6-Title: Nutritional evaluation of Hanuman-117 maize fodder variety at different harvesting stages
Authors: Said Mohammad Ali, SB Prasanna, Ranjith Roy Yadav, D Gouri Mahdevappa, V Malathi, Jayanaik, Shivaraj Murag, Abhijeet Kumar and Shankarappa Bhajantri
Source: Ruminant Science (2020)-9(2):235-238.
How to cite this manuscript: Ali SM, Prasanna SB, Yadav RR, Mahdevappa DG, Malathi V, Jayanaik, Murag Shivaraj, Kumar Abhijeet and Bhajantri Shankarappa (2020). Nutritional evaluation of Hanuman-117 maize fodder variety at different harvesting stages. Ruminant Science 9(2):235-238.
The present study was conducted to compare and identify the ideal harvesting stage of Hanuman-117 maize fodder variety, harvested at 75, 85, 95 and 105 days after sowing (DAS). Significant differences were recorded among the different harvesting stages for proximate principles and fibre fractions. Maximum dry matter, total ash, acid detergent fibre content, neutral detergent fibre content and lignin were observed at 105 DAS while crude protein and ether extract were maximum at 75 DAS. The results obtained in the current study showed that the nutritional value of the fodder crops declined with advancing maturity and hence it was recommended to harvest Hanuman-117 maize fodder variety at 75/85 DAS to retain optimum nutrients for livestock feeding.
Akdeniz H, Yilmaz I, Andic N and Zorer S (2004). A Study on Yield and Forage Values of Some Corn Cultivars. University of Yuzuncuyil. Journal of Agricultural Science 14:47-51.
Akinfemi A, Babayemi OJ and Jonathan SG (2009b). Bioconversion of maize husk into value added ruminant feed by using white-rot fungus. Revista UDO Agricola 9:972-978.
Amole TA, Ojo VOA, Dele PA, Adeoye SA, Onifade OS, Jolasho AO, Olanite JA and Oyewole ST (2011). Nutrient Digestibility of Calves Fed Maize – Lablab Silage Supplement 2011, Proceeding 36th Conference, Nigeria Society for Animal Production. 13-16 March. pp 485-487.
Anonymous (2008). Shakiman Musukina jola-Niravari/Maleyashrita in: Belagala Adhika Iluvarige Sudharita, Besaya Paddatiqulu. Edit. Directorate of Extension, University of Agriculture Sciences, Bangalore, 85-95.
AOAC (2016). Official Methods of Analysis, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA, USA.
Ayub M, Shehzad M, Nadeem M A, Pervez M, Naeem M and Sarwar N (2011). Comparative study on forage yield and quality of different oat (Avena sativa L.) varieties under agro-ecological conditions of Faisalabad, Pakistan. African Journal of Agricultural Research 6:3388-3391.
Bagg J (2007). Harvesting maize silage at the right moisture. Fact sheet 07-047, AGDEX 120/50. Ministry of Food and Rural Affairs, Ontario.
Ballard CS, Thomas ED, Tsang DS, Mandebvu P, Sniffen CJ, Endres MI and Carter MP (2001). Effect of corn silage hybrid on dry matter yield, nutrient composition, In vitro digestion, intake by dairy heifers, and milk production by dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 84:442-452.
Butler T J and Muir J P (2003). Row spacing and maturity of forage sorghum silage in north central Texas. Forage Research in Texas http://forageresearch. tamu. edu/2003/Forage Sorghum. pdf.
Carmi A, Umiel N, Hagiladi A, Yosef E, Ben-Ghedalia D and Miron J (2005). Yield performance and nutritive value of a new forage sorghum variety ‘Pnina’ recently developed in Israel. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 85:2567-2573.
Cone J W and Engels F M (1993). Influence of growth temperature on anatomy and in vitro digestibility of maize tissues. Journal of Agricultural Science 114:207-212.
Erdal S, Pamukcu M, Ekiz H, Soysal M, Savur O and Toros A (2009). The determination of yield and quality traits of some candidate silage maize hybrids. University of Akdeniz. Journal of Agricultural Science 22:75-81.
Filya I (2004). Nutritive value and aerobic stability of whole crop maize silage harvested at four stages of maturity. Animal Feed Science and Technology 116:141-150.
Goering H K and Van Soest P J (1970). Forage fiber analyses. USDA-ARS Handbook no.379.
Gouri M (2012). Effect of drying versus ensiling of maize stover on chemical composition and feeding value to lactating crossbred cows. PhD thesis submitted to Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University Nandinagar, Bidar, Karnataka.
Gul I, Demirel R, Kilicalp N, Sumerli M and Kilc H (2008). Effect of crop maturity stages on yield, silage chemical composition and in-vivo digestibilities of maize, sorghum and sorghum-sudangrass hybrids grown in semi-arid conditions. Journal of Animal Veterinary Advances 7:1021-1028.
Hayashi Y, Thapa BB, Sharma MP, Sapkota M and Kumaga H (2009). Effects of maize (Zea mays L) silage feeding on dry matter intake and milk production of dairy buffalo and cattle in Tarai, Nepal. Journal of Animal Science 80:418-427.
Holechek JL, Pieper RD and Herbal CH (2004). Range management, principles and practices. Pearson Prentice Hall Publishers.133.
Javeed Md Arif, Veeranna KC, Thirumalesh T, Rathod Prakashkumar and Gopala GT (2020). Attitude of dairy farmers towards feeding of green fodder crops and awareness level about fodder production practices in north eastern transition zone of Karnataka, India. Ruminant Science 9(1):113-118.
Kellems OR and Church DC (2002). Roughages. In: Livestock Feeds and Feeding. Eds: RO Kellems and DC Church Upper Saddle River Publishers. pp 145-159.
Mcdonald P, Edwards RA, Greenhalgh JFD and Morgan CA (1998). Animal Nutrition. Longman Publishers. pp 431-438.
Pordesimo L, Hames B, Sokhansanj S and Edens W (2005). Variation in corn stover composition and energy content with crop maturity. Biomass Bioenergy 28:366-374.
Rehman A, Aurangzeb RQ, Atique-Ur-Rehman MS, Qamar J and Hassan F (2017). Quality response of maize fodder cultivars to harvest time. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Biology 5:165-172.
Roth GW and Heinrichs AJ (2001). Maize silage production and management. Agronomy fact-18. Published by Information and Communication Technology in the College of Agricultural Sciences, Pennsylvania State University.
Sharma Vishnu, Karnani Monika, Kumawat Manish and Anita (2017). Effect of feeding hydroponics maize fodder on intake and digestibility of nutrients in goats. Ruminant Science 6(1):95-97.
Srivastava S, Mudgal V and Jain RK (2012). Lignin-its role and importance in animal nutrition. International Journal of Livestock Research 2(1):7–23.
Vansoest PJ and Robertson JB (1991). Methods of dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74:3583-3597.
Weaver D, Coppock C, Lake G and Everett R (1978). Effect of maturation on composition and in vitro dry matter digestibility of corn plant parts. Journal of Dairy Science 61:1782-1788.
Yadav Mohan Lal, Rajput Devi Singh, Mishra Pankaj, Vyas Priyank and Mahla Vivek (2014). Feeding practices of ruminants as adopted by tribes in Banswara district of Rajasthan. Ruminant Science 3(2):205-209.
Yilmaz S, Gozubenli H, Konuskan O and Atis I (2007). Genotype and plant density effects on maize forage yield. Asian Journal of Science 6:538-541.