Study of the effects of maize silage substitution in total mixed rations on growth, digestibility and economic benefits in male calves of Nili-Ravi buffalo with sugarbeet or citrus pulp ensiled with corncobs

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1434782/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Study of the effects of maize silage substitution in total mixed rations on growth, digestibility and economic benefits in male calves of Nili-Ravi buffalo with sugarbeet or citrus pulp ensiled with corncobs

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1434782/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Ensiling of high-moisture agro-industrial wastes with dry roughage as animal feeds may be a secure way to reduce the feeding cost. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of either sugarbeet or citrus pulp ensiled with ground corncobs, and use as replacement of maize silage in total mixed ration (TMR) for fattening of buffalo calves. Twenty male calves of Nili-Ravi buffalo (aged 14 ± 2 months weighing 133 ± 5 kg) were randomly assigned one of four experimental diets. Four TMRs [iso-nutritious with 12% CP and 69% TDN] differing in forage sources at 50:50 ratio with concentrate, on DM basis; (1) TMR maize silage, (2) TMR sugarbeet pulp ensiled with corncobs (80:20), (3) TMR citrus pulp ensiled with corncobs (78:22), and (4) TMR green maize fodder with wheat straw (9:1). All calves received TMRs for ad libitum intake twice daily for 80-day period. Daily feed intake, fortnightly body weights, and digestibility and N balance study during last 5-days were recorded of individual animals. The calves fed TMR sugarbeet pulp silage got highest daily gain (856 g/d, P < 0.05) than citrus pulp silage (776 g/d) or green maize fodder (704 g/d). But maize silage did not differ from sugarbeet pulp silage and citrus pulp silage (P > 0.05). Average intake of nutrients were same among the all calves. Feed conversion ratio and digestibility of DM, NDF and ADF were higher (P < 0.05) with TMR sugarbeet pulp silage compared to other TMRs. Economic benefit (output/input) with TMR sugarbeet pulp silage had 15.46, 34.27, and 37.36% higher effect for fattening of buffalo calves compared to citrus pulp silage, green maize fodder and maize silage based TMRs, respectively. In conclusion, sugarbeet or citrus pulp ensiled with ground corncobs is simple and viable strategy for effective silage making, however, sugarbeet pulp silage had pronounced economic impact for fattening of buffalo calves.

Growth

Digestibility

Sugarbeet Pulp Silage

Citrus Pulp Silage

Buffalo Calves

A major constraint for low productivity of livestock in Pakistan is the scarcity and fluctuation in year-round quantity and quality of fodder supply. At present, indigenous feed resources are short in terms of dry matter (19.4%), crude protein (37.2%) and metabolizable energy (38.0%) to meet the livestock nutritional requirements (Habib et al. 2016), leads to low productivity performance of livestock. Therefore, there is a dire need to introduce and include low cost alternate feed resources or new methods/technologies, to enhance the efficiency of utilization of available biomass and to reduce the feeding cost.

An estimated 2.1 million tons of sugarbeet pulp and citrus pulp are produced annually in the country (GOP 2020). The sugarbeet pulp and citrus pulp are the main byproducts of the sugarbeet and citrus processing industry. Sugarbeet pulp contains 8–9% CP and 6% sucrose (Broughton et al. 1995, Khan et al. 2020) and 45% NDF, especially pectins (Heydari et al. 2021). Pectins do not ferment to lactic acid (Howard 1961), therefore reducing the risk of ruminal acidosis (Boguhn et al. 2010). Citrus pulp is also rich in fermentable carbohydrate and digestible nutrients. Moreover, sugarbeet pulp and citrus pulp both are high in moisture contents ranged from 80–90%, which is associated with difficulties in its transportation, handling, and storage (Scerra et al. 2001; Bampidis and Robinson 2006). The high moisture content resulting into great loss during ensiling, which is associated with rotten of silage nutrients (Beauchemin 2006) and environmental pollution (Lee et al. 2020). Because drying is an energy and cost-intensive procedure (Leupp et al. 2006), therefore, ensiling wet sugarbeet or citrus pulp by mixing with dry roughages (ground corncobs as absorbent) may be an effective method of conservation (Gilbery et al. 2010) and minimize the risk of effluent production and undesirable fermentation. Maize stovers and maize cobs are main crop residues characterized by abundance, low cost, less competitive usage, and great potential for feed utilization. The total annual maize grains yield in the country is 5.7 million tons, accompanied by 22.8 million tons production of maize stovers and maize cobs (GOP 2020) that are mostly considered a waste and are burnt usually. The ensiling process is an effective and simple conservation technology that is known to acidify biomass, thus it inhibits the growth of spoilage-causing microorganisms, thereby providing safe and long-term conservation for moist forages (Mcdonald et al. 1991). To our knowledge, limited reports are available concerning the wet sugarbeet or citrus pulp ensiling with ground corncobs for silage making and feeding to buffalo calves. Therefore, this study was planned to ensile wet sugarbeet or citrus pulp by mixing with ground corncobs as dry roughage and use as replacement of maize silage in total mixed rations for its effects on voluntary feed intake, growth performance, nutrient digestibility and economic benefits in buffalo calves.

