IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2021i12p1226-d695581.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quality of Chopped Maize Can Be Improved by Processing

Author

Listed:
  • Filip Jančík

    (Department of Nutrition and Feeding of Farm Animals, Institute of Animal Science, 10400 Praha, Czech Republic)

  • Petra Kubelková

    (Department of Nutrition and Feeding of Farm Animals, Institute of Animal Science, 10400 Praha, Czech Republic)

  • Dana Kumprechtová

    (Department of Nutrition and Feeding of Farm Animals, Institute of Animal Science, 10400 Praha, Czech Republic)

  • Radko Loučka

    (Department of Nutrition and Feeding of Farm Animals, Institute of Animal Science, 10400 Praha, Czech Republic)

  • Petr Homolka

    (Department of Nutrition and Feeding of Farm Animals, Institute of Animal Science, 10400 Praha, Czech Republic)

  • Veronika Koukolová

    (Department of Nutrition and Feeding of Farm Animals, Institute of Animal Science, 10400 Praha, Czech Republic)

  • Yvona Tyrolová

    (Department of Nutrition and Feeding of Farm Animals, Institute of Animal Science, 10400 Praha, Czech Republic)

  • Alena Výborná

    (Department of Nutrition and Feeding of Farm Animals, Institute of Animal Science, 10400 Praha, Czech Republic)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of different maize processing technologies, comparing treatments with conventional rollers (control), MCC MAX rollers and a Shredlage crop processor on the quality of chopped maize. All the three types of chopped maize were harvested on the same day from the same field where the same maize hybrid was grown. The chemical composition of chopped maize, degree of grain processing and particle size fractions, and the effect of the treatments on rumen disappearance of dry matter, organic matter, NDF and starch were assessed. The highest degree of grain processing was achieved with the Shredlage processor (79.2%), and at the same time this processing method had a tendency to produce the highest proportion of physically effective fibre (37.2%). Compared to the conventional rollers (control), the chopped maize produced using the Shredlage processor had higher disappearance of dry matter, organic matter and NDF after 48 h of rumen incubation and of starch after 24 h of incubation. The MCC MAX rollers provided higher disappearance of all nutrients compared to the control treatment after both 24 and 48 h of incubation.

Suggested Citation

  • Filip Jančík & Petra Kubelková & Dana Kumprechtová & Radko Loučka & Petr Homolka & Veronika Koukolová & Yvona Tyrolová & Alena Výborná, 2021. "Quality of Chopped Maize Can Be Improved by Processing," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-6, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:12:p:1226-:d:695581
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/12/1226/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/12/1226/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin A. Saylor & Cody L. McCary & E. Cole Diepersloot & Celso Heinzen & Matheus R. Pupo & Jéssica O. Gusmão & Lucas G. Ghizzi & Halima Sultana & Luiz F. Ferraretto, 2021. "Effect of Forage Processor Roll Gap Width and Storage Length on Fermentation Profile, Nutrient Composition, Kernel Processing Score, and Starch Disappearance of Whole-Plant Maize Silage Harvested at T," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-22, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David A. Pintens & Kevin J. Shinners & Joshua C. Friede & Matthew F. Digman & Kenneth F. Kalscheur, 2023. "Impact—Shredding Processing of Whole-Plant Corn: Machine Performance, Physical Properties, and In Situ Ruminant Digestion," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, January.

    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.

      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:12:p:1226-:d:695581. 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.