Effects of Sown Season and Maturity Stage on In vitro Fermentation and In sacco Degradation Characteristics of New Variety Maize Stover

  • Tang, S.X. ;
  • Li, F.W. ;
  • Gan, J. ;
  • Wang, M. ;
  • Zhou, C.S. ;
  • Sun, Z.H. ;
  • Han, X.F. ;
  • Tan, Z.L.
  • Received : 2010.07.14
  • Accepted : 2010.11.02
  • Published : 2011.06.01


The effects of seedtime and maturity stage on nutritive value of five maize stover varieties, including conventional maize (Kexiangyu 11, CM), fodder maize (Huqing 1, FM), high oil maize (Gaoyou 115, HOM), sweet maize (Kexiangtianyu 1, SM) and waxy maize (Kexiangluoyu 1, WM), were examined based on chemical composition, in vitro gas production and in situ incubation techniques. Maize stover was sampled at d 17 and d 30 after tasseling, and designated as maturity stage 1 and stage 2, respectively. The average dry matter (DM) organic matter (OM), crude protein (CP) and fiber contents were the greatest for HOM, SM and FM, respectively. CM had the highest in vitro organic matter disappearance (IVOMD) and volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration. The highest ammonia nitrogen ($NH_3$-N) concentration in the incubation solution, and effective degradability of DM ($ED_{DM}$) and neutral detergent fiber ($ED_{NDF}$) were observed in SM. Advanced maturity stage increased (p<0.05) DM content, $ED_{DM}$ and $ED_{NDF}$, but decreased (p<0.05) OM and CP contents, and decreased (p<0.05) b and a+b values, IVOMD and molar proportion of valerate in the incubation solution for maize stover. Maize sown in summer had greater (p<0.05) OM content, but lower DM, CP, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) content compared with maize sown in spring. Maize sown in summer had greater (p<0.001) IVOMD, $NH_3$-N concentration in the incubation solution and $ED_{NDF}$, but lower (p<0.01) ratio of acetate to propionate compared to maize sown in spring. The interaction effect of variety${\times}$seedtime was observed running through almost all chemical composition, in vitro gas production parameters and in situ DM and NDF degradability. The overall results suggested that SM had the highest nutrient quality, and also indicated the possibility of selecting maize variety and seedtime for the utilization of maize stover in ruminants.


