Printer Friendly

Silage quality of sorghum and Urochloa brizantha cultivare monocropped or intercropped in different planting systems/ Qualidade de silagem de sorgo e cultivares de Urochloa brizantha em monocultivo e consorciado em diferentes sistemas de semeadura.

Introduction

The seasonal production of forage plants, caused by low temperatures combined with insufficient humidity and light in part of the year, requires planning and implementing practices aimed at conservation of forage for the offseason. Conserving forage as silage is an option that has been widely used in ruminant feed.

Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) is one of the species most commonly used for ensiling, due to the agronomic traits, besides satisfactory yield potential, efficient use of water, abundant and deep root system and high tolerance to diseases and pests (Ali, Abbas, Niaz, Zulkiffal, & Ali, 2009), in addition to succulent stems with high content of fermentable sugars along with high nutritional value (Almodares & Hadi, 2009).

Another option widely used as roughage is the silage produced from tropical forages, which has stood out because of the higher productivity under adverse conditions, in addition to be already planted in many properties, lowering the cost when compared to silage of conventional species, such as corn and sorghum (Chizzotti et al., 2005). In contrast, losses when ensiling tropical grasses are frequent, which suggests the use of technologies aimed at reducing these losses.

In this context, intercropping annual crop with tropical forage through crop-livestock integration system aims to reduce costs for producing forage conserved for ruminants at the time of shortages. The system also provides agronomic benefits with increased yield of the crop and forage; and economic advantages with the rational use of inputs, machinery and hand-work. The use of intercropping systems of forages can optimize intake, thus improving the utilization of nutrients. However, there is a lack of information about the best planting system to provide high quality silage in intercropping systems.

This study evaluated the fermentation characteristics and quality of silage of sorghum and Urochloa brizantha cultivars monocropped or intercropped in different planting systems, in the offseason.

Material and methods

The experiment was carried out under field conditions (17[degrees] 48' S; 50[degrees] 55' W; and 748 m asl) at the county of Rio Verde, state of Goias, in the 2013 offseason, on Latossolo Vermelho distroferrico (Embrapa Solos, 2013). Soil samples were taken before planting to determine the physical and chemical characteristics of the experimental area, at 0-20 cm. The characterization was 510; 160; 330 g [kg.sup.-1] of clay, silt and sand, respectively; Ca[Cl.sub.2] pH: 5.10; Ca: 2.88 [cmol.sub.c] dm-3; Mg: 1.27 [cmol.sub.c] dm-3; Al: 0.01 [cmol.sub.c] [dm.sup.-3]; Al+H: 4.0 [cmol.sub.c] [dm.sup.-3]; K: 0.39 [cmol.sub.c] [dm.sup.-3]; CEC: 8.54 [cmol.sub.c] [dm.sup.-3]; P: 6.72 mg [dm.sup.-3]; Cu: 3.4 mg [dm.sup.-3]; Zn: 1.5 mg [dm.sup.-3]; Fe: 43.0 mg [dm.sup.-3]; O.M.: 26.76 g [kg.sup.-1].

The area was prepared by removal of weeds with application of 3 L [ha.sup.-1] glyphosate and 2,4-D. Thirty days after desiccation, a plowing was performed with disc harrow, followed by disking. A week before planting, another disking was made and sowing furrows were opened using a seeder.

The experiment was a randomized block design, with three replications, in a 3x2+4 factorial arrangement, with three cultivars of Urochloa brizantha (Marandu; Xaraes and Piata) intercropped with grain sorghum in two planting systems (row and between rows) and four monocrops (Sorghum, Marandu palisadegrass, Xaraes palisadegrass and Piata palisadegrass). The sorghum used was the hybrid Buster grain sorghum (short stature, early, tannin-free, reddish grains).

In all treatments, rows were spaced 50 cm apart. Monocropping and intercropping plots in the row were composed of eight rows with three meters long. For between-row intercropping, fifteen rows were used, eight with sorghum and seven with Urochloa, totaling 12 [m.sup.2]. The working area was obtained considering only the four central rows, disregarding 0.5 m from each end.

Sowing was carried out in February 2013 with fertilization 150 kg [ha.sup.-1] [P.sub.2][O.sub.5] and 20 kg [ha.sup.-1] FTE BR 12. At 20 and 40 days after seedling emergence (DAE), 50 kg [ha.sup.-1] nitrogen and 40 kg [ha.sup.-1] [K.sub.2]O as urea and potassium chloride were broadcast, respectively.

In row intercropping, Urochloa cultivars were sown at 6 cm depth, along with fertilizer, and sorghum, at 2 cm. Between-row intercropping, both species were sown at 2 cm depth, as occurred in the sorghum monocrop.

