Printer Friendly

EFFECTS OF LACTIC ACID BACTERIA ON ENSILING CHARACTERISTICS, CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND AEROBIC STABILITY OF KING GRASS.

Byline: A. A. Shah, Y. Xianjun, D. Zhihao, W. Siran and S. Tao

ABSTRACT

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) on ensiling characteristics, chemical composition and aerobic stability of King grass. Silage was prepared in a completely randomized design consisting of threetreatments and one control with three replicates as control (SK, adding 2ml/kg sterilizing water), Lactobacillus plantarum commercial bacteria (SKP), Lactobacillus plantarum isolated from Napier grass (SKN), Lactobacillus paraplanetarum isolated from Italian ryegrass (SKI). All silage were prepared using polyethylene terephthalate bottles, and incubated at room temperature for different ensiling days. The earlier and prolong stage of ensiling, dry matter (DM) was not significantly (P>0.05) affected and the level of pH, acetic acid (AA), NH3-N, water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) and butyric acid (BA) was significantly (P<0.05) decreased.

Lactic acid (LA), ethanol and propionic acid (PA) was significantly (P<0.05) increased in treatments compared to SK. The dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), propionic acid (PA) neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) did not significantly (P<0.05) differ among the treatments at the end of ensiling. Ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen (NH3-N/TN) and AA was significantly (P<0.05) decreased and LA, and ethanol was significantly (P<0.05) increased in the treatments. When the silos were exposure air, the pH was high and LA was numerically lowered but the WSC was not affected. The yeast, mold and LAB were changed significantly (P<0.05). It was suggested that adding lactic acid bacteria could improve the fermentation quality of King grass.

Key words: Fermentation qualities, aerobic stability, Lactobacillus plantarum.

INTRODUCETION

King Grass (Pennisetumpurpureophoides) is one of the tropical grasses of China, characterized by low water soluble carbohydrate, high buffering capacity and poor fermentation characteristics (Yahaya et al., 2004). King grass is a major resource of feed for the dairy animals but the climatic condition normally limiting feed production in Jiangsu province of China. In rainy season, although, the growth rate of King grass is very good, however, in winter its slow growth results in feed shortage (Santoso et al., 2011; Li et al., 2014).

Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) produce lactic acid as a result of water soluble carbohydrate fermentation and play an important role in feed technology by production and preservation of silage. Isolation of wild-type strains from conventional product is a classical method to obtain starter cultures for feed fermentations (Abdelbasset and Djamila, 2008). By using selected wild-type strains, the large-scale production of fermented silage can be developed without losing their unique flavor and particular characteristics (Ammor et al., 2006). Some species of Lactobacillus like Lactobacillus plantarum, Pediococcus species, and Enterococcus species. they can improve the level of acidification and fermentation quality by decreasing dry matter loss and protein degradation of grass silages (Driehuis et al., 2001; Wrobelet al., 2008). Aerobic stability is a term that nutritionists have used to define the length of time that silage remains cool and does not spoil after it is exposed to air (oxygen).

Lactobacillus spp. have been successfully used as an additive to improve the aerobic stability of corn silages (Queiroz et al., 2013). Many researchers have documented the beneficial effect of lactic acid bacteria on the aerobic stability of silages produced from corn (Weinberg et al., 2004), sorghum and barley (Kung and Ranjit, 2001).

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of different strains of LAB inoculation on silage fermentation quality, chemical composition and aerobic stability test of King grass silage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Preparation of silage: King grass (Pennisetumpurpureophoides) was collected at the middle stage of growth in the experimental grassland of Nanjing Agricultural University China. The grass was chopped in length (1-2cm) with a chopper and ensiled in anaerobic polyethylene terephthalate bottles of 5 litter capacity. Each polyethylene terephthalate bottle contained 3.2 kg of fresh King grass and subjected to the following. Control (SK), Lactobacillus plantarum (MTD/1CB, Ecosyl Products Inc. USA commercial bacteria) (SKP), Lactobacillus plantarum isolated from Napier grass (SKN), Lactobacillus paraplantarum isolated from Italian ryegrass (SKI). The number of bacteria of each strain was adjusted at 1x106cfu/g.After treating and integration, each treatment (10 samples per treatment) was packed into a polyethylene terephthalate bottles, followed by sealing with a plastic tape and stored at room temperature. Each triplicate silos was opened on day of 1, 3, 5, 7, 14, 30, 60 and 90th.

