اثر افزودنی باکتریایی و مواد جاذب رطوبت بر قابلیت تخمیر و ترکیب مواد مغذی سیلاژ تفاله چغندرقند با استفاده از سیلوهای آزمایشگاهی

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی - تغذیه نشخوارکنندگان

نویسندگان

1 گروه علوم دامی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

2 گروه علوم دامی، دانشکده کشاورزی، دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران..

3 دانشگاه تبریز

چکیده

هدف از این مطالعه بررسی نقش افزودنی میکروبی تولید کننده اسید لاکتیک و همچنین جاذب های مختلف در کاهش پس آب و بهبود ویژگی های شیمیایی و تخمیری سیلاژ تفاله چغندرقند تازه بود. در آزمایش اول تفاله چغندر بصورت خالص یا به صورت مخلوط شده با 5 درصد کاه یا 5 درصد پیت بمدت 90 روز سیلو شد. در آزمایش دوم تفاله چغندر با افزودنی میکروبی، پیت و یا مخلوط آنها سیلو شد. غلظت ماده خشک و دیواره سلولی در سیلاژهایی که کاه یا پیت دریافت کرده بودند بیشتر از تیمار شاهد بوده و پس آب تولیدی کاهش پیدا کرد (01/0P

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Effects of Bacterial Inoculants and Absorbents on Fermentation Properties and Chemical Composition of Fresh Sugar Beet Pulp Silage Using Laboratory silos

نویسندگان [English]

  • Saeid Seidali Dolat-Abad 1
  • Mohammad Khorvash 1
  • Gholamreza Ghorbanei kharage 2
  • Hamid Mohammadzadeh 3
1 Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.
2 Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.
3 University of Tabriz
چکیده [English]

Introduction Ensiling is one of the common preserving methods for forage or other organic materials. In this method, organic matters were preserved by proving an aerobic condition and then by reducing the pH with increasing acids production (mainly lactic acid). Some circumstances like enough soluble carbohydrates, low buffering capacity and appropriate dry matter concentration are needed in ensilages for an ideal silage production. Seepage production during ensiling is one of the most problems especially when high moisture materials (like fresh beet sugar pulp) are ensiled. Silage seepage can pollute the environment and make loses in nutrients like soluble carbohydrates, protein, organic acids and etc. Moreover, lactic acid bacteria inoculants (Mainly consist of Lactobacillus plantarum) have been widely used for improving fermentation pattern in ensilages. These external provided bacteria usually enhance lactic acid production in silage and then accelerate the falling of pH values in silages. Rapid decrease in pH can inhibit non-beneficial bacteria from activity which finally preserves nutrients from un-necessary fermentation or oxidation. The aim of this study was to investigate the interactive effects of lactic acid bacteria inoculants and some absorbents (straw and pith) on chemical properties and fermentation profile of wet sugar beet pulp silage.
Materials and Methods In the first experiment, fresh wet sugar beet pulp was treated with 5% straw or 5% pith in order to investigate the effects of these absorbents on chemical composition, fermentation characteristics and effluent production during ensiling period. In the second experiment, fresh wet sugar beet pulp was treated with a commercial lactic acid bacteria inoculants (Ecosyle) and/or 5% pith in order to investing the main and interaction effects of the bacterial bacteria inoculants and the best absorbents from the experiment 1. In both experiments, triplicate samples were prepared for each treatment after mixing the fresh sugar beet pulp with absorbents or inoculants. Ensilages were filled in laboratory silos and packed and then were kept for 90 d in room temperature at dark. After opening the concentration of volatile and non-volatile fatty acids, crude protein, fibers, total and ammonia-N and the values of pH were measured in final produced silages.
Results and Discussion In the experiment 1, concentration of dry matter (DM), neutral detergent insoluble fibers (NDF) and acid detergent insoluble fibers were higher in absorbents treated silage (P>0.01) when compared with untreated one. Application of absorbents resulted in silages with lower seepages (P>0.01) production compared to the control. However, application of the absorbents to the beet pulp produced silages with lower in vitro DM digestibility (P>0.05). Straw treated silage had the highest NDF concentration and the lowest apparent and true in vitro DM digestibility. Application of absorbents produced silages with lower lactic acid (P>0.01) and higher pH (P> 0.05) and ammonia-N (P>0.01) concentration. Adding straw to sugar beet pulp produced silages with higher acetate concentration, total volatile fatty acids concentrations (VFA) (P> 0.01), the ratio of ammonia-N from total N (P>0.01) but lower ratios of lactate to acetate (P>0.01), lactate to acetate + propionate (P>0.01) and lactate to VFA (P>0.05) when compared with control group. In contrast, adding pith to sugar beet pulp produced silages with lower acetate concentration (P>0.01), propionate concentration (P>0.01), total VFA (P> 0.01) but higher ratios of lactate to acetate (P> 0.01), lactate to acetate + propionate (P> 0.01) and lactate to VFA (P>0.05) when compared with control group. The Fleig point was not affected by the different treatments. Application of bacterial inoculant resulted in silages with higher DM concentration (P>0.01), water soluble carbohydrates concentration (P> 0.01) and in vitro DM digestibility (P>0.05) but lower crude protein concentration (P>0.05). Moreover, Application of bacterial inoculant resulted in silages with higher butyric acid concentration (P>0.01), VFA concentration (P>0.01), ammonia-N concentration (P>0.01) and Fleig point (P>0.01) but lower pH values (P>0.01). Simultaneous application of bacterial inoculant and straw to sugar beet pulp silage resulted in silages with lower concentrations of lactic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid, total VFA but higher Fleig point.
Conclusion Finally, according to homolactic fermentation, lower ammonia-N and less negative effect on digestibility in pith in comparison with straw and bacterial inoculant, it is suggest that to use 5% pith for treating sugar beet pulp prior to ensiling.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Lactobacillus plantarum
  • Pith
  • Silage additives
  • Straw
  • Water absorbents

