Harvesting stages and additives affect fermentation characteristics, nutritional value, and animal preference for silages from Andropogon (Andropogon gayanus) grass

Abstract

Despite its rapid growth and adaptability, Andropogon (Andropogon gayanus 12,465) was not preserved to address the severe feed deficit in the prolonged dry season in Ethiopia. Determining how the harvesting stage and additives (AD) affect the silage quality, animal preference, and digestibility of Andropogon was the objective of the current study. Three stages of harvesting (vegetative, boot, and full bloom) of the grass were used, and four AD (untreated (WO), with molasses (WM), with urea (WU), and with urea + molasses (WUM)) were factorially combined with a completely randomized design. With WO and molasses-based additives, the vegetative and boot-stage silage had a pleasant smell. The full-bloom silage scored lower than the other two stages for its odor, color, texture, and moldiness. The silage pH value with WM shows that it was lower in the vegetative (4.31) and boot (4.10) stages than in the full bloom (5.08) stages. At the boot stage, WM and WU showed higher silage crude protein (CP) content than WO silages. Based on dry matter (DM) intake, the Arab goat showed a higher preference for boot-stage silages with WM followed by WUM, while the lowest was with WO and WU. When compared to the other additives, goats fed WM and WU digested more DM, OM, and CP. The result also showed that the pH of the silage was strongly associated with texture. According to our findings, Andropogon, which was harvested at the boot stage and ensiled with WM has the potential to produce high-quality silage.

Keywords:

• Arab goats
• boot stage
• full bloom
• preference
• vegetative stage.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research. The authors thank the institute for its support in the study. And the authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Author contributions

AT: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data collection, Visualization, Writing—Original draft, Writing—Review & editing; AN: Methodology, Validation, Supervision, Data Analysis, Writing, Review & editing; MB: Data analysis, Supervision, Writing, Review & editing;

Availability of data and materials

The datasets analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request

Ethical statements

The manuscript has not been published, nor is it under consideration by any other journal.

Supplemental data

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2293516

Additional information

Funding

This work was funded by the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research. The authors thank the institute for its support in the study.

Notes on contributors

Alayu Tarekegn

Alayu Tarekegn completed his first Degree in Animal Science and Range land management from Debre Brihan University and a Master’s Degree in Animal Nutrition from Hawassa University, Ethiopia. He had been a researcher of feed and nutrition for six years at the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, and he has three years of expertise in forage science, tropical animal production systems, animal feeds, and nutrition, and the sustainability of livestock production systems in the Agricultural and Rural Development office. He has published more than seven articles in both national and international journals. He is now an Associate Researcher in the animal feed and nutrition program.