Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:02:21.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of plant components in isogenic sterile and fertile forage maize and their effects on carbohydrate composition, nutritive value, in vivo digestibility values and animal performance with fresh and ensiled crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. H. Phipps ,
A. B. McAllan  and
R. F. Weller
R. H. Phipps
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
A. B. McAllan
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
R. F. Weller
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Isogenic fertile and sterile forage maize (cv. LG 11) grown in separate fields were harvested at regular intervals during growth between mid-July and early October 1979. Leaf, stem and ear components and whole plant (before and after ensiling) were examined for changes in the concentration of dry matter (D.M.), soluble sugars, starch, hemicellulose, cellulose, neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and acid detergent fibre (ADF). In vitro digestibility values for D.M., organic matter (OM) and OM in the D.M. were also determined in fresh and ensiled whole crops.

Prior to ensiling the concentration of non-structural carbohydrates in the two crops was markedly different. Fresh fertile plants contained (as g/kg D.M.) 369 and 101 of starch and soluble sugars respectively. Corresponding values for sterile plants were 54 and 343 respectively. Sucrose was the most abundant soluble sugar present and contributed 64 and 74% of the totals in fertile and sterile plants respectively, prior to ensiling. Increases in plant D.M. during growth were significantly affected by the deposition of starch and are described by the following equation:

y = 13·6 + 0·49 (±0·073) x(r = 0·93)

where y = whole-crop D.M. concentration and x = starch concentration in D.M. The concentrations of hemicellulose and cellulose of both types of fresh plants were similar but those of ADF and NDF were lower in sterile plants. Xylose was the major constituent neutral sugar in the hemicellulose fraction and formed 68 and 76% of the total hemicellulose in the fertile and sterile plants, respectively. In vitro digestibility values of sterile plants tended to be higher than their fertile counterparts.

After ensiling, the concentration of soluble sugar in the sterile and fertile crops decreased from 343 to 8 g/kg D.M. and 101 to 5 g/kg D.M. respectively. The in vitro DOMD values of the sterile and fertile crops decreased by 16 and 11 percentage units respectively; both final values were recorded as 61.

In vivo digestibility values determined in 18-month-old wether sheep fed at maintenance, for NDF, ADF, cellulose, hemicellulose, nitrogen, OM, D.M. and OM in D.M. were 60·2, 58·0, 65·8, 64·1, 32·9, 66·6, 65·4 and 63·7 respectively for fertile plant silage. These were all markedly lower than the corresponding values for the sterile plant silage which were 68·3, 70·3, 74·8, 73·3, 60·3, 71·3, 69·6 and 67·7 respectively. Within the hemicellulose fraction the digestibility values for xylose in both sterile and fertile plant silage were considerably lower than the values recorded for either arabinose or galactose. In vitro digestibility values for D.M., OM and OM in the D.M. were similar to in vivo values for fertile plant silage but were lower than in vivo values for sterile plant silage.

Dairy herd replacement heifers (aged 3–6 months) had higher D.M. intakes when given fertile plant silage ad libitum than with sterile plant silage. However, the liveweight gains of the heifers on sterile and fertile plant silage differed little.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 102 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 443 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bunting, E. S. (1975). The question of grain content and forage quality in maize: comparison between isogenic fertile and sterile plants. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 85, 455–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. (1976). Effect of grain formation on dry matter distribution and forage quality in maize. Experimental Agriculture 12, 417–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, E. S. & Gunn, R. E. (1973). Maize in Britain – a survey of research and breeding. Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge, Annual Report, pp. 32–74.Google Scholar
Collings, G. F. (1979). A chemical analysis of fibre in feeds and its application to feeding studies and pure cultures. Federation Proceedings 40, 2445–2446.Google Scholar
Daynard, T. B. & Hunter, R. B. (1975). Relationships among whole plant moisture, grain moisture, dry matter yield and quality of whole crop silage. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 55, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. R. & McClure, K. E. (1968). Corn plant maturity. IV. Effects on digestibility of corn silage in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 27, 535–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Griffith, E. S. (1984). The use of detergent extraction procedures for estimating fibre carbohydrates in feeds and digesta. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society (in the Press).Google Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Phipps, R. H. (1977). The effect of sample date and plant density on the carbohydrate content of forage maize and the changes that occur on ensiling. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 589–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllan, A. B. & Smith, R. H. (1974). Carbohydrate metabolism in the ruminant. Bacterial carbohydrates formed in the rumen and their contribution to digesta entering the duodenum. British Journal of Nutrition 31, 77–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merten, G. C. (1981). Chemical, in vitro and nylon bag procedures for evaluating forage in the U.S.A. In Forage Evaluation: Concepts and Techniques (ed. Wheeler, J. L. and Mochril, R. D.), pp. 39–55. Netley, South Australia: Griffin Press.Google Scholar
Morrison, I. M. & Williams, A. G. (1978). Plant cell walls and their utilisation by ruminants. Annual Report. Hannah Research Institute. 1977, pp. 61–69. Ayr, U.K.Google Scholar
National Institute of Agricultural Botany (1977). Recommended varieties of forage maize. Farmers Leaflet No. 7.Google Scholar
Perry, T. W. & Calderwell, D. M. (1969). Comparative nutritive value of silage made from high sugar male sterile hybrid corn and regular starchy corn. Journal of Dairy Science 52, 1119–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phipps, R. H. (1975). A note on the effect of genotype, density and row width on the yield and quality of forage maize. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 84, 567–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phipps, R. H. (1980). A review of the carbohydrate content and digestibility value of forage maize grown in the cool climatic conditions of the U.K. and their relevance to animal production. C.E.C. Seminar on Improvement of Quality Traits of Maize for Grain and Silage Use (ed. Pollmer, W. G. and Phipps, R. H.). Publishers: Martinus Nijhoff for the C.E.C. Held Schwäbisch Hall, Federal Republic of Germany, 1978.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Fulford, R. J. & Weller, R. F. (1981). The effect of maize silage grain content on liveweight gain of beef cattle. Maydica 26, 93–99.Google Scholar
Phipps, R. H., Weller, R. F. & Cooper, A. (1982). A comparison between the accumulation of dry matter, chemical composition and nutritive value of isogenio sterile and fertile forage maize. Maydica 27, 27–40.Google Scholar
Smith, D. (1973). Influence of drying and storage conditions on nonstructural carbohydrate analysis of herbage tissue. A review. Journal of the British Grassland Society 28, 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, A. J. & Rogers, H. H. (1968). Yield and quality components in maize grown for silage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 71, 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1973). Determination of acid detergent fibre. Journal of the Association of Analytical Chemists 4, 781–784.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Wine, R. H. (1967). Use of detergents in the analysis of fibrous feeds. 4. Determination of plant cell-wall constituents. Journal of the Association of Agricultural Chemists 50, 50–55.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M. & Phipps, R. H. (1979). The development of plant components and their effects on the composition of fresh and ensiled forage maize. 2. The effect of genotype, plant density and date of harvest on the composition of maize silage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar