Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

volume 37 issue 6 (december 2014) : 621-627,   Doi: 10.5958/0976-0571.2014.00686.9

THE EFFECT OF FORAGE HARVEST DATE AND INOCULATION ON THE YIELD AND FERMENTATION CHARACTERISTICS OF NARROW-LEAVED LUPIN (LUPINUS ANGUSTIFOLIUS) WHEN ENSILED AS A WHOLE CROP

A
A. Faligowska*
M
M. Selwet1
K
K. Panasiewicz
G
G. Szymañska
K
K. Smiatacz
1Department of Agronomy , Faculty of Agronomy and Bioengineering, Poznañ University of Life Sciences, ul. Dojazd 11, 60-632 Poznañ, Poland
Cite article:- Faligowska* A., Selwet1 M., Panasiewicz K., Szymañska G., Smiatacz K. (2025). THE EFFECT OF FORAGE HARVEST DATE AND INOCULATION ON THE YIELD AND FERMENTATION CHARACTERISTICS OF NARROW-LEAVED LUPIN (LUPINUS ANGUSTIFOLIUS) WHEN ENSILED AS A WHOLE CROP. Legume Research. 37(6): 621-627. doi: 10.5958/0976-0571.2014.00686.9.

ABSTRACT

A experiment was conducted during seasons of the year 2005, 2006 and 2007 to evaluate the effects of the stage of maturity and inoculant application on the fermentation quality of silage produced from narrow leaved lupin. The trial was carried out on the experimental farm in Gorzyñ, belonging to Poznañ University of Life Sciences (520 33’53 N, 150 53’42 E) in central part of Europe in Poland. A two-factor field experiment was carried out on narrow-leaved lupin cv. Zeus. The first factor was the green forage harvest dates (Cut 1 - at the flat pod stage, Cut 2 – at the stage of green ripe seeds), the other factor – silage inoculants: biological (strains of lactic acid bacteria), chemical (a mixture of organic acids) and a control object without inoculants. The silage raw material was closed in mini-silos for 10 weeks. The crops had a fresh matter yield from 15.8 to 30.8 t ha-1 corresponding to a dry matter yield from 2.2 to 8.8 t ha-1. The dry matter content in unwilted forage per kilogram ranged from 178.8 to 233.8 g. 24-hour wilting caused an increase in dry matter content from 205.5 to 349.5 g kg-1. Both inoculates improved the quality of silages, because they increased the number of lactic acid bacteria and decreased the number of unfavourable groups of bacteria. The narrow-leaved lupin can be used as a silage raw material, but before ensilage plants should be wilted and silage inoculants should be applied.

REFERENCES

  1. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (1990). Official Methods of Analysis AOAC. Arlington, USA.
  2. Borreani, G., Peiretti, P.G. and Tabacco, E. (2007). Effect of harvest time on yield and pre-harvest quality of semi- leafless grain peas (Pisum sativum L.) as whole-crop forage. Field Crops Res., 100: 1-9.
  3. Borreani, G., Cavallarin, L., Antoniazzi, S. and Tabacco, E. (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.
  4. Borreania, G., Revello Chiona, A., Colombinib, S., Odoardi, M., Paoletti, R. and Tabaccoa, E. (2009). Fermentative profiles of field pea (Pisum sativum), faba bean (Vicia faba) and white lupin (Lupinus albus) silages as affected by wilting and inoculation. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 151: 316-323.
  5. Carruthers, K., Prithiviraj, B., Fe, Q., Cloutier, D., Martin, R.C. and Smith, D.L. (2000). Intercropping of corn with soybean, lupin and forages: silage yield and quality. J. Agron. Crop Sci., 185 (3): 177-185.
  6. Cavallarin, L., Tabacco, E. and Borreani, G. (2007). Forage and grain legume silages as a valuable source of proteins for dairy cows. Ital. J. Anim. Sci., 6 (Suppl. 1): 282-284.
  7. Cavallarin, L., Antoniazzi, S., Tabacco, E. and Borreani, G. (2006). Effect of the stage of growth, wilting and inoculation in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) silages. II. Nitrogen fractions and amino acid compositions of herbage and silage. J. Sci. Food Agric., 86: 1383-1390.
  8. Conway, E.J. (1962). Microdiffusion analysis and volumetric error. Crosby Lockwood, London.
  9. Doležal, P., Zeman, L. and Skládanka, J. (2008). Effect of supplementation of chemical preservatives on fermentation process of lupin silage. Slovak J. Anim. Sci., 1: 30-38.
  10. Faligowska, A. and Selwet, M. (2012). Quality and hygienic condition of yellow lupine silages depending on the harvest date of green forage and additive to ensilaging. Nauka Przyr. Technol. 6 (1) #15 http://www.npt.up-poznan.net/ pub/art_6_15.pdf (in Polish).
  11. Fraser, M.D., Fychan, R. and 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.
  12. Fraser, M.D., Fychan, R. and Jones, R. (2005a). The effect of harvest date and inoculation on the yield and fermentation characteristics of two varieties of white lupin (Lupinus albus) when ensiled as a whole-crop. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 119: 307-322.
  13. Fraser, M.D., Fychan, R. and Jones, R. (2005b). Comparative yield and chemical composition of two varieties of narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus angustifolius) when harvested as whole-crop, moist grain and dry grain. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol., 120: 43-50.
  14. Gallo, M., Rajèáková, L and Mlynár, R. (2006). Effect of different dry matter and biological additives application on fermentation process in red clover silages. Slovak J. Anim. Sci., 39 (1-2): 89-92.
  15. Grewal, R.S., Ahuja, A.K. and Gupta, D.B. (2000). Effect of additives on the chemical composition of conserved forages. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition., 17 (2): 104-109. Gül, I., Yildirim, M., Akinci, C., Doran, Ý. and Kiliç, H. (2008). Response of silage maize (Zea mays L.) to nitrogen fertilizer after different crops in a semi arid environment. Turk J. Agric. For., 32: 513-520.
  16. Idziak, R., Skrzypczak, W., Waligóra, H. and WoŸnica, Z. (2013). The effect of mesotrione applied with adjuvants on weed control efficacy and forage sorghum tolerance. Turk. J. Agric. For., 37: 265-270.
  17. Iptaº, S. and Yavuz, M. (2008). Effect of pollination levels on yield and quality of maize grown for silage. Turk. J. Agric. For., 32: 41-48.
  18. McDonald, P., Henderson, A.R. and Heron, S.J.E. (1991).The Biochemistry of Silage. 2nd edn. Chalcombe Publications, Marlow.
  19. Mcdonald, P. and Henderson, A.R. (1964). Determination of water-soluble carbohydrates in grass. J. Sci. Food Agric., 15: 395-398.
  20. Muck, R.E., Moser, L.E. and Pitt, R.E. (2003). Postharvest factor affecting ensiling. In: Buxton DR, Muck RE, Harrison J.H. (Eds) Silage Science and Technology Agronomy Monograph 42 ASA-CSSA-SSSA Madison WI pp 251– 304.
  21. Prithiviraj, B., Carruthers, K., Fe, Q., Cloutier, D., Martin, R.C. and Smith, D.L. (2000). Intercropping of corn with soybean and lupin for silage: effect of seeding date on yield and quality. J. Agron. Crop Sci., 185: 129-136.
  22. SAS Institute (1999). SAS/STAT user’s guide. Version 7th edition. Inst Cary NC.
  23. Singh, A., Edward, J.C., Mor, S. and Singh, K. (1996). Biochemical changes during ensiling of wilted lucerne with inoculation of lactic acid bacteria and molasses. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 13 (2): 77-82.
  24. Voytekhovich, I. (2000). Ensilage of narrow–leaved lupin. Vestsi Akademii Agrarnych Nauk Respubliki Belarus 3: 46-49.
  25. Zakaria, A., Yaakub, H., Radziah, O. and Alimon, A.R. (2012). Effect of bacteria inoculants on corn silage quality. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology 12 (1): 55-62.
Published In
Legume Research
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)