1.                   Introduction

Better management and long-standing strategy are the backbone of Dairy farm feeding transition. Every ruminant requires better feed for production of milk, flesh and be healthy [1,2]. Approximately all the dairy researchers try their best to achieve better feed for the dairy cattle. [3] discussed affect of mycotoxin on the Dry Matter and In-vitro digestibility in the combination of berseem and straw of wheat. Through many years, a lot of experiments were conducted to obtain best quality silage with high In-Vitro digestible nutrients with advantage of low cost and short-term planning. An experiment should be conducted in order to select a better silo and combination of fodders.

Maize is reflected as the unsurpassed forage as well as for silage due to high protein content. When the moisture content of maize reaches to suitable level, it should be harvested [4]. Mott grass has enough nutrients and Dry Matter which make it suitable for silage [5]. In Mott grass, there was low fermentable content of carbohydrates with high final value of pH. Mott grass can be mixed with any fodder having sufficient amount of carbohydrates, for making silage [6]. Adding maize with Mott grass enhances silage by aerobic fermentation of sugar molecules producing high amount of lactic acid which decline its pH [7]. During silaging anaerobic and aerobic bacteria are responsible for the fermentation. Buffering capacity of silage depends on Dry Matter contents in the plant, number of microorganisms and amount of glucose which led to better quality of silage [8]. [9] stated that better silage can be obtained by using fodder having high Dry Matter than the lowest one. Mott grass is better for silage preparation because its Dry Matter content is high and it can be mixed with any crop having high moisture content for silaging. George (1994) stated that silage can be prepared in the silo or in the form of pile or by using plastic covering but every type of silo has its own advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of material of construction of silo and combination ratio of biomass on silaging.

2.                   Materials and Methods

2.1.              Study Spot

2.2.              Development of Silo and Analyzing Silage

Two types of containers were used in the development of silo, one made of galvanized Aluminum and the second was made of Plastic. The silo volume was 0.05 m³ and completely sealed. In this silo anaerobic and aerobic digestion took place. The biomass was loaded in the silo through its upper lid. The silage was tested with association of Faculties of Animal Health and Animal Nutrition Sciences, The University of Agriculture Peshawar, Pakistan. The insulation was made of polythene having insulation value of 0.3 J/m² with a thickness of 0.0127m.            

2.3.              Experimental Design and Experimental Layout

Completely Randomized Design (CRD) was used to find the result of Biomass combination ratio and material of construction of Silo on Silage. Biomass combination ratio was the first factor having two levels; 10% Maize + 90% Mott grass (Y) and 90% Maize + 10% Mott grass (Z). The second factor was material of construction of Silo with two levels; galvanized Aluminum (A) and Plastic (P). The treatments with their layout were;

Levels of Biomass combination:

1.                   Y= 10% Maize + 90% Mott grass.

2.                   Z= 90% Maize + 10% Mott grass.

Levels of construction of material of Silo:

1.                   A= galvanized Aluminum.

2.                   P= Plastic.

Total of four treatments were;

1.                   YA

2.                   YP

3.                   ZA

4.                   ZP.         

2.4.              In-vitro Digestibility

2.5.              Statistical Analysis

Completely Randomized Design was used to analyze the treatments having highest digestibility in four treatments and three replications. The treatment means were calculated and compared by means of Least Significant Difference test at 5% level of probability [11].

3.                   Results and Discussion

Protein and Silage Digestibility content were influenced by changing material of construction of Silo. Highest Protein losses were arising in the treatments having Maize and Mott grass in galvanized Aluminum silo. [8]. discussed that increasing temperature cause increase in number of thermophilic bacteria. These bacteria reduce the silage pH which result loss of nutrients. Protein may be changed into Ammonia Nitrate if microbes and its enzymes exist extensively.

Different researchers [12-14] described that the declining of silage fibers occurred due to proteolysis and fibrolysis. These enzymes need pH of 5-6 but below 5 they can’t perform any activity [15]. Acidic silage has more Dry Matter, Protein and Fiber contents than alkaline silage. [9] stated that acid hydrolyzing of fibers content and lignin contents occur if long life fermentation develops [14-16] stated that the silo of maize fodder in Wisconsin was organized on August 18^th and the data logger was taken back on December 23^rd. The silage temperature arises to 36^ºC but slowly decreased after few days. The silage temperature recorded for the period of three months was 32^ºC. Silaging depends on the environmental condition, type of silo and fodder. The results of silaging were also accord with the research of [1,2].