مراجع

1- Albrecht, K., and R. Muck. 1991. Proteolysis in ensiled forage legumes that vary in tannin concentration. Crop Science, 31: 464-469.
2- Anonymous. 2011. Double action Ecosyl ontains MTD⁄1 and potassium sorbate to treat clamped grass and cereal⁄legume silages at higher dry matters. http://uk.ecosyl.com/products/double_action_ecobale.html.
3- AOAC. 2002. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis. 17th ed. AOAC, Arlington, VA.
4- Arriol, K. G., S. C. Kim., and A. T. Adesogan. 2011. Effect of applying inoculants with heterolactic or homolactic and heterolactic bacteria on the fermentation and quality of corn silage. Journal of Dairy Science, 94 (3): 1511-1516.
5- Axelsson, L. 1998. Lactic acid bacteria: classification and physiology. In: Salminen. S.; Von Wright. A. eds. Lactic acid bacteria: microbiology and functional aspects. 2. ed. New York: Marcel Dekker. pp. 1-72.
6- Barker, B., and W. H. Summerson. 1941. The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in biological material. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 138: 535–554.
7- Bouriako, I. A., H. Shihab., V. Kuri., and J. K. Margerison. 2001. Influence of wilting time on silage compositional quality and microbiology of grass clover mixtures In the Proceeding of British Society of Animal Science 88:102-108.
8- Buxton, D. R., R. E. Muck., and J. H. Harrison. 2003. Silage science and technology. American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Crop Science Society of America, Inc, Soil Science Society of America, Inc Madison, Wisconsin, USA Agronomy.
9- Chaji, M., T. Mohammadabadi., and A. Aghaei. 2011. Fermenting cell walls of processed sugarcane pith by ruminal bacteria, protozoa and fungi. International Journal of Agricultural Biology, 13: 283-286.
10- Chaji, M., A. A. Naserian., and M. Boujarpour. 2013. The study of physical and chemical characteristics of steam treated sugarcane pith and their roles in ruminant’s nutrition. Iranian Journal of Animal Science Research. 4(4): 398-309.
11- Contreras-Govea, F. E., R. E. Muck., G. A. Broderick., and P. J. Weimer. 2013. Lactobacillus plantarum effects on silage fermentation and in vitro microbial yield. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 179(1):61-68.
12- Courtin, M. G., and S. F. Spoelstra. 1989. Counteracting structure loss in pressed sugar beet pulp silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 24(1): 97-109.
13- Dalton, J. C., and R. Norell. 2006. Pressed sugar beet pulp for dairy cattle rations. Extension dairy Specialists, Uninersity of Idaho.
14- Denek, N., A. Can., and S. Tüfenk. 2004. Mısır, Sorgum ve Ayçiçei Hasıllarına Desisik Katkı Maddeleri Katılmasının Silaj Kalitesi ve in Vitro Kurumadde Sindirimine Etkisi. Journal of Agriculture of Harran University, 8(2):1-10.
15- Deniz, S., M. Demirel., and D. Tuncer. 2001. The possibilities of using sugar beet pulp silage produced by different methods in lamb and dairy cow rations. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science, 25: 1015-1020.
16- Dolezal P., V. Pyrochta., and J. Dolezal. 2005. Effects of chemical preservative and pressing of ensiled sugar-beet pulp on the quality of fermentation process. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 50: 553-560.
17- Filya I. 2003. The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri and Lactobacillus plantarum on the fermentation, aerobic stability, and ruminal degradability of low dry matter corn and sorghum silages. Journal of Dairy Science, 86: 3575-3581.
18- Goering H. K., and P. J. Van Soest. 1970. Forage fiber analysis. Agricultural Handbook No.379. ARS-USDA, Washington, DC. USA.
19- Gordon F., L. Dawson., C. Ferris., R. Steen., and D. Kilpatrick. 1999. The influence of wilting and forage additive type on the energy utilisation of grass silage by growing cattle. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 79: 15-27.
