ABSTRACT
Nutritive value of maize and soybean silages in at different ratio in a subtropical climate conditions

Jonathan R. Garay-Martínez1, Juan E. Godina-Rodríguez2, Jorge A. Maldonado-Jáquez3, Fernando Lucio-Ruíz4, Santiago Joaquín-Cancino4, Yuridia Bautista-Martínez5, and Lorenzo D. Granados-Rivera6*
 
Climatic conditions cause variation in the availability and nutritional quality of forages; therefore, the use of corn (Zea mays L.) silage has been proposed. However, this crop has a low protein concentration, so the combination with legumes can improve this characteristic. The objective of this study was to evaluate the nutritive value of silage in different proportions of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) and corn forage grown in a subtropical region. In Tamaulipas, Mexico, six treatments were evaluated: Soybean 100% (S100), corn 100% (C100), and soybean-corn proportions (80%-20%: S80C20; 60%-40%: S60C40; 40%-60%: S40C60, and 20%-80%: S20C80). The variables that were evaluated were: Density, pH, crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), lignin, non-fibrous carbohydrates (NFC), starch, crude fat, net energy for lactation (NEL), net energy for weight gain (NEG), and metabolizable energy (ME) and mineral content. Data were analyzed as a completely randomized design with three replicates per treatment. Treatment S100 showed the highest values (p < 0.05) in CP, ADF, crude fat, NEL, and NEG. The C100 had the highest values (p < 0.05) in starch and NFC, and the lowest pH value (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, the S40C60, S60C40, S20C80 combinations showed the highest values (p < 0.05) of TDN, ENL, and ENG. In the case of the combinations, the one with the best values was S40C60. In this regard, the mean values were: CP 143 g kg-1; NEL 1.43 Mcal kg-1; and pH 3.9. According to these values, it is classified as a silage of good nutritional quality, and we recommend its use in subtropical climates.
Keywords: Forage conservation, Glycine max, nutrition ruminants, protein increase.
1Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Campo Experimental Las Huastecas, 89610, Altamira, Tamaulipas, México.
2Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Campo Experimental Uruapan, 60150, Uruapan, Michoacán, México.
3Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Campo Experimental La Laguna, 27440, Matamoros, Coahuila, México.
4Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias, 87149, Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas, México.
5Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, 87000, Cd. Victoria, Tamaulipas, México.
6Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Campo Experimental General Terán, 67400, General Terán, Nuevo León, México.
*Corresponding author (granados.danilo@inifap.gob.mx).