قابلیت هضم سیلاژ سرشاخه نیشکر توسط باکتری‌ها یا میکروارگانیسم‌های شکمبه گاو هلشتاین و گاومیش خوزستان

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی - تغذیه نشخوارکنندگان

نویسندگان

• افروز شریفی
• مرتضی چاجی
• طاهره محمدآبادی

دانشکده علوم دامـی و صـنایع غـذایی، دانشگاه علوم کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی خوزستان، خوزستان، ایران.

10.22067/ijasr.v7i1.28067

چکیده

هدف آزمایش حاضر مطالعه اثر اسیدسولفوریک افزوده شده به سیلاژ سرشاخه نیشکر بر فعالیت هضمی باکتری‌ها و کل میکروارگانیسم‌های شکمبه و در ادامه مقایسه قابلیت هضم سرشاخه نیشکر ‌سیلو شده با اوره+ملاس و اسیدسولفوریک تجاری بین گاو هلشتاین و گاومیش خوزستان بود. تیمار‌های آزمایشی مورد استفاده به ترتیب: 1) سرشاخه سیلو شده فاقد افزودنی، 2) سرشاخه سیلو شده با اوره (1درصد) + ملاس (3 درصد)، 3) سرشاخه سیلو شده با 4/2 درصد اسید سولفوریک، 4) سرشاخه سیلو شده با اوره (1درصد) + ملاس (3 درصد) + اسید سولفوریک (4/2 درصد) بودند. قابلیت هضم آزمایشگاهی ماده خشک سیلاژ توسط کل میکروارگانیسم‌های شکمبه گاو بالاتر از گاومیش بود (05/0P

کلیدواژه‌ها

• کشت اختصاصی باکتری
• هضم دو مرحله‌ای
• سیلاژ

---

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Digestibility of Sugarcane Tops Silage by Rumen Bacteria or Microorganisms of Holstein Cows and Buffaloes of Khuzestan

نویسندگان [English]

• Afrooz Sharifi
• Morteza Chaji
• Tahereh Mohammadabadi

Faculty of Animal Science and Food Technology, Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Khuzestan, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) is widely cultivated in south west of Iran for production of sugar. After harvest, a lot of sugarcane tops remain on the farm that can be used to feed ruminants. The total digestible nutrients (TDN) and crude fiber of sugarcane top is about 72% and 39%, respectively. The digestibility of dry matter (54%) and crude protein (39%) of sugarcane top is low. Large amount of sugarcane top is wasted or burned annually. The sugarcane tops is important as forage for feeding of livestock. Preparation of sugarcane tops silage is a useful method to store and using it in whole seasons, prevent from wasting at the harvesting season and rich it using additives. Due to the low fermentable carbohydrate, and fibrous nature of sugarcane top, its durability of silage is short and quality of silage is inappropriate. Therefore, different methods can be used to enrich and enhance durability. The digestible protein of sugarcane top is low, so a proper nitrogen source is useful to improve the nutritional value of the sugarcane top. Using urea and molasses individually, is not suitable method for long term storage of sugarcane tops silage. The acids prevents from degradation of proteins in the silage, and decrease the pH rapidly. The bacteria have the most important role in digestion and degradation of starch, protein and plant cell wall. The aim of present experiment was to study the effect of sulfuric acid added to sugarcane top silage on digestion activity of rumen bacteria and whole rumen microorganisms, and followed by to compare the digestibility of sugarcane silage treated with urea + molasses and sulfuric acid between Holstein cattle and Khuzestan water buffalos.
Materials and Methods: The experimental treatments were ensiled sugarcane top by some additives included: 1) untreated (no additive) 2) urea (1%) + molasses (3%), 3) sulfuric acid (2.4% dry matter weight), 4) Both, urea+molasses and sulfuric acid. Rumen fluid was taken from buffalo and Holstein cow through rumen fistula.
Results and Discussion: The in vitro digestibility of dry matter (DM) of sugarcane top silage by total rumen microorganisms of cow was more than buffalo. Regardless of the type of animal, digestibility of DM by whole rumen microorganisms for urea+molassses and acid, and digestibility neutral detergent fiber for acid was highest amount (P

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Two stage digestion
• Silage
• Specific rumen bacteria culture medium

مراجع

1- Akin, D. E. 1986. Interaction of ruminal bacteria and fungi with southern forages. Anim. Sci. J. 63: 962-977.

2- Alemzadeh. B. 2010. Appropriate method for storage of the sugarcane top in silo and its use in animal nutrition. Research center of agriculture and national resources of Khuzestan. (in Persian).

