Effect of fodder grass species, wilting and ensiled amount in shopping plastic bags on silage quality

B J Lyimo, E J Mtengeti¹, N A Urio¹ and E E Ndemanisho¹

Mvomero District council, P.O. Box 663, Morogoro, Tanzania.
bmwaluka2003@yahoo.com
¹ Department of Animal, Aquaculture and Range Sciences, College of Agriculture, Sokoine University of Agriculture,
P.O. Box 3004, Morogoro, Tanzania.

Abstract

Lack of knowhow on which fodder grass specie to ensile, handling and processing before ensiling and amount to ensile in plastic bag silos have reduced the adoption of grass silage making technologies among the smallholder farmers. An experiment was therefore conducted to assess effects of fodder grass specie, wilting and amount ensiled in plastic bag silos on silage quality. Elephant (Pennisetum purpureum) and guatemala grasses (Tripsacum laxum ) were established and harvested when they were 1.5 and 1m tall respectively. One portion of grass was wilted for 24 hours and the other portion was un-wilted before ensiling. Each portion was chopped into 4cm particle length before ensiling. The chopped materials were ensiled either in portions of 5 or 10 kg in plastic bag silos. Treatments were assigned to a completely randomized design in factorial arrangement (2 x 2 x 2) as two grasses (elephant and guatemala grasses), two pre-ensiling treatments (un-wilted and wilted) and two ensiled amounts (5 and10 kgs) with two replications. The silage was opened and sampled after 60 days, analyzed for dry matter (DM) losses, chemical composition, fermentation and sensoric qualities and in vitro DM digestibility.

Elephant grass silage had higher sensoric scores, crude protein (CP), ash, lactic acid, acetic acid and bulk density but lower DM, water soluble carbohydrate (WSC), IVDMD, pH, NH₃N and DM loss than guatemala grass silage. The guatemala silage was more digestible than elephant grass silage. Wilted fodder grass showed higher sensoric scores, DM, CP, ash, WSC, pH, lactic acid, acetic acid and bulk density but lower NDF, NH₃N, butyric acid and DM loss than un-wilted fodder grass. Un-wilted guatemala grass silage had higher DM than wilted elephant grass silage. The 5kg silage in plastic bag silo showed higher bulk density than 10kg silage in plastic bag silo. There was no difference between the two ensiled amounts (5kg & 10kg) in terms of appearance, smell and texture scores, DM, CP, WSC, ash, NDF, IVDMD, pH, NH₃N, lactic acid, acetic acid, butyric acid and DM losses. It was therefore concluded that, either 5 or 10 kg of wilted elephant grass ensiled in shopping plastic bag silo was the most optimal combination technology to achieve high silage quality under smallholder farmer conditions.

Key words: ensiled amount, grass specie, silage quality, smallholder dairy farmers, wilted and un-wilted grasses

Introduction

Smallholder dairy farming in Tanzania has been recognized as an important means of attaining human food security, household income and as a source of employment (Lwelamira et al 2010, Swai et al 2005). The productivity of dairy cattle under smallholder farmers has however, been low, producing up to from 6 – 10 liters of milk in the rain season and 3 – 5 liters in the dry season due to unavailability of adequate quality feeds throughout the year (Kavana and Msangi 2005; Hall et al 2007; Njarui et al 2009). In order to stabilize dairy animal productivity throughout the year, there is a need therefore, to look for technologies which could maintain the continuity of quantity and quality of feed supply. Forage conservation in form of silage is one of the promising options reported to increase feed availability particularly in the dry season (Lyimo 2010). The adoption of silage making among the smallholders dairy farmers has however been minimal (’t Mannetje 2000) because of lack of appropriate knowledge and skills on how to handle and process the ensiling materials and an appropriate amount to ensiling in shopping plastic bag silo. In Tanzania, the most predominant fodder grass species found in smallholder dairy farms are elephant (Farrell et al 2002) and guatemala grasses and can be used to produce high quality silage. In order to improve their preservation and feeding value silage conservation technologies such as wilting could have been applied. According to Nussion (2005) wilting the forage before ensiling is recommended as a means of increasing dry matter content, WSC and reducing losses from effluent and undesired fermentation. Simple small shopping plastic bags have been noted that they are appropriate to ensile instantaneous fodder grasses found around the smallholder dairy farmers homestead (Mtengeti and Urio 2006). The advantage of shopping plastic bags silos in terms of reducing the ensiling costs has rendered them rather adaptive to low household labour as it has been reported in Benin, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Tanzania (Ashbell et al 2001; Delacollette et al 2005; Pariyar 2005). Despite the benefits obtained from these available grasses, wilting and shopping plastic bags, animal feed shortage during the dry season is still constraint the smallholder dairy farming. There is however, limited information on silage conservation technologies such as, appropriate grass specie, wilting method and ensiled amount of grasses using plastic bags for high silage quality. This study was therefore conducted so as to evaluate the effect of grass specie, wilting and ensiled amount in shopping plastic bags on silage quality characteristics.

Materials and methods

Study area

This study was conducted at Magadu dairy farm in Department of Animal, Aquaculture and Range Sciences, College of Agriculture, Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA). It is located between 6^o and 7^o South and 37^o and 38^o East within an altitude of about 500 to 600m above sea level at the foot of Uluguru plateau mountains within Morogoro Municipality. It is characterized by ambient temperature between 20-27 ^oC in the coolest months of April to August and 30 - 35 ^oC during the hottest month of October to January. The annual rainfall ranges from 600-1000mm.

Experimental design and treatments

The study adopted a completely randomized design with a 2x2x2 factorial arrangement for two grass species (elephant and guatemala grasses), two pre-ensiling treatment (un-wilted vs. wilted grass species) and two ensiled amounts (5 & 10kgs) of chopped fodder grass in plastic bag silos. The experiment had 8 treatments combinations designated as 5kgs of un-wilted elephant grass; 5kgs of wilted elephant grass; 10kgs of un-wilted elephant grass; 10 kgs of wilted elephant grass; 5kgs of un-wilted guatemala grass; 5kgs of wilted guatemala grass; 10kgs of un-wilted guatemala grass and 10kgs of wilted guatemala grass. Each treatment had two replications.

Source, harvesting and preparation of ensiling fodder grasses

The fodder grasses, elephant grass and guatemala grass were established in 400 m² each and were ready to harvest when they were 1.5m and 1 m tall respectively. The grasses were harvested using the machete and thereafter each divided into two portions. The first portion was chopped into 4 cm length particles and ensiled in the same day while the second portion was wilted for 24 hours before ensiling. Two amounts of the chopped fodder grass whether wilted or un-wilted was ensiled in shopping plastic bag silos. These amounts were 5 and 10 kgs of ensiling material.

Ensiling procedure

The ensiling was done by filling the chopped grass materials in the ensiling plastic bag silo with 30 nm thickness. Air was removed and the neck of the bag was twisted, turned over and tied with a rubber band. Thereafter, the ensiling plastic bag was labeled for treatment identity. Each bag was then inserted into a second empty shopping plastic bag which was also tied, labeled and put in a hessian bag to protect it from rupturing. Hessian bags were then stored in thatched barn. Thatched barn is cheaper and affordable when compared with earth-pit (Lyimo 2010). In the thatched barn, the hessian bags were carefully stacked on a wooden rack to allow ventilation and lower the temperature. Chicken wire mesh surrounded the wooden rack protecting the bags against rats, mice and birds, especially the crow who would view the bags as bin bags full of kitchen waste to consume.

Data collection procedures

After 60 days of fermentation, the plastic bag silos were opened and spoiled silage was separated from well preserved silage and kept for DM loss calculation. Samples (weighing 500 g) from each bag were collected placed in polythene bags and immediately placed in a cool ice box and taken to the analytical laboratory. The sample was sub-divided into two samples. One sample was used for organoleptic test and pH determination. The other sub-samples were put in plastic bags and stored in a deep freezer at -10 °C until when they was used for chemical composition analysis and determination of in vitro dry matter digestibility.