20- Haaksma J. 1991. Ensiling of pressed sugar-beet pulp. Mededeling Institut voor Rationele Suikerproduktie, No. 25, 45 pp.
21- McDonald P., A. R. Henderson., and S. J. E. Heron. 1991. The biochemistry of silage. 2nd ed. Chalcombe publications, bucks (UK) 340pp
22- Mohammadabadi, T., M. Chaji., and M. Boujarpour. 2012. The effects of treating sugarcane pith with steam on gas production parameters using rumen derived microorganisms. Iranian Journal of Animal Science Research. 4(3): 240-246.
23- Mohammadzadeh, H. 2011. The effects of bacterial inoculants on fermentation characteristics, nutritive value, aerobic stability and animal performances. PhD Thesis in Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology.
24- Muck, R. E. 1990. Dry matter level effects on alfalfa silage quality. II. Fermentation products and starch hydrolysis. Transactions of the ASAE, 33: 373-381.
25- Muck, R. E. 2008. Advances in inoculants for silage. In: Pereira O. G., Obeid J. A., Fonseca D. M, and Nascimento Júnior D. (eds) Proceedings of 4th Symposium on Strategic Management of Pasture and 2nd International Symposium on Animal Production Under Grazing, Viçosa, MG, Brazil, 13-15 November 2008, pp. 221–232. Viçosa, Brazil: UFV Press.
26- NRC. 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th rev edn. Nat. Acad. Sci., Washington, DC.
27- Osorio H., and De La Cruz. 1990. Steam treated bagasse for fattening cattle: Effect of supplementation with Giricidia sepium and urea/molasses. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 2: 36–40.
28- Papa G. S. F., and L. Grazia. 1987. Pectolytic clostridia isolated from sugar beet pulp silages in Italy. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 63: 481–485.
29- Playne M. J. 1985. Determination of ethanol, volatile fatty acids, lactic and succinic acids in fermentation liquids by gas chromatography. Journal of Science of Food and Agriculture, 36: 638-644.
30- Rastegar H., M. Rastgar., and G. Kulabadi. 2013. Management of silage effluent pollution and its associated impacts on the environment. Research Journal of Agricultural Science, 4: 313-317.
31- Rohr K., R. Daniecke., H. Honig., and P. Lebzien. 1986. Feeding pressed sugar beet pulp silage to dairy cows. Landbauforsch. Volkenrode. 36: 50–55.
32- Said A.E., A. G. Ludwick., and H. A. Aglan. 2009. Usefulness of raw bagasse for oil absorption: A comparison of raw and acylated bagasse and their components. Bioresource Technology, 100: 2219-2222.
33- SAS Institute. 2004. SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Release. 9.1. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC.
34- Seidali, S. 2008. Ensiling high moisture beet sugar pulp using some edible and non-edible applicants. MSc Thesis in Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology.
35- Teller, R. S., R. J. Schmidt., L. W. Whitlow., and L. Kung. 2012. Effect of physical damage to ears of corn before harvest and treatment with various additives on the concentration of mycotoxins, silage fermentation, and aerobic stability of corn silage. Journal of Dairy Science, 95(3): 1428-1436.
36- Thomas, M. E., J. L. Foster., K. C. McCuistion., L. A. Redmon., and R. W. Jessup. 2013. Nutritive value, fermentation characteristics, and in situ disappearance kinetics of sorghum silage treated with inoculants. Journal of Dairy Science, 96(11): 7120-7131.
37- Van Soest P. J., J. B. Robertson., and B. A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre, and non-starch poly-saccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74: 3583-3597.
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله
CAPTCHA Image

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 03 تیر 1393
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 03 تیر 1393
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار: 01 دی 1394

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار