Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5187/jast.2021.e131

Evaluation of forage production, feed value, and ensilability of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.)  

Wei, Sheng Nan (Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Seoul National University)
Jeong, Eun Chan (Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Seoul National University)
Li, Yan Fen (Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Seoul National University)
Kim, Hak Jin (Research Institute of Eco-friendly Livestock Science, Institute of GreenBio Science Technology, Seoul National University)
Ahmadi, Farhad (Research Institute of Eco-friendly Livestock Science, Institute of GreenBio Science Technology, Seoul National University)
Kim, Jong Geun (Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Animal Science and Technology / v.64, no.1, 2022 , pp. 38-51 More about this Journal
Abstract
Whole-plant corn (Zea may L.) and sorghum-sudangrass hybrid [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] are major summer crops that can be fed as direct-cut or silage. Proso millet is a short-season growing crop with distinct agronomic characteristics that can be productive in marginal lands. However, information is limited about the potential production, feed value, and ensilability of proso millet forage. We evaluated proso millet as a silage crop in comparison with conventional silage crops. Proso millet was sown on June 8 and harvested on September 5 at soft-dough stage. Corn and sorghum-sudangrass hybrid were planted on May 10 and harvested on September 10 at the half milk-line and soft-dough stages, respectively. The fermentation was evaluated at 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 45 days after ensiling. Although forage yield of proso millet was lower than corn and sorghum-sudangrass hybrid, its relative feed value was greater than sorghum-sudangrass hybrid. Concentrations of dry matter (DM), crude protein, and water-soluble carbohydrate decreased commonly in the ensiling forage crops. The DM loss was greater in proso millet than those in corn and sorghum-sudangrass hybrid. The in vitro dry matter digestibility declined in the forage crops as fermentation progressed. In the early stages of fermentation, pH dropped rapidly, which was stabilized in the later stages. Compared to corn and sorghum-sudangrass hybrid, the concentration of ammonia-nitrogen was greater in proso millet. The count of lactic acid bacteria reached the maximum level on day 10, with the values of 6.96, 7.77, and 6.95 Log10 CFU/g fresh weight for proso millet, corn, and sorghum-sudangrass hybrid, respectively. As ensiling progressed, the concentrations of lactic acid and acetic acid of the three crops increased and lactic acid proportion became higher in the order of sorghum-sudangrass hybrid, corn, and proso millet. Overall, the shorter, fast-growing proso millet comparing with corn and sorghum-sudangrass hybrid makes this forage crop an alternative option, particularly in areas where agricultural inputs are limited. However, additional research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of viable strategies such as chemical additives or microbial inoculants to minimize ammonia-nitrogen formation and DM loss during ensiling.
Keywords
Proso millet; Corn; Sorghum-sudangrass hybrid; Silage; Conservation;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 4  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Martinez-Fernandez A, Soldado C, de la Roza Delgado B, Vicente F, Gonzalez-Arrojo MA, Argamenteria A. Modelling a quantitative ensilability index adapted to forages from wet temperate areas. Span J Agric Res. 2013;11:455-62. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2013112-3219   DOI
2 Lima R, Lourenco M, Diaz RF, Castro A, Fievez V. Effect of combined ensiling of sorghum and soybean with or without molasses and Lactobacilli on silage quality and in vitro rumen fermentation. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2010;155:122-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.10.008   DOI
3 Pahlow G, Muck RE, Driehuis F, Elferink SJWHO, Spoelstra SF. Microbiology of ensiling. In: Buxton DR, Muck RE, Harrison JH, editors. Silage Science and Technology. Madison, Wisconsin: American Society of Agronom; 2003. p. 31-93.