The DM of the fresh ensiling material and silages were determined by drying in an oven at 65°C for 48 h ( AOAC 1984). The silages were freeze-dried in a Lyphilizer maintained at -40 ºC for 24 hrs according to Snowman (1988) so as to get a dry sample for ash, crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), water soluble carbohydrates (WSC) analysis and in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) determination. Ammonia-nitrogen (NH₃N) was analyzed from fresh silage samples. The ash, CP and NH₃N were analyzed according to AOAC (2005) procedures while WSC was analyzed according to Thomas (1977). The NDF was analyzed according to Van Soest et al (1991). A pH meter (model 219-MK 2; Pye Unicam) was used to measure the pH of the fresh silages samples. Samples of 40g from each silo were soaked in 200 ml of cool distilled water for 12 hours then filtered and the supernatant used for the determination of the pH. The in vitro dry matter (IVDMD) of the silages were determined according to the two stage technique developed by Tilley and Terry (1963) and modified by Salabi et al (2010). The silages were analyzed for volatile fatty acid according to Shirlaw‘s (1967) procedure. Gas Chromatograph analyses were performed on a wide bore fused silica Cp-sil 19CB column, gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionization detector (FID) 512x10^-12 Afs. The technique used was gas chromatograph capillary column (10 m, 0.53 mm fused silica WCOT Cp-Sil 19CB (2.0 μm Cat.no.7647). The injector and detector temperatures were 275°C and 300°C respectively. The carrier gas was H₂ 40kPa (0.4bar) 170 cm/s. The analyses were performed using a temperature programme: a linear gradient from 80°C to 280°C at 25°C min^-1. In each case a 0.1μL of sample was injected (a flow splitting 1:10).

Organoleptic test

The organoleptic test was carried out at the Department of Animal Sciences laboratory of SUA by thirty assessors of Animal Science Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. Each assessor assessed the silage from each treatment and scored its physical characteristics in terms of appearance, texture and smell (Lyimo 2010). Appearance score No.1 (poor) indicated spoiled silage which was dark brown in color with mould growth, score No. 2 (moderate) greenish in colour with some mould growth, score No. 3 (good) yellowish green to brown colour and score No.4 (very good) indicated well pickled yellowish green to light brown colour silage. Smell score No.1 (poor) indicated foul smell associated with putrefaction, score No. 2 ( moderate) pungent smell of ammonia, score No. 3 (good) pleasant aroma and score No.4 (very good) pleasant estery aroma typically silage smell. Texture score, No.1 (poor) slimy and watery, score No.2 ( moderate) less slimy and wet No.3 ( good) non-slippery and wet No.4 (very good) non-slippery and slightly wet. The test was carried once after 60 days of fermentation, when ensiling bags (silos) were opened and spoiled silage separated from well preserved silage.

Bulk density

Silage samples were collected using plastic bag for the assessment of bulk density. Two samples were collected per silo and then taken to the analytical laboratory at SUA. The samples put in a measuring cylinder of known volume, recoded its volume and thereafter were dried at 105⁰C for 48 hours in a forced-air oven. Bulk density was calculated as mass of dry silage per volume of field-moist silage i.e. weight of sample (kg) /volume of sample (m ³).

Dry matter loss

The amount of dry matter loss from the silos was calculated by considering the difference between the DM contained in the original ensiled material and the DM of silage recovered. The DM losses were calculated as follows: - kgDM loss = kg DM of ensiled forage - kg DM of recovered silage where, kgDM of recovered silage = kgDM of good silage + kgDM of spoilage silage. DM loss was finally expressed as percentage of DM present in the original forage material.

Data analysis

Collected data were entered in coded excel sheets then transferred to SAS for General Linear Model procedure of Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 2008) for analysis of variance of means. Means of factors were then separated using Multiple Duncan Range test. The model used to study effects of fodder grass specie, wilting and ensiled amount in shopping plastic bags was: Y_ijkl = µ + Gi + W_j + A _k + (GW)_ij + (GA_ik + (WA)_jk + (GWA)ijk + E_ijkl; whereby Y_ijkl = observation taken on the l^th replicate sample taken from the k^th ensiled amount and j^th wilting method of the i^th grass species; µ= general mean common to all observation; Gi= effect of the _i^th grass species; W_j= effect of the _j^th wilting method; A_k = effect of the _k^th ensiled amount; (GW)_ij, (GA)_ik, (WA)_jk are two-factor interactions involving grass species, wilting method and ensiled amount as indicated by corresponding symbols; E _ijkl= random effect peculiar to each observation.