Silage and TMRs preparation

The wet sugarbeet pulp was obtained from Al-Moiz Sugar Mill, Dera Ismail Khan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province to Livestock Research Station (LRS), National Agricultural Research Centre (NARC), Islamabad in early May, 2020 for silage preparation. In sugarbeet pulp the moisture content was determined as 78% while in corncobs as 12.8%. Therefore, a mixture of sugarbeet pulp and ground corncobs (80:20) as absorbent was made to attain final moisture (65–70%) similar to that of maize silage and was ensiled into above-ground silage concrete wall bunker. A tractor was used to compact the deposited mixture in bunker and it was covered with a plastic sheet and tires to exclude air.

Similarly, citrus pulp silage was prepared in early March, 2020 at LRS. The moisture level of citrus pulp was 82%. A mixture of citrus pulp and ground corncobs (78:22) as absorbent was used to attain final moisture of 65–70%. All material was mixed using tractor driven heavy mixer for 5 minutes and ensiled into plastic drums and finally covered with plastic sheet and sealed with stopper.

Maize silage in bales was prepared when the grains were in the dough stage and whole plant maize silage samples were having 65% moisture. The forage was chopped at a theoretical length-of-cut of 1.7-2.0 cm and conserved in 50 kg bales at LRS in May, 2020.

Four total mixed rations (TMRs) [iso-nutritious with 12% CP and 69% TDN] differing in forage source but same concentrate to forage ratio at 50:50, on a total DM basis were prepared as (1) concentrate and maize silage (TMR maize silage), (2) concentrate and sugarbeet pulp ensiled with ground corncobs as (80:20) ratio (TMR sugarbeet pulp silage), (3) concentrate and citrus pulp ensiled with ground corncobs as (78:22) ratio (TMR citrus pulp silage), and (4) green maize with wheat straw as (9:1) ratio (TMR green maize fodder).

Animals And Feeding Management

Twenty (20) male calves of Nili-Ravi buffalo having 133 ± 5 kg average initial body weight were taken from LRS, NARC and randomly divided into 4 groups with 5 calves per group. Calves were housed in individual tie stall with iron chain. Before start of experiment, animals were vaccinated and de-wormed against the acto and endo parasites. All animals received the diets as TMR for ad libitum intake (5% orts) twice daily at 0900 and 1600 h for 80 days from October to December 2020. Ingredient and chemical composition (% of DM) of TMRs are given in Table 2. Data on individual’s daily feed intake was obtained by subtracting refusals from the weighed quantity of feed offered while body weights were recorded fortnightly. Fresh drinking water was offered 2–3 times a day. For the first 15 days, experimental feeds were given to calves as adoptability to feed prior to beginning the experiment.

Table 2

Ingredient and chemical composition of different forage-based total mixed rations
Item	Total mixed rations^a
Item	Maize silage	Sugarbeet pulp silage	Citrus pulp silage	Green maize fodder
Dry matter (%)	61.12	59.52	60.02	58.10
Ingredients (% of DM)
Maize silage	50	-	-	-
Sugarbeet pulp silage	-	50	-	-
Citrus pulp silage	-	-	50	-
Green maize fodder	-	-	-	50
Maize grains	10	10	10	10
Wheat bran	14	14	12	14
Rice polishing	10	10	10	10
Canola meal	4.5	4.7	7	5
Corn gluten feed	5	5	5	4.4
Cane-molasses	5	5	4.4	5
Urea	0.5	0.3	0.6	0.6
Di-calcium phosphate	0.4	0.4	0.4	0.4
Limestone	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
Common salt	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
Mineral pre-mix^b	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.2
Nutrient composition (% of DM)
Crude protein	12.38	12.48	12.19	12.39
Ether extract	4.14	3.54	3.88	4.12
Neutral detergent fibre	39.48	29.49	24.46	40.03
Acid detergent fibre	21.13	15.22	13.79	22.33
Total digestible nutrients	69.39	69.54	69.33	69.26
^aTotal mixed rations were (1) concentrate and maize silage as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR maize silage), (2) concentrate and sugarbeet pulp ensiled with ground corncobs (80:20) as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR sugarbeet pulp silage), (3) concentrate and citrus pulp ensiled with ground corncobs (78:22) as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR citrus pulp silage), and (4) concentrate and green maize with wheat straw (9:1) as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR green maize fodder).
^bProvided the following per kg pre-mix: CaHPO₄ 700 g, CaCO₃ 80 g, NaCl 70 g, MgSO₄ 50 g, NaHCO₃ 50 g, ZnSO₄ 15 g, FeSO₄ 15 g, MnSO₄ 10 g, Sulphur 5 g, CuSO₄ 4.5 g, CoCl₂ 0.2 g, KI 0.3 g,

Digestibility And N Balance Trial

Followed by feeding trial a five days in-vivo digestibility and N balance study was performed. Feed, silages, orts, faeces and urine (10% of total) samples were collected daily, composited for each animal, and stored in refrigerator at 4°C for chemical analysis.

