**3.4. Concept of mixed silage**

modulation of protein and fiber degradation and interactive effect of other PSM [16]. The animal performance with silages from PSM-rich forages attributed not only to differences in their nutritive value but also to interactive effects impacting differently on feeding motivation

• **Reducing nutrient drainage**: Decrease in protein and N compound degradation during

• **Improving nutrient use efficiency and enhancing P:E ratio**: Efficient use of N in grasses by ruminants decreases its excretion, reduces requirements in diet and increased net return

• **Protecting environment**: Reduces environmental pollution thereby promoting environ-

• **Improving livestock products quality**: Alters ruminal biohydrogenation process and im-

**Possible outcome:** Research outcome will help identify tannins and other phytochemicals which can be used as silage additives. Tannins shift N excretion from urine to feces and from soluble to insoluble N forms in feces. This undigested form of N from plant residues mineralizes more slowly than microbial and endogenous N, and these shifts in N forms could reduce ammonia and nitrate losses from ruminant production system and thus contribute to reducing the protein and NPN supplements in the animal feed. Besides improving N usage and aerobic stability of silages, the ingested phytochemicals also have significant role on improving ruminant livestock products and their shelf life [18]. This will augment "Green Consumerism" and the naturally improved products could be placed on the market at higher prices with the brand name of "environment-friendly products." Ultimately, farmers will feel

The use of phytochemicals in ruminants can induce beneficial effects, most-importantly, the role of condensed tannins on retention of dietary N (reduced urinary output) and its overall usage vis-à-vis efficiency of energy utilization. Ensiling of N-rich forages (e.g. alfalfa/lucerne, berseem, cowpea, etc.) transformed majority of protein N into non-protein N (NPN), which can be inhibited to some degree by accelerating the rate of pH decline during silage fermentation, but compared to cereal forages, structural difference in leaf: stem ratio and its physicochemical characteristics, low WSC content and high buffering capacity make it difficult to ensile resulting in proteolysis. Forages containing condensed tannins (CT) undergo less proteolysis during ensiling, and transformation of their plant protein N into NPN is inhibited compared to forages without CT [10, 19, 20]. Therefore, adding tannins during ensiling holds key both at ensiling and at ruminal level to check N degradation and decrease its excretion to the environment. High level of tannins may adversely affect the activities of silage bacteria [21]. Co-ensiling

encouraged to adopt bioactive forage-enriched feed for livestock feeding.

*3.3.2. Use of phytochemical-rich plants and nutrient usage*

and digestive efficiency [17].

ensiling and rumen fermentation.

18 Ruminants - The Husbandry, Economic and Health Aspects

ment-friendly livestock production.

proves FA profile of milk and meat.

**Usefulness:**

per cow.

The concept of mixed silage has widen the scope of incorporating grains, protein concentrates, leguminous forage crops, tree forages and other conventional and unconventional tanniniferous forage crops with the conventional one for silage making. Making of mixed silage involving seasonal availability of feed resources allows the farmers to opt for a variety of forages, for example monsoon herbages, tree forages and browses, including that of conventional grasses and cultivated fodder. It also widens the scope of incorporating non-conventional fodder resources like cactus, thorny non-toxic plants/weeds and phytochemical-rich plant resources. Corn and legume silages are commonly fed together in rations for dairy cattle, one complementing the other for the deficit N and energy sources, respectively. Thus, the fermentable carbohydrates in corn silage may complement the rumen degradable N (RDN) in legume silage, which may decrease ruminal N losses. Above all, the N intake affects the amount of N excreted via manure, whereas types of carbohydrate (starch in corn silage vs. sugars in grass silage) and forage species (legume vs. grasses) have greater impacts on the route (fecal or urinary) of excretion. Besides agronomic benefits of grass-legume mixtures, there are positive associative effects contributing to voluntary intake due to a greater motivation of animals to eat mixtures along with decreased urinary N excretion and increased N retention [28]. Thirumurugan et al. [29] evaluated cereal-legume mixed silage to combat feed and water scarcity and sustaining production during hot summer in semi-arid regions of India. Total mixed ration (TMR) silage is a way forward in this direction.