Results and Discussion

Elephant grass had relative higher CP and ash but lower DM, IVDMD and WSC than guatemala grass (Table 1).

Effect of fodder grass specie, wilting and amount ensiled on silage organoleptic tests

Elephant grass silages had higher appearance, smell and texture scores than guatemala grass silages (Table 2). These differences might have been caused by improved fermentation condition in elephant grass silages which gave microbes’ conducive environment during fermentative process than in guatemala grass silage. This is in agreement with Lyimo (2010) who found good physical scoring after having well preserved elephant grass. Loures et al (2003) reported that, the final quality of silage is directly related to the original ensiling material.

Wilted grass silage had higher appearance, smell and texture scores than un-wilted grass silage. This might have been due to reduced moisture and increased concentration of WSC for the fermenting microbes that lead to good fermentation process. The results are in agreement with Wright et al (2000) who observed moisture reduction in wilted silages, and claimed that wilting may solve the problem of many negative effects of high moisture in silage making.

There was no difference between the two ensiled amounts (5 and 10kg) on appearance, smell and texture scores. This implies that either of the two ensiled amount can be used in silage making. However, for a smallholder farmer with only one cow, a 5kg could be appropriate since the animal may require only 5kg of silage per day since it should be combined with other feeds such as hay and concentrates for a healthy rumen.

Effect of species, wilting and amount ensiled on chemical composition of fodder grass silages

Elephant grass silage had higher CP and ash but lower DM, IVDMD and WSC than guatemala grass silage (Table 3). This is related to the original chemical composition of individual grass specie before ensiling. The higher CP and ash in elephant grass implied that, elephant grass silage produced higher quality silage in terms of nutritive value than guatemala grass silage. The same trend of results for the two grasses was observed by Mtengeti et al (2006). There was no difference between guatemala and elephant grass silages in terms of NDF. The guatemala grass silage was more digestible than elephant grass silage. Higher digestibility in guatemala grass silage was probably due to provision of useful energy substrate for ruminal microbes and thus improves their effectiveness in digesting feed particles.

Wilted grass silage showed higher DM, CP, ash and WSC but lower NDF than un-wilted grass silage. This implies that wilting of grasses improved the quality of the silage. The results are in agreement with Mtengeti et al (2006) who found improvement after wilting fodder grasses. This was also in agreement with Nussio (2005) who reported wilting as a means of increasing silage DM, WSC and reducing undesired fermentation. According to Borreani et al (2009) wilting is applied to reduce the moisture of ensiling material so as to reduce effluent production that may impair fermentation. Reduced NDF due to increased acidity which stimulated further hydrolysis of linked sugar molecules in the cell wall causing further breakdown of hemicelluloses. The results also showed that un-wilted guatemala grass silage has higher DM than wilted elephant grass silage. This could be related to the original DM of individual grass specie before ensiling. Wilting for 24 hours increased slightly the DM of both grasses. The DM increase was lower in elephant grass than in guatemala grass. According to Henderson (1993) wilting period if is however, extended over several days, the WSC may be lost and protein may be reduced through deamination of amino acids that may lead to increase in the production of NH₃N during silage fermentation. Therefore, it is better to wilt grasses in optimal period of time in order to retain their nutrients during fermentation than to extend their wilting time and lose their fermentative quality.

There was no difference between the two ensiled amounts (5kg & 10kg) in terms of, DM, CP, WSC, ash, NDF and IVDMD. This implies that either of the two ensiled amount can produce good quality silage and the amounts provided reasonable compaction to the ensiled grasses culminating to good fermentation condition. Good compaction favors anaerobic conditions, this not only reducing losses caused by deterioration but also reducing storage costs, increasing DM recovery and in vitro DM digestibility (Muck et al 2003).

Effect of species, wilting and ensiled amount in shopping plastic bag silos on fermentative quality of fodder grass silages

Elephant grass silage had lower pH and NH₃N but higher lactic acid and acetic acid than guatemala grass (Table 4). Low pH and NH₃N could be due to higher lactic acid in elephant grass silage. Bilal (2009) found highest lactic acid in silage with the lowest pH. The optimum pH for high quality silage is between 3.8 and 4.5 where the activity of proteolytic enzymes stops. There was no difference between the elephant and guatemala grass silages on butyric acid concentrations.