Chemical Analysis

Chemical analysis of samples of wet sugarbeet pulp, citrus pulp, green maize fodder, ground corncobs, silages, feeds, orts and faeces were performed for proximate composition (DM, CP, EE, and crude ash) by AOAC (2005) methods, cell wall fractionation (ADF, NDF, ADL) with the ANKOM fibre analyzer using reagents described by Van Soest et al. (1991) method. Samples of silages were also analyzed for fermentation profile for pH by Lee et al. (2020) and NH₃-N by Chanery and Marbach (1962) methods. Daily urine output was collected in plastic buckets which were acidified by daily addition of 30 ml 6 N H₂SO₄ to avoid N losses due to ammonia volatilization and to prevent bacterial growth. A representative sample (2%) was taken of each animal for N determination (AOAC 2005) and N retention estimation.

Economic Return Profit

The economic return profit expression (a ratio of output to input) was calculated by using feed price, calves body weight, and growth rate as the formula given by (Xie et al. 2012).

Output/input = (ADG × MPBW)/ (DMI × MPF)

Where,

ADG is the average daily gain (kg/head), MPBW is the average market price of body weight (Pakistani rupees (PKR)/kg), DMI is the daily DM intake (kg/head/day), and MPF is the market price of feeds (PKR/kg).

Statistical analysis

The data regarding feed intake, body weight, weight gain, and digestibility and N balance parameters were given as means ± SE. The data were statistically analyzed with the standard procedure of analysis of variance according to Completely Randomized Design as described by Steel et al. (1997) using Minitab 15 software. The means were compared by Duncan’s Multiple Rang Test at 5% level of probability.

The chemical composition of the sugarbeet pulp, citrus pulp, green maize fodder, ground corncobs and their silages are given in Table 1. Green maize fodder exhibited high DM, NDF, ADF and ADL contents compared to sugarbeet pulp or citrus pulp, while these values were relatively lowest in citrus pulp. But sugarbeet pulp exhibited the highest CP (9.2%) content. The corncobs, as the main dry roughage had relatively low CP (3.6%) and high DM, NDF and ADF compared to all others forages.

Table 1

Chemical composition of different forages and silages (% of DM)
Item^c	Silages^a				Forages^b
Item^c	MS	SPS	CPS	SEM	GMF	SP	CP	C
Dry matter	34.3	33.5	32.6	2.4	31.6	22.7	20.3	88.2
Crude protein	7.3	8.5	4.7	1.2	7.0	9.2	5.5	3.6
Ether extract	3.1	0.5	1.1	0.1	1.8	0.6	1.5	0.4
Crude ash	6.5	4.3	5.8	1.2	7.5	3.7	5.2	3.5
Neutral detergent fibre	58.9	40.4	30.7	3.6	59.3	39.1	29.7	79.8
Acid detergent fibre	32.5	24.6	17.2	3.3	34.7	27.7	20.2	42.5
Acid detergent lignin	3.52	1.12	2.61	0.9	4.50	1.20	4.25	8.35
Fermentation profile
pH	4.2	3.8	3.6	0.1	-	-	-	-
NH₃-N, % of total N	6.7	9.5	7.5	0.7	-	-	-	-
^aMS, maize silage, SPS, sugarbeet pulp silage performed by a mixture of sugarbeet pulp and corncobs (80:20), CPS, citrus pulp silage performed by a mixture of citrus pulp and corncobs (78:22)
^bGMF, green maize fodder, SP, sugarbeet pulp, CP, citrus pulp, C, Corncobs
^cValues of each parameter are means of 3 observations.

The maize silage had slightly high DM, EE, NDF, ADF and ADL values than sugarbeet pulp silage or citrus pulp silage but lower than green maize fodder. However, the CP of sugarbeet pulp silage was the highest of three silages while the EE content was relatively low. All silages had good fermentation profile with pH ranging between 3.6 and 4.2 and NH₃-N ranging between 6.7 and 9.5% of total N.

In all TMRs, DM, CP and TDN contents were almost similar, 58.10 to 61.12%, 12.19 to 12.49%, and 69.26 to 69.54%, respectively. However, NDF (24.46 to 40.03%) and ADF (13.79 to 22.33%) contents were varied because several ingredients were used in order to adjust the CP and TDN levels in the different TMRs (Table 2).

Results on DM intake, BW change and FCR of buffalo calves fed different TMRs are given in Table 3. Total DM intake or DM intake as percent of BW in buffalo calves did not differ (P > 0.05) due to different TMRs. Total BW gain or ADG of buffalo calves across the feeding TMRs were changed significantly (P < 0.05). The highest total BW gain (68.50 kg, P < 0.05) was observed in calves fed TMR sugarbeet pulp silage than those fed citrus pulp silage or green maize fodder (62.05 or 56.30 kg), but maize silage (65.75 kg, P > 0.05) did not differ from sugarbeet pulp silage and citrus pulp silage based TMRs. The overall ADG and FCR of buffalo calves were in the same respective pattern across the different TMRs.