Two weeks after seedling emergence, Buster sorghum was thinned according to population recommended for the cultivar in the region, leaving the equivalent of 240,000 plants [ha.sup.-1]. For forage species, 5 kg viable pure seeds were used per hectare.

For ensiling, silages were harvested 90 days after planting (DAP), using backpack brush cutter, when the material was at the doughy-pasty stage. The material was chopped in a stationary forage ensiling machine, to 10-30 mm particles. Then, the material was stored in experimental PVC silos, 50 cm long and 10 cm diameter. The lid, also made of PVC, was provided with a Bunsen valve for removal of gases produced during fermentation. Then, the experimental silos were kept in a covered area, at room temperature.

After 60 days of fermentation, silos were opened; the material of the upper portion and the bottom of each was discarded. The central portion was homogenized and placed on plastic trays. Another silage samples were collected for pH and ammonia nitrogen determinations according to Bolsen, Lin, and Brent (1992). Silage pH was determined with a glass electrode after homogenization of 25 g of fresh silage with 100 mL of distilled water. Another 25 g of silage was mixed with 200 mL of [H.sub.2]S[O.sub.4] solution (0.2 N) and left undisturbed in a refrigerator for 48h. This mixture was passed through a quantitative filter paper and the filtrate was frozen for subsequent determination of N[H.sub.3]-N content. Still was used part of fresh silage separated to be analyzed titratable acidity (TA) and buffering capacity (BC).

After this procedure, a silage sample was taken and divided into two parts. The first was stored in plastic bags and frozen. For determination of the ammonia nitrogen (N[H.sub.3]-N/NT), the samples were thawed for juice extraction. The organic acids were determined in a high performance liquid chromatograph (HPLC), Shimadzu, SPD-10A VP, coupled with ultraviolet (UV) detector, at 210 nm wavelength, according to the method described by Kung Jr. and Shaver (2001).

The other portion of silage with approximately 1 kg was weighed and taken to a forced ventilation oven at 55[degrees]C for 72 hours and then ground in a Wiley knife mill, with 1 mm sieve, and stored in plastic containers.

Chemical analyses were performed to determine for (DM) dry matter (Method 934.01); (MM) ash (Method 924.05); (CP) crude protein obtained by determining total N, using the micro-Kjeldahl technique (Method 920.87) and fixed conversion factor (6.25); (EE) ether extract content, determined gravimetrically after extraction with petroleum ether in a Goldfish device (Method 920.85) according to AOAC. The (NDF) neutral detergent fiber according to Mertens (2002); (ADF) acid detergent fiber (Method 973.18; Association of Analytical Communities [AOAC], 1990); and lignin in 13.51 M sulfuric acid (Van Soest, Robertson, & Lewis, 1991). The total digestible nutrient (TDN) was obtained using the equation (% TDN = 105.2-0.68 (% NDF)), proposed by Chandler (1990). For in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD), we adopted the technique described by Tilley and Terry (1963) adapted to the artificial rumen, developed by ANKON[R] using the "Daisy incubator" of Ankom Technology.

Before ensiling, chemical analysis of forage was carried out, according to the methods described above (Table 1).

The results were subjected to individual analysis of variance of the intercropping (B. brizantha cultivars and planting systems) and subsequently combined analysis between the intercropping and monocropping systems. It was applied the Tukey test at 5% probability, when found significance for the sources of variation tested in both cropping systems. It was also used the Dunnett's test at 5% to compare the means of the intercropping with sorghum in monocropped. Analyses were run using the ASSISTAT version 7.6 beta.

Results and discussion

Values of pH, buffering capacity and N-N[H.sub.3] were not different (p >0.05) neither intercropping systems nor the different planting systems (Table 2). On the other hand, when comparing monocropped sorghum with the other treatments, it was found that B. brizantha cultivars had higher mean values for the variables mentioned above, which suggests inferiority in the quality of silages obtained.

Considering the pH, the lowest values were in sorghum in monocropping and in intercropping systems, demonstrating the importance of croplivestock integration system, in order to contribute to reduce the pH value in silages. Possibly this is due to high content of soluble sugars in sorghum, readily available for fermentation of lactic acid-producing bacteria.

The mean pH in silage of Urochloa brizantha cultivars in monocropping was 4.35. This result may be related to the fact that the fermentation of tropical forage has some difficulties, such as low DM content and a high buffering capacity, which promote stabilization of silage at high pH.

