Soybean silage and sugarcane tops silage on lamb performance

Lima, Josiane Aparecida de; Gavioli, Ivana Licia de Campos; Barbosa, Cristina Maria Pacheco; Berndt, A.; Gimenes, Flávia Maria de Andrade; Paz, Cláudia Cristina Paro de; Cunha, Eduardo Antonio da

doi:10.1590/s0103-84782013005000098

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the present study agrees with that of Zhang et al (2013), who reported reduced CP content with LD inoculation in Urtica cannabina silage. Other studies (Mustafa & Seguin, 2003;Lima et al, 2013;Touno et al, 2014) have recorded CP values in soybean silage that are higher than in the soybean silage of the present study, which might be attributed to the different soybean forage cultivars used amongst these studies. Inoculation did not affect EE contents in soybean silages of the present study (Table 3).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 63%

“…This might be because of higher EE content in the Pannar cultivar before ensiling. The EE content in the Pannar soybean silage was higher than 42 g EE/kg DM reported in the literature (Tobia et al, 2008;Dias et al 2010;Lima et al, 2013). The relatively high EE content of soybean silage is an important feed parameter since it represents a high energy contribution to balanced animal feeds.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of bacterial inoculation on the fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of ensiled whole plant soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr.)

Nkosi¹,

Meeske²,

Langa³

et al. 2016

SA J. An. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of bacterial inoculation on the fermentation and aerobic stability of two ensiled whole plant soybean (WPSB) cultivars was determined in a 2 x 2 factorial design. Two WPSB cultivars, Link LF6466 and Pannar 522 RR, were harvested at their R6 growth stage, chopped to 25 mm and ensiled in 1.5 L anaerobic jars. The chopped forages were treated with or without the bacterial inoculant Lalsil Dry (LD) and treatments were as follows: i) Pan control (soybean cv Pannar 522 RR with no additive); ii) Link control (soybean cv Link LF 6466 with no additive); iii) Pan LD (soybean cv Pannar 522 RR treated with LD); and iv) Link LD (soybean cv Link LF 6466 treated with LD). Jars were opened on days 3, 7, 10, 21 and 90 to determine pH. Samples of day 0 and day 90 were used to determine chemical composition and fermentation characteristics. In addition, samples of day 90 were subjected to an aerobic stability test in which they were exposed to air for five days, and CO 2 , pH, hours for temperature to rise above 2 ºC, yeasts and moulds were determined. Pannar cultivar had higher contents of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), gross energy (GE) and ether extract (EE) compared with the Link cultivar at pre-ensiling. However, Link cultivar had higher content of water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC) compared with Pannar. Inoculation with LD reduced silage DM, CP and fibre contents, and increased silage pH compared with the control. Inoculation increased silage acetic and propionic acids, but had a lower content of lactic acid (LA) and DM recovery compared with the control. When compared with the control, silage aerobic stability was improved with LD inoculation, as indicated by reduced CO 2 production, and yeast and mould populations, and increased number of hours for stability after aerobic exposure. It was concluded that LD inoculant reduced silage fermentation and preservation, but improved aerobic stability of silage. Further work is needed to determine the effects of soybean silage on growth performance and production response of ruminants. ______________________________________________________________________________________

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 63%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Effects of bacterial inoculation on the fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of ensiled whole plant soybeans (Glycine max (L.) Merr.)

Nkosi¹,

Meeske²,

Langa³

et al. 2016

SA J. An. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evangelista et al (1991) examined the weight gain of steers fed diets containing soybean silage and registered that silage from corn-soybean intercropping (435 g animal day ). Lima et al (2013) evaluated the replacement of concentrate with soybean silage in diets with sugarcane silage for lambs and reported no differences in daily weight gain and feed conversion, with average values of 7.9 and 6.2 kg animal day -1 , respectively. Moreover, Souza et al (2014) studied the performance of beef cattle on diets with increasing levels of Stylosanthes cv.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…inoculants are an option for improving fermentation profile and reducing losses during the fermentation process (Lima et al, 2013;Yokota et al, 1992). However, the effect of additives on animal performance has not been evidenced (Zopollatto et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Soybean silage in the diet for beef cattle

Rigueira

Pereira

Filho

et al. 2015

Acta Sci. Anim. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. This experiment evaluated the effect of molasses with or without microbial additive on soybean silage regarding the intake, digestibility and growth performance of beef cattle. The experimental design used was randomized blocks with four treatments (diets with soybean silage (SS), SS with microbial inoculant, SS with molasses and SS with microbial inoculant and molasses) and seven replications. Animal were feedlot fed for 99 days. Diets contained forage: concentrate ratio of 70:30, the forage consisted of 40% soybean silage and 30% corn silage. There was lower intake of nutrients in the diet containing SS in relation to the SS diet added with inoculant and molasses. The diet containing SS with inoculant and molasses presented higher apparent digestibility for DM, CP, NDF, ADF, and NFC. Feed conversion, average daily gain and carcass gain were not influenced by the diets, with mean values of 5.90; 1.49 and 0,91 kg dayrespectively. The addition of molasses combined or not with bacterial inoculant to soybean at the time of ensiling has no effect on the performance of beef cattle, although favoring the intake and digestibility of nutrients.Keywords: digestibility, feedlot, intake, microbial inoculant, molasses.Silagem de soja na dieta de bovino de corte RESUMO. Objetivou-se avaliar o efeito de melaço e ou aditivo microbiano na ensilagem de soja sobre o consumo, digestibilidade dos nutrientes e desempenho produtivo de bovinos de corte. O delineamento experimental utilizado foi o em blocos casualizados com quatro tratamentos (dietas com silagem de soja (SS), SS com inoculante microbiano, SS com melaço e SS com inoculante microbiano e melaço) e sete repetições. Os animais foram confinados por um período de 99 dias. As dietas continham relação volumoso:concentrado de 70:30, sendo o volumoso 40% de silagem de soja e 30% de silagem de milho. Observou-se menor consumo de nutrientes na dieta contendo SS em relação à dieta SS com inoculante e melaço. Na dieta contendo SS com inoculante e melaço, foram observadas maiores digestibilidades aparentes para MS, PB, FDN, FDA e CNF. A conversão alimentar, o ganho médio diário e o ganho de carcaça não foram influenciados pelas dietas, registrando-se valores médios de 5,90; 1,49 e 0,91 kg dia -1 , respectivamente. Conclui-se, que a adição de melaço na presença ou não de inoculante bacteriano à soja por ocasião da ensilagem, não afeta o desempenho de bovinos de corte, embora favoreça o consumo e a digestibilidade de nutrientes.Palavras-chave: digestibilidade, consumo, confinamento, aditivo microbiano, melaço.

show abstract

“…Grazing of mature, standing sugarcane in commercial animal production systems is recommended only in an emergency (Pate et al 2002). Despite these issues, sugarcane tops and trash can be an effective source of roughage if supplemented with nitrogen (either as protein or as urea) (Pate et al 2002, Galina et al 2004, 2007, Karbhari et al 2007, Ortiz-Rubio et al 2008) and other nutrients (Gendley et al 2003, Sharma et al 2007, and are routinely used in both subsistence and commercial agriculture in Asia (Reddy and Prasad 1982a,b, Chen et al 1983, Baconawa 1986, Reddy et al 1992, Yuangklang et al 2005, Africa (Grieve 1976, Mahala et al 2013, South America (Thiago et al 1986, Bravo et al 1996, de Lima et al 2014, Oliveira and Millen 2014, and North America (Pate et al 2002).…”

Section: Tops and Trashmentioning

confidence: 99%