Fermentation and Aerobic Stability of Sunflower Silages. J Tekirdag Agric Fac, 14 (02), 9-15.
28. Polan CE, Starling TM, Huber JT, Miller CN, Sandy RA (1968). Yields, composition and nutritive evaluation of barley silage at three stages of maturity for lactating cows. J Dairy Sci, 51, 1801-1805.
29. SPSS IBM SPSS statistics version 13.0 for Windows. New York: IBM Corp.
30. Suzuki M, Lund CW (1980). Improved gas-liquid chromatography for simultaneous determination of volatile fatty acids and lactic acid in silage. J Agric and Food Chem, 28, 1040-1041.
31. Tepeli C (2014). The Effects of Lactic Acid Bacterial Inoculants on the Fermentation, Aerobic Stability and In Vitro Organic Matter Digestibility of Sunflower Silages. Namık Kemal University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Main Science Division of Animal Science. MSc. Thesis Tekirdağ-2014.
32. Tüfekçi Ş (2023). Ayçiçeği (Helianthus annuus L.) Bitkisi. Erişim tarihi: 13.11.2023 Erişim adresi: https://docplayer.biz.tr/192125806-Aycicegi-helianthus-annuus-l-bitkisi.html.
33. TÜİK (2022). Bitkisel üretim istatistikleri. Erişim tarihi: 28.02.2023 Erişim adresi: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p= Bitkisel-Uretim-Istatistikleri-2022-45504.
34. Yıldız S, Erdoğan S (2018). Quality traits of the nutrient matter compositions and yield parameters of planted silage corn (Zea mays L.) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) at conditions of Van. Turk J Agric Res, 5 (3), 280-285.
35. Yıldız S (2017). The Effect of Using Sunflower Silage Instead of Corn Silage in the Diets of Saanen X Hair Goat Crossbred (F1) Goats on Rumen and Blood Parameters, Milk Yield and Composition. Yüzüncü Yıl University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Department of Animal Science, PhD Thesis. Van, 2017.
36. Yıldız S, Deniz S, Özkan F, Kale Ç (2022a). Forage turnip (Brassica rapa) harvested in different phases of vegetative stage andensiled with the additives of molasses and barley and the effects of additives on silage quality, in vitro digestibility, and energy content. Turk J of Vet and Anim Sci, 46 (3), 475-482.
37. Yıldız S, Deniz S, Kızılırmak F, Altaçlı S (2022b). The effects of making silage at different ratios of sunflower and sugar beet on silage quality, in-vitro digestibility and energy content. J of the Inst of Sci and Tech, 12 (2), 1154-1162.