3- Baytak, E., and T. Aksu. 2005. The effects of Formic acid, Molasses and Inoculants as silage additives on corn silage composition and ruminal fermentation characteristics in sheep. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 29: 469-474.

4- Bhatia, S. K., S. Kumar, and D. C. Sangwan. 2004. Advances in buffalo-cattle nutrition and rumen ecosystem. International Book Distributing Co. 163 p.

5- Bhatia, S. K., S. Kumar, and D. C. Sangowan. 2003. Nutritional microbiology and digestive physiology of buffalo and cattle. Teaching Manual. Departman of Animal Nutrition. CCS HAU. Hisar. Pp: 42-44.

6- Boodoo, A. A., J. C. Delaitre and T. R. Preston. 1977. Ensiling sugar cane tops with different additives. Trop. Anim. 2:(2).

7- Caldwell, D. R., and M. P. Bryant. 1966. Medium without rumen fluid for nonselective enumeration and isolation of rumen bacteria. Appl. Microbiol. 14: 794 p.

8- Chaji, M., M. Danesh Mesgaran, H. Nasirimoghaddam, and A. R. Vakili. 2004. Chemical composition and in situ protein degradability of maize silage treated with urea and sulphuric acid. Proc. Br. Soci. Anim. Sci.

9- Chanthakhouna, V., M. Wanapata, P. Kongmunb, and A. Cherdthonga. 2011. Comparison of ruminal fermentation characteristics and microbial population in swamp buffalo and cattle. Department of Animal Science. Faculty of Agriculture, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900, Thailand.

10- Chen, X. L., and J. K. Wang. 2008. Effects of chemical treatments of rice straw on rumen fermentation characteristics, fibrolytic enzyme activities and populations of liquid and solid associated ruminal microbes in vitro. Anim. Feed. Sci. Tech. 141: 1-14.

11- Danesh Mesgaran, M., T. Mohammadabadi, A. Heravimousavi, and M. R. Nasiri. 2009. Disappearance of dry matter and neutral detergent fibre (NDF) of sunflower meal treated with sodium hydroxide or formaldehyde by isolated mixed rumen bacteria using in vitro culture. Proceeding British Society of Animal Science. 183 p.

12- Dehority, B. A. 2003. Rumen microbiology. Academic Press, London.

13- Elias, A. 1983 .Digestion de pastos y forrajes tropicales (Digestion of tropical pastures and forages). In: Los pastos en cuba. Instituto de science Animal Cuba. Pp: 187-247

14- Ghoorchi, T., F. Ghanbari, and T. Ebrahimi. 2013. An investigation on the Effect of some Additives on Aerobic Stability, Chemical Composition and Microbes of Corn Silage. Iranian J. Anim. Sci. Res. 4 (4): 335-344. (in Persian with English abstract).

15- Imai, S. 1998. Phylogenetic taxonomy of rumen ciliate protozoa based on their morphology and distribution. J. Appl. Anim. Res.13: 17-36.

16- Jabbari, S., M. Eslami, M. Chaji, T. Mohammadabadi, and M. Bojarpour. 2014. Comparison digestibility and protozoa population of Khuzestan water buffalo and Holstein cow. Vet. Res. Forum. 5 (4) 295-300

17- Kennedy, P. M., C. S. McSweeney, D. Foulkes, A. John, A. C. Schlink, R. P. LeFeuvre, and J. D. Kerr. 1992. Intake and digestion in swamp buffaloes and cattle. 1. The digestion of rice straw (Oryza sativa). J. Agric. Sci. Camb. 119: 227-242.

18- Khosropour, V. 2012. The investigation of the effect processing of sugarcane top by chemical and enzymatic methods on improvement nutritional value in ruminant. MSc thesis. Ramin Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Iran. (in Persian with English abstract).

19- Lines, L. W., M. E. Koch, and W. P. Weiss. 1996. Effect of ammoniation on the chemical composition of alfalfa hay baled with varying concentrations of moisture. J. Dairy Sci. 19: 2000-2004.

20- Liu, J. X., and E. R. Orskov. 2000. Cellulose treatment of untreated and steam pre-treated rice straw effect on in vitro fermentation characteristic. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 88:189-200.

21- Mahmodi-meymand, S. M. Chaji, M. Eslami, T. Mohammadabadi, and M. Bojarpour. 2014. The preparation of sugarcane top silage by different additives and evaluation of its nutritional value by in vitro methods. J. Lives. Res. 2 (4): 11-23. (in Persian with English abstract).