However, pH cannot per se be considered as a safe criterion to evaluate silage. Attention should be paid to the speed at which pH declines, since there is a rapid initial acidification, which is the key to control the growth of enterobacteria and Clostridium, which may grow to an inhibitory concentration of non-dissociated acids (Pahlow, Muck, & Driehuis, 2003) and or maintain the pH within the optimal range, which is 3.8 to 4.2 (Tomich et al., 2004). In this sense, silages of Urochloa brizantha cultivars in monocropping system did not show pH within the optimal range.

According to Ribeiro et al. (2009), hydrolysis of peptide bonds, started from the forage harvesting, is restricted when the ensiled material has a high DM content or low pH value, since the proteolytic clostridia are not osmotolerant and the activity is controlled at low pH. Therefore, the restriction of proteolysis, confirmed by low N[H.sub.3]-N content of silages (Table 2), indicates rapid decline in pH.

Similarly to pH, values of buffering capacity were reduced in intercropping systems, with values ranging from 5.03 to 6.45 eq.mg HCl 100 g-1 DM. In general, the buffering capacity values found in the forages did not represent an obstacle for the rapid pH decline, and the ideal values are below 20 eq.mg HCl 100 [g.sup.-1] DM (Ferrari Junior & Lavezzo, 2001).

Regarding N[H.sub.3]-N, higher values were found in the silages of marandu and Xaraes palisadegrass in monocrop. Considering the proposal of Ferrari Junior and Lavezzo (2001) all silages can be classified as desirable, if N[H.sub.3]-N value is less than 10% total nitrogen. In addition, sorghum intercropped with Urochloa brizantha cultivars contributed to reduce ammonia nitrogen of silages, possibly due to the high content of soluble carbohydrates of sorghum, readily available for fermentation of lactic acid-producing bacteria.

The concentration of lactic acid was higher (p < 0.05) in silage of sorghum in monocropping, followed by the silages of intercropping systems (Table 3). It is noteworthy that the silages in intercropping systems produced about three times more lactic acid when compared to silages of Urochloa brizantha cultivars in monocrop. These results demonstrate the relevance of intercropping sorghum with Urochloa brizantha cultivars in the production of lactic acid, which plays a key role in the conservation of forage, for presenting a higher dissociation constant, being responsible for the pH drop to values below 4.2 (Moisio & Heikonem, 1994).

Higher pH values verified in silages of Urochloa brizantha cultivars in monocrop can be indicative of increased production of acetic and butyric acids (p < 0.05), as registered herein, with a mean value of 48.4 and 1.5 g [kg.sup.-1] DM.

Moreover, silage of sorghum in monocropping showed lower values of the acetic acid content, possibly this is because it is an early hybrid harvested at the ideal time, allowing a good lactic fermentation and a possible reduction of heterofermentative bacteria (Pires et al., 2013).

From this perspective, silage of intercropping systems becomes an interesting tool to improve the fermentation profile, based on values of pH, N[H.sub.3]-N, lactic, acetic and butyric acids, thus preserving most the nutrients from the silage.

Higher values of DM content were observed in silages of sorghum in monocropping (p < 0.05), differing from other treatments (Table 4). This result is related to the greater DM content of sorghum at the time of harvest (Table 1). In relation to Urochloa brizantha cultivars in monocrop, there was high moisture, which possibly led to a dilution of acids produced by heterofermentative bacteria, hindering reduction of pH of silages (Table 2) and delaying the start of the stability phase (Jobim, Nussio, Reis, & Schmidt, 2007).

A suitable fermentation in the silo is desired when the forage ensiled has 280-340 g [kg.sup.-1] DM, and, in these conditions, even soluble carbohydrate contents of 60-80 g [kg.sup.-1] DM would be enough to trigger lactic fermentation, provided that the buffering capacity is not high. Therefore, in this study, it was found that sorghum monocropped and intercropped with Marandu palisadegrass and Piata palisadegrass, between rows, propitiated minimum DM content required in the forage to be ensiled in order to obtain quality silages (Table 1).

The ash content in silages of Urochloa cultivars was higher than in other silages (p < 0.05). This result is in line with Mehmet (2006) because the increase in the ash content of silages is probably associated with the loss of organic matter, due to the fermentation and oxidation processes.

With respect to CP, it is observed in Table 4 the lower value was obtained sorghum silage if different (p < 0.05) from other silages, and these values were higher than those found by Machado et al. (2012), which was 5.92 at the dough stage, probably related to the greater proportion of panicles in the DM, once the hybrid used was the grain hybrid. It is noteworthy that in all forage systems, silages showed CP levels above 70 g [kg.sup.-1] DM, the minimum for no impairment of ruminal microbial growth and consequently to occur efficient use of the fiber of silages (Lazzarini et al., 2009).

The mean EE content of silages of Urochloa brizantha cultivars in monocrop was lower (p < 0.05) than those of other systems (Table 4). This is

due to the lower EE content in plants of the Urochloa genus compared to sorghum, reflecting directly in the TDN content.

