IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/sarjnl/v11y2022i3p1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Stockpiled Perennial Forage Compared to Grass-legume Hay for Chemical Composition and Rumen Degradation Kinetics

Author

Listed:
  • Dharmasuri Gamage Ruwini Kulathunga
  • Daalkhaijav Damiran
  • Gregory Penner
  • Herbert Lardner

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the chemical composition and in situ degradability of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) of stockpiled perennial forage (SPF) or sun-cured hay (HAY) when collected at the start or end (October vs. December) of fall grazing. Selected 6, 4-ha paddocks consisting of meadow bromegrass and alfalfa, were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 replicated (n = 3) winter feeding systems (SPF and HAY). Sampling was done twice per year at the beginning (October) and end (December) from (a) stockpiled perennial forage (SPF) in field paddocks and from (b) harvested round bale hay (HAY) over 2 consecutive years. Selected 6, 4-ha paddocks consisting of meadow bromegrass and alfalfa, were randomly assigned two winter feeding systems (SPF (n=3) and HAY (n=3)). Sampling were done twice per year at the beginning (October) and end (December) from (a) SPF (b) HAY over 2 consecutive years. To evaluate in situ degradability, duplicate nylon bags from each experimental unit were incubated for 0, 3, 6, 10, 13, 25, 48, 72, and 96 h in five Hereford heifers fitted with rumen cannula. Relative to HAY, SPF had greater (p = 0.01) OM (906 vs. 916 g/kg DM) and NDF (653 vs. 631 g/kg DM) concentrations. Sampling date had no effect (p > 0.05) on CP, OM, and ADF in both forages, whereas the NDF was greater (p = 0.01) in forages sampled in December. The in situ soluble fraction (S) of DM was greater (p = 0.01) for SPF collected in October, HAY collected in October, and HAY collected in December s (156, 138, and 152 g/kg DM, respectively) relative to SPF collected in December (106 g/kg DM). The potentially degradable fraction (D) of CP was less (p < 0.05) for HAY December samples compared to SPF December and HAY October samples (257 vs. 522 and 523 g/kg CP, respectively). The SPF had a greater (p < 0.05) potentially degradable ADF (749 vs. 587 g/kg ADF) and potentially degradable NDF (770 vs. 591 g/kg NDF) compared to HAY. The effect of forage type and sampling date did not affect (p > 0.05) effective degradability of NDF. Regardless of the forage type the potentially degradable fraction of NDF decreased from October to December (SPF- 770 to 730 g/kg NDF) (HAY- 680 g/kg to 491 g/kg NDF). These findings suggest SPF grazing is a robust substitute to hay feeding systems for beef cows.

Suggested Citation

  • Dharmasuri Gamage Ruwini Kulathunga & Daalkhaijav Damiran & Gregory Penner & Herbert Lardner, 2022. "Evaluation of Stockpiled Perennial Forage Compared to Grass-legume Hay for Chemical Composition and Rumen Degradation Kinetics," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(3), pages 1-1, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:sarjnl:v:11:y:2022:i:3:p:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/sar/article/download/0/0/47428/50844
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/sar/article/view/0/47428
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ibn:sarjnl:v:11:y:2022:i:3:p:1. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.