4.7 Article

Corn silage management I: Effects of hybrid, maturity, and mechanical processing on chemical and physical characteristics

期刊

JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE
卷 85, 期 4, 页码 833-853

出版社

AMER DAIRY SCIENCE ASSOC
DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74143-X

关键词

corn silage; mechanical processing; maturity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the effects of hybrid, maturity, and mechanical processing of whole plant corn on chemical and physical characteristics, particle size, pack density, and dry matter recovery. In the first experiment, hybrid 3845 whole plant corn was harvested at hard dough, one-third milkline, and two-thirds milkline with a theoretical length-of-cut of 6.4 mm. In the second experiment, hybrids 3845 and Quanta were harvested at one-third milkline, two-thirds milkline, and blackline stages of maturity with a theoretical length-of-cut of 12.7 mm. At each stage of maturity, corn was harvested with and without mechanical processing by using a John Deere 5830 harvester with an onboard kernel processor. The percentage of intact corn kernels present in unprocessed corn silage explained 62% of variation in total tract starch digestibility. As the amount of intact kernels increased, total tract starch digestibility decreased. Post-ensiled vitreousness of corn kernels within the corn silage explained 31 and 48% of the variation of total tract starch digestibility for processed and unprocessed treatments, respectively. For a given amount of vitreous starch in corn kernels, total tract starch digestibility was lower for cows fed unprocessed corn silage compared with processed corn silage. This suggests that processing corn silage disrupts the dense protein matrix within the corn kernel where starch is embedded, therefore making the starch more available for digestion. Particle size of corn silage and orts that contained corn silage was reduced when it was processed. Wet pack density was greater for processed compared with unprocessed corn silage.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据