Chemical Analysis: Dry matter (DM) and crud protein (CP) content of fresh and silage samples were determined by the method ofAOAC (2005) while neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) were determined by the method described by Van Soest et al. (1991). Water soluble carbohydrates (WSC) was analyzed by colorimetric after reaction with anthrone reagent (Arthur Thomas, 1977). The pH was calculated using a glass electrode pH meter (pH221, Hanna Ltd., Italian). The contents of lactic acid and NH3-N were analyzed according to the method of Barker and Summerson (1941) and Chaney and Marbach (1962). The content of VFAs in silage was determined by the method of Shao et al. (2005).

The silage extracts were centrifuged for 10 min at 10,000 x g, then supernatant was kept for volatile fatty acids (VFAs) analysis, which were determined using gas chromatography equipped with aflame ionization detection (FID) system (Shimadzu GC-17A, with 30 m x 0.25 mm [diameter of film: 0.25_m] capillary column, acid-modified poly [ethylene glycol] phase, GADA-24107, Sigma-Aldrich Co.; conditions: column temperature 125degC, injection temperature 220degC). Buffering capacity of fresh material was calculated by using protocol of Playne and McDonald (1966).

Microbial population: Silage samples (10g) were macerated in 90ml sterilized water using a medium-speed blender for 2 hours. The 100ul macerated extract was added into 900ul serially diluted in sterilized water. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) were counted on deMan, Rogosa and Sharp (MRS) agar medium (Shanghai Bio-way Technology Co., Ltd.) after incubation in an anaerobic incubator (YQX-II, CIMO Medical Instrument Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) at 370C for 3d. Yeasts were counted on potato dextrose agar (PDA) medium (Shanghai Bio-way Technology Co., Ltd.), and aerobic bacteria were counted on nutrient agar (AN) medium (Qingdao Hope Bio-technology Co., Ltd.) agar plates were kept in incubator at 370C for 3d. All microbial data were transformed to log10 and presented on a wet weight basis.

Aerobic Stability Test: Three small silos per treatment were pooled for an aerobic stability test on day 90. Each polyethylene silo was taken at room temperature (12~60C), which lasted for 9 days, by the procedure of Ashbellet al. (1991). After exposure air, pH, lactic acid (LA), acetic acid, propionic acid (PA) water soluble carbohydrate (WSC), counting of lactic acid bacteria (LAB), aerobic bacteria and yeast production were measured.

Statistical analysis: All statistical analysis was performed using the statistical analysis system (SAS 2003). The statistical significance was set at P<0.05. All values were expressed as mean +- standard error of the mean.

RESULTS

Chemical composition of King grass before ensiling and after ensiling is presented in Table 1 and 2 respectively.The pH, acetic acid (AA), water soluble carbohydrates (WSC) and butyric acid (BA) was significantly (P<0.05) decreased and lactic acid and propionic acid (PA) was significantly (P<0.05) increased in all ensiling days in treatments as compared to control. The chemical compositions and fermentation characteristics of King grass silage is illustrated in Table 3. The dry matter (DM) was not affected among the treatments and control during ensiling. Ethanol is also not affected in ensiling 1,3,5,7 and 14 days in all silages, however, on 30 and 60 days, ethanol was significantly (P<0.05) increased in all treatments compared to the control. NH3-N was significantly (P<0.05) decreased in all treatments as compared with control. Water soluble carbohydrates (WSC) was significantly (P<0.05) decreasedduring ensiling and in treatments as compared to control.