As for the NDF, values were not different between the silages, with mean values of 686.4; 684.8 and 714.1 g [kg.sup.-1] DM, for intercropping systems and monocrops of sorghum and Urochloa brizantha cultivars, respectively (Table 5). The NDF of silage of sorghum in monocrop was close to that reported by Nascimento et al. (2008), 659.2 g [kg.sup.-1] DM, in the study of the nutritional value of corn and sorghum silages.

There was a significant effect (p < 0.05) on ADF content of silages (Table 5). The lowest value was obtained in the silage intercropped with Piata palisadegrass between rows. This is possibly because the Piata palisadegrass has high leaf: stem ratio, thin stems and, consequently, can be considered as grass with high production potential and good nutritional value for ensiling (Epifanio et al., 2014; Perim et al., 2014).

Sampaio et al. (2009) emphasizes that the reduction in ADF of diets containing high proportion of roughage may contribute to increase the IVDMD, resulting in increased energy density of feed for ruminants.

For the IVDMD, the values were not similar (p > 0.05) between the intercropping systems in the two planting systems. However, when comparing forage systems, sorghum silage in monocrop showed higher IVDMD compared to monocrops of the cultivars of Urochloa brizantha. This result may be due to the presence of grains in the sorghum crop.

Values of TDN content were higher (p < 0.05) in sorghum silage (Table 5), followed by silage of intercropping systems. The highest value observed in sorghum silage may be because sorghum contains higher concentration of non-fiber carbohydrates and ether extract. TDN content is important, since energy and protein are often the most limiting factors to ruminant production (Oliveira et al., 2010). Based on these results, it can be suggested that the presence of sorghum in intercropping systems raised the TDN. A similar finding was observed by Leonel et al. (2009), who reported that the average TDN content of silages in intercropping systems was higher than those achieved in the silages of grasses in monocrop.

Therefore, it is worth mentioning the importance of the crop-livestock integration system aimed at increasing the efficiency of the energy content for silage and the importance in the determination for balancing and optimizing diets.

Conclusion

The planting system of intercropping systems did not interfere with the fermentation characteristics and chemical composition of silages. The same was found for Urochloa cultivars.

Silages from intercropping sorghum with Urochloa brizantha cultivars had lower values of pH, buffering capacity, N[H.sub.3]-N, acetic and butyric acids and higher values of lactic acid, besides showed superior quality, as for the parameters DM, EE and TDN than silages of grasses produced in monocropping system.

Therefore, silages of intercropping systems ensure proper fermentation and nutritional quality, providing interesting supplementary bulky options to be used in the offseason for feeding animals.

Doi: 10.4025/actascianimsci.v39i3.33455

References

Ali, M. A., Abbas, A., Niaz, S., Zulkiffal, M., & Ali, S. (2009). Morpho-physiological criteria for drought tolerance in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) at seedling and post-anthesis stages. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 11(6), 674-680.

Almodares, A., & Hadi, M. R. (2009). Production of bioethanol from sweet sorghum: a review. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4(9), 772-780. Association of Analytical Communities [AOAC]. (1990). Official Methods of Analysis (15th ed.). Arlington, VA: Association Official Analytical Chemists.

Bolsen, K. K., Lin, C., & Brent, B. E. (1992). Effect of silage additives on the microbial succession and fermentation process of alfalfa and corn silages. Journal Dairy Science, 75(11), 3066-3083.

Chandler, P. (1990). Energy prediction of feeds by forage testing explorer. Feedstuffs, 62(36), 1-12.

Chizzotti, F. H. M., Pereira, O. G., Valadares Filho, S. C., Garcia, R., Chizzotti, M. L., Leao, M. I., & Pereira, D. H. (2005). Consumo, digestibilidade total e desempenho de novilhos Nelore recebendo dietas contendo diferentes proporcoes de silagens de Brachiaria brizantha cv. marandu e de sorgo. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 34(6), 2427-2436.

Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria [Embrapa]. (2013). Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Solos. Sistema Brasileiro de Classificacao de Solos (3a ed.). Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Embrapa CNPS.

Epifanio, P. S., Costa, K. A. P., Severiano, E. D., Cruvinel, W. S., Bento, J. C., & Perim, R. C. (2014). Fermentative and bromatological characteristics of Piata palisadegrass ensiled with levels of meals from biodiesel industry. Semina: Ciencias Agrarias, 35(1), 491-504.

Ferrari Junior, E., & Lavezzo, W. (2001). Qualidade da silagem de capim-elefante (Pennisetum purpureum Schum.) emurchecimento ou acrescido de farelo de mandioca. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 30(5), 1424-1431.

