|
|
|
|
|
| Effect of a bacterial inoculum and additive on dry matter in situ degradability of sugarcane silage |
| José A Reyes-Gutiérrez, Oziel D Montañez-Valdez, Ramón Rodríguez-Macias, Mario Ruíz-López, Eduardo Salcedo-Pérez, Cándido E Guerra-Medina |
1、South University Center, University of Guadalajara, Ciudad Guzmán 49000, Mexico
2、University Center for Biological and Agricultural Science, University of Guadalajara, Las Agujas, Zapopan 45110, Mexico
3、South Coast University Center, University of Guadalajara, Autlán de Navarro 48900, Mexico |
|
|
|
摘要 The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of adding a bacterial inoculum and a handmade additive to sugarcane silage (SCS) on the in situ digestibility of dry matter (DM). The treatments were: T1) sugarcane silage (SCS) and T2) sugarcane silage with 1% inoculum and 1% additive (SCS+). The bacterial inoculum consisted of 10.0% molasses, 1.0% yogurt, 5.0% chicken manure, 0.5% urea, and 83.0% water, and the additive was formulated with 1.0% urea, 0.1% ammonium sulfate, and 0.25% phosphorus. In situ dry matter digestibility (DMD) was determined using the nylon bag technique with four cows equipped with ruminal fistulas. Cows were fed with ensiled sugarcane supplemented with 1 kg of commercial concentrate. 5 g of ground sample for each sugarcane treatment were weighted in nylon bags and incubated for 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h in a completely randomized design with six replicates. The DMD (%) was higher (P<0.05) for SCS+ for all incubation times when compared with SCS. There were no differences in ruminal pH between the treatments for all the incubation times. The data suggested that the sugarcane silage with bacterial inoculum and additive could be an alternative for providing forage for ruminants during the season of low growth and quality grass.
Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of adding a bacterial inoculum and a handmade additive to sugarcane silage (SCS) on the in situ digestibility of dry matter (DM). The treatments were: T1) sugarcane silage (SCS) and T2) sugarcane silage with 1% inoculum and 1% additive (SCS+). The bacterial inoculum consisted of 10.0% molasses, 1.0% yogurt, 5.0% chicken manure, 0.5% urea, and 83.0% water, and the additive was formulated with 1.0% urea, 0.1% ammonium sulfate, and 0.25% phosphorus. In situ dry matter digestibility (DMD) was determined using the nylon bag technique with four cows equipped with ruminal fistulas. Cows were fed with ensiled sugarcane supplemented with 1 kg of commercial concentrate. 5 g of ground sample for each sugarcane treatment were weighted in nylon bags and incubated for 4, 8, 12, 24, 48, and 72 h in a completely randomized design with six replicates. The DMD (%) was higher (P<0.05) for SCS+ for all incubation times when compared with SCS. There were no differences in ruminal pH between the treatments for all the incubation times. The data suggested that the sugarcane silage with bacterial inoculum and additive could be an alternative for providing forage for ruminants during the season of low growth and quality grass.
|
|
Received: 12 December 2013
Accepted:
|
| Fund: the National Council for Science and Technology, Mexico (CONACyT) for scholarship support. |
|
Corresponding Authors:
Oziel D Monta?ez-Valdez, Tel: +52-341-5752222-46115, E-mail: montanez77@hotmail.com
|
Cite this article:
José A Reyes-Gutiérrez, Oziel D Monta?ez-Valdez, Ramón Rodríguez-Macias, Mario Ruíz-López, Eduardo Salcedo-Pérez, Cándido E Guerra-Medina.
2015.
Effect of a bacterial inoculum and additive on dry matter in situ degradability of sugarcane silage. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(3): 497-502.
