Journal of The Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science (한국초지조사료학회지)

The Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science (한국초지조사료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Nutritive Value and Fermentation Quality of the Silage of Three Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinas L.) Cultivars at Three Different Growth Stages

  • Kim, Byong Wan (College of Animal Resource Science, Kangwon National Univ.) ;
  • Sung, Kyung Il (College of Animal Resource Science, Kangwon National Univ.) ;
  • Nejad, Jalil Ghassemi (College of Animal Resource Science, Kangwon National Univ.) ;
  • Shin, Jong Suh (College of Animal Resource Science, Kangwon National Univ.)
  • Received : 2012.11.02
  • Accepted : 2012.11.28
  • Published : 2012.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the nutritive value and the quality of ensiled kenaf after fermentation with three cultivars at three different times of harvesting. Experimental plot were allocated with three harvest date (Early;8/3, medium;8/15 and late;8/28) and three cultivars (Tainung-a, Everglade, Whitten). The DM (dry matter) yield increased with maturity in all three cultivars, especially in Whitten which showed the highest yield at each harvest time. The DM content in Whitten at late harvesting time was higher than other treatments (231 g $kg^{-1}$ DM). The CP (crude protein) contents of the kenaf silage of all three cultivars ranged from 151 to 164 g $kg^{-1}$. Highest content of NDF (neutral detergent fiber) was observed in Everglade at medium harvesting date, but the ADF (acid detergent fiber) content was highest in Everglade at early harvesting date (p<0.05). All treatments produced a pH less than 4.0, which is sufficient for stable storage. The pH of Tainung-a was higher than other cultivars at all harvesting times (p<0.05). Whitten showed the higher content of lactic acid (25.8 g $kg^{-1}$ DM) showed at early harvesting date than other cultivars (p<0.05), while the acetic acid content (21.1 g $kg^{-1}$ DM) was higher in Tainung-a at medium harvesting date (p<0.05). No significant difference was observed in ammonia-Nand butyric acid concentrations among all treatments. These results indicate that a kenaf silage could be used as fodder for ruminants. Especially, the Whitten harvested at late growing stage showed promise as a forage silage crop under Koran environments.

