IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2021i6p492-d562550.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Changes in the In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation of Diets for Dairy Cows Based on Selected Sorghum Cultivars Compared to Maize, Rye and Grass Silage

Author

Listed:
  • Ewa Pecka-Kiełb

    (Department of Animal Physiology and Biostructure, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, ul. Norwida 31, 50-375 Wroclaw, Poland)

  • Dorota Miśta

    (Department of Animal Physiology and Biostructure, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, ul. Norwida 31, 50-375 Wroclaw, Poland)

  • Bożena Króliczewska

    (Department of Animal Physiology and Biostructure, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, ul. Norwida 31, 50-375 Wroclaw, Poland)

  • Andrzej Zachwieja

    (Institute of Animal Breeding, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, ul. Chełmońskiego 38c, 51-631 Wroclaw, Poland)

  • Maja Słupczyńska

    (Department of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, ul. Chełmońskiego 38c, 51-630 Wrocław, Poland)

  • Barbara Król

    (Department of Animal Nutrition and Feed Science, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, ul. Chełmońskiego 38c, 51-630 Wrocław, Poland)

  • Józef Sowiński

    (Institute of Agroecology and Plant Production, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, ul. Norwida 25, 50-357 Wroclaw, Poland)

Abstract

An in vitro experiment was conducted to determine the impact of silage produced from selected varieties of sorghum on the microbial fermentation profile of cows’ ruminal fluid. To determine the main microbial fermentation products, ruminal fluid samples were obtained from Polish Holstein–Friesian cows. Serum bottles were filled with 80 mL of ruminal samples, and 1 g of one of the following substrates was added: corn silage (CS), grass silage (GS), rye silage (RS), sorghum silage (sweet) (SS1), sorghum silage (grain) (SS2) or sorghum silage (dual-purpose) (SS3). The serum bottles were flushed with CO 2 and fermented for 8 and 24 h at 39 °C. After incubation, the obtained gas and rumen fluid were then analysed to determine the methane and volatile fatty acid (VFA) contents using gas chromatography. The use of sorghum silage (SS) resulted in a decrease in the total concentration VFA concentration in the ruminal fluid compared with the use of other silages, especially GS. Moreover, the ruminal fluid contained a lower molar proportion of propionic and butyric acids when SS was used compared with CS. The butyric acid proportion was higher in SS samples than in RS samples. The differences in chemical composition between sorghum varieties did not influence the rumen VFA concentration or profile. A decrease in gas production, but without effects on methanogenesis, was observed when SS was used compared with GS and CS. The analysis demonstrates the physiological processes of fermentation in the rumen, as evidenced by the products of microbial fermentation. The main advantage is that the addition of SS, irrespective of the plant variety, reduced fermentation gas production in the ruminal fluid compared with CS. The silage of the analyzed sorghum varieties may be used in the diets of dairy cows as a substitute for corn and grass silages.

