Mariana Campana, Jozivaldo Prudêncio Gomes de Morais, Thainá Moreira Garcia, Estefani Capucho, Marjorye Nunes, Jesus Alberto Cardoso Osório, Francine Basso Facco, Tiago Antonio Del Valle
{"title":"用壳聚糖和微生物接种剂处理蒙巴萨青贮草的发酵概况和化学成分","authors":"Mariana Campana, Jozivaldo Prudêncio Gomes de Morais, Thainá Moreira Garcia, Estefani Capucho, Marjorye Nunes, Jesus Alberto Cardoso Osório, Francine Basso Facco, Tiago Antonio Del Valle","doi":"10.1071/an23256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<strong> Context</strong><p>The ensiling process presents losses that are associated with the fermentative profile, resulting in lower nutritional value, and lower aerobic stability of silages.</p><strong> Aims</strong><p>This study aimed to evaluate the effects of chitosan and microbial inoculants addition in Mombasa grass (<i>Megathyrsus maximus</i>) silage (MGS) fermentation profile and losses, chemical composition, <i>in situ</i> degradation, and aerobic stability.</p><strong> Methods</strong><p>Forty experimental silos (PVC tubing with 28-cm inner diameter and 25-cm height) were used in a randomised block (<i>n</i> = 5) design to evaluate the following treatments: (1) MGS without additives (control, CON); (2) MGS treated with 5.0 × 10<sup>4</sup> colony-forming units (CFU) of <i>Lactobacillus buchneri</i> (NCIM 40788) per gram of fresh matter (LBB); (3) MGS treated with 1.6 × 10<sup>5</sup> CFU of <i>L. plantarum</i> and 1.6 × 10<sup>5</sup> CFU of <i>Pediococcus acidilactici</i> per gram of fresh matter (LPP); and (4) MGS treated with 6 g/kg DM of chitosan (CHI).</p><strong> Key results</strong><p>The treatments did not alter the pH, ammonia-N, butyric, and lactic acid concentrations in the silage. The use of LPP reduced the ethanol content, while CHI increased propionic and branched-chain fatty acids compared with other treatments. Fermentation losses and dry-matter recovery were not affected by treatments. Chitosan reduced the organic matter of the MGS in relation to the other treatments, without having an impact on the other variables of chemical composition. The treatments did not influence the <i>in vitro</i> degradation, nor the pH and temperature after aerobic exposure of the silage.</p><strong> Conclusions</strong><p>Chitosan increases ethanol compared with homofermentative lactic acid bacteria inoculation and does not affect ammonia-N of Mombasa grass silage. In addition, chitosan and microbial inoculants have limited effects on Mombasa grass silage fermentation losses, nutritional value, and aerobic stability.</p><strong> Implications</strong><p>Chitosan does not reduce fermentation losses or improve the nutritional value of grass silage.</p>","PeriodicalId":7895,"journal":{"name":"Animal Production Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fermentation profile and chemical composition of Mombasa grass silage treated with chitosan and microbial inoculant\",\"authors\":\"Mariana Campana, Jozivaldo Prudêncio Gomes de Morais, Thainá Moreira Garcia, Estefani Capucho, Marjorye Nunes, Jesus Alberto Cardoso Osório, Francine Basso Facco, Tiago Antonio Del Valle\",\"doi\":\"10.1071/an23256\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<strong> Context</strong><p>The ensiling process presents losses that are associated with the fermentative profile, resulting in lower nutritional value, and lower aerobic stability of silages.</p><strong> Aims</strong><p>This study aimed to evaluate the effects of chitosan and microbial inoculants addition in Mombasa grass (<i>Megathyrsus maximus</i>) silage (MGS) fermentation profile and losses, chemical composition, <i>in situ</i> degradation, and aerobic stability.</p><strong> Methods</strong><p>Forty experimental silos (PVC tubing with 28-cm inner diameter and 25-cm height) were used in a randomised block (<i>n</i> = 5) design to evaluate the following treatments: (1) MGS without additives (control, CON); (2) MGS treated with 5.0 × 10<sup>4</sup> colony-forming units (CFU) of <i>Lactobacillus buchneri</i> (NCIM 40788) per gram of fresh matter (LBB); (3) MGS treated with 1.6 × 10<sup>5</sup> CFU of <i>L. plantarum</i> and 1.6 × 10<sup>5</sup> CFU of <i>Pediococcus acidilactici</i> per gram of fresh matter (LPP); and (4) MGS treated with 6 g/kg DM of chitosan (CHI).