Wilted silage had higher pH, lactic and acetic acid but lower NH₃N and butyric acid than un-wilted grass silage. The higher proportion of lactic and acetic acids observed in silages made from wilted herbage indicates the dominance of lactic acid bacteria, especially homofermentative lactic acid bacteria, during ensiling. This was in agreement with Whiter and Kung (2001) and Rizk et al (2005) who observed wilting increased lactate to acetate ratio. The ratio of lactic acid to acetic acid is a good indicator of the efficiency of the silage fermentation. Ideally, the ratio of lactic acid to acetic acid should not be less than 3:1 and higher is better. Higher pH in wilted grasses could be attributed by high WSC concentration of the wilted herbage which increased the subsequent silage fermentation quality. These effects are explained by the lower water activity of the wilted herbage (Greenhill 1964) which would have created more inhibitory conditions for microbial fermentation (Woolford 1984). These finding concurs with McEniry et al (2008) and Keles et al (2009) who found higher pH in wilted grasses. The lower NH₃N in wilted grasses indicated that, proteolysis has not taken place during fermentation. This might have been due to reduced moisture by wilting which provided good condition for fermentation. The low butyrate value showed relative difficulty in clostridial growth in the wilted fodder grass material. Meeske (2000) stated that clostridia are very sensitive to water availability and require wet conditions for active development.

There was no difference between ensiled amounts in plastic bag silos with respect to pH, NH₃N, lactic acid, acetic acid and butyric acid. Thus, either of the two ensiled amount in shopping plastic bag silos can be used to produce high quality silage.

Bulk density (kg DMm^-3) of fodder grass as affected by specie and ensiled amount in shopping plastic bags

It was observed that bulk density was higher in elephant grass than in guatemala grass and probably this was due to stem density of elephant grass which led to high biomass than in guatemala grass (Table 5). Wilting produced higher biomass per unit volume than un-wilted grass because it concentrated the DM of the ensiling mass. The 5kg silage ensiled in plastic bag silos had higher biomass per unit volume than 10kg plastic bag silos. This could be due to higher compaction provided to 5kg silage ensiled in plastic bag silos than to 10kg silage.

Effect of specie, wilting and ensiled amount in shopping plastic bags on percentage DM Dry mater losses of fodder grass silage

The percentage DM loss was higher in guatemala grass silages than in elephant grass silages and was higher in un-wilted grass silage than in wilted grass silage (Table 6). The results are in agreement with the observations made by Mtengeti and Urio (2006) who noted that the DM loss was higher in un-wilted grass silage than in wilted grass silage. This could be attributed to less moisture in wilted grass which enhance available DM of grasses to be retained during fermentation. The DM losses did not differ between the ensiled amounts in shopping plastic bag silos. It implies that either of the two amounts ensiled in plastic bag can be used in grass silage making without DM losses.

Conclusions

• Elephant grass silage had higher sensoric scores, crude protein, ash, lactic acid, acetic acid and bulk density but lower DM, WSC, IVDMD, pH, NH ₃N and DM loss than guatemala grass silage. The guatemala grass silage was more digestible than elephant grass silage.
  
  
• Wilted fodder grass showed higher sensoric scores, DM, CP, ash, WSC, pH, lactic acid, acetic acid and bulk density but lower NDF, NH₃N, butyric acid and DM loss than un-wilted fodder grass.
  
  
• Un-wilted guatemala grass silage has higher DM than wilted elephant grass silage.
  
  
• The 5kg silage in plastic bag silo showed higher bulk density than 10kg silage in plastic bag silo.
  
  
• There was no difference between the two ensiled amounts (5kg & 10kg) in terms of appearance, smell and texture scores, DM, CP, WSC, ash, NDF, IVDMD, pH, NH₃N, lactic acid, acetic acid, butyric acid and DM losses.
  
  
• It was therefore concluded that, either 5 or 10 kg of wilted elephant grass ensiled in shopping plastic bag silo was the most optimal combination technology to achieve high silage quality under smallholder farmers.

