DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of supplementation of hairy vetch on the quality of whole crop barley silage

헤어리베치의 첨가가 맥류 사일리지의 품질에 미치는 영향

Jang, Won-Sup;Yang, Byung-Mo;Heo, Jung-Min;Lee, Hyung-Suk;Lee, Soo-Kee
장원섭;양병모;허정민;이형석;이수기

  • Received : 2015.10.14
  • Accepted : 2015.12.14
  • Published : 2015.12.31

Abstract

This study was conducted to investigate the effects of hairy vetch supplementation on quality of winter crop silage. There were 4 treatments (addition levels of hairy vetch ; 0, 5, 15, and 30%) with 3 replicates. Experimental silages stored for 40 days at room temperature ($20-25^{\circ}C$). THe silage crude protein level was improved (P<0.05) while hairy vetch supplementation increased. However, no difference was found (P>0.05) in crude fat, NDF and ADF of the silage while hairy vetch supplementation increased. The silage pH was increased (P<0.05) but lactic acid level was decreased (P<0.05) while hairy vetch supplementation increased. Nonetheless, acetic and butyric acids concentrations were increased (P<0.05) while hairy vetch supplementation increased. Sucrose, glucose and fructose levels were increased (P<0.05) while hairy vetch supplementation increased. Although negative effects were detected in whole crop barley silage while hairy vetch supplementation increased, optimum level of hairy vetch supplementation could be overwhelmed its negative effects on whole crop barley silage. Thus, the results of present study suggested that 15% hairy vetch supplementation of whole crop barley silage would be beneficial its quality maintenance compared to whole crop barley silage per se.

Keywords

Crude protein;Hairy vetch;Whole crop barely silage;Organic acids

References

  1. Ahmed S, Rao M. 1982. Performance of maize-soybean intercrop combination in the tropics : results of a multi-location study. Field Crops Res. 5:147-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(82)90015-6
  2. Albrecht KA, Beauchemin KA. 2003. Alfalfa and other perennial legume silage. In Buxton DR et al. (ed.) Silage science and technology. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI. 633-664.
  3. Armstrong KL, Albrecht KA, Lauer JG, Riday H. 2008. Intercropping corn with lablab bean, velvet bean, and scarlet runner bean for forage. J. Crop Sci. 48:371-378. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2007.04.0244
  4. Anil L, Park J, Philips RH. 2000. The potential of forage-maize intercrops in ruminant nutrition. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 86:157-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(00)00176-0
  5. AOAC. 1995. Official Method of Analysis. (16th ed.) Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington. D. C., USA.
  6. Carruthers K, Prithivira B. FE, Cloutier D, Martin RC, Smith DL. 2000. Intercropping of corn with soybean, lupin and forages: Silage yield and quality. J. Agronomy and Crop Science. 185:177-185. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-037x.2000.00421.x
  7. Contreras-Govea FE, Muck RE, Armstrong KL, Albrecht KA 2009. Nutritive value of corn silage in mixture with climbing beans. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 150:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2008.07.001
  8. Darby HM, Lauer JG. 2002. Planting date and hybrid influence on corn forage yield and quality. Agron. J. 94:281-289. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2002.0281
  9. Duncan DB. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11:1-42. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001478
  10. Goering HK, Van Soest PJ. 1970. Forage fiber analysis. ARS, USDA Agric. Handbook.
  11. Kung L JR, Stokes MR, Lin CJ. 2003. Silage additives. In:Buxton DR, Harrison JH, Muck RE(Eds.), Silage science and Technology. Argon. Monogr. 42. ASA. CSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 305-360.
  12. Martin RC, Voldeng HC Smith DL. 1990. Intercropping corn and soybean in a cool temperate region: Yield, protein and economic benefits. Field Crops Res. 23:295-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(90)90061-F
  13. McDonald P. 1981. The biochemistry of silage. A Wiley-Interscience Publication. pp. 148-152.
  14. Muck RE, Moser LE, Pitt RE. 2003. Postharvest factors affecting ensiling. In: Buxton DR, Muck RE, Harrison JH. (Eds), Silage Science and Technology. Agron. Monogr. 42. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 251-304.
  15. Mustafa AF, Seguin P. 2003. Characteristics and in situ degradability of whole crop faba bean, pea, and soybean silages. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 83(4):793-799. https://doi.org/10.4141/A03-065
  16. National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient Requirements Dairy Cattle, 7th Rev. ed. Natl Acad. Sci., Washington, D.C.
  17. Ofori F, Stern WR. 1987. Cereal-legume intercropping systems. Adv. Agron. 41:41-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60802-0
  18. Phipps RH. 1994. Complementary forages for milk production. In L Garnsworthy, P.C>, Cole, D.J.A.(Eds.). Recent Advanced in Animal Nutrition. Butterworths, London. 215-230.
  19. Putnam DH, Herbert SJ, Vargas A. 1985. Intercropped corn-soybean density studies. I. Yield complementarity. Exp. Agric. 21:41-51. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700012230
  20. Putnam DH, Herbert SJ, Vargas A. 1986. Intercropped cornsoybean density studies. II. Yield composition and protein. Exp Agric. 22:373-381. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700014629
  21. SAS Institute. 2005. SAS Prosedure guide. VERSION 8.2. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.
  22. Singh NB, Singh PP, Nair KPP. 1986. Effect of legume intercropping on enrichment of soil nitrogen, bacterial activity and productivity of associated maize crops. Exp Agric. 22:339-344. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700014587
  23. Titterton M, Maasdrop BV. 1997. Nutritional improvement of maize silage dairying mixed crop silage from sole and intercropped legumes and a long season variety of maize. 2. Ensilage. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 69:263-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(97)81640-9
  24. Weinberg ZG, Muck RE. 1996. New trends and opportunities in the development and use of inoculants for silage. FEMS Micro-biol. REV. 19:53-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.1996.tb00253.x

Acknowledgement

Grant : 미래동물바이오 창의인력양성사업팀