Effects of Harvesting Stages and Additives on the Chemical Composition, Fermentation Quality and Relative Feed Value of Soybean Silages Varieties

Year 2024, Volume: 30 Issue: 2, 325 - 335, 26.03.2024

Ahmet Korhan Şahar Sibel Erdoğan , Şeyda Zorer Çelebi

https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.1353454

Abstract

In this study, the chemical composition, silage fermentation quality and relative feed value of soybean silages varieties, namely Adasoy (A), Derry (D) and Yeşilsoy (Y), with Pioneer11C33 (I), molasses (M) and cracked wheat (W) additives at the three harvesting stages, i.e., full flowering (R2), full pod (R4) and full seed (R6) stages, were determined. It was observed that the A and D varieties were the best silage materials for the production of good quality silage in terms of both nutrient contents such as DM and CP and fermentation criteria such as LA and BA concentrations during the R4 and R6 harvest periods. Molasses and cracked wheat additives significantly improved the fermentation qualities of all soybean varieties (P<0.05), but the fermentation effect of the inoculant on silages was less than that of molasses and cracked wheat. The harvesting of soybean varieties in the full seed and applying molasses or cracked wheat as an additive optimally improves silage characteristics and results in well-preserved silage.

Keywords

Soybean, Lactic acid bacteria, Molasses, fermentation quality, Interactions

Supporting Institution

This study was supported by Van YYU Scientific Research Projects Deparment (2015-FBE-D218), and Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies (TAGEM/TBAD/15/A03/P01/014).

Project Number

2015-FBE-D218 and TAGEM/TBAD/15/A03/P01/014

Thanks

This paper is based a part of Ahmet Korhan Şahar's Ph.D dissertation. The authors gratefully acknowledge Van YYU Scientific Research Projects Deparment (2015-FBE-D218), and Republic of Turkey Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies (TAGEM/TBAD/15/A03/P01/014).

References

• AOAC (1990). Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Method of Analysis. 15th.ed., Washington DC, USA, 66-88.
• Asekowa S, Shannon J G & Lee J D (2014). The current status of forage soybean. Plant Breeding Biotechnology 2(4): 334-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.9787/PBB.2014.2.4.334
• Blount A R S, Wright D L, Sprenkel R K, Hewitt T D& Myer R O (2006). Forage soybeans for grazing, hay and silage. University of Florida, IFAS Extensión Bernardi A, Härter C J, Silva A W, Reis R A & Rabelo C H (2019).
• A meta-analysis examining lactic acid bacteria inoculants for maize silage: Effects on fermentation, aerobic stability, nutritive value and livestock production. Grass and Forage Science 74(4): 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12452
• Borreani G, Tabacco E & Cavallarin L (2007). A new oxygen barrier film reduces aerobic deterioration in farm-scale corn silage. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 4701–4706.https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0310
• Borreani G, Tabacco E, Schmidt RJ, Holmes B J & Muck R E (2018). Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages. Journal of Dairy Science101: 3952–3979. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13837
• Chang SR, Lu CH, Lur HS & Hsu FH (2012). Forage yield, chemical contents, and silage quality of manure soybean. Agronomy Journal 104(1): 130-136. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2011.0015
• Chen J, Stokes MR & Wallace CR (1994). Effects of enzyme-inoculant systems on preservation and nutritive value of hay crop and corn silages. Journal of Dairy Science 77(2): 501-512.
• https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)76978-2 Coffey K P, Granade G V, Moyer J L, Anderson D C & Bush L J (1995). Nutrient content of silages made from whole-plant soybeans. The Professional Animal Scientist 11(2): 74–80. doi:10.15232/s1080-7446(15)32559-6
• Garcia A (2020). Soybean silage as an alternative forage for dairy cows. Dellait Knowledge Center, Legumes https://dellait.com/soybean-silage-as-an-alternative-forage-for-dairy-cows
• Gülümser E, Mut H, Başaran U & Doğrusöz Çopur M (2021). M. An assessment of ensiling potential in maize x legume (soybean and cowpea) binary mixtures for yield and feeding quality. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 45:547–555. https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-2006-43
• Hartinger T, Gresner N & Südekum K H (2019). Effect of wilting intensity, dry matter content and sugar addition on nitrogen fractions in lucerne silages. Agriculture 9(1): 11-28. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9010011
• Hisham M B, Hashim A M, Mohd Hanafi N, Abdul Rahman N, Abdul Mutalib N E, Tan C K, Nazli M H& Mohd Yusoff N F (2022). Bacterial communities associated with silage of different forage crops in Malaysian climate analysed using 16S amplicon metagenomics. Scientific Reports 12(1):7107. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-08819-4
• Kızılşimşek M, Günaydın T, Aslan A, Keklik K & Açıkgöz H (2020). Improving silage feed quality of maize intercropped with some legumes. Turk Journal of Agric. and Natural Sci., 7(1): 165-169. https://doi.org/10.30910/turkjans.680048
• Kung Jr L (2009). Getting the most out of your silage. WCDS Advances in Dairy Technology 21: 349-357 Kung Jr L, Shaver R D, Grant R J& Schmidt R J (2018). Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. Journal of Dairy Science 101(5): 4020-4033. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13909
• Li M, Zi X, Zhou H, Lv R, Tang J & Cai Y (2021). Effect of lactic acid bacteria, molasses, and their combination on the fermentation quality and bacterial community of cassava foliage silage. Animal Science Journal 92(1):e13635. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13635
• Li J, Wen X, Yang J, Yang W, Xin Y, Zhang L, Liu H, He Y & Yan Y (2022). Effects of maize varieties on biomass yield and silage quality of maize–soybean intercropping in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. Fermentation 2022, 8, 542. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8100542
• Mahana B & Chase LE (2003). Practical application and solution to silage problems. In: Silage Science and Technology. Madison. Madison:ASCSSA-SSSA. pp.31-93
• Martin R C, Voldeng H D & Smith D L (1990). Intercropping corn and soybean for silage in a cool-temperate region: Yield, protein and economic effects. Field Crops Research 23:295–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(90)90061-F
• McAllister T A, Feniuk R, Mir Z, Mir P, Selinger L B & Cheng K J (1998). Inoculants for alfalfa silage: Effects on aerobic stability, digestibility and the growth performance of feedlot steers. Livestock Production Science 53(2): 171-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(97)00150-4
• Muck R E & Dickerson J T (1988). Storage temperature effects on proteolysis in alfalfa silage. Transactions of the ASAE 31:1005–1009. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.30813
• Pratap A, Gupta S K, Kumar J, Mehandi S& Pandey V R (2016). Soybean. Breeding Oilseed Crops for Sustainable Production 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801309-0.00012-4
• Rohweder D A, Barnes R F & Jorgensen N(1978). Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. Journal of Animal Science 47:747-759. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1978.473747x
• Rosa L O, Pereira O G, Ribeiro K G, Valadares Filho S C & Cecon P R (2018). Fermentation profile and microbial population in soybean silages with inoculant and powdered molasses Arquivo Brasileiro de Medicina Veterinaria e Zootecnia 70(5):1586-1594.https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4162-9500
• SAS (2020) Software: Hangen and enhanced, Version 9.4, SAS, Inst. Inc., Cary, N.C. USA.
• SOYSTATS(2022). World oilseed production. The American Soybean Association.Retrieved in May, 01, 2023 from https://soygrowers.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/22ASA-002-Soy-Stats-Final-WEB
• Spanghero M, Zanfi C, Signor M, Davanzo D, Volpe V & Venerus S (2015). Effects of plant vegetative stage and field drying time on chemical composition and in vitro ruminal degradation of forage soybean silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 200:102- 106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.11.006
• TÜİK (2021). Crop production statistics.. Turkish Statistical Institute; Retrieved in April, 10, 2022 from https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Bitkisel-Uretim-Istatistikleri-2021
• Van Soest P J, Robertson J B & Lewis B A (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74(10):3583-3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
• Vissers M M, Driehuis F, Te Giffel M C, De Jong P & Lankveld J M (2007). Concentrations of butyric acid bacteria spores in silage and relationships with aerobic deterioration. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 928–936. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)71576-X
• Wang Y, Wu J, Lv M, Shao Z, Hungwe M, Wang J, Bai X, Xie J, Wang Y & Geng W (2021). Metabolism characteristics of lactic acid bacteria and the expanding applications in food industry. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology 12(9):612285. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.612285
• Xia C, Liang Y, Bai S, He Y, Muhammad AUR, Su H & Cao B (2018). Effects of harvest time and added molasses on nutritional content, ensiling characteristics and in vitro degradation of whole crop wheat. Asian-Austral. Journal of Animal Science 31(3):354-362.https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0542
• Zambom M A, Alcalde C R, Kazama D C S, Martins E N, Hashimoto J H, Matsushita M, Ramos CECO & Grande P A (2012). Soybean hulls replacing ground corn in diets for early lactation Saanen goats: intake, digestibility, milk production and quality. Revista Brasileira de Zootechnia 41(6): 1525-1532. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982012000600029