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their sincere thanks to staff members of Department of Animal, Aquaculture and Range Sciences, College of Agriculture, Sokoine University of Agriculture for their technical assistance.

References

AOAC 1984 Official methods of Analysis. 14th ed. Association of Official and Analytical Chemists; Arlington, Virginia, USA.

AOAC 2005 Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis. Official Methods of Analytical Chemists. Inc. Washington, DC, USA. 957 pp.

Ashbell G, Kipnis T, Titterton M, Hen Y, Azrieli A and Weinberg Z G 2001 Examination of a Technology for Silage Making in Plastic Bags. Animal Feed Science and Technology ( (91): 213-222.

Bilal Q 2009 Effect of molasses and corn as silage additives on the characteristics of dwarf elephant grass silage at different fermentation periods . Pakistan Veterinary Journal 29 (1): 19-23.

Borreani G, Chion A R, Colombini S, Odoardi M, Paoletti R and Tabacco E 2009 Fermentative profiles of field pea (Pisum sativum), faba bean (Vicia faba) and white lupin (Lupinus albus) silages as affected by wilting and inocula-tion. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 151, 316–323

Delacollette S A, Agnesens R and Buldgen A 2005 Ensilage of Tropical Grasses and Legumes Using Small-scale Technique. In: Silage Production and Utilization. (Edited by Park R. S. and Stronge, M.D.). Proceeding of the XIV^th International Silage Conference, a Satellite Workshop of the XX^th International Grassland Congress July 2005, Belfast, Northern Ireland. pp. 246 - 260.

Farrell G, Simons S A and Hillocks R J 2002 Pests, diseases, and weeds of Napier grass, Pennisetum purpureum: a review. International Journal of Pest Management, 48(1), 39-48.

Greenhill W L 1964 Plant juices in relation to silage fermentation. III. Effect of water activity of juice. Journal of the British Grassland Society19:336–339

Hall T M, Haine M, Holzer D A, LeBel F, Terenzi D and Waugh W 2007 Ventilation rates estimated from tracers in the presence of mixing . J. Phys. Oceanogr., 37, 2599-2611, doi:10.1175/2006JPO3471.1.

Henderson N 1993 Silage additives. Animal Feed Science and Technology 45: 35-56

Kavana P Y and Msangi B S J 2005 Dairy cattle feeding experience in eastern zone of Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 17 (6) pp.651-657. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/6/kava17062.htm

Keles G, Kiely P O, Lenehan J J and Forristal P D 2009 Conservation characteristics of baled grass silages differing in duration of wilting, bale density and number of layers of plastic stretch-film. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, Teagasc, Grange Beef Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath, Ireland 48: 21–34.

Loures D R S, Garcia R and Pereira O G 2003 Características do efluente e composição químico-bromatológica da silagem de capim-elefante sob diferentes níveis de compactação. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, v.32, n.6, p.1851-1858, (supl.2).

Lwelamira J, Binamungu H K and Njau F B 2010 Contribution of small scale dairy farming under zero-grazing in improving household welfare in Kayanga ward, Karagwe District, Tanzania.Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 22, Article #31. [ http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/2/lwel22031.htm.]. Site visited on 10 January, 2016.

Lyimo B J 2010 Effects of additives and storage positions on in-bag grass silage quality in Small-scale dairy farms in Mvomero District. Dissertation for award of MSc. at Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, 108 pp.

McEniry J, O’Kiely P, Clipson N J W, Forristal P D and Doyle E M 2008 The microbiological and chemical composition of silage over the course of fermentation in round bales relative to that of silage made from un - chopped and precision-chopped herbage in laboratory silos. Grass Forage Sci. 2008; 63:407–420.

Meeske R 2000 The effect of inoculants on Silage fermentation properties and on animal production. Department of Animal Science, University of Stellenbosch.

Mtengeti E J and Urio N A 2006 Feeding Strategies for the Dry Season: A Case Study of Silage and Hay Making by Smallholder Farmers in Tanzania. In: Prospects for Growth and Contribution of the Dairy Industry Towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in Tanzania (Edited by Msangi, B. S.). Sixth National Dairy Development Conference. 2^nd June 2006, Morogoro Hotel, Morogoro. pp. 31 – 96.

