Nutrient contents of the silages
Nutrient contents of urea and molasses added sweet maize without the cob silages are given in Table 3. When the nutrient contents of these silages were examined, the differences between the groups were found to be significant in terms of DM, OM, CA, CP, DNF and ADF values (P<0.05).
One of the most important problems to be solved in the development of animal husbandry is to meet the need for quality and cheap roughage adequately. It is very important to use quality, alternative roughage, which consists of foods that are not used for human consumption and are also cheap, in ruminant feeding. Moreover, turning wastes remaining after plant production into quality feed and using them in animal rations will provide several benefits. Considering this issue, the fodder that remains after the production of fresh maize can be utilized in silage-making. In this study, the nutrient content, silage quality and relative feed value parameters of silages of the sweet maize supplemented with urea and molasses at different ratios were examined. In this trial, the cob of the sweet maize was harvested in the milk dough period and the remaining plant parts were ensiled by adding molasses and urea at different ratios by weight.
When the nutrient contents of the silages were examined (Table 3), it was determined that the additives not only increased the CP levels of the silages but also contributed to their quality positively.
Canbolat et al., (2016) determined the DM, CA, CP, NDF and ADF sweet maize without the cob silages as 29.42-32.54%, 4.51-4.63%, 7.19-7.77%, 52.74-57.22% and 31.36-34.53%, respectively. Compared to their values, the silages in this study without additives had lower DM (26.15%), CP (6.10%) and NDF (51.03%) values, higher CA (7.93%) values and similar ADF (32.47%) values. It is believed that this difference originated from the fact that the harvest periods were different. In another study
(Kaewpila et al., 2021), the DM, CA, CP, NDF and ADF contents of the control group among groups of sweet maize silages were found as 21.9%, 7.7%, 9.05%, 68.7% and 41.6%, respectively. When these values are compared with the values obtained in our study; It is thought that the DM (26.15%) value is low, the CP (6.10%), NDF (51.03%) and ADF (32.47%) values are high and the CA (7.93%) values are similar and these differences are thought to be due to the varietal difference. In a similar study conducted with sweet maize stem silages by
Ahmad et al., (2018), the same parameters in the group created with the addition of 6% molasses and 0.9% urea were determined respectively as 23.50%, 10.15%, 9.20%, 71.39% and 45.62%. When these values are compared with the values obtained in this study, the DM (26.40%) values in our study were higher, the CA (7.14%), CP (6.53%), NDF (49.23%) and ADF (30.91%) values in our study were lower and the differences between these two studies may be associated with differences in materials used and harvesting periods.
Fermentation quality of the silages
Silage fermentation parameters are some of the significant criteria in the determination of silage quality and the parameter values that were found in this study are given in Table 4. The pH value of the silage is an important parameter that determines the fermentation levels inside the silo. The optimum pH value for a quality corn silage is between 3.7 and 4.2 (
Kung and Shaver, 2001). In this study, pH values of silages were determined in the range of 4.28-4.42. These values were close to the optimum values and the lowest pH values were found in the 0% urea + 5% molasses group. The highest NH
3 value was in the 1% urea + 0% molasses silage (123.28 mg.dl
-1), the lowest NH
3 value was in the 1% urea + 10% molasses silage (37.07 mg.dl
-1) and silage groups for NH
3 value It was determined that the difference between (P<0.05). The highest LA and the lowest BA values were found in the 0% urea + 10% molasses group, the highest AA value was in the control group, the highest BA value was in the 1% urea + 10% molasses group and the difference between the groups in terms of silage VFA was significant (P<0.05).
As seen in Table 4, the molasses that was added as an easily digestible additive to the silages led to reductions in silage pH (Control + 0% urea + 5% molasses group), NH
3-N (Control + 1% urea + 10% molasses group) and BA (Control + 0% urea + 10% molasses group) values and an increase in LA (Control + 0% urea + 10% molasses group) values.