## *3.4.1. Why mixed silage?*

Monotonous use of a single fodder (e.g. maize) in silage making limits the farmers to adopt the technologies, particularly in unfavorable geographical and climatic regions (semi-arid and arid regions). Therefore, combination of grasses and legumes is an alternative solution to the success of the ensiling process. The purpose of the addition of legumes to silage is to supply N/protein for microbial protein synthesis, reduce protein degradation in the rumen and increase amino acid absorption in the intestinal tract. The combination of grasses and legumes in ruminant feed is very effective for a highly nutritious diet. This allows the farmers to use its surplus or seasonal plenty or available at hand plant biomass resources to preserve as silage to feed during scarce or unavailability. Successful ensiling can be evaluated by determining the relationships between fermentation characteristics and microbial diversity in silages. Reducing the moisture content of the crops through substitution with other high DM forages could be another approach. Moreover, nutrient composition analysis following up with palatability study can very well evaluate the combinations of different silages involving local grasses, tree forages, browses and monsoon-favored less/non-tested abundantly grown plant biomass. This versatility allows the farmers to use their wisdom to choose and harvest the available forage biomass at hand for preserving as silage. Above all, year-round feed and nutrient supply to the livestock can certainly enhance per animal/whole farm productivity, thereby enabling the livestock husbandry sustainable and profitable. Some of the questions that continue to be answered for harnessing possible beneficial effects of plants rich in phytochemicals as a part of silage are

**Silage types DM OM CP NDF ADF Citation**

(100) India Amaranthus sps 22.8 87.2 8.80 55.5 49.6 [30]

India Cenchrus sps 26.9 86.2 7.32 55.2 41.5

India *Cicer arictinum* 28.6 82.9 8.36 54.5 38.6

(70:30) India *–* 37.2 88.3 12.56 55.4 38.2

(80:20) India *–* 30.8 86.8 9.28 53.8 41.5

(75:25) India *Hordeum vulgare* 36.2 87.9 8.02 59.5 44.2

(75:25) India *Medicago sativa* 32.6 87.3 10.51 52.8 39.5 [29]

India *–* 36.0 87.8 10.24 53.6 39.2

(67:37) Zimbabwe *Acacia angusitissima* 38.0 81.6 25.0 63.4 57.4 [32]

Zimbabwe *Leucaena leucocephala* 44.0 82.4 20.0 57.3 52.3

Zimbabwe *Calliandra calothyrsus* 41.0 84.1 21.9 72.2 55.4

Indonesia *–* 33.6 89.7 10.6 59.7 25.4

Indonesia *–* 37.0 90.9 14.2 56.0 26.1

Indonesia *–* 40.7 92.4 17.3 54.4 17.5

(100) Indonesia *Pennisetum purpureum* 31.2 87.5 5.6 66.6 34.4 [23]

(75:25) India *Avena sativa* 35.8 88.2 8.22 58.6 44.8

India *Moringa oleifera* 32.2 86.1 12.22 52.5 34.2 [2]

India – 27.8 87.0 8.76 58.8 42.5 [2]

25.8 85.1 8.70 51.7 35.0 [30, 31]

Silage for Climate Resilient Small Ruminant Production http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74667 21

42.0 85.3 12.5 65.7 58.8

 (100) India Pennisetum typhoides 36.9 87.8 8.18 65.8 46.7 Cholai + Bajra (50:50) India – 28.6 87.5 8.54 60.3 47.8

+ Cholai (50:50) India *Crotalaria medicaginea* 30.6 87.4 10.28 52.2 38.5

Jojhru + Bajra (50:50) India – 32.7 87.0 9.88 59.2 41.5

*excelsa*

(80:20) India *Opuntia* sps *+ Ailanthus* 

(67:37) Zimbabwe *Macroptilium* 

*atropurpureum*

Calliandra (100) Indonesia *–* 46.5 93.4 20.2 53.8 13.4

**Local name Region/Country Botanical name\***

Cholai\*

Bajra\*

(50:50)

Jojhru\*

(50:50)

Cactus\*

(80:20)

(80:20)

Oat\*

Barley\*

(67:37)

(67:37)

Cholai + Cenchrus\*

Jojhru + Cenchrus

+ Ardu1,\*

Cactus + Gram straw\*

Cholai + Moringa1,\*

Moringa + Bajra1

Cholai + Ardu1

+ Ardu1

Oat + Lucerne\*

Cactus + Acacia\*

Cactus + Leucaena\*

Cactus + Calliandra\*

Cactus + Siratro\*

Pennisetum\*

Pennisetum + Calliandra (75:25)

Pennisetum + Calliandra (50:50)

Pennisetum + Calliandra (25:75)

+ Ardu1

Oat + Lucerne + Ardu<sup>1</sup> (75:12.5:12.5)

