Comparison of silage and hay of dwarf Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) fed to Thai native beef bulls

  • Chaowarit Mapato
  • Metha Wanapat
Regular Articles


Both quantity and quality of forages are important in dry season feeding. Eight Thai native beef bulls were arranged in a Completely randomized design to evaluate dwarf Napier namely Sweet grass (Pennisetum purpureum cv. Mahasarakham) preserved as silage or hay on feed intake, digestibility, and rumen fermentation. The animals were fed with forage ad libitum supplemented with concentrate mixture at 1.0% of BW for 21 days; data were collected during the last 7 days. The results showed that there were differences (P < 0.05) between treatments in dry matter (DM) intake, DM digestibility, and ruminal pH, in which hay feeding gave enhanced feed intake and more favorable ruminal pH. Nevertheless, mean ruminal ammonia nitrogen, total volatile fatty acids (TVFAs), proportion of VFAs, bacterial and protozoal population, and blood urea nitrogen were similar (P > 0.05) in animals fed silage and hay. Sweet grass is better preserved as hay rather than silage.


Grass Digestibility Feed utilization Ruminants 



The authors would like to express our sincere thanks to the Tropical Feed Resources Research and Development Center (TROFREC), Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Thailand, Thailand Research Fund (TRF) through the Royal Golden Jubilee Ph.D. Scholarship, TRF-IRG5980010, and TRF-IRN57W0002, for providing financial support for the research and the use of the research facilities.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. AOAC. 2012. Official methods of Analysis, 19th Animal Feed: Association of Official Analytical Chemists, VA.Google Scholar
  2. Beauchemin, K.A., Eriksen, L., Nørgaard, P., and Rode, L.M. 2008. Short communication: salivary secretion during meals in lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 2077–2081.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowman, G.R., Beauchemin, K.A., and Shelford, J.A. 2003. Fibrolytic enzymes and parity effects on feeding behavior, salivation, and ruminal pH of lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 565–575.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, L.D., Hillman, D., Lassiter, C.A., and Huffman, C.F. 1963. Grass silage vs. hay for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 46(5), 407–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crocker, C.L. 1967. Rapid determination of urea-nitrogen in serum or plasma without deproteinization. The American Journal of Medical Technology 33, 361–365.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Forbes, M.J. 2007. Voluntary food intake and diet selection in farm animal. 2nd Biddles Ltd, King’s Lynn. UK.Google Scholar
  7. Galyen, M. 1989. Laboratory procedures in animal nutrition research. New Mexico State University.Google Scholar
  8. Halim, R.A., Shampazurini, S., and Idris, A.B. 2013. Yield and nutritive quality of nine Napier grass varieties in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Animal Science 16, 37–44.Google Scholar
  9. Jacobs, J.L., and Zorrilla-Rios, J. 1994. Silage or hay based diets supplemented with different levels of grain for fattening cattle. Animal Production Science 34(8), 1093–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kabirizi, J., Muyekho, F., Mulaa, M., Msangi, R., Pallangyo, B., Kawube, G., Zziwa, E., Mugerwa, S., Ajanga, S., and Lukwago, G. 2015. Napier grass feed resource: production, constraints and implications for smallholder farmers in eastern and central africa; the eastern african agricultural productivity project: Naivasha, Kenya.Google Scholar
  11. Leto, G., Todaro, M., Di Noto, AM., and Alicata, M.L. 2002. Comparison of Sulla-hay and Sulla-silage in the lactating ewes and their effects on milk and cheese characteristics. Small Ruminant Research 45, 301–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCormick, M.E., Cuomo, G.J., and Blouin, D.C. 1998. Annual ryegrass stored as balage, haylage or hay for lactating dairy cows. Journal of Production Agriculture 11, 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mukhtar, M., Ishii, Y., Tudsri, S., Idota, S., and Sonoda, T. 2003. Dry matter productivity and overwintering ability of the dwarf and normal Napier grasses as affected by the planting density and cutting frequency. Plant Production Science 6, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Negawo, A.T., Teshome, A., Kumar, A., Hanson, J., and Jones, C.S. 2017. Opportunities for Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) improvement using molecular genetics. Agronomy 7, 28–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Olsen, M.A., and Mathiesen, S.D. 1998. The bacterial population adherent to plant particles in the rumen of reindeer fed lichen, timothy hay or silage. Rangifer 18 (2), 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Özelçam, H., Kırkpınar, F., and Tan, K. 2015. Chemical composition, in vivo digestibility and metabolizable energy values of Caramba (Lolium multiflorum cv. caramba) fresh, silage and hay. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 28(10), 1427–1432.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Ramin, M., and Huhtanen, P. 2013. Development of equations for predicting methane emissions from ruminants. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 2476–2493.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ridla, M., and Uchida, S. 1994. Fermentation quality and silage additives value of barley straw and wet brewers grains silage. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 7, 517–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roth, G.W., Ishler, V.A., and Jones, C.M. 2017. From Harvest to Feed: Understanding Silage Management. Penn State Extension.
  20. Samuel, M., Sagathewan, S., Thomus, J., and Mathen, G. 1997. An HPLC method for estimation of volatile fatty acids of rumen fluid. Indian Journal of Animal Science 67, 805–807.Google Scholar
  21. SAS. 2004. What’s New in SAS® 90, 91, 912, and 913 Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Schnaider, M.A. Ribeiro, H.M.N., Kozloski, G.V., Reiter, T., Orsoletta, A.C.D., and Dallabrida, A.L. 2014. Intake and digestion of wethers fed with dwarf elephant grass hay with or without the inclusion of peanut hay. Trop. Anim. Health Prod 46 (6), 975–980.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Steel, R.G.D., and Torrie, J.H. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach. 2nd ed McGraw-Hill Book Co; New York, NY.Google Scholar
  24. Thomas, J.W., Moore, L.A., and Sykes, J.F. 1961. Further comparisons of alfalfa hay and alfalfa silage for growing dairy heifers. Journal of Dairy Science 44 (5), 862–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Van Keulen, J., and Young, B.A. 1977. Evaluation of acid-insoluble ash as a natural marker in ruminant digestibility studies. Journal of Animal Science 44, 282–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B., and Lewis, B.A.1991. Methods for dietary fiber neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wanapat, M., and Pimpa, O. 1999. Effect of ruminal NH3-N levels on ruminal fermentation, purine derivatives, digestibility and rice straw intake in swamp buffaloes. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 12, 904–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wanapat, M., Gunun, P., Anantasook, N. and Kang, S. 2014. Changes of rumen pH, fermentation and microbial population as influenced by different ratios of roughage (rice straw) to concentrate in dairy steers. J. of Agric. Sci (Cambridge) 152, 675–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tropical Feed Resources Research and Development Center (TROFREC), Department of Animal Science, Faculty of AgricultureKhon Kaen UniversityKhon KaenThailand

Personalised recommendations