Jobim, C. C., Nussio, L. G., Reis, R. A., & Schmidt, P. (2007). Avancos metodologicos na avaliacao da qualidade da forragem conservada. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 36, 101-119.

Kung Jr, L., & Shaver, R. (2001). Interpretation and use of silage fermentation analyses reports. Focus on Forage, 3(13), 1-5.

Lazzarini, I., Detmann, E., Sampaio, C. B., Paulino, M. F., Valadares Filho, S. C., Souza, M. A., & Oliveira, F. A. (2009). Intake and digestibility in cattle fed low-quality tropical forage and supplemented with nitrogenous compounds. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 38(10), 2021-2030.

Leonel, F. P. L., Pereira, J. C., Costa, M. G., Marco Junior, P., Silva, C. J., & Lara, L. A. (2009). Consorcio capim-braquiaria e milho: comportamento produtivo das culturas e caracteristicas nutricionais e qualitativas das silagens. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 38(1), 166-176.

Machado, F. S., Rodriguez, N. M., Rodrigues, J. A. S., Ribas, M. N., Teixeira, A. M., Ribeiro Junior, G. O., ... Pereira, L. G. R. (2012). Qualidade da silagem de hibridos de sorgo em diferentes estadios de maturacao. Arquivo Brasileiro Medicina Veterinaria Zootecnia, 64(3), 711-720.

Mehmet, A. B. (2006). Effects of hybrid type, stage of maturity, and fermentation length on whole plant com silage quality. Turkish Journal Veterinary Animal Sciences, 30, 331-336.

Mertens, D. R. (2002). Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beaker or crucibles: collaborative study. Journal of AOAC International, 85(6), 1217-1240.

Moisio, T., & Heikonem, M. (1994). Latic acid fermentation on silage preserved with formic acid. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 47(1), 107-124.

Nascimento, W. G., Prado, I. N., Jobim, C. C., Emile, J. C., Surault, F., & Huyghe, C. (2008). Valor alimenticio das silagens de milho e de sorgo e sua influencia no desempenho de vacas leiteiras. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 37(5), 896-904.

Oliveira, L. B., Pires, A. J. V., Carvalho, G. G. P., Ribeiro, L. S. O., Almeida, V. V., & Peixoto, C. A. M. (2010). Perdas e valor nutritivo de silagens de milho, sorgo Sudao, sorgo forrageiro e girassol. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 39(1), 61-67.

Pahlow, G., Muck, R. E., & Driehuis, F. (2003). Microbiology of ensiling. In D. R. Buxton, R. E. Muck, J. H. Harrison (Eds.), Silage Science and Technology. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.

Perim, R. C., Costa, K. A. P., Epifanio, P. S., Souza, W. F., Francischini, R., Teixeira, D. A. A., ... Santos Jr., D.R. (2014). Fermentative and bromato logical characteristics of Piata Palisadegrass ensiled with energetic brans. AmericanJournal of Plant Sciences, 5(1), 942-954.

Pires, D. A. A., Rocha Junior, V. R., Sales, E. C. J., Reis, S. T., Jayme, D. G., Cruz, S. S., ... Esteves, B. L. C. (2013). Caracteristicas das silagens de cinco genotipos de sorgo cultivados no inverno. Revista Brasileira de Milho e Sorgo, 12(1), 264-268.

Ribeiro, J. L., Nussio, L. G., Mourao, G. B., Queiroz, O. C. M., Santos, M. C., & Schmidt, P. (2009). Efeitos de absorventes de umidade e de aditivos quimicos e microbianos sobre o valor nutritivo, o perfil fermentativo e as perdas em silagens de capimmarandu. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 38(2), 230-239.

Sampaio, C. B., Detmann, E., Lazzarini, I., Souza, M. A., Paulino, M. F., & Valadares Filho, S. C., (2009). Rumen dynamics of neutral detergent fiber in cattle fedlow-quality tropical forage and supplemented with nitrogenous compounds. Revista Brasileira Zootecnia, 38(3), 560-569.

Tilley, J. M. A., & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique of the "in vitro" digestion of forage crop. Journal of the British Grassland Society, 18(2), 104-111.

Tomich, T. R., Goncalves, L. C., Tomich, R. G. P., Rodrigues, J. A. S., Borges, I., & Rodriguez, N. M. (2004). Caracteristicas quimicas e digestibilidade in vitro das silagens de girassol. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 33(1), 1672-1682.

Van Soest, P. H., Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal Dairy Science, 74(10), 3583-3597.

Received on September 8, 2016.

Accepted on February 1, 2017

Matheus Goncalves Ribeiro (1), Katia Aparecida de Pinho Costa (2) *, Wender Ferreira de Souza (2), Welma Santos Cruvinel (2), Jessika Torres da Silva (2) and Divino Rosa dos Santos Junior (2)

(1) Programa de Pos-graduacao em Zootecnia, Universidade Estadual de Maringa, Maringa, Parana, Brazil. (2) Instituto Federal Goiano, Campus Rio Verde, Av. Sul Goiana, Km 1, 75901-970, Rio Verde, Goias, Brazil. * Author for correspondence. E-mail: katia.costa@ifgoiano.edu.br
Table 1. Chemical composition of sorghum and cultivars
of Urochloa brizantha in monocropping and intercropping systems, before
ensiling (g [kg.sup.-1] DM).

Forage system      DM      CP      NDF     ADF     EE    IVDMD

SMR               261.4   97.5    700.8   376.7   29.5   572.2
SMBR              300.5   93.4    705.3   358.5   28.4   548.9
SXR               270.3   91.3    682.5   378.6   30.6   572.5
SXBR              269.5   92.4    673.9   375.3   29.8   565.9
SPR               284.1   98.7    668.5   378.9   30.5   582.5
SPBR              295.9   100.5   689.3   323.5   29.3   580.2
Sorghum           337.5   83.6    631.6   340.6   41.5   653.5
Marandu           229.8   92.5    737.2   400.5   17.8   510.1
  palisadegrass
Xaraes            238.2   97.2    713.8   402.8   16.5   560.3
  palisadegrass
Piata             241.8   98.5    705.7   398.7   15.9   571.0
  palisadegrass

SMR: Sorghum x Marandu palisadegrass in the row; SMBR:
Sorghum x Marandu palisadegrass in the between rows; SXR:
Sorghum x Xaraes palisadegrass in the row; SXBR:
Sorghum x Xaraes palisadegrass in the between rows; SPR:
Sorghum x Piata palisadegrass in the row; SPBR:
Sorghum x Piata palisadegrass in the between rows.
DM: Dry matter; CP: Crude protein; NDF: Neutral detergent fiber;
ADF: Acid detergent fiber; EE: Ether extract;
IVDMD: in vitro dry matter digestibility.

Table 2. Hydrogen ion potential (pH), buffering capacity (BC),
titratable acidity (TA) and ammonia nitrogen in relation
to total nitrogen (N[H.sub.3]-N NT-1) of silage of sorghum
and Urochloa brizantha cultivars monocropped or
intercropped in different planting systems.

                               Planting system

Forage system        Row                 Between row     Mean

                                    pH

SM                3.94 (ab)               3.81 (b)     3.88 (A)
SX                3.93 (b)                3.89 (b)     3.91 (A)
SP                3.88 (b)                3.86 (b)     3.87 (A)
Sorghum                       3.73 (b)
Marandu                       4.35 (a)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                        4.29 (a)
  palisadegrass
Piata                         4.42 (a)
  palisadegrass
Mean (1)          3.92 (A)                3.85 (A)
CV (%)                          3.21

                              Titratable Acidity
                             ([g.sup.-1] 100 mL)

SM                2.51 (a)                2.53 (a)     2.52 (A)
SX                2.46 (a)                2.29 (a)     2.38 (A)
SP                2.52 (a)                2.74 (a)     2.63 (A)
Sorghum                       3.68 (a)
Marandu                       1.62 (a)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                        1.77 (a)
  palisadegrass
Piata                         1.97 (a)
  palisadegrass
Mean (1)          2.50 (A)                2.52 (A)
CV (%)                          21.7

                              Planting system

Forage system       Row                  Between row     Mean

                            Buffering capacity (eq.mg
                              HCl 100 [g.sup.-1] DM)

SM                5.72 (b)                5.55 (b)     5.63 (A)
SX                6.45 (b)                5.66 (b)     6.06 (A)
SP                5.94 (b)                5.03 (b)     5.49 (A)
Sorghum                      4.69 (b)
Marandu                      10.28 (a)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                       10.05 (a)
  palisadegrass
Piata                        9.56 (a)
  palisadegrass
Mean (1)          6.04 (A)                5.41 (A)
CV (%)                         17.24

                               N[H.sub.3]-N/NT (%)

SM                3.93 (b)                4.57 (b)     4.25 (A)
SX                3.61 (b)                3.59 (b)     3.60 (A)
SP                2.61 (b)                3.92 (b)     3.27 (A)
Sorghum                      5.25 (b)
Marandu                      8.84 (a)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                       8.56 (a)
  palisadegrass
Piata                        6.52 (ab)
  palisadegrass
Mean (1)          3.38 (A)                4.03 (A)
CV (%)                         30.39

SM: Sorghum x Marandu palisadegrass; SX: Sorghum x Xaraes
palisadegrass; SP: Sorghum x Piata palisadegrass; Mean (1):
means followed by different uppercase letters in the same row
of the intercropping system in two planting systems are significantly
different by Tukey s test at 5% probability; Means followed by
different uppercase letters are significantly different
by Tukeys test at 5% probability; Means followed by different
lowercase letters are significantly different from sorghum
monocrop by Dunnett's test at 5% probability.