Table 3

Effect of different forage-based total mixed rations on growth performance of buffalo calves
Item	Total mixed rations^a
Item	Maize silage	Sugarbeet pulp silage	Citrus pulp silage	Green maize fodder
Growth rate
Initial BW (kg)	133.50 ± 4.13	133.00 ± 4.76	134.75 ± 3.05	133.25 ± 5.00
Final BW (kg)	199.25 ± 3.45	201.50 ± 4.10	196.80 ± 3.80	189.55 ± 5.50
Total BW gain (kg)	65.75^ab ± 2.47	68.50^a ± 2.09	62.05^b ± 2.45	56.30^c ± 3.01
Average BW gain (kg/day)	0.82^ab ± 0.03	0.86^a ± 0.03	0.78^b ± 0.04	0.70^c ± 0.03
Dry matter intake
Total DM intake (kg/head/day)	5.38 ± 0.10	5.39 ± 0.13	5.33 ± 0.15	5.41 ± 0.29
DM intake on % BW (kg/day)	3.23 ± 0.11	3.22 ± 0.10	3.21 ± 0.12	3.36 ± 0.14
FCR (kg DM intake /kg gain)	6.56^ab ± 0.14	6.30^a ± 0.12	6.83^b ± 0.15	7.73^c ± 0.18
^aTotal mixed rations were (1) concentrate and maize silage as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR maize silage), (2) concentrate and sugarbeet pulp ensiled with ground corncobs (80:20) as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR sugarbeet pulp silage), (3) concentrate and citrus pulp ensiled with ground corncobs (78:22) as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR citrus pulp silage), and (4) concentrate and green maize with wheat straw (9:1) as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR green maize fodder).
±SE, Standard error of means, n = 5 buffalo calves per treatment.
^{a, b, c}Values within a row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05)

Table 4 showed that the apparent total-tract digestibility of DM, NDF and ADF were highest (P < 0.05) in buffalo calves fed TMR sugarbeet pulp silage than those fed maize silage, citrus pulp silage or green maize fodder. However, no difference was observed for DM, NDF and ADF digestibility between citrus pulp silage and green maize fodder. Daily N intake and faecal and urinary N were also not influenced (P > 0.05) by different TMRs (Table 4).

Table 4

Effect of different forage-based total mixed rations on nutrient digestibility and N balance of buffalo calves
Item	Total mixed rations^a
Item	Maize silage	Sugarbeet pulp silage	Citrus pulp silage	Green maize fodder
Total DM intake (kg/head/day)	5.38 ± 0.10	5.39 ± 0.13	5.33 ± 0.15	5.41 ± 0.29
Total-tract Digestibility (%)
Dry matter	72.20^b ± 2.12	77.88^a ± 2.15	61.50^c ± 2.03	66.42^c ± 2.55
Crude protein	75.16 ± 1.15	78.80 ± 1.61	75.13 ± 1.52	73.81 ± 1.60
Neutral detergent fibre	75.10^b ± 1.50	78.59^a ± 1.51	68.61^c ± 1.42	71.33^c ± 1.40
Acid detergent fibre	67.75^b ± 1.13	70.30^a ± 1.10	62.75^c ± 1.30	63.51^c ± 1.55
N balance (g/day)
N intake	106.57 ± 1.92	107.20 ± 2.32	102.00 ± 2.38	100.83 ± 2.18
N outgo (faeces + urine)	75.22 ± 1.12	77.61 ± 1.21	73.22 ± 1.14	72.72 ± 1.31
N retention	31.35 ± 1.14	29.59 ± 1.92	28.78 ± 2.36	28.11 ± 1.48
Retention % of intake N	29.42 ± 1.09	27.60 ± 1.13	28.22 ± 1.12	27.87 ± 1.12
^aTotal mixed rations were (1) concentrate and maize silage as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR maize silage), (2) concentrate and sugarbeet pulp ensiled with ground corncobs (80:20) as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR sugarbeet pulp silage), (3) concentrate and citrus pulp ensiled with ground corncobs (78:22) as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR citrus pulp silage), and (4) concentrate and green maize with wheat straw (9:1) as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR green maize fodder).
±SE, Standard error of means, n = 5 buffalo calves per treatment
^{a, b, c}Values within a row with different superscripts differ significantly (P < 0.05)

The economic benefit from feeding of different TMRs to buffalo calves is given in Table 5. On DM basis, the price of one kg maize silage, sugarbeet pulp silage, citrus pulp silage and green maize fodder based TMRs was PKR 30.21, 23.33, 24.90 and 25.05, respectively. Therefore, the total feed cost for one kg gain was PKR 198.86, 146.22, 167.00 and 193.60 for maize silage, sugarbeet pulp silage, citrus pulp silage or green maize fodder based TMRs, respectively. The market price of each kg of live BW was considered as PKR 350. Therefore, economic benefit (ratio of output/input) with TMR sugarbeet pulp silage had 13.81, 32.04, and 35.79% higher effect compared to citrus pulp silage, green maize fodder and maize silage based TMRs, respectively.

