Forage biomass and nutrient quality in brown midrib (BMR) compared to conventional sorghum: A meta-analysis approach.

IF 1.5 Q3 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research Pub Date : 2025-03-24 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.5455/javar.2025.l883
Slamet Widodo, Wijaya Murti Indriatama, Yenny Nur Anggraeny, Mohammad Miftakhus Sholikin, Anuraga Jayanegara, Teguh Wahyono
{"title":"Forage biomass and nutrient quality in brown midrib (BMR) compared to conventional <i>sorghum</i>: A meta-analysis approach.","authors":"Slamet Widodo, Wijaya Murti Indriatama, Yenny Nur Anggraeny, Mohammad Miftakhus Sholikin, Anuraga Jayanegara, Teguh Wahyono","doi":"10.5455/javar.2025.l883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The primary objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the differences between conventional and brown midrib (BMR) <i>sorghum</i> in terms of biomass, nutrient quality, nutrient digestibility, and animal performance.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A comprehensive database was created by integrating 73 datasets from 29 articles. The different studies were denoted as random effects, while the BMR <i>sorghum</i> variety was described as a fixed component. Afterward, these two aspects were calculated utilizing a linear mixed model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>According to the findings of the present meta-analysis, conventional <i>sorghum</i> produces higher quantities of forage and grain biomass in comparison to BMR (<i>p</i> < 0.001). As expected, BMR <i>sorghum</i> has a lower content of neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber, and lignin compared to conventional <i>sorghum</i> (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The digestibility of BMR <i>sorghum</i> performed better than conventional <i>sorghum</i> (<i>p</i> < 0.001), especially for NDF digestibility (54.98% <i>vs.</i> 47.37%). BMR shows suitability as a fodder option for dairy cows due to its superior milk yield compared to conventional <i>sorghum</i> (15.04 <i>vs.</i> 14.06 kg/day; <i>p</i> < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In conclusion, BMR <i>sorghum</i> produces higher biomass compared to conventional <i>sorghum</i>. Nevertheless, in terms of nutrient quality and digestibility, BMR <i>sorghum</i> is the most optimal choice. The results will significantly improve animal performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":14892,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research","volume":"12 1","pages":"157-168"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12186782/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2025.l883","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The primary objective of this study is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the differences between conventional and brown midrib (BMR) sorghum in terms of biomass, nutrient quality, nutrient digestibility, and animal performance.

Materials and methods: A comprehensive database was created by integrating 73 datasets from 29 articles. The different studies were denoted as random effects, while the BMR sorghum variety was described as a fixed component. Afterward, these two aspects were calculated utilizing a linear mixed model.

Results: According to the findings of the present meta-analysis, conventional sorghum produces higher quantities of forage and grain biomass in comparison to BMR (p < 0.001). As expected, BMR sorghum has a lower content of neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber, and lignin compared to conventional sorghum (p < 0.001). The digestibility of BMR sorghum performed better than conventional sorghum (p < 0.001), especially for NDF digestibility (54.98% vs. 47.37%). BMR shows suitability as a fodder option for dairy cows due to its superior milk yield compared to conventional sorghum (15.04 vs. 14.06 kg/day; p < 0.01).

Conclusion: In conclusion, BMR sorghum produces higher biomass compared to conventional sorghum. Nevertheless, in terms of nutrient quality and digestibility, BMR sorghum is the most optimal choice. The results will significantly improve animal performance.

Abstract Image

棕中脉(BMR)与普通高粱的生物量和营养品质比较:meta分析方法。
目的:本研究的主要目的是全面分析传统高粱和褐中肋高粱在生物量、营养品质、营养物质消化率和动物生产性能方面的差异。材料和方法:通过整合来自29篇文章的73个数据集,建立了一个全面的数据库。不同的研究被表示为随机效应,而BMR高粱品种被描述为固定成分。然后,利用线性混合模型对这两个方面进行了计算。结果:根据本荟萃分析的结果,与BMR相比,传统高粱产生的饲料和谷物生物量更高(p < 0.001)。与常规高粱相比,BMR高粱的中性洗涤纤维(NDF)、酸性洗涤纤维和木质素含量较低(p < 0.001)。BMR高粱的消化率优于普通高粱(p < 0.001),尤其是NDF的消化率(54.98%比47.37%)。与传统高粱相比,BMR具有更高的产奶量(15.04 vs 14.06 kg/d;P < 0.01)。结论:与常规高粱相比,BMR高粱的生物量更高。但就营养品质和消化率而言,BMR高粱是最理想的选择。结果将显著提高动物生产性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
7.10%
发文量
41
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research (JAVAR) - is an open access, international, peer-reviewed, quarterly, highly-indexed scientific journal publishing original research findings and reviews on all aspects of veterinary and animal sciences. Basic and applied researches on- - Anatomy & histology - Animal health economics - Animal nutrition - Animal reproduction - Animal science - Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) - Biochemistry - Biotechnology - Dairy science - Epidemiology - Food hygiene and technology - Genetics and breeding - Immunology - Microbiology - Parasitology - Pathology - Pharmacology & toxicology - Physiology - Poultry science - Preventive veterinary medicine - Public health - Surgery & obstetrics - Veterinary extension studies - Wildlife & aquatic medicine - Zoo animal medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信