Mtengeti E J, Kavana P Y Urio N A and Shem M N 2006 Chemical composition and fermentative quality of fodder grasses ensiled with derinded fresh sugar cane crush Tropical and Subtropical Agroeconosystems, ano/vol.06, numeral 003 universdad, Autonoma de Ucatan, Ucatan Mexico. pp157-165.

Muck R E, Moses L E and Pitt R E 2003 Post harvest factors affecting ensiling. In Silage Science And Technology, 251-304.(Weds D.R.Buxton R.E.Muck and J.H.Harrison). Madison(WI,USA):American Society of Agronomy INC; Crop Science Society of America,Soil Science of America INC.

Njarui D M G, Gatheru M, Wambua J M, Nguluu S N, Mwangi D M and Keya G A 2009 Dairy Cattle Value Chain Assessment: Characterization of Milk Production in Semi-Arid Kenya. Kenya Arid and Semi-Arid Land Programme (KASAL). (In press).

Nussio L G 2005 Silage production from tropical forages. In: Silage production and utilization. Proceedings of the XIV^th International Grassland Congress, July (2005),Belfast, Northern Ireland (Ed: Park, RS and Stronge, MD). Wageningen Academic Publishers pp 97-107.

Pariyar D 2005 Oat cultivation and small-bag silage for household income generation. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Fodder Oats, Fodder Technology Packages and Small Farm Income Generation. (Edited by Pariyar, D., Suttie, J. and S.G. Reynolds) 8-11 March .(2005, Kathmandu, Nepal, 164-168.

Rizk C, Mustafa A F and Phillip L E 2005 Effect of inoculation of high dry matter lucerne silage on ensiling characteristics, ruminal nutrient degradability and dairy cow performance. J. Sci. Food Agric. 85, 743-750.

Salabi F, Bojarpoor M, Nazari M and tabatabai S 2010 Comparing Digestibility of Triticale Grain, Barley Grain and Naked Barley Grain by Using in vitro Tilley and Terry Technique.Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 9(1): 186-189.

SAS 2008 Statistical Analysis System. User’s Guide for Personal Computers, Statistical Programme-windows version 9.2. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, North Corolina, USA.

Shirlaw D W G 1967 The Commonwealth and International Library of Science Technology Engineering and Liberal Studies. A practical Course in Agricultural Chemistry. Department of Experimental Husbandry, Durham Agricultural college 2^nd edition , Pergamon.

Snowman J W 1988 Lyophilization Freeze-Drying A Downstream Processes: Equipment and Techniques, Alan, Inc. pp 315-351.

Swai E S, Bryant M J, Karimuribo E D, French N P, Ogden N H, Fitzpatrick J L and Kambarage D M 2005 A cross-sectional study of reproductive performance of small-holder dairy cows in coastal Tanzania. Tropical Animal Health and Production37: 513–525.

Thomas T A 1977 An automated procédures for the determination of soluble carbohydrates in herbage. Journal of Food Science and Agriculture, 28: 639 - 642.

Tilley J M and Terry R A 1963 A two-stage technique for the in intro digestion of forage crops Journal of British Grassland Society 18: 104 - 111.

‘t Mannetje L 2000 The Future of Silage Making in The Tropics. In: FAO Electronic Conference on Tropical Silage. (Edited by ‘t Mannetje, L.), 1^st September -15^th December 1999. AGAP Grassland and Pasture Crops Group, AGPC Feed Resources Group. Plant Production and Protection Paper 161. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome. pp 169 - 171

Van Soest P J, Robertson J B and Lewis B A 1991 Methods for dietary fibre, neutral-detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74: 3583–3597.

Whiter A G and Kung L 2001 The effect of a dry or liquid application of Lactobacillus plantarum MTD1 on the fermentation of lucerne silage. J. Dairy Sci. 84, 2195-2202.

Woolford M K 1984 The Silage Fermentation. Microbiological Series, 14, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York and Basel

Wright D A, Gordon F J, Steen R W J and Patterson D C 2000 Factors influencing the response in intake of silage and animal performance after wilting of grass before ensiling: A review. Grass Forage Science, 55, 1–13.

Received 16 March 2016; Accepted 16 July 2016; Published 1 August 2016

Go to top