Table 5

Effect of different forage-based total mixed rations on economic analysis of buffalo calves
Item	Total mixed rations^a
Item	Maize silage	Sugarbeet pulp silage	Citrus pulp silage	Green maize fodder
Total DM intake (kg/head/d)	5.38	5.39	5.23	5.41
Average BW gain (kg/head/d)	0.82	0.86	0.78	0.70
Market price of feed (PKR/kg)	30.31	23.33	24.90	25.05
Feed cost (PKR/head/d)	163.06	125.75	130.23	135.52
Feed cost (PKR/kg gain)	198.86	146.22	167.00	193.60
Profit (PKR/head/d)^b	123.94	175.25	142.77	109.48
Economic benefit (output/input)^c	1.76	2.39	2.10	1.81
Economic benefit of sugarbeet pulp silage over others TMRs (%)	35.79	-	13.81	32.04
^aTotal mixed rations were (1) concentrate and maize silage as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR maize silage), (2) concentrate and sugarbeet pulp ensiled with ground corncobs (80:20) as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR sugarbeet pulp silage), (3) concentrate and citrus pulp ensiled with ground corncobs (78:22) as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR citrus pulp silage), and (4) concentrate and green maize with wheat straw (9:1) as 50:50 ratio on DM basis (TMR green maize fodder).
^bOn DM basis, the price of one kg TMR containing maize silage, sugarbeet pulp silage, citrus pulp silage, and green maize fodder was Pakistani rupees (PKR) 30.21, 23.33, 24.90 and 25.05, respectively. (I US$ = 150 PKR)
^cProfit, (MPBW × ADG) − DFC and Economic benefit, (ADG × MPBW)/(DFC × MPF) where MPBW is the average market price of body weight (PKR 350/kg), DFC is daily feed cost, and MPF is the market price of feeds.
n = 5 buffalo calves per treatment

Balanced feeding is an integral element for animals to exploit their genetics productive potential, while feed cost contribution in total animal production is estimated to be 60–70% (Becker 2008; Anjum and Afzal 2015). Therefore, nutritionists always focus on utilization of alternate feed resources which would be suitable for animal feeds and cost effective, as well (Beigh et al. 2017). Chemical composition of agro-industrial byproducts (wet sugarbeet or citrus pulp, corncobs and their silages) indicates these as valuable feedstuffs for ruminant nutrition. Comparatively sugarbeet pulp or citrus pulp had slightly less DM, NDF and ADF contents than green maize fodder whereas, CP (9.2%) content was higher in sugarbeet pulp. Similar to our results, previous researchers (Ali et al. 2000; Talha et al. 2002; El-Badawi et al. 2003; Lardy, 2003) reported CP (8.0 to 10.71%), EE (0.1 to 2.40%) and total ash (3.25 to 6.67%) on DM basis in sugarbeet pulp.

All silages were well preserved, as indicated by lowering of pH (3.6 to 4.2) and NH₃-N (6.7 to 9.5%) in the current study. These results could be attributed to high water-soluble carbohydrates in the sugarbeet or citrus pulp, which provided as the basic substrate (Rooke and Hatfield, 2003) for fermenting bacteria population, resulted in lowering of silage pH that suppressed spoiling microbes. In good preserved silage, the acceptable pH ranges from 3.6 to 4.40 (McDonald et al. 1991; Xu et al. 2007; Gilbery et al. 2010) and NH₃-N 10–15% of total N (Xu et al. 2007; Kung et al., 2018) that also supports findings of current study.

Lee et al. (2020) reported almost similar pH (3.1), NDF (24.6%) and crude ash (4.5%) in ensiled citrus pulp when compared to the citrus pulp silage composition in the current study. Anaerobic fermentation during ensiling reduced the NDF, ADF and ADL contents of maize silage compared to its crops before ensiling that was also supported by Wang et al. (2015) who found a reduction in NDF content in an ensiled whole crop corn than its crop. No silage effluent was found when wet sugarbeet or citrus pulp ensiled with ground corncobs. This might be due to high liquid absorbency ability of corncobs (Anjum and Afzal 2015) that has reduced moisture of biomass for active fermentation.

Total DM intake or DM intake as percent of BW in buffalo calves were almost same (P > 0.05) with different TMRs. This might be due to iso-nutritious (CP 12% and TDN 69%; Table 1) and palatable property of well fermented silage based TMRs. Intake is usually affected due to distinct odor of spoiled silage produced as a result of different volatile products (Kung et al. 2018). According to NARO (2009), the diets containing 12% CP and soluble or insoluble carbohydrates are sufficient for necessary ruminal microbe’s activity. Efficiency for utilization of dietary protein and carbohydrate is generally dependent on rumen ecology, especially microbial population (Wanapat et al. 2013).

In current study, the final BW, ADG and FCR tended to be higher (P < 0.05) for buffalo calves fed sugarbeet pulp silage versus citrus pulp silage or green maize fodder. However, the calves fed maize silage had similar final BW, ADG and FCR to both sugarbeet pulp silage and citrus pulp silage groups. These finding were also supported by Anderson et al. (2015) who observed no difference in ADG and gain efficiency in steers fed sugarbeet pulp versus corn silage based finishing diets. Similar to our results, El-Badawi et al. (2003) reported increased average daily gain in growing sheep when fed concentrate with sugarbeet pulp at 50% inclusion level compared to diet without sugarbeet pulp. Mojtahedi and Danesh Mesgaran, (2011) reported higher average daily gain in Holstein steers when replaced barley with sugarbeet pulp by 11, 22 and 33% levels in diets.

Apparent total-tract digestibility for DM, NDF and ADF, except CP, were highest (P < 0.05) for the TMR sugarbeet pulp silage compared to other TMRs which mirrored in increased (P < 0.05) ADG and decreased FCR (P < 0.05) in the current study. Improved nutrients digestibility with sugarbeet pulp silage might be due to the delayed in passage rate of soluble or insoluble NDF contents which ultimately increased availability for ruminal microbe’s activity and growth (El-Badawi and El-Kady 2006; Abo-Zeid et al. 2017). Previous researchers reported that in sugarbeet pulp, NDF content is digested more quickly than forage NDF (Bhatti and Firkins, 1995) that could possibly be due to higher pectin-soluble fibers (Heydari et al. 2021) and colonization of rumen microbes (Wanapat et al. 2013). Improved apparent digestibility of DM, NDF and fibre fractions for the diets containing sugarbeet pulp was also reported in dairy cows (Voelker and Allen, 2003; Huhtanen et al. 2008; Alamouti et al. 2009) and Barki lambs (Mahmoud et al., 2016). In contrast to our results, substituting sugarbeet pulp for corn silage had no effect on DM, OM, NDF and ADF digestibility in dairy cows (Naderi et al. 2016) and sheep (Boguhn et al. 2010) that could be due to difference in composition and feeding level of TMR sugarbeet pulp silage and breed.

In current study, digestibility of citrus pulp silage decreased compared to sugarbeet pulp silage or maize silage which is supported by findings of Scerra et al. (2001) who studied the effect of orange pulp silage versus oat hay based TMRs on growth rate in lambs. They suggested orange pulp silage TMR as more economical and acceptable for quality meat production. Alkire (2003) also observed improved weight gain in beef cattle fed dried citrus pulp compared to other treatments due to easily digestible cell wall of citrus pulp.

Feeding of TMR sugarbeet pulp silage in our study resulted in 4–5 g/d more faecal and urinary N excretion. Haque et al. (2021) reported that surplus N intake greater than that required for growth is excreted in the manure, mainly through urine. Overall, N balance was positive in all buffalo calves ranging from 28.11 to 31.35 g/d (P > 0.05).

On DM basis, one kg sugarbeet pulp silage based TMR had 6.73, 7.37, and 29.92% reduced price when replaced with citrus pulp silage, green maize fodder and maize silage, respectively. Meanwhile, due to low feed cost for one kg BW gain, more profit and economic return was obvious with sugarbeet pulp silage. Low-priced feed allowance and better FCR of sugarbeet pulp silage as compared to other TMRs produced the highest economic return. Therefore, economic benefit (ratio of output/input) with TMR sugarbeet pulp silage had 13.81, 32.04, and 35.79% higher effect compared to citrus pulp silage, green maize fodder and maize silage based TMRs, respectively.

It may be concluded that wet sugarbeet pulp or citrus pulp ensiled with ground corncobs at the mixing ratio of 80:20 is simple, viable and effective strategy for conservation as silage. Moreover, sugarbeet pulp silage inclusion up to 50% of DM in TMR had pronounced positive effects on the final BW, ADG, FCR and economic benefits in buffalo calves compared to the other TMRs. Further research is required to study inclusion levels of sugarbeet pulp silage in dairy and beef cattle.

Funding: For this study, financial assistance provided by Agricultural Linkage Program under the project (AS-073), PARC is highly appreciated.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval: Experimental animals were taken care and managed as per guidelines and recommendations of the International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research involving Animals (CIOMS), Geneva, 1985. All practices involving in handling of animals were according to ethical Committee of Animal Sciences Institute, PARC-NARC, Islamabad, Pakistan.
Consent to participate: All authors have participated in the research study.
Consent for publication: All authors have read and agreed for publication of the manuscript.
Availability of data and material: All authors agree for availability of data and material.
Code availability: Not applicable
Authors’ contribution: M.I.A. planned experiment, collected data, ran the statistical analysis and wrote the manuscript; S.J. helped in experimental feed preparation and chemical analysis; F.A. and J.I. supervised the experimental animals and assisted in manuscript drafting.