22- McDonald, P., A. R. Henderson, and S. J. E. Herson. 1997. The Biochemistry of Silage. 2nd Ed. Marlow, UK: Chalcombe Publications.

23- McDougall, E. L. 1948. Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep’s saliva. J. Biochem. 43: 99-106

24- McSweeney, C. S., S. E. Denman, C. S. Colan, C. S. Anandan, M. Chandrasekharaiah, and K. T. Sampath. 2009. The stimulatory effect of the organic sulfur supplement, mercaptopropane sulfonic acid on cellulolytic rumen microorganisms and microbial protein synthesis in cattle fed low sulfur roughages. National Institute of Animal Nutrition and Physiology. 3(6): 802–809.

25- Millett, M. A., A. J. Baker, and L. D. Satter. 1975. Pretreatments to enhance chemical, enzymatic and microbiological attack of cellulosic materials. Biotech. Bioeng. Symp. 5: 193-219.

26- Mühlbach, P. 2009. Additives to improve the silage making process with tropical forages. Depart amen to de Zootecnia, Faculdade de Agronomia Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre. Brazil.

27- Nagpal, R., A. K. Puniya, G. Griffith, G. Goel, M. Puniya, J. P. Sehgal, and K. Singh. 2009 a. Anaerobic rumen fungi: potential and applications. In: Khachatourians, G., Arora, D. K., Rajendran, T. P., Sirvastava, A. K. Agriculturally important microorganisms. An international multivolume annual review series. Academic world international. bhopal, india. 1 (17): 375-393.

28- Naseeven, M. R. 2009. Sugarcan tops animal feed. FAO Corporate Document Repository. Pp: 12.

29- Noroozy, S., and B. Alemzadeh. 2006. Effect of different amounts of treated sugarcane tops silage on performance of milch buffaloes. Buffalo Bulletin. 25 (1): 7.

30- Paul, S. S., and D. Lal. 2010. Nutrient Requirements of Buffaloes. Satish Serial Publishing House. Pp: 5-17.

31- Rafiei, M., M. Chaji, T. Mohammadabadi, and M. Sari. 2013. The comparison digestibility of steam treated sugarcane pith by rumen bacteria or rumen microorganisms of Holstein cow and buffalo of Khuzestan. Journal of Ruminant Researches, 1 (1), 53-75. (in Persian with English abstract)

32- Shakarami F. 2011. The comparison digestibility of steam treated sugarcane pith and wheat straw by whole rumen and fungi of Holstein cow and buffalo of Khuzestan. MSc thesis. Ramin Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan, Iran. (In Persian with English abstract).

33- Sylter, L. L., Chalupa, W., Oltjen, R. R., and Weaver, J. M. 1986. Sulfur Influences on Rumen Microorganisms In Vitro and in Sheep and Calves. Anim. Sci. J. 63:Pp: 1949-1959.

34- Tabatabaei, M. M. 2003. Aspects Physiology of ruminants Nutrition. Bualisina University Publications. Hamedan. (Translated in Persian).

35- Tilley, J. M. A., and R. A. Terry. 1963. A two stage technique for the indigestion of forage crops. Journal of British Grassland Society. 18: 104-111.

36- Vakili, A. R., M. Daneshmegharan, and H. Nassirimoghaddam. 2009. Specific chemical, degradability dry matter parameters and crude protein alfalfa silage richest with HCL and urea and its effect on production characteristic of early lactating Holstein cows. Iranian J. Anim. Sci. 19.1 (2(: 1-14. (In Persian with English abstract).

37- Van Soest, P. J., J. B. Robertson, and B. A. Lewis. 1991. Methods of dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74: 3583-3597.

38- Wanapat, M. 2001. Swamp buffalo rumen ecology and its manipulation. National workshop on swamp buffalo development. Thailand

39- Wanapat, M. 2009. Potential uses of local feed resources for ruminants. Trop. Anim. Health. Prod. 41: 1035-1049.

40- Yuangklang, C., M. Wanapat, and C. Wachirapakorn. 2005. Effects of Pelleted Sugarcane Tops on Voluntary Feed Intake, Digestibility and Rumen Fermentation in Beef Cattle. Anim. Sci. J. 18 (1): 22-26.

41- Zhang, Y., W. Gao, and Q. Meng. 2006. Fermentation of plant cell walls by ruminal bacteria, protozoa and fungi and their interaction with fibre particle size. Arch. Anim. Nutr. 61(2):114-125.