Evaluation of the quality of the silage obtained from the uniformization pruning in intensive silvopastoral systems

Abstract

The objective of the present work was to evaluate the nutritional composition of the silage made from the material collected from the uniformization pruning in an intensive SSP with buttercup. (Tithonia diversifolia) y tilo (Sambucus nigra), and mixed in different proportions with sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum) and King grass (Pennisetum hybridum), using a commercial additive of lactic acid bacteria and ruiminal content (rumination). Six treatments were evaluated with five repetitions and a weight of 10 kg per treatment, distributed as follows: T1:  25% T. diversifolia + 25% S. nigra + 50% S. officinarum with commercial additive (BTCac), T2: T1 with ruiminal content (BTCru), T3: 25% T. diversifolia + 25% S. nigra + 50% + P. hybridum with commercial additive (BTPac), T4: T3 with ruiminal content (BTPru) T5: 25% T. diversifolia + 25% S. nigra + 25% S. officinarum + 25% P. hybridum with commercial additive (BTCPac), T6: T5 with ruiminal content (BTCPru). With the obtained data an asymmetric factorial design of two levels was carried out, the analyzed variables were: dry matter (MS), ash (CEN), crude protein (PC), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), lignin (LIG) processed by NIRS , through agreement U of A - DaryCaby and pH. The CEN presented significant difference (p <0.05) between treatments BTCac (11.92%), BTCru (11.62%) and BTCPac (14.76%), BTCPru (14.80%), BTPac (14 , 66%), BTPru (13.86%), but not between additives or interaction between treatment and additives, the NDF presented significant difference (p = 0.0375) among additives (58.08% and 60.39% commercial and ruiminal content respectively), but not between treatments or interaction between additive and treatments, lignin (LIG) presented a significant difference (p <0.05) between treatments BTCac (5.1%) and BTCPru (7.5%) ), BTPac (7.6%), BTPru (6.8%), and interaction between additive and treatments and there was no significant difference between treatments, the pH presented a significant difference (p <0.05) between treatments BTCac (4.1), BTCru (4.2) and BTCPac (4.7), BTCPru (4.6), BTPac (4.6), BTPru (4.8), and there was no difference between additives or interaction between additive and treatments, the MS and Pc did not present a significant difference among treatments, or interaction between additive and treatments, with averages of 16.5% and 10.7% respectively.