Keywords

References

  1. AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis. (15th Ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington D.C., USA.
  2. ASPA-Associazione Scientifica di Produzione Animale- Commissione Valutazione Alimenti, 1982. Valutazionedeglialimenti di interessezootecnico: 2. Aspettimetodologicidelladigeribilit`a in vivo. Zootecniche Nutritional Animal. 8, 387-394.
  3. Danner, H., Holzer, M. Mayrhuber, E. and Braun, R. 2003. Acetic acid increases stability of silage under aerobic conditions. Applied Environmental Microbiology. vol. 69. no. 1 562-567. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.1.562-567.2003
  4. D'Urso, G., Sinatra, M.C. Licitra, G. and Avondo, M. 1987. Composizionechimico-nutritiva e caratteristiche di fermentazionedelkenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) insilato. Tecchology Agriculutre. 4, 5-14.
  5. Dempsey, J.M. 1975. Fiber Crops. The University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
  6. Dicks, M., Jobes, R., Wells, B. and Zhang, J. 1992. Kenaf: Potential Alternative Forage for the Southern Plains Stocker Cattle Enterprise. Curr. Farm Econ. Agricultural Experiment Station, Division Agriculture, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK.
  7. Gaspari, F. 1990. Insilamento del foraggio di ibisco. L'Informatore Agrario 46(25):44-46.
  8. Han, S.E., Sung, K.I. Cho, D.H. Jin, C.W. and Kim, B.W. 2006. Effect of planting density, cultivar and growing days on the dry matter yield and forage quality of Kenaf in Cheorwon, Korea. Korean Grassland Science. 26(4):285-292. https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2006.26.4.285
  9. Hancock, T.W., Parker, J.P. Hibberd, C.A. and Dicks, M.R. 1993. Kenaf vs. alfalfa hay for growing beef cattle. Animal Science Research Report, Agricultural Experimental Station, Oklahoma State University, P-933, pp. 143-147.
  10. Hollowell, J.E. and Baldwin, B.S. 1997. Effects of fertilizer application, row spacing and harvest cycle on kenaf's potential forage application. In International Kenaf Association 9th Annual Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. p 47. International Kenaf Association., Ladonia, TX.
  11. Kazuko, H., Yuki, W. Toshiko, M. and Hiroshi, I. 2004. Utilization of dried kenaf leaves to the foods (3)-Chinpi (H. canabinus L) and Roselle (H. subdariffa L). Journal of the Intergrated Study of Dietary Habits. Vol. 15. No. 1. pp. 54-60. https://doi.org/10.2740/jisdh.15.54
  12. Killinger, G. B. 1969. Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.), A multi-use crop. Agronomy Journal. 61:734- 741. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1969.00021962006100050025x
  13. Kim, B.W. Kim, G.S. and Sung, K.I. 2004. Effect of lactic acid bacteria and formic acid on the silage quality of whole crop rice at different maturity. Korean Grassland Science 24(1):61-70. https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2004.24.1.061
  14. Kung, L. and Shaver, R. 2001. Interpretation and use of silage fermentation analysis reports. Focus on Forage. Vol 3: No. 13.
  15. Muck, R.E. 1987. Dry matter effects on alfalfa silage quality. 1. Nitrogen transformation. Transaction of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 30:7-14. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.30393
  16. Muck, R.E. and Dickerson, J.T. 1988. Storage temperature effects on proteolysis in alfalfa silage. Transaction of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 31:1005-1009. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.30813
  17. Muir, J.P. 2001. Dairy compost, variety and stand age effects on kenaf forage yield, nitrogen and phosphorus concentration and uptake. Agronomy Journal. 93:1169-1173. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2001.9351169x
  18. Najid, M.A. and Ismawaty, N. 2001. Production and processing of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinas L.) as animal feed procdution. 23rd Malaysian Society of Animal Production Annual Conference. 27-29 May 2001, Langawi Malaysia, pp:158-159.
  19. Pearson, D. and Muslemuddin, M. 1968. The accurate determination of volatile nitrogen in meat and fish. Journal of Association Public Analysis. 6, 117-123.
  20. Pinkerton, B.W. and Cross, D.L. 1992. Forage quality. Clemson University Cooperative Extension Forage Leaflet 16.
  21. Ranjit, N.K. and Kung, L. 2000. The effect of Lactobcillusbuchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a chemical preservative on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage. Journal of Dairy Science. Vol. 83. Issue 3.pp 526-535. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74912-5
  22. SAS, 2001. SAS User's Guide. Version. 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
  23. Suriyajantratong, W., Tucker, R.E. Sigafus, R.E. and Mitchell, Jr. G.E. 1973. Kenaf and rice straw for sheep. Journal of Animal Science. 37:1251. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1973.3751251x
  24. Swingle, R.S., Urias, A.R. Doyle, J.C. and Voight, R.L. 1978. Chemical composition of kenaf forage and its indigestibility by lambs and in vitro. Journal of Animal Science. 46:1346-1350. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1978.4651346x
  25. Taylor, C.S. and Kugler, D.E. 1992. Kenaf: Annual fiber crop productions generate a growing response from industry. p. 92-98. In 1992 Yearbook of Agriculture. Office of Publishing and Visual Communication USDA, Washington. DC.
  26. Van Vuuren, A.M., Klop, A. Van Der Korlen, C.J. and De Visser, H. 1999. Starch and stage of maturity of grass silage: site of digestion and intestinal nutrient supply in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 82, 143-152. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75218-5
  27. Webber, C.L. and Bledoe, V.K. 2002. Plant maturity and kenaf yield components. Industrial Crops and Products. 16, 81-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6690(02)00011-0
  28. Wildeus, S., Bhardwaj, H.L. Rangappa, M. and Webber, III. C.L. 1995. Consumption of chopped kenaf by Spanish goats. Proceeding 7th International Kenaf Conference, Irving. TX. 9-10 March, Internal Kenaf Association., Ladonia, TX.
  29. Wing, J. M. 1967. Ensilability, acceptability and digestibility of kenaf. Feedstuffs. 39(29):26.
  30. Xiccato G., Trocino, A. and Carazzolo, A. 1998. Ensiling and nutritive value of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus). Animal Feed Science & Technology. 71:229-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(97)00158-2

Cited by

  1. Nutritional Properties of Various Tissues from New Kenaf Cultivars vol.21, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12892-018-0039-0
  2. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) as a roughage source for beef cattle vol.31, pp.10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0871