Effect of feeding ensiled mixture of pomegranate pulp and drier feeds on digestibility and milk performance in dairy cows Yoav Shaani 1,2 , Dana Eliyahu 1,2,3 , Itzhak Mizrahi 1 , Edith Yosef 1 , Yehoshav Ben-Meir 1 , Moshe Nikbachat 1 , Ran Solomon 3 , Sameer Jermaya Mabjeesh 2 and Joshua Miron 1 * 1 Department of Ruminant Science, Agricultural Research Organization, P.O. Box 6, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel 2 Department of Animal Sciences, The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food, and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel 3 ‘Ambar’ Feed Mill, Granot, Israel Received 29 April 2015; accepted for publication 29 September 2015; first published online 16 November 2015 Based on a previous ensiling study in glass silos of various pomegranate pulp (PP) mixtures, fresh pomegranate pulp (PP) was mixed with drier feeds including soy hulls and corn silage (40:35:25 on DM basis) and ensiled in 32 pressed bales (700 kg each) wrapped with stretch polyethylene film. This ensiled pomegranate pulp mixture (PPM) was included in lactating cow total mixed ration (TMR) at a level of 20% of DM (PPM-TMR). Performance and digestion experiment was con- ducted with two groups of 21 milking cows each, fed individually one of the two TMR: 1. Control TMR without ensiled PPM; 2. Experimental TMR which contained 20% ensiled PPM, including 8% PP as corn grain replacer. Voluntary DM intake of cows fed the control TMR was 5·04% higher than that of the PPM cows. In vivo digestibility of DM, OM, NDF, CP and fat were significantly higher in the control cows compared with the PPM group, but methane production in the rumen fluid was 25% lower in the PPM cows. A slightly higher milk yield (by 2·2%) observed in the control cows; however, milk fat content was 5·9% higher in the PPM cows. This was reflected in similar yield of energy corrected milk (ECM) and 3·97% increase in production efficiency (ECM/DM intake) of the PPM cows compared with the control ones. Welfare of the cows, as assessed by length of daily recumbence time, was in the normal range for both groups. Body weight gain was also similar in both groups. Data suggest that the level of 8% PP in the PPM-TMR used in this study was probably too high for lactating cows and should be lowered to 4% in order to achieve better performance. Keywords: Pomegranate pulp silage, digestibility, milk production, male sheep, lactating cows. Global production and consumption of pomegranate fruit have greatly increased in recent years up to 15 million metric tons (Fruit Market Reports, 2013), partly due to recog- nition of the health-promoting potential of various compo- nents of this fruit in human (Aviram et al. 2008). This led to development of advanced industrial technologies, which provide consumers with ‘ready to eat’ pomegranate grains and fresh juices (Shabtay et al. 2012). This develop- ment increased global production of fresh pomegranate pulp (PP), which is usually very wet (∼20% DM) and may contain readily fermentable soluble sugars, resulting in spoilage under aerobic conditions (Eliyahu et al. 2015b). Spoilage might lead to unpleasant odours and attract flies, creating an environmental nuisance (Shabtay et al. 2008). Disposal of PP by drying or burying is not cost-efficient; a better alternative is to use PP for feeding ruminants. However, processing of pomegranate fruit to produce PP is limited to its short harvest season (September through December). Thus, seasonal limitations on the one hand, and high contents of moisture and fermentable sugars which interfere with preservation on the other, are the main obstacles for standardization of PP as continuous and steady ingredient in ruminant rations. A previous study examined direct ensiling in glass silos of fresh PP solely or in a mixture with various drier feeds. Results showed that without addition of drier feeds, high fermenta- tion losses occurred (about 20% of DM) accompanied with reduction of in vivo DM digestibility of the ensiled PP in *For correspondence; e-mail: jmiron@agri.gov.il Journal of Dairy Research (2016) 83 35–41. © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2015 doi:10.1017/S0022029915000618 35