4.                   Conclusion

The study of effect of material of construction of silo and type of biomass combination on silaging showed significant difference among the treatments. The result found from the study showed that combination of 90% Maize and 10% Mott grass with plastic silo give highest yield of In-Vitro digestible contents (28 % Dry Matter, 16% Protein, 33% Fibers and 10% Ash). The lowest In-Vitro digestible contents were found in the treatments having 10% Maize and 90% Mott grass. (Figure 1-4)

Figure 1: In-Vitro digestible contents from the treatments of “10% Maize + 90% Mott grass”.

Figure 2: In-Vitro digestible contents from the treatments of "90% Maize + 10% Mott grass".

Figure 3: Digestible Nutrients of silage from the treatments of "10% Maize + 90% Mott grass".

Figure 4: Digestible Nutrients of silage from the treatments of "90% Maize + 10% Mott grass".

1.       Holmes BJ, Muck RE (2000) Preventing Silage Storage Losses, University of Wisconsin Extension. USA.

2.       Lang B (2011) Planning Dairy Operation Feeding Systems for Expansion. Ministry of Agriculture, Ontori, USA.

3.       Abdelhamid AM, El-Ayouty SA, El-Saadany HH (1992) The influence of contamination with separate mycotoxins on the in vitro dry matter and organic matter digestibilities of some roughages. J. Arch Tierernahr 42: 179-185.

4.       Richard E. Muck (2002) Effects of Corn Silage Inoculants on Aerobic Stability. Agricultural Engineer USDA, ARS, US Dairy Forage Research Center, Madison, WI 53706, Paper Number: 021068. Written for presentation at the 2002. ASAE Annual International Meeting / CIGR XVth World Congress Sponsored by ASAE and CIGR Hyatt Regency Chicago Chicago, Illinois, USA.

5.       Nisa M, Touqir NA, Sarwar M, Khan MA, Akhatar M (2005) Effect of additives and fermentation periods on chemical composition and in situ digestion kinetics of Mott grass silage. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 18:812-815.

6.       Bilal MA (2008) Feeding value of Mott grass and its silage in lactating Sahiwal cows. Pak. J. Agri. Sci. :45(2).

7.       Sarwar M, Khan MA, Nisa M, Touqir NA (2005) Influence of berseem and lucerne silages on feed intake, nutrient digestibility and milk yield in lactating Nili buffaloes. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 18:475-478.

8.       Khorasani GR, Okine EK, Kennelly JJ, Helm JH (1993) Effect of whole crop cereal grain silage substituted for alfalfa silage on performance of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 76:35-36.

9.       Khan MA, Sarwar M, Nisa M, Bhatti SA, Iqbal Z, et al. (2006) Feeding value of urea treated wheat straw ensiled with or without acidified molasses in Nili-Ravi buffaloes. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 19:645-650.

10.    Asadzadeh S, Tahmasbi AM, Naserian AA (2013) Effect of Malathion Toxicity on Dry Matter Degradability, Fermentation Parameters and Cumulative Gas Production by Using the in Vitro Technique. J. Agric. Sci. Dev. 2: 8-13.

11.    Steel RGD, Torrie HJ (1980) Principles and Procedures of statistics. Mc Graw Hill Book Co. Inc. New York.

12.    Kung Jr, Robinson LJR, Ranjit NK, Chen JH, Golt CM, et al. (2000) Microbial populations, fermentation end products and aerobic stability of corn silage treated with ammonia or a propionic acid-based preservative. J. Dairy Sci. 83:1479-1486.

13.    Cone JW, Gelder AHV, Soliman IA, Visser HDe, Van Vuuren AM (1999) Different techniques to study rumen fermentation characteristics of maturing grass and grass silage. J. Dairy Sci. 82:957-964.

14.    Bolsen KK, Ashbell G, Wilkinson JM (1995) Silage additives. p. 33-54, in: R.J. Wallace & A. Chesson (eds) Biotechnology in animal feeds and animal feeding. Weinheim, Germany: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft.

15.    McDonald P, Henderson AR, Heron SJE (1991) Biochemistry of Silage. (2nd Ed.), Chalcombe Publications, Marlow, UK. p. 184.

16.    Kung L (2011) Silage Temperatures: How Hot is Too Hot? Dept. of Animal & Food Sci. 531 South College Avenue Newark, DE 19717-1303.17.    Singh GP, Asit D (1998) Effect of different levels of Berseem supplementation in donor animal diet on in vitro dry matter digestibility and gas production of wheat straw. Ind. J. anim. Sci.: 68: 68-72.