Relative Appraisal among Different Sugarcane Varieties for Quality of Sugarcane Tops Silage as Non-Conventional Feed Resource


391 / 10

Authors

  • R. Pal Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab
  • A. Gupta Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab
  • M. Wadhwa Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University, Ludhiana, Punjab
  • P. Singh Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University, Ludhiana, Punjab
  • A. Singla Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University, Ludhiana, Punjab

Keywords:

Palatability, Quality,Silage, Sugarcane tops

Abstract

The study included evaluation of nutritive quality of tops of four sugarcane varieties (Co 118, CoJ 88, CoPb 93 and CoPb92), berseem (BL-10) and silage made from them. Four types of silage were prepared by mixing sugarcane tops of each variety with barseem in a fixed proportion of 60:40 sugarcane and barseem, respectively. Mixture of tops of sugarcane varieties Co 118, CoJ 88, CoPb 92 and CoPb 93 with barseem variety BL 10 was referred as silage-I, silage-II, silage-III and silage IV, respectively. Tops of each sugarcane variety, berseem and silages were evaluated for their nutritional composition. Variety CoJ 88 contain highest dry matter content (30.1%) whereas variety Co118 contain highest percent crude protein (5.05%) among all varieties. The acid detergent fiber (38.8%) and ADL(5.0%) were lowest in variety CoPb92. Silage I had highest CP (8.30%), NDF(66.6%),ADF(35.3%) and ADL(4.20%) levels whereas silage III had significantly lower  CP, NDF, ADF and ADL. Predicted palatability/intake and energy quality parameters indicated that DMI (1.80%), DDM(61.4%), TDN (63.1%), RFV (85.8%), RFQ (2.03%) and NEL(1.43Mcal/Kg)values were highest for silage III. Fermentation quality parameters like acetic acid content (2.89%) and TVFA (5.17) of CoPb 92 were  optimum . It was concluded that among all four varieties, CoPb 92 mixed with berseem (BL-10) in 60:40 ratio gives the most appropriate quality of silage.

References

AOAC. 2005. Official Methods of Analysis, 18th Edn. Arlington: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.

Barker, S.B. and Summerson,W.H. 1941. The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in biological material. Journal of Biological Chemistry.138: 535–554.

Cottyn, B.G. and Boucque,C.V. 1968. Rapid methods for the gas chromatographic determination of volatile acids in rumen fluid. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.16: 105–107.

Crampton, E.W. and Maynard,L.A.1938. The relation of cellulose and lignin content to the nutritive value of animal feeds. Journal of Nutrition.15: 987–993.

Go´mez-Va´zquezA.J.M,Pinos-Rodrı´guez,J.C.Garcı´a-Lo´pez, E. de la Cruz-La´zaro, C. Luna-Palomera and Sa´nchez-Herna´ndez,R.2011. Nutritional value of sugarcane silage enriched with corn grain, urea, and minerals as feed supplement on growth performance of beef steers grazing stargrass. Tropical Animal Health Production. 43: 215–220.

Hundal, J.S., Wadhwa, M., Sharma, A. Singh, G.and Kaur, H. 2020. Evaluation of newly developed maize hybrids for yield, whole plant composition and ensiling characteristics under Indian climate. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology.20: 393-407.

Jianxin, L. and Jun, G. 2020. Ensiling crop residues. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome 2002 (FAO.org).

Kung, L. and Randy, S. 2001.Interpretation and use of silage fermentation analysis reports. Focus on Forage. 3: 1-5.

Makkar, H.P. 2016. Animal nutrition in a 360-degree view and a framework for future R&D work: Towards sustainable livestock production. Animal Production Science. 56: 1561–1568.

McDonald, P. 1991. The Biochemistry of Silage. New York: Wiley. McDonald, P., R.A. Edwards, J.F.D. Greenhalgh, C.A. L.A., Morgan, L.A. Sinclair, and R.G. Wilkinson. 2010. Animal Nutrition. 7th Ed. Ashford Color Press Ltd., Gosport, England

Mckenzie, J. and Griffiths,C. 2007. Cane tops as cattle fodder. Primefact. 314.

Moore, J.E., Brant, M.H., Kunkle, W.E. and Hopkins, D.I. 1999. Effects of supplementation on voluntary forage intake, diet digestibility, and animal performance. Journal of Animal Science. 77: 122-135.

Moore, J.E. and Undersander, D.J. 2002. Relative forage quality: An alternative to relative feed value and quality index. In: “Proceedings of XIII Annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium. 3:16–29.

Solomon,S. 2011. Sugarcane by-products based industries in India. Sugar Tech. 13:408–416.

Santos,M.V.,DaFonseca,D.M.,DaSilva,L.D.,DeSouza,W.F.,DeOliveira,T.S.,Ferreira,L.R.,Neto,S.N.D.O. and Paciullo,D.S.C.2020. Integrated crop–forage–forestry for sustainable agricultural systems: productive performance. Agroforestry System. 94: 417–427.

Seidavi, A., Tavakoli,,M., Rasouli,B., Corazzin, M. and Salem, A.Z. 2020. Application of some trees/shrubs in ruminant feeding: A review. Agro forestry System. 94:1365.

Van-Soest, P.V., Robertson, J.B. and Lewis, B.A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science. 74: 3583–3597.

Ward, R. 2001. Analysis and quality assessments of corn and other silages. In: Proceedings of 62nd Minnesota Nutrition Conference & Minnesota Corn Growers Association Technical Symposium. Bloomington, MN. 95-110.

Downloads

Submitted

09-06-2022

Published

03-07-2022

Issue

Section

Ruminant

How to Cite

Pal, R. ., Gupta, A. ., Wadhwa, M. ., Singh, P., & Singla, A. . (2022). Relative Appraisal among Different Sugarcane Varieties for Quality of Sugarcane Tops Silage as Non-Conventional Feed Resource . Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition, 39(1). https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/IJAN/article/view/124659