Maize Stover;Variety;Maturity Stage;Seedtime;Nutritive Value


  1. Akay, V. and J. A. J. Jackson. 2001. Effects of NutriDense and waxy corn hybrids on the rumen fermentation, digestibility and lactational performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 84:1698-1706.
  2. Akbar, M. A., P. Lebzien and G. Flachowsky. 2002. Measurement of yield and in situ dry matter degradability of maize varieties harvested at two stages of maturity in sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 100:53-70.
  3. Blummel, M. and E. R. Orskov. 1993. Comparison of in vitro gas production and nylon bag degradability of roughages in predicting feed intake in cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 40:109-119.
  4. Boonchoo, S., S. Fukai and S. E. Hetherington. 1998. Barley yield and grain protein concentration as affected by assimilate and nitrogen availability. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 49:695-706.
  5. Cone, J. W., A. H. Van Gelder, H. A. Van Schooten and J. A. M. Groten. 2008. Effects of forage maize type and maturity stage on in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics. NJAS-Wageningen J. Life Sci. 55:139-154.
  6. Crasta, O. R., W. J. Cox and J. H. Cherney. 1997. Factors affecting maize forage quality development in the northeastern USA. Agron. J. 89:251-256.
  7. Ettle, T. and F. J. Schwarz. 2003. Effect of maize variety harvested at different maturity stages on feeding value and performance of dairy cows. Anim. Res. 52:337-349.
  8. Givens, D. I. and E. R. Deaville. 2001. Comparison of major carbohydrate fractions and cell wall digestibility in silages made from older and newer maize genotypes grown in the UK. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 89:69-82.
  9. Harika, A. S. and D. D. Sharma. 1994. Quality and yield differences in maize stover due to varieties and stage of harvesting, In: Variation in the Quantity and Quality of Fibrous crop residues (Ed. A. L. Joshi, P. T. Doyle and S. J. Oosting). ICAR, New Delhi and Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 20-28.
  10. Jaster, E. H., D. F. Bell and G. C. McCoy. 1983. Evaluation of sweet corn residue as roughage for dairy heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 66:2349-2355.
  11. Jones, D. I. H. and R. Jones. 1995. The effect of crop characteristics and ensiling methodology on grass silage effluent production. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 60:73-81.
  12. McDonald, I. M. 1981. A revised model for the estimation of protein degradability in the rumen. J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 96: 251-252.
  13. Miron, J., R. Solomon, G. Adin, U. Nir, M. Nikbachat, E. Yosef, A. Carmi, Z. G. Weinberg, T. Kipnis, E. Zuckerman and D. Ben- Ghedalia. 2006. Effects of harvest stage and re-growth on yield, composition, ensilage and in vitro digestibility of new forage sorghum varieties. J. Sci. Food Agric. 86:140-147.
  14. Mustafa, A. F., F. Hassanat and R. R. Berthiaume. 2004. In situ forestomach and intestinal nutrient digestibilities of sweet corn residues. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 114:287-293.
  15. Oba, M. and M. S. Allen. 1999. Effects of brown midrib 3 mutation in corn silage on dry matter intake and productivity of high yielding dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 82:135-142.
  16. Orskov, E. R. and I. McDonald. 1979. The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.) 92:499-503.
  17. Orskov, E. R., L. Oiwang and G. W. Reid. 1988. A study on consistency of differences between cows in rumen outflow rate of fibrous particles and other substrates and consequences for digestibility and intake of roughages. Anim. Prod. 47:45-51.
  18. Orskov, E. R., W. J. Shand, D. Tedesco and L. A. F. Morrice. 1990. Rumen degradation of straw 10. Consistency of differences in nutritive value between varieties of cereal straws. Anim. Prod. 51:155-162.
  19. Pordesimo, L. O., B. R. Hames, S. Sokhansanj and W. C. Edens. 2005. Variation in corn stover composition and energy content with crop maturity. Biomass. Bioenerg. 28:366-374.
  20. Reddy, B. V. S., P. Sanjana Reddy, F. Bidinger and M. Blümmel. 2003. Crop management factors influencing yield and quality of crop residues. Field Crop. Res. 84:57-77.
  21. Russell, J. R. 1986. Influence of harvest date on the nutritive value and ensiling characteristics of maize stover. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 14:11-27.
  22. Savoie, P., A. Amyot and R. Thériault. 2002. Effect of moisture content, chopping, and processing on silage effluent. Trans. ASAE 45:907-914.
  23. Tang, S., Z. Tan, C. Zhou, H. Jiang, Y. Jiang and L. Sheng. 2006. A comparison of in vitro fermentation characteristics of different botanical fractions of mature maize stover. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 15:505-515.
  24. Tang, S. X., J. Gan, L. X. Sheng, Z. L. Tan, G. O. Tayo, Z. H. Sun, M. Wang and G. P. Ren. 2008. Morphological fractions, chemical composition and in vitro fermentation characteristics of maize stover of five genotypes. Animal 2:1772-1779.
  25. Tang, S. X., L. X. Sheng, Z. L. Tan, G. O. Tayo, H. Y. Liao, Z. H. Sun, B. Zeng, X. F. Han, C. S. Zhou and G. P. Ren. 2009. Morphological fractions and in vitro fermentation characteristics of five endosperm types maize stover harvested at two maturity stages. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 18:582-598.
  26. Tjardes, K. E., D. D. Buskirk, M. S. Allen, N. K. Ames, L. D. Bourquin and S. R. Rust. 2000. Brown midrib-3 corn silage improves digestion but not performance of growing beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 78:2957-2965.
  27. Tolera, A., T. Berg and F. Sundstøl. 1999. The effect of variety on maize grain and crop residue yield and nutritive value of the stover. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 79:165-177.
  28. Tolera, A. and F. Sundstol. 1999. Morphological fractions of maize stover harvested at different stages of grain maturity and nutritive value of different fractions of the stover. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 81:1-16.
  29. Tolera, A., F. Sundstøl and A. N. Said. 1998. The effect of stage of maturity on yield and quality of maize grain and stover. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 75:157-168.
  30. Van Soest, P. J. and J. B. Robertson. 1985. Analysis of forages and fibrous foods, A Laboratory Manual for Animal Science 613, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York., p. 202.
  31. Vanzant, E. S. and R. C. Cochran. 1994. Performance and forage utilization by beef cattle receiving increasing amounts of alfalfa hay as a supplement to low-quality, tallgrass-prairie forage. J. Anim. Sci. 72:1059-1067.
  32. Verbic, J., J. M. A. Stekar and M. Resnik-Cepon. 1995. Rumen degradation characteristics and fibre composition of various morphological parts of different maize hybrids and possible consequences for breeding. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 54:133-148.
  33. Wang, H. F., Y. M. Wu, J. X. Liu and Q. Qian. 2006. Morphological fractions, chemical compositions and in vitro gas production of rice straw from wild and brittle culm1 variety harvested at different growth stages. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 129:159-171.
  34. Weatherburn, M. W. 1967. Phenol-hypochlorite reaction for determination of ammonia. Anal. Chem. 39:971-974.
  35. Wilkinson, J. M. and M. I. Toivonen. 2003. World silage. A survey of forage conservation around the world, Chalcombe Publications, Lincoln, p. 204.
  36. Yan, G. L., Q. X. Meng and S. J. Chen. 2005. Comparison of nutrient contents and in vitro digestibility of corn stalks of different corn variety type and during differet maturity stage of kernels. Acta Zoonutrimenta Sinica (In Chinese) 17:50-55.
  37. Yan, G. L., Q. X. Meng and S. J. Chen. 2006. Optimum harvest time of high oil corn 298 stalks and their superiority in nutritional value comparing with other corn variety stalks. Acta Veterinaria et Zootechnica Sinica (In Chinese) 37:250-256.