# Quality of Maize Silage After Using Meat Bone Meal as a Phosphorus Fertilizer in a Field Experiment
## 4 Discussion  
### Chemical Composition of Maize Silage  
The nutritional value of maize silage is determined by numerous factors. These include the plant genotype, which encompasses such characteristics as maturity type, cell wall type, starch type, and endosperm type. In addition, agronomic conditions, such as soil type and fertilization, and growth conditions, such as temperature, irradiation, and soil moisture content, also play a role. The maturity of maize herbage at harvest and harvesting practices, such as chop length and grain processing, should also be considered. Finally, the feed value of silage is influenced by ensiling conditions, including the use of additives [5,7,28]. A comparison of the chemical composition of maize herbage analyzed in our earlier experiment [22] and the silage made from this plant material in the current study revealed that ensiling induced an increase in the average concentrations of CA (7.66 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM), CP (2.64 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM), EE (4.14 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM), CF (30.46 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM), NDF (28.79 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM) and ADF (43.42 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM). The concentration of ADL in silage was higher than in herbage (analyzed in a previous study) only in MBM-fertilized treatments. The average nutrient content of maize silage and variation in its chemical composition and quality parameters have been discussed in the literature [1,5]. In comparison with the mean values reported by [PERSON] et al. [5], the silages made in the current study had a similar content of DM (338 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) fresh matter, FM) and ADL (18.3 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM), lower concentrations of CP (73.7 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM), EE (34.4 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM), and a higher proportion of NDF (399 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM) and ADF (220 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM). The values obtained in this experiment remained within the typical ranges for maize silage (202-568 g DM, 57-124 g CP, 22-47 g EE, 207-659 g NDF, 152-334 g ADF, 12-26 g ADL per kg DM) reported by [PERSON] et al. [5]. The high nutritional value of the silages produced in the current study was confirmed by the results obtained by [PERSON] et al. [1]. At a comparable DM content of silage (321.2 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) FM, range of 274.6 to 423.7 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) FM), the content of EE (30.1 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM), ADF (281.1 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM), ADL (24.5 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM) was similar, and NDF content was higher (413.5 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM), whereas CP concentration was below the mean value (81.2 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM) and the reference range of values (66.1-111.8 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM) proposed by [PERSON] et al. [1]. The proportion of NDF in the experimental silage was within the recommended range of 400-500 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM [1]. In the silage produced in 2019, the percentage of NDF was slightly higher than the recommended levels (326.3-509.7 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM). According to [PERSON] et al. [6], the NDF content of whole-plant maize silage is an important consideration in ruminant nutrition because it influences dietary energy intake and animal productivity. In this experiment, NDF content in silage was close to the Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle [29], i.e., 451 \(\pm\) 47.2 g\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\) DM. [PERSON] et al. [30] conducted a three-year field experiment, which demonstrated that maturity at harvest affected variability in NDF content and NDF composition, i.e., the share of individual structural carbohydrates (cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin) in whole-plant maize silage. According to the cited authors [30], factors such as maturity type and environmental conditions have a minor effect on the quantity and quality of NDF in maize silage. [PERSON] et al. [28] found, based on multivariate analyses, that the high variability in the NDF content of whole-plant maize silage resulted primarily from considerable differences in plant maturity at harvest.