Table 3. Concentration of organic acids of silage of sorghum
and Urochloa brizantha cultivars monocropping or
intercropping systems in different planting systems.

                             Planting system

Forage system       Row      Between row     Mean

                             Lactic (%)

SM                56.3 (b)    58.1 (b)     57.2 (A)
SX                58.3 (b)    52.9 (b)     55.6 (A)
SP                60.4 (b)    55.7 (b)     58.1 (A)
Sorgo                         88.5 (a)
Marandu                       20.7 (c)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                        16.8 (c)
  palisadegrass
Piata                         17.1 (c)
  palisadegrass
Means (1)         58.3 (A)    55.6 (A)
CV (%)                          23.33

                             Propionic (%)

SM                0.9 (b)      0.8 (b)     0.8 (A)
SX                1.0 (b)      1.2 (b)     1.1 (A)
SP                0.8 (b)      1.0 (b)     0.9 (A)
Sorgo                          0.9 (b)
Marandu                        6.8 (a)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                         6.3 (a)
  palisadegrass
Piata                          7.5 (a)
  palisadegrass
Mean (1)          0.9 (A)      1.0 (A)
CV (%)                          43.32

                             Planting system

Forage system       Row      Betweenrow     Mean

                             Acetic (%)

SM                19.9 (b)    14.9 (b)    17.4 (A)
SX                23.6 (b)    18.3 (b)    20.9 (A)
SP                27.6 (b)    25.7 (b)    26.6 (A)
Sorgo                         14.5 (b)
Marandu                       50.7 (a)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                        50.5 (a)
  palisadegrass
Piata                         43.9 (a)
  palisadegrass
Means (1)         23.7 (A)    19.6 (A)
CV (%)                         32.71

                             Butyric (%)

SM                0.5 (b)     0.6 (b)     0.5 (A)
SX                0.7 (b)     0.7 (b)     0.7 (A)
SP                0.8 (ab)    0.7 (b)     0.7 (A)
Sorgo                         0.4 (b)
Marandu                       1.5 (a)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                        1.4 (a)
  palisadegrass
Piata                         1.6 (a)
  palisadegrass
Mean (1)          0.6 (A)     0.6 (A)
CV (%)                         25.95

SM: Sorghum x Marandu palisadegrass; SX: Sorghum x
Xaraes palisadegrass; SP: Sorghum x Piata palisadegrass;
Mean (1): means followed by different uppercase letters in
the same row of the intercropping system in two planting
systems are significantly different by Tukeys test at 5%
probability; Means followed by different uppercase letters
in column are significantly different by Tukeys
test at 5% probability; Means followed by different
lowercase letters are significantly different from
sorghum monocrop by Dunnetf s test at 5% probability.

Table 4. Dry matter (DM), ash, crude protein (CP) and ether extract
(EE) of silage of sorghum and Urochloa brizantha cultivars
monocropped or intercropped in different planting systems.

                                 Planting system

Forage system        Row                  Between row     Mean

                                 DM (g [kg.sup.-1])

SM                257.2 (b)                290.9 (b)    274.1 (A)
SX                264.1 (b)                267.6 (b)    265.8 (A)
SP                271.0 (b)                283.5 (b)    277.2 (A)
Sorgo                         331.8 (a)
Marandu                       226.4 (b)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                        235.9 (b)
  palisadegrass
Piata                         239.6 (b)
  palisadegrass
Means (1)         264.1 (B)                280.7 (A)
CV (%)                          10.25

                                 CP (g [kg.sup.-1])

SM                92.8 (a)                 90.6 (a)     91.7 (A)
SX                89.0 (a)                 89.0 (a)     89.0 (A)
SP                93.8 (a)                 96.1 (a)     95.0 (A)
Sorgo                         81.9 (b)
Marandu                       98.2 (a)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                        95.0 (a)
  palisadegrass
Piata                         96.3 (a)
  palisadegrass
Mean (1)          91.9 (A)                 91.9 (A)
CV (%)                          16.53

                                 Planting system

Forage system       Row                 Between row     Mean

                                 Ash (g [kg.sup.-1])

SM                46.3 (c)               39.0 (c)     42.6 (B)
SX                56.8 (b)               49.0 (bc)    52.9 (A)
SP                55.1 (b)               45.1 (c)     50.1 (A)
Sorgo                        36.8 (d)
Marandu                      71.0 (a)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                       70.7 (a)
  palisadegrass
Piata                        72.7 (a)
  palisadegrass
Means (1)         52.7 (B)               44.4 (A)
CV (%)                         8.93

                                 EE (g [kg.sup.-1])

SM                30.5 (b)               27.5 (b)     29.0 (A)
SX                29.7 (b)               29.2 (b)     29.4 (A)
SP                29.1 (b)               27.0 (b)     28.1 (A)
Sorgo                        39.9 (a)
Marandu                      16.7 (c)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                       16.7 (c)
  palisadegrass
Piata                        13.7 (c)
  palisadegrass
Mean (1)           29.7 A                27.9 (A)
CV (%)                         9.46

SM: Sorghum x Marandu palisadegrass; SX: Sorghum x Xaraes
palisadegrass; SP: Sorghum x Piata palisadegrass; Mean (1):
means followed by different uppercase letters in the same of
the intercropping system in two planting systems are significantly
different by Tukey's test at 5% probability; Means followed by
different uppercase letters in the same column are
significantly different by Tukey s test at 5% probability;
Means followed by different lowercase letters are significantly
different from sorghum monocrop by Dunnett's test at 5%
probability.

Table 5. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber
(ADF), in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) and total digestible
nutrients (TDN) of silage of sorghum and Urochloa brizantha
cultivars monocropped or intercropped in different planting systems.

                                    Planting system

Forage system        Row                  Between row      Mean

                                       NDF (g [kg.sup.-1])

SM                  703.6                    723.4      713.5 (A)
SX                  689.4                    675.3      682.3 (A)
SP                  665.5                    691.2      678.35 (A)
Sorgo                           624.8
Marandu                         730.1
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                          701.1
  palisadegrass
Piata                           711.0
  palisadegrass
Mean (1)          686.2 (A)                696.6 (A)
CV (%)                          6.46

                                   IVDMD (g [kg.sup.-1])

SM                  546.6                    535.7      511.2 (A)
SX                  561.6                    540.6      551.1 (A)
SP                  571.1                    570.4      570.8 (A)
Sorgo                         649.0 (a)
Marandu                       486.0 (b)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                        551.9 (b)
  palisadegrass
Piata                         557.2 (b)
  palisadegrass
Mean (1)          561.9 (A)                 548.9 A
CV (%)                          17.33

                                  Planting system

Forage system        Row                  Between row      Mean

                                  ADF (g [kg.sup.-1])

SM                365.4 (a)                364.4 (a)    364.9 (AB)
SX                383.5 (a)                381.7 (a)    382.6 (A)
SP                384.1 (a)                326.5 (b)    355.3 (B)
Sorgo                         343.5 (a)
Marandu                       406.6 (a)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                        401.4 (a)
  palisadegrass
Piata                         402.4 (a)
  palisadegrass
Mean (1)          377.6 (A)                357.6 (B)
CV (%)                          6.51

                                  TDN (g [kg.sup.-1])

SM                630.3 (b)                633.7 (b)    632.0 (A)
SX                639.0 (b)                639.7 (b)    639.3 (A)
SP                621.7 (b)                635.3 (b)    628.5 (A)
Sorgo                         700.0 (a)
Marandu                       520.0 (c)
  palisadegrass
Xaraes                        509.7 (c)
  palisadegrass
Piata                         499.0 (c)
  palisadegrass
Mean (1)          630.3 (A)                636.2 (A)
CV (%)                          23.71

SM: Sorghum x Marandu palisadegrass; SX: Sorghum x Xaraes
palisadegrass; SP: Sorghum x Piata palisadegrass; Mean : means
followed by different uppercase letters in the same row of the
intercropping system in two planting systems are significantly
different by Tukey s test at 5% probability; Means followed by
different uppercase letters in the same column are significantly
different by Tukey's test at 5% probability; Means followed by
different lowercase letters are significantly different from
sorghum monocrop by Dunnett's test at 5% probability.
COPYRIGHT 2017 Universidade Estadual de Maringa
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Ribeiro, Matheus Goncalves; Costa, Katia Aparecida de Pinho; de Souza, Wender Ferreira; Cruvinel, We
Publication:Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (UEM)
Date:Jul 1, 2017
Words:5710
Previous Article:Production and chemical composition of grasses and legumes cultivated in pure form, mixed or in consortium/ Producao e composicao bromatologica de...
Next Article:Digestibility and physico-chemical characteristics of acid silage meal made of pirarucu waste in diets for commercial laying hens/Caracteristicas...
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters