The impact of molasses and inoculant on the silage quality of triticale and forage pea mixtures at different ratios

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of inoculant and molasses additives on the fermentation quality, nutrient content and digestibility of silages prepared with varying percentage proportions of triticale and forage pea. In the study, triticale mixtures with 20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% forage pea were utilized, and silage materials were prepared by adding molasses and inoculant to these mixtures. This procedure was repeated to create a total of 48 groups. These groups consisted of a control group, a group treated with 5% molasses, and a group treated with 10 g/t inoculant (1.25 × 10¹¹ CFU/g). In line with practical agronomic conditions, pure stands were not evaluated, as mixtures are generally more relevant for field applications. The findings demonstrate that an increase in the ratio of forage pea resulted in enhanced lactic acid production and notable improvements in digestibility and metabolic energy values. Among the silage mixtures, the highest digestibility and energy values were observed in those containing 80% forage pea. The molasses additive demonstrated more pronounced effects on digestibility and energy values than the inoculant. However, high pea ratios (60% and 80%) resulted in unfavorable outcomes for certain fermentation parameters, particularly in terms of the FLIEG values. The findings of the study elucidate the impact of molasses and inoculant additives on the quality of silages prepared with varying proportions of triticale and forage pea mixtures.

Keywords

• Forage pea
• inoculant
• molasses
• silage quality
• triticale

References

1. Addah W, Baah J, Okine EK, et al (2012): Use of thermal imaging and the in-situ technique to assess the impact of an inoculant with feruloyl esterase activity on the aerobic stability and digestibility of barley silage. Can J Anim Sci, 92, 381-394.
2. Adesokan IA, Odetoyinbo BB, Okanlawon BM (2009): Optimization of lactic acid production by lactic acid bacteria isolated from some traditional fermented food in Nigeria. Pak J Nutr, 8, 611-615.
3. AOAC (2005): Official Methods of Analysis. 18th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Maryland, USA.
4. Barnett AJ (1951): The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in silage. Biochem J, 49, 527-529.
5. Baron VS, Juskiw PE, Aljarrah M (2015): Triticale as a Forage. In Triticale (pp. 189-212). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
6. Borreani G, Cavallarin L, Antoniazzi S, et al (2006): Effect of the stage of growth, wilting and inoculation in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) silages. I. Herbage composition and silage fermentation. J Sci Food Agric, 86, 1377-1382.
7. Borreani G, Tabacco E, Schmidt RJ, et al (2018): Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages. J Dairy Sci, 101, 3952–3979.
8. Can M, Kaymak G, Gülümser E, et al (2019): Orman üçgülü yulaf karışımlarının silaj kalitesinin belirlenmesi. OMUANAJAS, 34, 371-376.