Abo-Zeid, H.M., El-Zaiata, H.M., Morsyb, A.S., Attiaa, M.F.A., Abazaa, M.A., Sallama, S.M.A., 2017. Effects of replacing dietary maize grains with increasing levels of sugar beet pulp on rumen fermentation constituents and performance of growing buffalo calves, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 234, 128–138.
Akhtar, M.U., Rahman, H., Imran, M., Pasha, T.N., Khalique, A., Saadullah, M., Tahir, M.N., Haq, M.I., Haque, M.N., 2021. Nitrogen balance, production performance, and plasma metabolites of lactating bufaloes in response to varying dietary protein levels, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 53, 443.
Alamouti, A.A., Alikhani, M., Ghorbani, G.R., and Zebeli, Q., 2009. Effects of inclusion of neutral detergent soluble fibre sources in diets varying in forage particle size on feed intake, digestive processes and performance of mid-lactation Holstein cows, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 154, 9–23.
Ali, M.F., Mohsen, M.K., Bassiouni, M.I., and Khalafaila, M.E., 2000. The influence of using dried sugar beet pulp on sheep performance, Agriculture Research, Tanta University, 26, 132.
Alkire, D.O., 2003. Effects of feeding citrus pulp supplements on the performance of growing beef cattle, Gainesville (FL), University of Florida.
Anderson, V.I., Engel, C.I., Ostlie, M., Tebow, J., and Bernardson, D., 2015. Beets as feed for growing and finishing steers, North Dakota Beef Report, 04–07.
Anjum, M.I., and Afzal, M., 2015. Influence of substituting wheat straw with corncobs in fattening rations for growth rate and nutrient digestibility in buffalo calves, Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 25, 1216–1221.
AOAC, 2005. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 18th rev. Ed. Gaithersburg: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, USA.
Bampidis, V.A., Robinson, P.H., 2006. Citrus by-products as ruminant feeds: a review, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 128, 175–217.
Beauchemin, K.A., 2006. Use of sugar beet silage in feedlot cattle diets, Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 86, 127–131.
Becker, G., 2008. Livestock feed costs: Concerns and options, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress.
Beigh, Y.A., Ganai, A.M., Ahmad, H.A., 2017. Prospects of complete feed system in ruminant feeding: A review, Veterinary World, 10, 424–437.
Bhattacharya, A., Khan, T., Uwayjan, M., 1975. Dried beet pulp as a sole source of energy in beef and sheep rations, Journal of Animal Science, 41, 616–621.
Bhatti, S.A., and Firkins, J.L., 1995. Kinetics of hydration and functional specific gravity fibrous feed by-products, Journal of Animal Science, 73, 1449–1458.
Boguhn, J., Kluth, H., Bulang, M., Engelhard, T., and Rodehutscord, M., 2010. Effects of pressed beet pulp silage inclusion in maize-based rations on performance of high-yielding dairy cows and parameters of rumen fermentation, Animal, 4, 30–39.
Broughton, N.W., Dalton, C.C., Jones, G.C., and Williams, E.L., 1995. Adding value to sugar beet pulp, International Sugar Beet Journal, 97, 57–60.
Chanery, A.L., and Marbach, E.P., 1962. Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia, Clinical Chemistry, 8, 130–132.
El-Badawi, A.Y., and El-Kady, R. I., 2006. Effect of partial replacement of concentrates with sugar beet pulp on performance, carcass characteristics and energy utilization of growing sheep, International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 8, 344–348.
El-Badawi, A.Y., Yacout, M.H.M., and Kamel, H.E.M., 2003. Effect of replacing corn with sugar beet pulp on ruminal degradation kinetics and utilization efficiency of rations by growing sheep, Egypt Journal of Nutrition and Feeds, 6, 1349–1363.
Gilbery, T.C., Lardy, G.F., and Bauer, M.I., 2010. Characterizing the ensiling properties of sugarbeets with dry feedstuffs, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 155, 140–146.
GOP, 2020. Pakistan Economic Survey, Government of Pakistan, Economic Advisor's Wing, Finance Division, Islamabad-Pakistan.
Gouet, P., Fonty, G., Jouany, J.P., Nebout, J.M., 1984. Cellulolytic bacteria establishment and rumen digestion in lambs isolated after birth, Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 64, 163–164.
Habib, G., Khan, M.F., Javaid, S. and Saleem, M., 2016. Assessment of feed supply and demand for livestock in Pakistan. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, (A 6), 191–202.
Heydari, M., Ghorbani, G.R., Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi, A., Rafiee, H., Ahamdi, F., Saeidy, H., 2021. Beet pulp substituted for corn silage and barley grain in diets fed to dairy cows in the summer months: feed intake, total-tract digestibility, and milk production, Animal, 15, 100063.
Howard, B.H., 1961. Fermentation of pectin by rumen bacteria, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 20, XXIX-XXX.
Huhtanen, P., Rinne, M., Nousiainen, J., 2008. Effects of silage soluble nitrogen components on metabolizable protein concentration: A meta-analysis of dairy cow production experiments, Journal of Dairy Science, 91, 1150–1158. [CrossRef]
Kelly, P., 1983. Sugar beet pulp: A review, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 8, 1.
