Effects of fumaric and maleic acids on the fermentation, nutrient composition, proteolysis and in vitro ruminal gas of corn silage

IF 1.1 4区 农林科学 Q3 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Kanber Kara, Gönül Pirci, Sena Yılmaz, Erol Baytok, Kurşat Yılmaz
{"title":"Effects of fumaric and maleic acids on the fermentation, nutrient composition, proteolysis and in vitro ruminal gas of corn silage","authors":"Kanber Kara,&nbsp;Gönül Pirci,&nbsp;Sena Yılmaz,&nbsp;Erol Baytok,&nbsp;Kurşat Yılmaz","doi":"10.1111/grs.12377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The study aimed to determine the effect of fumaric and maleic acids on the ensiling process. The corn herbage was ensiled without additives (control silage) or with 0.25% fumaric acid (FA25), 0.50% fumaric acid (FA50), 0.25% maleic acid (MA25), 0.50% maleic acid (MA50), FA25 + MA25 (FA25MA25) and FA50 + MA50 (FA50MA50) (treatment silages) as wet basis. The starch contents of FA50 and MA50 silages were lower than the content of the control silage (<i>p</i> &lt; .05). The lactic acid content of the FA50MA50 silage was lower than that of the control silage (<i>p</i> &lt; .05). Percentages of linoleic acid of MA25 and MA50 silages were higher than that of the FA50 silage (<i>p</i> &lt; .05). The in vitro methane production and metabolic energy (ME) value of FA50MA50 silage was lower than that of the control silage (<i>p</i> &lt; .05). The in vitro organic matter digestion (OMD) values of FA25, MA25 and FA50MA50 silages were lower than that of control silage (<i>p</i> &lt; .05). The molarities of acetic (AA), propionic (PA), butyric (BA), isovaleric (IVA), isobutyric (IBA) and total volatile fatty (TVFA) acids of the in vitro ruminal fermentation fluid for the FA50MA50 silage were lower than that of the control silage (<i>p</i> &lt; .05). As a result, the addition of fumaric and maleic acids (0.25% alone and together, or 0.5% alone) in ensiling of corn herbage did not change the quality, acidity (except for propionic, butyric and isobutyric acids) and nutrient contents (except for non-fiber carbohydrates and starch) and in vitro ruminal fermentation values (gas–methane production and organic acids). The combined use of 0.5% fumaric plus 0.5% maleic acid harmed silage quality and in vitro ruminal fermentation values. However, 0.5% maleic acid was partially more effective than those other organic acid additions in preserving linoleic and α-linolenic acids in the silage material.</p>","PeriodicalId":56078,"journal":{"name":"Grassland Science","volume":"68 4","pages":"362-371"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Grassland Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/grs.12377","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The study aimed to determine the effect of fumaric and maleic acids on the ensiling process. The corn herbage was ensiled without additives (control silage) or with 0.25% fumaric acid (FA25), 0.50% fumaric acid (FA50), 0.25% maleic acid (MA25), 0.50% maleic acid (MA50), FA25 + MA25 (FA25MA25) and FA50 + MA50 (FA50MA50) (treatment silages) as wet basis. The starch contents of FA50 and MA50 silages were lower than the content of the control silage (p < .05). The lactic acid content of the FA50MA50 silage was lower than that of the control silage (p < .05). Percentages of linoleic acid of MA25 and MA50 silages were higher than that of the FA50 silage (p < .05). The in vitro methane production and metabolic energy (ME) value of FA50MA50 silage was lower than that of the control silage (p < .05). The in vitro organic matter digestion (OMD) values of FA25, MA25 and FA50MA50 silages were lower than that of control silage (p < .05). The molarities of acetic (AA), propionic (PA), butyric (BA), isovaleric (IVA), isobutyric (IBA) and total volatile fatty (TVFA) acids of the in vitro ruminal fermentation fluid for the FA50MA50 silage were lower than that of the control silage (p < .05). As a result, the addition of fumaric and maleic acids (0.25% alone and together, or 0.5% alone) in ensiling of corn herbage did not change the quality, acidity (except for propionic, butyric and isobutyric acids) and nutrient contents (except for non-fiber carbohydrates and starch) and in vitro ruminal fermentation values (gas–methane production and organic acids). The combined use of 0.5% fumaric plus 0.5% maleic acid harmed silage quality and in vitro ruminal fermentation values. However, 0.5% maleic acid was partially more effective than those other organic acid additions in preserving linoleic and α-linolenic acids in the silage material.

富马酸和马来酸对玉米青贮发酵、营养成分、蛋白质水解和体外瘤胃气的影响
本研究旨在确定富马酸和马来酸对青贮过程的影响。采用不添加添加剂(对照青贮)或以0.25%富马酸(FA25)、0.50%富马酸(FA50)、0.25%马来酸(MA25)、0.50%马来酸(MA50)、FA25 + MA25 (FA25MA25)和FA50 + MA50 (FA50MA50)(处理青贮)为湿基进行玉米青贮。FA50和MA50青贮的淀粉含量均低于对照青贮(p < 0.05)。FA50MA50青贮的乳酸含量低于对照青贮(p < 0.05)。MA25和MA50青贮的亚油酸含量高于FA50青贮(p < 0.05)。FA50MA50青贮的体外甲烷产量和代谢能(ME)值低于对照青贮(p < 0.05)。FA25、MA25和FA50MA50青贮的体外有机物消化(OMD)值均低于对照青贮(p < 0.05)。FA50MA50青贮的体外瘤胃发酵液乙酸(AA)、丙酸(PA)、丁酸(BA)、异戊酸(IVA)、异丁酸(IBA)和总挥发性脂肪(TVFA)酸的摩尔浓度低于对照青贮(p < 0.05)。结果表明,在玉米青贮饲料中添加富马酸和顺丁酸(分别添加0.25%和0.25%,或单独添加0.5%)对玉米牧草的品质、酸度(丙酸、丁酸和异丁酸除外)、营养成分(非纤维碳水化合物和淀粉除外)和体外瘤胃发酵值(气-甲烷产量和有机酸)均无影响。0.5%富马酸加0.5%马来酸联合使用对青贮品质和体外瘤胃发酵值均有影响。但添加0.5%马来酸对青贮料中亚油酸和α-亚麻酸的保存效果部分优于其他有机酸。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Grassland Science
Grassland Science Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Agronomy and Crop Science
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
38
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Grassland Science is the official English language journal of the Japanese Society of Grassland Science. It publishes original research papers, review articles and short reports in all aspects of grassland science, with an aim of presenting and sharing knowledge, ideas and philosophies on better management and use of grasslands, forage crops and turf plants for both agricultural and non-agricultural purposes across the world. Contributions from anyone, non-members as well as members, are welcome in any of the following fields: grassland environment, landscape, ecology and systems analysis; pasture and lawn establishment, management and cultivation; grassland utilization, animal management, behavior, nutrition and production; forage conservation, processing, storage, utilization and nutritive value; physiology, morphology, pathology and entomology of plants; breeding and genetics; physicochemical property of soil, soil animals and microorganisms and plant nutrition; economics in grassland systems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信