4 Amer S, Hassanat F, Berthiaume R, Seguin P, Mustafa AF. Effects of water soluble carbohydrate content on ensiling characteristics, chemical composition and in vitro gas production of forage millet and forage sorghum silages. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2012;177:23-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.07.024   DOI
5 Ammar H, Lopez S, Gonzalez JS, Ranilla MJ. Chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of some Spanish browse plant species. J Sci Food Agric. 2004;84:197-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.1635   DOI
6 McCartney D, Fraser J, Ohama A. Potential of warm-season annual forages and Brassica crops for grazing: a Canadian review. Can J Anim Sci. 2009;89:431-40. https://doi.org/10.4141/CJAS09002   DOI
7 Habiyaremye C, Matanguihan JB, D'Alpoim Guedes J, Ganjyal GM, Whiteman MR, Kidwell KK, et al. Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) and its potential for cultivation in the Pacific Northwest, U.S.: a review. Front Plant Sci. 2017;7:1961. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01961   DOI
8 Amadou I, Gounga ME, Le GW. Millets: nutritional composition, some health benefits and processing-a review. Emir J Food Agric. 2013;501-8. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v25i7.12045   DOI
9 Nematpour A, Eshghizadeh HR, Zahedi M. Comparing the corn, millet and sorghum as silage crops under different irrigation regime and nitrogen fertilizer levels. Int J Plant Prod. 2021;15:351-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42106-021-00142-8   DOI
10 Cai Y, Benno Y, Ogawa M, Kumai S. Effect of applying lactic acid bacteria isolated from forage crops on fermentation characteristics and aerobic deterioration of silage. J Dairy Sci. 1999;82:520-6. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75263-X   DOI
11 Fenton MP. An investigation into the sources of lactic acid bacteria in grass silage. J Appl Bacteriol. 1987;62:181-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.1987.tb02397.x   DOI
12 Xu Z, He H, Zhang S, Kong J. Effects of inoculants Lactobacillus brevis and Lactobacillus parafarraginis on the fermentation characteristics and microbial communities of corn stover silage. Sci Rep. 2017;7:13614. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14052-1   DOI
13 Kim JG, Chung ES, Seo S, Ham JS, Kang WS, Kim DA. Effects of maturity at harvest and wilting days on quality of round baled rye silage. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2001;14:1233-7. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2001.1233   DOI
14 Schroeder JW. Forage nutrition for ruminants. Fargo, ND: NDSU Extension Service, North Dakota State University; 2004.
15 ANKOM Technology. ANKOM Technology method 3: in vitro true digestibility using the DAISYII incubator [Internet]. ANKOM Technology. 2017 [2021 May 10]. http://www.ankom.com/media/documents/IVDMD_0805_D200.pdf
16 Jahansouz MR, Keshavarz Afshar R, Heidari H, Hashemi M. Evaluation of yield and quality of sorghum and millet as alternative forage crops to corn under normal and deficit irrigation regimes. Jordan J Agric Sci. 2014;10:699-715. https:/doi.org/10.12816/0031747   DOI
17 Kim JG, Jeong EC, Kim MJ, Li YF, Kim HJ, Lee SH. Comparison of growth characteristics and productivity of summer forage crops in Sihwa reclaimed land. J Korean Soc Grassl Forage Sci. 2021;41:110-8. https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2021.41.2.110   DOI
18 Queiroz OCM, Ogunade IM, Weinberg Z, Adesogan AT. Silage review: foodborne pathogens in silage and their mitigation by silage additives. J Dairy Sci. 2018;101:4132-42. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13901   DOI
19 Shao T, Ohba N, Shimojo M, Masuda Y. Dynamics of early fermentation of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) silage. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2002;15:1606-10. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2002.1606   DOI
20 Arriola KG, Queiroz OCM, Romero JJ, Casper D, Muniz E, Hamie J, et al. Effect of microbial inoculants on the quality and aerobic stability of bermudagrass round-bale haylage. J Dairy Sci. 2015;98:478-85. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8411   DOI
21 Contreras-Govea FE, Muck RE, Broderick GA, Weimer PJ. Lactobacillus plantarum effects on silage fermentation and in vitro microbial yield. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2013;179:61-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.11.008   DOI
22 Muck R, Kung L. Effects of silage additives on ensiling. In: Proceedings from the Silage: Field to Feedbunk, North American Conference; 1997; Hershey, PA.
23 Rohweder DA, Barnes RF, Jorgensen N. Proposed hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. J Anim Sci. 1978;47:747-59. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1978.473747x   DOI
24 KOSIS [Korean Statistical Information Service]. Farm households by size of raising Korean beef cattle/total head [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2021 September 3]. https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1EO221&conn_path=I2
25 Calamai A, Masoni A, Marini L, Dell'acqua M, Ganugi P, Boukail S, et al. Evaluation of the agronomic traits of 80 accessions of proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) under Mediterranean pedoclimatic conditions. Agriculture. 2020;10:578. https://doi.org/10.3390/ agriculture10120578   DOI
26 Lynch JP, O'Kiely P, Doyle EM. Yield, quality and ensilage characteristics of whole-crop maize and of the cob and stover components: harvest date and hybrid effects. Grass Forage Sci. 2012;67:472-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.2012.00868.x   DOI
27 Madigan MT, Martinko JM, Parker J, Brock TD. Brock biology of microorganisms. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall; 2003.
