Effects of dietary n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and ... - FINS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1 st WorkshopXIII International Feed Technology SymposiumBoth in 2003 and 2004, to prepare whole plant maize silage, hybrids NS SC 663 andZP SC 677 were planted. In addition, in production of whole plant maize silage, alltechnological operations were implemented.In 2003, maize was harvested and silage prepared from 25 August to 1 September,and in 2004 between 30 August and 6 September. Silage was prepared in the milkywaxyphase of maize ripening.A chemical analysis for the content of moisture, raw proteins, raw fat and ash wasdone using the Weende method. The chemical analysis for the content of neutral(NDF) and acid (ADF) detergent fibers the Van Soest method was used.The chemical analysis for total content of lactic, acetic and butyric acid was doneusing the Wigner Magasanic method.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONHaving in mind that in both years virtually identical agritechnical measures wereapplied, it can be concluded that the large differences in yield in 2003 and 2004, forboth cultures, were caused by extreme differenced of precipitation in the monitoredperiod. In the exceptionally dry 2003, yields were drastically decreased, and in therainy 2004, yields were up to two times higher than in the preceding year (Table 1).Indexes in Table 1 show that yield decrease in the dry 2003 was less pronounced forsudan grass than for maize, i.e. that sudan grass proved to be more resistant to thedraught than maize.Table 1. Achieved yield of fresh green mass (t/ha)SpeciesYear2003 2004Maize 15,2 32,4Sudan grass 41,8 66,7IndexRealized yields are one of the two most important indicators of suitability of a culturefor producing animal feed. Table 1 shows that, according to this indicator, sudangrass, especially in unfavorable years, has significantly higher yields, recommendingan increase of its share in the planting structure in order to increase production ofanimal feed (silage). The second most important indicator of suitability of a culturefor producing animal feed is its chemical composition, which directly influences thequality of feed (in this case silage) prepared from that culture. The quality ofprepared silage directly influences both the level of consumption of dry matter peranimal, and the level of utilization of consumed dry matter. Table 2 presents thequality of prepared whole plant maize silage and sudan grass silage in 2004.255
1 st WorkshopXIII International Feed Technology SymposiumTable 2. The quality of maize silage and sudan grass silage in 2004IndexMaize silage yield32.4 t/haSudan grass silage yield66.7 t/ha% DM Yield, t/ha % DM Yield, t/haDry matter(37,00)**( 9,75 )**11,9910010019,84Crude protein 8,67 1,04 9,80 1,94Crude fat 2,71 0,32 2,37 0,47Ash 4,09 0,49 4,27 0,85Neutral detergent fiber14,3539,38 4,72 72,34(NDF)Acid detergent fiber (ADF) 21,60 2,59 43,92 8,71Hemicellulose 17,78 2,13 28,42 5,64Unstructuredcarbohydrates *25645,15 5,41 11,22 2,23% on natural moisture contentFully lactic acid 1,60 0,90Fully acetate acid 0,93 0,96Fully butyric acid 0,00 0,21pH 3,78 4,92- 100 - % crude protein - % crude fat - % ash - % NDF (37.00)- ** % dry matter in full mass with natural moisture contentLower values for individual carbohydrate fractions (ADF and NDF) in sudan grasssilage were reported in research by Petkova and Zhelev, (3), who used rations withmaize silage and sudan grass silage to feed Holstein cows.Results presented in Table 2 show that whole plant maize silage is a higher qualityfeed than sudan grass silage. First, whole plant maize silage contains considerablyless NDF and ADF fibers, and considerably more unstructural carbohydrates thansudan grass silage. The result of this different chemical composition of analyzedsilages is that corn silage is much more digestible and richer in energy. Lower fibercontent, i.e. better digestibility, mean that whole plant maize silage is a tastier feed,more readily consumed by cattle, and that therefore ingestion of dry matter andenergy from the fodder in the ration are higher, which in fact should be the goal forcattle production (meat, milk, offspring).The claim about the undoubtedly better quality of maize silage is substantiated alsoby the much more favorable structure of organic acids created in maize silage duringfermentation (Table 2). Sudan grass has a much less favorable ratio between lacticand acetic acid, and above all between lactic and butyric acid, which has a veryunfavorable effect on its taste, and therefore on its level of consumption. Underproduction conditions on farm "Jadran" in Cantavir, maximum consumption of wholeplant maize silage was up to 25 kg daily per animal, while consumption of sudangrass silage was rarely above 15 kg daily per animal. Translated into dry matterintake, the potential for dry matter intake for cows is twice higher for maize silage,than for sudan grass silage.
Page 2 and 3:
1 st WorkshopXIII International Fee
Page 4 and 5:
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Digestibility (%)1 st WorkshopXIII
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Starch disappearance (%)1 st Worksh
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
X Axis Title1 st WorkshopXIII Inter
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
dehulledhulledFusarium spp.Alternar
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Ash content, %1 st WorkshopXIII Int
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204:
Page 207 and 208: 1 st WorkshopXIII International Fee
Page 209 and 210: conversion of food (kg)1 st Worksho
Page 240: 1 st WorkshopXIII International Fee
Page 255: 1 st WorkshopXIII International Fee
Page 265 and 266: production of fat correctedmilk 3,5
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
kg feed/kg body weignt1 st Workshop
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345:
show all

Effects of dietary n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and ... - FINS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?