İdikut et al., (2009), who investigated fermentation criteria in sweet maize stem silages, determined the LA, AA, BA, NH
3-N and pH values of the silages respectively as 61.34, 15.19, 0.37, 145 (g/kg DM) and 3.76. The values reported by
İdikut et al., (2009) were higher compared to ours in terms of LA (1.42%) and AA (0.85%) and lower compared to ours in terms of BA (0.72%), NH
3-N (58.90%) and pH (4.30). In another study
(İptaş and Avcıoğlu, 1993), the authors reported pH and LA parameter values of 4.25 and 1.49% for sweet maize silages were found to be similar to the values determined in this study. In their study on sweet maize stem silage,
Kaewpila et al., (2021) reported the LA, AA, BA, NH
3-N and pH values of the control group to be 91.80, 25.20, 1.20, 1.41 (g/kg DM) and 3.87 respectively. Compared to their results, the results of our study were higher for LA (1.42%) and AA (0.85%) and lower for BA (0.72%), NH
3-N (58.90%) and pH (4.30). The reason for these differences may be the different growing conditions of sweet maize and the different materials used in these studies. In a study that was carried out on silages that were obtained by adding urea and molasses to Italian ryegrass at different ratios, the ranges of pH, LA, AA, BA and NH
3 concentrations as fermentation parameters were reported respectively as 4.64-7.24, 0.02-3.54, 0.16-0.75, 0.16-1.35 and 0.34-2.16. Among these values, pH values were higher, LA, AA and BA values were similar and NH
3-N values were lower compared to those obtained in this study. These differences may have originated from the differences in the silage materials that were used and the differences in the ratios of molasses addition (
Gürsoy et al., 2022). In a study that was performed by
Demirel and Yıldız, (2001) on barley silages, silages with 5% and 10% molasses addition and 1% urea addition were made. The lowest pH and BA values obtained in the study conducted by these researchers were determined in the groups containing 5% molasses and 10% molasses, respectively, similar to the values obtained in this study. The highest LA concentrations in the study conducted by
Demirel and Yıldız, (2001) were found in the group of silages containing 10% molasses and 1% urea, while the highest concentrations in our study were found in the group of silages containing only 10% molasses. In both studies, the addition of molasses to silage materials had a positive effect on silage fermentation.
Fleig scores, physical analysis results and RFV results of silages
The Fleig scores, physical parameters and RFV results of the sweet maize without the cob silages with urea and molasses additives are presented in Table 5 and there were significant differences among the groups in terms of all these parameters, except for Fleig scores (P<0.05). For all silages that were tested in this trial, the quality classes based on Fleig scores were “very good”, the quality classes based on physical parameters were “very good” for all groups except for the 1% urea + 10% molasses group and the highest RFV results were found in the 0% urea + 10% molasses group.
As seen in Table 5, there were decreases in Fleig scores, physical parameters and RFV results in parallel with the increase in urea added to silages. The addition of molasses to the silages gave higher Fleig scores and RFV results compared with the control group.
İptaş and Avcıoğlu, (1993) determined the Fleig score and physical assessment score of sweet maize silages as 100 and 20, respectively. Their Fleig score was higher compared with the scores found in our study, whereas the physical assessment results of the two studies were similar.
Geren et al., (2014) reported the feed value results of Napier grass (
Pennisetum hybridum), Chinese silver grass (
Miscanthus sinensis), sugarcane (
Saccharum officinarum), dent maize (
Zea mays L
. indendata), hybrid sorghum-sudangrass (
Sorghum bicolor ×
Sorghum sudanense) and sorghum (
Sorghum bicolor) silages for the 2
nd year of their trial as 73.8, 70.3, 121.7, 193, 122.2 and 128.6, respectively. Compared with those found in our study, the values of dent maize were higher, the values of Napier grass and Chinese silver grass were lower and the values of sugarcane, hybrid sorghum-sudangrass and sorghum were similar.