The Impact of Genotype on Chemical Composition, Feeding Value and In Vitro Rumen Degradability of Fresh and Ensiled Forage of Native Maize ( Zea mays L.) from Mexico

Edwin Rafael Alvarado-Ramírez, Gilberto Ballesteros-Rodea, Abdelfattah Zeidan Mohamed Salem, José Reyes-Hernández, Camelia Alejandra Herrera-Corredor, Javier Hernández-Meléndez, Andrés Gilberto Limas-Martínez, Daniel López-Aguirre () and Marco Antonio Rivas-Jacobo ()
Additional contact information
Edwin Rafael Alvarado-Ramírez: Faculty of Agronomy and Veterinary, Autonomous University of San Luis Potosi, Soledad de Graciano Sanchez 78321, Mexico
Gilberto Ballesteros-Rodea: Faculty of Agronomy and Veterinary, Autonomous University of San Luis Potosi, Soledad de Graciano Sanchez 78321, Mexico
Abdelfattah Zeidan Mohamed Salem: Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Zootechnics, Autonomous University of the State of Mexico, Toluca 50200, Mexico
José Reyes-Hernández: Multidisciplinary Academic Unit Mante, Autonomous University of Tamaulipas, El Mante 89840, Mexico
Camelia Alejandra Herrera-Corredor: Faculty of Agronomy and Veterinary, Autonomous University of San Luis Potosi, Soledad de Graciano Sanchez 78321, Mexico
Javier Hernández-Meléndez: Faculty of Engineering and Sciences, Autonomous University of Tamaulipas, Victoria 87149, Mexico
Andrés Gilberto Limas-Martínez: Faculty of Engineering and Sciences, Autonomous University of Tamaulipas, Victoria 87149, Mexico
Daniel López-Aguirre: Faculty of Engineering and Sciences, Autonomous University of Tamaulipas, Victoria 87149, Mexico
Marco Antonio Rivas-Jacobo: Faculty of Agronomy and Veterinary, Autonomous University of San Luis Potosi, Soledad de Graciano Sanchez 78321, Mexico

Agriculture, 2023, vol. 13, issue 11, 1-15

Abstract: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the genotype on the chemical composition, feeding value and in vitro rumen degradability of fresh and ensiled forage of four native maize varieties (Amarillo, Olotillo, Tampiqueño and Tuxpeño) from Tamaulipas, Mexico, and a commercial hybrid, as well as the stability and aerobic deterioration of the silage. In all genotypes, fresh forage consisted of whole plants of maize that were harvested when the grain reached a milky-mass state, and silage was fresh forage chopped and ensiled in plastic bags, where it fermented for 120 days. The hybrid presented the highest content ( p < 0.05) of dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM), ether extract, non-fibrous carbohydrates (NFCs) and starch, as well as the lowest content ( p < 0.05) of fibers (NDF and ADF), acid detergent lignin and water-soluble carbohydrates (WSCs). Furthermore, the hybrid and Amarillo genotypes obtained the lowest pH and ammoniacal nitrogen content ( p < 0.05), intermediate values ( p < 0.05) of lactic and butyric acid, and the lowest and highest acetic acid content ( p < 0.05), respectively. Although OM did not differ ( p > 0.05) between states of the forage, the fresh forage presented a higher ( p < 0.05) content of DM, crude protein, NDF, ADF, WSCs, pH and butyric acid in all genotypes, while the rest of the parameters were higher ( p < 0.05) in the silage. However, Amarillo obtained the highest feeding value ( p < 0.05) in terms of DM intake, relative forage value, digestible energy, metabolizable energy and rumen degradability (DM, NDF and ADF), and between states of the forage, ensiled obtained the highest feeding value ( p < 0.05). During the aerobic exposure, the Amarillo and hybrid silage showed greater ( p < 0.05) stability (>38 h), and less ( p < 0.05) deterioration, pH increase and loss of DM and OM, while Tuxpeño obtained less stability and greater deterioration. In conclusion, the genotype did influence the chemical composition of fresh and ensiled forage, which affected the feeding value and in vitro rumen degradability, and the Amarillo and hybrid genotypes presented the best values in the evaluated parameters.

Keywords: aerobic stability; native maize; nutritional quality; rumen degradability; silage (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q1 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/11/2161/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/11/2161/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:11:p:2161-:d:1281926

Access Statistics for this article

Agriculture is currently edited by Ms. Leda Xuan

More articles in Agriculture from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().