|
| Abdel-Aziz N A, El-Adawy M M, Salem A Z M, Cerrillo-Soto MA, Camacho L M, Borhami B E. 2014. Effects of exogenousenzymes, Lactobacillus acidophilus or their combinationon feed intake, digestibility and performance of rabbits fedsugarcane bagasse. Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology,14, 137-145Abdel-Aziz N A, El-Adawy M, Mariezcurrena-Berasain M A,Salem A Z M, Olivares-Pérez J, Kholif A E, Borhami BE. 2015a. Effects of exogenous enzymes, Lactobacillusacidophilus or their combination on feed performanceresponse and carcass characteristics of rabbits fedsugarcane bagasse. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14,544-549Abdel-Aziz N A, Salem A Z M, El-Adawy M M, Camacho LM, Kholif A E, Elghandour M M Y, Borhami B E. 2015b.Biological treatments as a mean to improve feed utilizationin agriculture animals-An overview. Journal of IntegrativeAgriculture, 14, 534-543Abo-Donia F M, Abdel-Azim S N, Elghandour M M Y, SalemA Z M, Buendia G, Soliman N A M. 2014. Feed intake,nutrient digestibility and ruminal fermentation activities insheep fed peanut hulls treated with Trichoderma viride orurea. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 46, 221-228Alli I, Baker B E. 1982. Studies on the fermentation of choppedsugarcane. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 7,411-417Alli I, Fairbairn R, Baker B E, Garcia G. 1983. The effectsof ammonia on the fermentation of chopped sugarcane.Animal Feed Science and Technology, 9, 291-299AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). 2007.Official Methods of Analysis. 18th ed. Association of OfficialAnalytical Chemists, Washington, D.C.Aranda E M, Mendoza G D, Ramos J A, da Silva I C, Vitti AC. 2010. Effect of fibrolitic enzymes on rumen microbialdegradation of sugarcane fiber. Ciencia Animal Brasileira,11, 448-495(in Portuguese)Aranda E M, Ruiz P, Mendoza G D, Marcoff C F, Ramos J A,Elías A. 2004. Changes in the digestion of three varietiesof sugarcane and their fiber fractions. Cuban Journal ofAgricultural Science, 38, 135-141Avila C L S, Bravo M C E C, Schwan R F. 2010. Identificationand characterization of yeasts in sugarcane silages. Journalof Applied Microbiology, 109, 1677-1686Avila C L S, Pinto J C, Carvalho B F. 2013. Use of additives inensiling of sugar cane. Informe Agropecuario, 34, 65-72(in Portuguese)Avila C L S, Pinto J C, Figueiredo H C P, Shwan R F. 2009.Effects of an indigenous and a commercial Lactobacillusbuchneri strain on quality of sugar cane silage. Grass andForage Science, 64, 384-394Bergamaschine A F, Passipiéri M, Veriano F W V, IseponO J, de Almeida C L. 2006. Quality and nutritive valueof marandugrass (Brachiaria brizanthia, cv. Marandu)silage prepared with additive or wilting. Revista Brasileirade Zootecnia (Brazilian Journal of Animal Science), 35,1454-1462Bolsen K.1995. Silage: Basic principles. In: Barnes R F, MillerD A, Nelson C J, eds., Forages. Iowa State University,UAS. pp. 163-176Carvalho B F, Avila C L S, Pinto J C, Schwan R. F. 2013. Effectof propionic acid and Lactobacillus plantarum UFLA SIL 1on the sugarcane silage with and without calcium oxide.African Journal of Microbiology Research, 7, 4159-4168Daniel J L P, Weiß K, Custódio L, Neto A S, Santos M C,Zopollatto M, Nussio L G. 2013. Occurrence of volatileorganic compounds in sugarcane silages. Animal FeedScience and Technology, 185, 101-105Elghandour M M Y, Salem A Z M, Martínez Castañeda J S,Camacho L M, Kholif A E, Vázquez Chagoyán J C. 2015.Direct-fed microbes: A tool for improving the utilization oflow quality roughages in ruminants. Journal of IntegrativeAgriculture, 14, 526-533Espinoza F, Argenti P, Carrillo C, Araque C, Torres A, Valle A.2006. Strategic use of sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum)in dual purpose pregnant heifers. Zootecnia Tropical, 24,95-107 (in Spanish)Ferreira D A, Gonçalves L, Molina L R, Castro-Neto A, TomichT R. 2007. Fermentation of sugarcane silage treated withurea, zeolita, bacteria inoculant and bacteria/enzymatic inoculants. Arquivo Brasileira de Medicina VeterináriaZootecnia, 59, 423-433García H, Abreu M, Soto J M. 2008. Digestion of residualsof the crop cane treatment with OHNa. 1. Determinationof digestibility in situ. REDVET (Electronic Journal ofVeterinary Medicine), 11, 1-8 (in Spainish)Khattab I M, Salem A Z M, Abdel-Wahed A M, Kewan K Z. 2013.Effects of urea supplementation on nutrient digestibility,nitrogen utilization and rumen fermentation in sheep feddiets containing dates. Livestock Science, 155, 223-229Kung Jr L, Stanley R W. 1982. Effect of stage of maturity onthe nutritive value of whole-plant sugarcane preserved assilage. Journal of Animal Science, 54, 689-696Liu J J, Liu X P, Ren J W, Zhao H Y, Yuan X F, Wang X F,Salem A Z M, Cui Z J. 2015. The effects of fermentationand adsorption using lactic acid bacteria culture broth on thefeed quality of rice straw. Journal of Integrative Agriculture,14, 503-513McCullough H. 1967. The determination of ammonia in wholeblood by a direct colorimetric method. Clinica Chimica Acta,17, 297-304McDonald I. 1981. A revised model for estimation of proteindegradability in the rumen. Journal of Agricultural Science,96, 251-252Molina A S, Sierra J F, Febles I. 1999. Sugar cane silage withprotein synthesis: Combined effect of additives and density.Cuban Journal of Agricultural Science, 33, 205-208Muck R E. 2010. Silage microbiology and its control throughadditives. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Brazilian Journalof Animal Science), 39, 183-191Ørskov E R, McDonald I. 1979. The estimation of proteindegradability in the rumen from incubation measurementsweighted according to rate of passage. Journal ofAgricultural Science, 92, 499-503Pedroso A F, Andrade R A, Barioni B J, Batista S G.2011. Fermentation parameters, quality and losses insugarcane silages treated with chemical additives anda bacterial inoculant. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia(Brazilian Journal of Animal Science), 40, 2318-2322Pedroso A F. 2003. Chemical additive and microbial inoculantseffects on the fermentation and on the control of the alcoholproduction in sugarcane silages. Ph D thesis, University ofSão Paulo, Piracicaba, Brasil. p. 120.Pedroso A F, Nussio L, Lourdes D R. 2007. Effect of treatmentwith chemical additives and bacterial losses and quality ofsilage from sugar cane. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia(Brazilian Journal of Animal Science), 36, 558-564Pedroso A F, Nussio L, Paziani S F. 2005. Fermentation andepiphytic microflora dynamics in sugar cane silage. ScientiaAgricola, 62, 427-432Rezende S G, Andrade R R, Schoken R P I, Fernandes B T,Vieira P A J, Toledo P R M, Toledo P R M. 2007. Chemicaland bacterial addition association on the sugarcaneensilage. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Brazilian Journalof Animal Science), 36, 789-798Rezende S G, Andrade R R, Schocken-Iturrino R P, VieiraP A J, Fernandes B T, Toledo P R M. 2010. Burning andchemical and bacterial additives in sugar cane silage.Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Brazilian Journal of AnimalScience), 39, 103-112(in Portuguese)Rocha K D, Pereira O G, Valadares F S C, Oliveira A P, PachecoL B B, Chizzotti F H M. 2006. Nutritive value of corn silage(Zea mays L.) produced with enzymatic-bacterial inoculants.Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Brazilian Journal of AnimalScience), 35, 389-395 (in Portuguese)Rocha V A, Cardoso P J, Da Silva A C, Ricardo E A, Botego TV, Freitas S R. 2009. Effect of the addition of Lactobacillussp. in sugarcane silages. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia(Brazilian Journal of Animal Science), 38,1009-1017 (inPortuguese)Rötz C A, Muck R E. 1994. Changes in forage quality duringharvest and storage. In: Fahey G C J, Collins M, MertensD R, Moser L E, eds., Forage Quality, Evaluation andUtilization. Madison, WI. pp. 828-868Ruiz B O, Castillo Y, Anchondo A, Rodríguez C, Beltrán R, LaO O, Payán J. 2009. Enzyme and inoculant effects on cornsilage composition. Archivos de Zootecnia, 58, 163-172(in Spanish)Russell B J, Wilson B D. 1996. Why are ruminal cellulolyticbacteria unable to digest cellulose at low pH? Journal ofDairy Science, 79, 1503-1509Salem A Z M, Zhou C S, Tan Z L, Mellado M, Odongo N E,Cipriano-Salazar M, Elghandour M M Y. 2013. In vitrodigestibility, chemical composition, and kinetics of gasproduction of foliage from four fodder trees ensiled withor without molasses and urea. Journal of IntegrativeAgriculture, 12, 1234-1242SáNeto A N, Nussio L G, Zopollatto M, Junges D, Wosniak AB. 2013. Corn and sugarcane silages with Lactobacillusbuchneri alone or associated with L. plantarum. PesquisaAgropecuaria Brasileira, 48, 528-535 (in Portuguese)Sampaio I B M. 1988. Experimental designs and modellingtechniques in the study of roughage degradation in rumenand growth of ruminants. Ph D thesis, University of Reading,United Kingdom. p. 214.Santos M C, Nussio L G, Mourão G B. 2009. Nutritive value ofsugarcane silage treated with chemical additives. ScientiaAgricola, 66, 159-163SAS. 1999. User’s Guide: Statistics. 8th ed. SAS Institute,Cary NC.Van Soest P J, Robertson J B, Lewis B A. 1991. Methodsfor dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starchpolysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal ofDairy Science, 74, 3583-3597Tejada de Hernández I. 1985. Laboratory Manual for Analysisof Ingredients Used in Animal Feeding. Board SupportResearch and Experimentation in Mexico Cattle, Mexico.p. 387. (in Spanish)Vanzant E S, Cochran R C, Titgemeyer E C. 1998.Standardization of in situ techniques for ruminant feedstuffevaluation. Journal of Animal Science, 76, 2717-2729 |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
