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

IF 1.4 4区 农林科学 Q2 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景青贮过程中的损失与发酵过程有关,导致青贮饲料的营养价值和有氧稳定性降低。目的 本研究旨在评估添加壳聚糖和微生物接种剂对蒙巴萨草(Megathyrsus maximus)青贮(MGS)发酵概况和损失、化学成分、原位降解和有氧稳定性的影响。方法采用随机区组(n = 5)设计的 40 个实验筒仓(PVC 管,内径 28 厘米,高 25 厘米)评估以下处理:(1) 不含添加剂的 MGS(对照组,CON);(2) 每克新鲜物质(LBB)用 5.0 × 104 菌落总数形成单位(CFU)的布氏乳杆菌(NCIM 40788)处理的 MGS;(3) 每克新鲜物质(LBB)用 1.6 × 105 CFU 的植物乳杆菌和 1.6 × 105 CFU 的酸性角叉菜球菌处理的 MGS(LPP);以及(4)用 6 g/kg DM 的壳聚糖处理的 MGS(CHI)。主要结果这些处理没有改变青贮饲料中的 pH 值、氨氮、丁酸和乳酸浓度。与其他处理相比,使用 LPP 降低了乙醇含量,而 CHI 增加了丙酸和支链脂肪酸含量。发酵损失和干物质回收率不受处理方法的影响。与其他处理相比,壳聚糖降低了 MGS 的有机物质含量,但对化学成分的其他变量没有影响。处理方法不影响体外降解,也不影响青贮有氧暴露后的 pH 值和温度。结论 与同发酵乳酸菌接种相比,壳聚糖能增加乙醇,但不会影响蒙巴萨青贮草的氨氮。此外,壳聚糖和微生物接种剂对蒙巴萨青贮草发酵损失、营养价值和有氧稳定性的影响有限。意义壳聚糖不会减少青贮草的发酵损失,也不会提高青贮草的营养价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Animal Production Science
Animal Production Science Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Food Science
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
7.10%
发文量
139
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
×
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