</p><strong> Key results</strong><p>The treatments did not alter the pH, ammonia-N, butyric, and lactic acid concentrations in the silage. The use of LPP reduced the ethanol content, while CHI increased propionic and branched-chain fatty acids compared with other treatments. Fermentation losses and dry-matter recovery were not affected by treatments. Chitosan reduced the organic matter of the MGS in relation to the other treatments, without having an impact on the other variables of chemical composition. The treatments did not influence the <i>in vitro</i> degradation, nor the pH and temperature after aerobic exposure of the silage.</p><strong> Conclusions</strong><p>Chitosan increases ethanol compared with homofermentative lactic acid bacteria inoculation and does not affect ammonia-N of Mombasa grass silage. In addition, chitosan and microbial inoculants have limited effects on Mombasa grass silage fermentation losses, nutritional value, and aerobic stability.</p><strong> Implications</strong><p>Chitosan does not reduce fermentation losses or improve the nutritional value of grass silage.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7895,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal Production Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal Production Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1071/an23256\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Production Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/an23256","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Fermentation profile and chemical composition of Mombasa grass silage treated with chitosan and microbial inoculant
Context
The ensiling process presents losses that are associated with the fermentative profile, resulting in lower nutritional value, and lower aerobic stability of silages.
Aims
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of chitosan and microbial inoculants addition in Mombasa grass (Megathyrsus maximus) silage (MGS) fermentation profile and losses, chemical composition, in situ degradation, and aerobic stability.
Methods
Forty experimental silos (PVC tubing with 28-cm inner diameter and 25-cm height) were used in a randomised block (n = 5) design to evaluate the following treatments: (1) MGS without additives (control, CON); (2) MGS treated with 5.0 × 104 colony-forming units (CFU) of Lactobacillus buchneri (NCIM 40788) per gram of fresh matter (LBB); (3) MGS treated with 1.6 × 105 CFU of L. plantarum and 1.6 × 105 CFU of Pediococcus acidilactici per gram of fresh matter (LPP); and (4) MGS treated with 6 g/kg DM of chitosan (CHI).
Key results
The treatments did not alter the pH, ammonia-N, butyric, and lactic acid concentrations in the silage. The use of LPP reduced the ethanol content, while CHI increased propionic and branched-chain fatty acids compared with other treatments. Fermentation losses and dry-matter recovery were not affected by treatments. Chitosan reduced the organic matter of the MGS in relation to the other treatments, without having an impact on the other variables of chemical composition. The treatments did not influence the in vitro degradation, nor the pH and temperature after aerobic exposure of the silage.
Conclusions
Chitosan increases ethanol compared with homofermentative lactic acid bacteria inoculation and does not affect ammonia-N of Mombasa grass silage. In addition, chitosan and microbial inoculants have limited effects on Mombasa grass silage fermentation losses, nutritional value, and aerobic stability.
Implications
Chitosan does not reduce fermentation losses or improve the nutritional value of grass silage.
期刊介绍：
Research papers in Animal Production Science focus on improving livestock and food production, and on the social and economic issues that influence primary producers. The journal (formerly known as Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture) is predominantly concerned with domesticated animals (beef cattle, dairy cows, sheep, pigs, goats and poultry); however, contributions on horses and wild animals may be published where relevant.
Animal Production Science is published with the endorsement of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Australian Academy of Science.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