Suggested Citation

  • Ewa Pecka-Kiełb & Dorota Miśta & Bożena Króliczewska & Andrzej Zachwieja & Maja Słupczyńska & Barbara Król & Józef Sowiński, 2021. "Changes in the In Vitro Ruminal Fermentation of Diets for Dairy Cows Based on Selected Sorghum Cultivars Compared to Maize, Rye and Grass Silage," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-11, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:6:p:492-:d:562550
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/6/492/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/6/492/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Colombini, Stefania & Zucali, Maddalena & Rapetti, Luca & Crovetto, G. Matteo & Sandrucci, Anna & Bava, Luciana, 2015. "Substitution of corn silage with sorghum silages in lactating cow diets: In vivo methane emission and global warming potential of milk production," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 106-113.
    2. Laszlo Babinszky & Veronika Halas & Martin Verstegen, 2011. "Impacts of Climate Change on Animal Production and Quality of Animal Food Products," Chapters, in: Houshang Kheradmand & Juan A. Blanco (ed.), Climate Change - Socioeconomic Effects, IntechOpen.
    3. Jolanta Batog & Jakub Frankowski & Aleksandra Wawro & Agnieszka Łacka, 2020. "Bioethanol Production from Biomass of Selected Sorghum Varieties Cultivated as Main and Second Crop," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-12, November.
    4. Farre, Imma & Faci, Jose Maria, 2006. "Comparative response of maize (Zea mays L.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) to deficit irrigation in a Mediterranean environment," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(1-2), pages 135-143, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gheysari, Mahdi & Mirlatifi, Seyed Majid & Bannayan, Mohammad & Homaee, Mehdi & Hoogenboom, Gerrit, 2009. "Interaction of water and nitrogen on maize grown for silage," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 809-821, May.
    2. Comas, Louise H. & Trout, Thomas J. & DeJonge, Kendall C. & Zhang, Huihui & Gleason, Sean M., 2019. "Water productivity under strategic growth stage-based deficit irrigation in maize," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 433-440.
    3. Theuretzbacher, Franz & Bauer, Alexander & Lizasoain, Javier & Becker, Manuel & Rosenau, Thomas & Potthast, Antje & Friedl, Anton & Piringer, Gerhard & Gronauer, Andreas, 2013. "Potential of different Sorghum bicolor (L. moench) varieties for combined ethanol and biogas production in the Pannonian climate of Austria," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 107-113.
    4. Oleg Bazaluk & Valerii Havrysh & Mykhailo Fedorchuk & Vitalii Nitsenko, 2021. "Energy Assessment of Sorghum Cultivation in Southern Ukraine," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-22, July.
    5. DeJonge, Kendall C. & Ascough, James C. & Ahmadi, Mehdi & Andales, Allan A. & Arabi, Mazdak, 2012. "Global sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of a dynamic agroecosystem model under different irrigation treatments," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 231(C), pages 113-125.
    6. Suat Irmak & Ali T. Mohammed & William Kranz & C.D. Yonts & Simon van Donk, 2020. "Irrigation-Yield Production Functions and Irrigation Water Use Efficiency Response of Drought-Tolerant and Non-Drought-Tolerant Maize Hybrids under Different Irrigation Levels, Population Densities, a," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-26, January.
    7. Folberth, Christian & Yang, Hong & Gaiser, Thomas & Abbaspour, Karim C. & Schulin, Rainer, 2013. "Modeling maize yield responses to improvement in nutrient, water and cultivar inputs in sub-Saharan Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 22-34.
    8. Zou, Haiyang & Fan, Junliang & Zhang, Fucang & Xiang, Youzhen & Wu, Lifeng & Yan, Shicheng, 2020. "Optimization of drip irrigation and fertilization regimes for high grain yield, crop water productivity and economic benefits of spring maize in Northwest China," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    9. Gheysari, Mahdi & Pirnajmedin, Fatemeh & Movahedrad, Hamid & Majidi, Mohammad Mahdi & Zareian, Mohammad Javad, 2021. "Crop yield and irrigation water productivity of silage maize under two water stress strategies in semi-arid environment: Two different pot and field experiments," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    10. López-Urrea, R. & Domínguez, A. & Pardo, J.J. & Montoya, F. & García-Vila, M. & Martínez-Romero, A., 2020. "Parameterization and comparison of the AquaCrop and MOPECO models for a high-yielding barley cultivar under different irrigation levels," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    11. Neal, J.S. & Fulkerson, W.J. & Hacker, R.B., 2011. "Differences in water use efficiency among annual forages used by the dairy industry under optimum and deficit irrigation," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(5), pages 759-774, March.
    12. Ignacio Lorite & Margarita García-Vila & María-Ascensión Carmona & Cristina Santos & María-Auxiliadora Soriano, 2012. "Assessment of the Irrigation Advisory Services’ Recommendations and Farmers’ Irrigation Management: A Case Study in Southern Spain," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 26(8), pages 2397-2419, June.
    13. Sanchez, I. & Zapata, N. & Faci, J.M., 2010. "Combined effect of technical, meteorological and agronomical factors on solid-set sprinkler irrigation: I. Irrigation performance and soil water recharge in alfalfa and maize," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(10), pages 1571-1581, October.
    14. Montoya, F. & García, C. & Pintos, F. & Otero, A., 2017. "Effects of irrigation regime on the growth and yield of irrigated soybean in temperate humid climatic conditions," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 30-45.
    15. Della Nave, Facundo N. & Ojeda, Jonathan J. & Irisarri, J. Gonzalo N. & Pembleton, Keith & Oyarzabal, Mariano & Oesterheld, Martín, 2022. "Calibrating APSIM for forage sorghum using remote sensing and field data under sub-optimal growth conditions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    16. Piotr Jurga & Efstratios Loizou & Stelios Rozakis, 2021. "Comparing Bioeconomy Potential at National vs. Regional Level Employing Input-Output Modeling," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-17, March.
    17. Cakmakci, Talip & Sahin, Ustun, 2021. "Improving silage maize productivity using recycled wastewater under different irrigation methods," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    18. Libing Song & Jiming Jin & Jianqiang He, 2019. "Effects of Severe Water Stress on Maize Growth Processes in the Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-18, September.
    19. Aleksandra Wawro & Jakub Jakubowski & Weronika Gieparda & Zenon Pilarek & Agnieszka Łacka, 2023. "Potential of Pine Needle Biomass for Bioethanol Production," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-10, May.
    20. Hao, Baozhen & Xue, Qingwu & Marek, Thomas H. & Jessup, Kirk E. & Hou, Xiaobo & Xu, Wenwei & Bynum, Edsel D. & Bean, Brent W., 2015. "Soil water extraction, water use, and grain yield by drought-tolerant maize on the Texas High Plains," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 11-21.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:6:p:492-:d:562550. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.