Khan, A., Din I., Ali. A., Ali, A., Jamil, M., Safiullah and Ullah, M.F., 2019. Comparative effect of feeding various concentrations of sugar beet pulp to estimate the increase in live body weight and their economic values in Damani goats. Pure and Applied Biology, 9, 635–639.
Kung, L. Jr., Shaver, R.D., Grant, R.J., and Schmidt, R.J., 2018. Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages, Journal of Dairy Science, 101, 4020–4033.
Lardy, G., and Anderson, V., 2003. Alternative feeds for ruminants, NDSU Extension Service, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota 58105, 7.
Lee, Y.H., Ahmadi, F., Kim, Y.I., Oh, Y.K., and Kwak, W.S., 2020. Co-ensiling garlic stalk with citrus pulp improves the fermentation quality and feed-nutritional value, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 33, 436–445.
Leupp, J.L., Encinias, S.M., Bauer, M.L., Caton, J.S., Gilbery, T.C., Carlson, J., Lardy, G.P., 2006. Ensiling properties of wet sugarbeet pulp and the addition of dry feedstuffs, Journal of Sugarbeet Research, 43, 110.
Mahmoud, A.E.M., and El-Bordeny, N.F.S., 2016. The nutritive value of sugar beet pulp-substituted corn for Barki lambs, Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 48, 995–1002.
McDonald, P., Henderson, A.R., Heron, S.J.E., 1991. The Biochemistry of Silage, 2nd Ed. Chalcombe Publications, UK.
Mojtahedi, M., Danesh Mesgaran, M., 2011. Effects of the inclusion of dried molassed sugar beet pulp in a low-forage diet on the digestive process and blood biochemical parameters of Holstein steers, Livestock Science, 141, 95–103.
Naderi, N., Ghorbani, G.R., Sadeghi-Sefidmazgi, A., Nasrollahi, S.M., and Beauchemin, K.A., 2016. Shredded beet pulp substituted for corn silage in diets fed to dairy cows under ambient heat stress: Feed intake, total-tract digestibility, plasma metabolites and milk production, Journal of Dairy Science, 99, 8847–8857.
NARO (National Agriculture and Food Research Organization), 2009. Standard Tables of Feed Composition in Japan, Japan Livestock Industry Association, Tokyo, Japan.
Rooke, J.A., and Hatfield, R.D., 2003. Biochemistry of Ensiling. In Silage Science and Technology; Buxton, D.R., Muck, R.E., Harrison, J.H., Eds., American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 95–139.
Scerra, V., Caparra, P., and Foti, F., 2001. Citrus pulp and wheat straw silage as an ingredient in lamb diets: effect on growth and carcass and meat quality, Small Ruminant Research, 40, 51–56.
Steel, R.G.R., Torrie, J. H., and Dickey, D.A., 1997. Principles and procedures of statistics. A biochemical approach 3rd Ed. McGraw Hill Book Company Inc. NY, USA.
Talah, M.H., Moawad, R.I., Zaza, G.H., and Ragheb, E.E., 2002. Effect of partial substitution of corn grains by dried sugar beet pulp in growing lambs rations on their productive performance, Agricultural Science Mansoura University, 27, 5193–5199.
Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, H.B., and Lewis, B.A., 1991. Methods of dietary fibre, NDF and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal material, Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 3583–3595.
Voelker, J.A., and Allen M.S., 2003. Pelleted beet pulp substituted for high moisture corn: 2. Effects on digestion and ruminal digestion kinetics in lactating dairy cows, Journal of Dairy Science 86, 3553–3561.
Wanapat, M., 2003. Manipulation of cassava cultivation and utilization to improve protein to energy biomass for livestock feeding in the tropics, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 16, 463–472.
Wanapat, M., Pilajun, R., Polyorach, S., Cherdthong, A., Khejornsart, P. and Rowlinson, P., 2013. Efect of carbohydrate source and cottonseed meal level in the concentrate on feed intake, nutrient digestibility, rumen fermentation and microbial protein synthesis in swamp bufaloes, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 26, 952–960.
Wang, H., Ning, T., Hao, W., Zheng, M., Xu, C., 2015. Dynamics associated with prolonged ensiling and aerobic deterioration of total mixed ration silage containing whole crop corn. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 29, 62–72.
Xie, X.X., Meng, Q.X., Ren, L.P., Shi, F.H., and Zhou, B., 2012. Effect of cattle breed on finishing performance, carcass characteristics and economic benefits under typical beef production system in China, Italian Journal of Animal Sciences, 11e58, 312–316.
Xu, C.C., Cai, Y., Zhang, J.G., and Ogawa, M., 2007. Fermentation quality and nutritive value of a total mixed ration silage containing coffee grounds at ten or twenty percent of dry matter, Journal of Animal Science, 85, 1024–1029.

Download PDF

Reviews received at journal
03 May, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
03 May, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
25 Apr, 2022
First submitted to journal
09 Mar, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Study of the effects of maize silage substitution in total mixed rations on growth, digestibility and economic benefits in male calves of Nili-Ravi buffalo with sugarbeet or citrus pulp ensiled with corncobs

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Introduction

Materials And Methods

Silage and TMRs preparation

Animals And Feeding Management

Digestibility And N Balance Trial

Chemical Analysis

Economic Return Profit

Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Status:

Version 1