9. Canbolat Ö, Akbay KC, Kamalak A (2019): Yem bezelyesi silajlarında karbonhidrat kaynağı olarak melas kullanılma olanakları. KSU Tar Doga Derg, 22, 122-130.
10. Chen L, Bai S, You M, et al (2020): Effect of a low temperature tolerant lactic acid bacteria inoculant on the fermentation quality and bacterial community of oat round bale silage. Anim Feed Sci Technol, 269, 114669.
11. Copani G, Niderkorn V, Anglard F, et al (2016): Silages containing bioactive forage legumes: a promising protein‐rich feed source for growing lambs. Grass and Forage Sci, 71, 622-631.
12. Fraser MD, Fychan R, Jones R (2001): The effect of harvest date and inoculation on the yield, fermentation characteristics and feeding value of forage pea and field bean silages. Grass Forage Sci, 56, 218-230.
13. Goering HK, Van Soest PJ (1970): Forage Fibre Analyses. Apparatus, Reagent, Procedures and Applications, USDA Agricultural Handbook No: 379.
14. IBM Corp (2020): IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp, 2020.
15. Jacobs JL, Ward GN (2013): Effect of cereal and pea monocultures and combinations and silage additives on whole-crop cereal silage nutritive and fermentation characteristics. Animal Prod Sci, 53, 427-436.
16. Jones BA, Satter LD, Muck RE (1992): Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents. Grass Forage Sci, 47, 19-27.
17. Jung JS, Ravindran B, Soundharrajan I, et al (2022): Improved performance and microbial community dynamics in aerobic fermentation of triticale silages at different stages. Bioresource Tech, 345, 126485.
18. Kallida R, Benbrahim N, Gaboun F, et al (2022): Forage yield and quality of vetch-triticale and pea-triticale mixtures under Moroccan conditions. Acta Fytotechn Zootechn, 25, 294-302.
19. Kim DH, Lee KD, Choi KC (2021): Role of LAB in silage fermentation: Effect on nutritional quality and organic acid production-An overview. AIMS Agriculture & Food, 1216, 216-234.
20. Koc F, Levent Ozduven M, Coskuntuna L, et al (2009): The effects of inoculant lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation and aerobic stability of sunflower silage. Poljoprivreda, 15, 47-52.
21. Kung Jr L, Shaver RD, Grant RJ, et al (2018): Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. J Dairy Sci, 101, 4020-4033.
22. Marten GC, Barnes RF (1979): Prediction of Energy Digestibility of Forages with in Vitro Rumen Fermentation and Fungal Enzyme Systems. In: WJ Pigden, CC Balch, and M Graham (Eds): Proc. Int. Workshop on Standardization of Analytical Methodology for Feeds, International Development Research Center, Ottawa, Canada.
23. McDonald P, Henderson AR, Heron SJE (1991): The Biochemistry of Silage. Chalcombe Publications, Chalcombe, Marlow, UK.
24. Miller MD, Kokko C, Ballard CS, et al (2021): Influence of fiber degradability of corn silage in diets with lower and higher fiber content on lactational performance, nutrient digestibility, and ruminal characteristics in lactating Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci, 104, 1728-1743.
25. Mirza A, Çopur Doğrusöz M (2024): Silage yield and quality of forage peas and Hungarian vetch and triticale binary mixtures. SJAFS, 38, 434–444.
26. Muck RE (2013): Recent advances in silage microbiology. Agr Food Sci, 22, 3-15.
27. Muck RE, Nadeau EMG, McAllister TA, et al (2018): Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives. J Dairy Sci, 101, 3980-4000.
28. Murray MH, Kephart KD, Eckert JW (1990): Spring‑Planted Pea and Triticale Production in Northern Idaho. Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 713. University of Idaho, College of Agriculture.
29. Mustafa AF, Seguin P, Ouellet DR, et al (2002): Effects of cultivars on ensiling characteristics, chemical composition, and ruminal degradability of pea silage. J Dairy Sci, 85, 3411-3419.
30. Öten M, Köse M (2024): Determination of the effects on silage quality of different additives added to vetch-triticale silage mixture. TURKJRFS, 5, 1-11.
31. Pursiainen P, Tuori M (2008): Effect of ensiling field bean, field pea and common vetch in different proportions with whole‐crop wheat using formic acid or an inoculant on fermentation characteristics. Grass Forage Sci, 63, 60-78.
32. Ran Q, Guan H, Li H, et al (2022): Effect of formic acid and inoculants on microbial community and fermentation profile of wilted or un-wilted Italian ryegrass silages during ensiling and aerobic exposure. Fermentation, 8, 755.
33. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2023): Available at: https://www.tarimorman. gov.tr/Sayfalar/EN/AnaSayfa.aspx (Accessed: January 18, 2023).
34. Rondahl T, Bertilsson J, Martinsson K (2011): Effects of maturity stage, wilting and acid treatment on crude protein fractions and chemical composition of whole crop pea silages (Pisum sativum L.). Anim Feed Sci Tech, 163, 11-19.
35. Schultz ME (2023): Effects of maturity at harvest of triticale and dietary forage inclusion on production performance, nutrient utilization, and milk fatty acid profile of lactating dairy cows Master’s thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA.
36. Seydoşoğlu S (2019): Farklı oranlarda karıştırılan yem bezelyesi (Pisum sativum L.) ve arpa (Hordeum vulgare L.) hâsıllarının silaj ve yem kalitesine etkisi. J Agric Fac Ege Univ, 56, 297-302.
37. Şen G, Erol T, Kara K, et al (2022): The effect of microbial inoculants and molasses on quality and in vitro digestibility of silages prepared with different proportions of ryegrass and Hungarian vetch. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 46, 629-637.
38. Tekin M, Kara K (2020): The forage quality and the in vitro ruminal digestibility, gas production, organic acids, and some estimated digestion parameters of tomato herbage silage with molasses and barley. Turk J Vet Anim Sci, 44, 201-213.
39. Tilley JM, Terry RA (1963): A two-stage technique for in vitro digestion of forage. Grass Forage Sci, 18, 104-111.
40. Turkish Statistical Institute (2022): Available at: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Hayvansal-%C3%9Cretim-%C4%B0statistikleri-Haziran-2022-45594&dil=1 (Accessed January 18, 2023).
41. Udén P, Robinson PH, Wiseman J (2005): Use of detergent system terminology and criteria for submission of manuscripts on new, or revised, analytical methods as well as descriptive information on feed analysis and/or variability. Anim Feed Sci Technol, 118, 181-186.
42. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB (1979): Systems of Analyses for Evaluation of Fibrous Feed. In: WJ Pigden, CC Balch, and M Graham (Eds): Proc. Int. Workshop on Standardization of Analytical Methodology for Feeds, International Development Research Center, Ottawa, Canada.
43. Wang Z, Huang J, Ma S, et al (2021): Novel heating technologies to improve fermentation efficiency and quality in wheat products: A short review. Grain & Oil Sci Tech, 4, 81-87.
44. Weinberg ZG, Ashbell G, Azrieli A, et al (1993): Ensiling peas, ryegrass and wheat with additives of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and cell wall degrading enzymes. Grass Forage Sci, 48, 70-78.
45. Weiss WP, Conrad HR, St Pierre NR (1992): A theoretically based model for predicting total digestible nutrient values of forages and concentrates. Anim Feed Sci Tech, 39, 95-110.
46. Xue Z, Wang Y, Yang H, et al (2020): Silage fermentation and in vitro degradation characteristics of orchardgrass and alfalfa intercrop mixtures as influenced by forage ratios and nitrogen fertilizing levels. Sustainability, 12, 871.
47. Yan Y, Li X, Guan H, et al (2019): Microbial community and fermentation characteristics of Italian ryegrass silage prepared with corn stover and lactic acid bacteria. Bioresour Technol, 279, 166-173.