28 Yemm EW, Willis AJ. The estimation of carbohydrates in plant extracts by anthrone. Biochem J. 1954;57:508-14. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0570508   DOI
29 Wei SN, Li YF, Jeong EC, Kim HJ, Kim JG. Effects of formic acid and lactic acid bacteria inoculant on main summer crop silages in Korea. J Anim Sci Technol. 2021;63:91-103. https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2021.e7   DOI
30 Ahmadi F, Lee YH, Lee WH, Oh YK, Park K, Kwak WS. Long-term anaerobic conservation of fruit and vegetable discards without or with moisture adjustment after aerobic preservation with sodium metabisulfite. Waste Manag. 2019;87:258-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.02.010   DOI
31 Shao T, Zhang ZX, Shimojo M, Wang T, Masuda Y. Comparison of fermentation characteristics of Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) and guineagrass (Panicum maximum Jacq.) during the early stage of ensiling. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2005;18:1727-34. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2005.1727   DOI
32 Jean-Baptiste-Andre Dumas. Science. 1884;3:750-2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ns3.72.750
33 Weinberg ZG, Muck RE. New trends and opportunities in the development and use of inoculants for silage. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 1996;19:53-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.1996.tb00253.x   DOI
34 Wiersma DW, Carter PR, Albrecht KA, Coors JG. Kernel milkline stage and corn forage yield, quality, and dry matter content. J Prod Agric. 1993;6:94-9. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1993.0094   DOI
35 Broderick GA, Kang JH. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. J Dairy Sci. 1980;63:64-75. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(80)82888-8   DOI
36 Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2   DOI
37 Shin JS, Kim WH, Lee SH, Shin HY. Comparison of forage yield and feed value of millet varieties in the reclaimed tidelands. J Korean Soc Grassl Forage Sci. 2006;26:215-20. https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2006.26.4.215   DOI
38 Lyon DJ, Burgener PA, DeBoer KL, Harveson RM, Hein GL, Hergert GW, et al. Producing and marketing proso millet in the Great Plains. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska; 2008. Extension Circular #EC 137.
39 Wang M, Franco M, Cai Y, Yu Z. Dynamics of fermentation profile and bacterial community of silage prepared with alfalfa, whole-plant corn and their mixture. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2020;270:114702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2020.114702   DOI
40 Horrocks RD, Valentine JF. Harvested forages. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1999.
41 Chen L, Yuan XJ, Li JF, Dong ZH, Wang SR, Guo G, et al. Effects of applying lactic acid bacteria and propionic acid on fermentation quality, aerobic stability and in vitro gas production of forage-based total mixed ration silage in Tibet. Anim Prod Sci. 2019;59:376-83. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN16062   DOI
42 McDonald P, Henderson N, Heron S. The biochemistry of silage. Marlow: Chalcombe Publications; 1991.
43 Danner H, Holzer M, Mayrhuber E, Braun R. Acetic acid increases stability of silage under aerobic conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:562-7. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.1.562-567.2003   DOI
44 Diepersloot EC, Pupo MR, Ghizzi LG, Gusmao JO, Heinzen C Jr, McCary CL, et al. Effects of microbial inoculation and storage length on fermentation profile and nutrient composition of whole-plant sorghum silage of different varieties. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:660567. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.660567   DOI
45 Kung L Jr, Shaver RD, Grant RJ, Schmidt RJ. Silage review: interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. J Dairy Sci. 2018;101:4020-33. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13909   DOI
46 Goering HK, Van Soest PJ. Forage fiber analysis (apparatus, reagents, procedures, and some applications). Washington, DC: US Department Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS); 1970. Agricultural Handbook No. 379.
47 Kim JS, Lee YH, Kim YI, Ahmadi F, Oh YK, Park JM, et al. Effect of microbial inoculant or molasses on fermentative quality and aerobic stability of sawdust-based spent mushroom substrate. Bioresour Technol. 2016;216:188-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.05.056   DOI