But the commercial LAB was best at day 14, 30 and 60 of ensiling as compared to isolates of Napier and Italian ryegrass lactic acid bacteria. Microbial composition of treatments during ensiling is presented in Table 4. The microbial counting of the King grass silage during different ensiling 1, 3,5,7,14,30 and 60 days had no significant (P<0.05) difference between treatment and control.

Chemical composition and fermentation characteristics of King grass on 90 day are shown in Table 5. The dry matter (DM), curd protein (CP), propionic acid (PA) neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) did not differ between the control and treatments. The pH, ammonia nitrogen/ total nitrogen (NH3-N/total N), WSC and acetic acid (AA) were significantly (P<0.05) decreased and lactic acid was significantly (P<0.05) increased in the treatmentsas compared to control. Ethanol concentration was significantly (P<0.05) increased in all treatments as compared to control. Lactic acid bacteria was significantly (P<0.05) increased and yeast and aerobic bacteria was significantly (P<0.05) decreased in SKI as compared to SKP, SKN and SK.

The chemical composition of the King grasssilage after aerobic exposure is shown in Figure 1. After 9 days of exposure air, pH showed an increasing trend in the treatments. The pH in exposure air 6 days before was significantly (P 0.05) of the treatments. During exposure air, the content of lactic acid (LA) of the overall downward trend in the treatments (SKP, SKN and SKI) had no significant difference (P > 0.05)as compared to control in 9 days ofexposure air. LAB of control was significantly lower than that of SKI (P < 0.05) SKN was the lowest. There was no significant (P < 0.05) changein the total water soluble carbohydrate content during exposure air, and the water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) content in the control was significantly higher than that SKP, SKN and SKI. But the NH3-N/TN was increased numerically enhanced as compared to initial value.

In figure 2, the aerobic stability characteristics changed significantly (P<0.05) after 9 days.

Table 1. Chemical composition of King grass before ensiling.

Items###King grass

DM (g/kg FW)###167.92

CP (g/kg DM)###14.799

NDF (g/kg DM)###808.25

ADF (g/kg DM)###429.81

WSC (g/kg DM)###38.94

Buffering capacity (meq/kg DM)###278.35

LAB (Log cfu/g FM)###5.03

Aerobic bacteria (Log cfu/g FM)###3.68

Yeast (Log cfu/g FM)###4.64

Table 2.Fermentation qualities of King grassduring ensiling.

Item###Ensiling day###Control (SK)###SKP###SKN###SKI

###1###4.34+-0.01a###3.66+-0.02c###3.67+-0.01c###3.74+-0.01b

###3###3.70+-0.06a###3.53+-0.05b###3.48+-0.02b###3.52+-0.02b

pH###5###3.67+-0.06###3.50+-0.04b###3.45+-0.02b###3.47+-0.04b

###7###3.72+-0.04###3.50+-0.01###3.54+-0.03###3.43+-0.03

###14###3.76+-0.07a###3.61+-0.07b###3.57+-0.02b###3.57+-0.01b

###30###3.64+-0.05a###3.53+-0.03b###3.43+-0.03bc###3.46+-0.03c

###60###3.79+-0.05###3.79+-0.40###3.52+-0.01###3.54+-0.05

###1###36.71+-0.26c###84.51+-2.28a###84.02+-9.49a###60.55+-5.24b

###3###100.82+-6.05b###129.06+-13.43a###105.01+-3.07b###124.78+-11.59a

###5###107.70+-15.45b###134.22+-9.18a###126.13+-4.38ab###112.93+-5.49b

Lactic acid g/kg###7###99.20+-2.30###99.18+-9.77###110.01+-11.03###111.67+-6.54

###14###100.68+-13.80b###117.40+-7.49ab###110.68+-5.93ab###131.66+-16.32a

###30###119.12+-10.48###129.54+-12.54###139.52+-8.24###139+-16.82

###60###164.45+-31.79###154.68+-46.92###162.01+-3.34###155.21+-31.50

###1###5.76+-0.99a###1.62+-0.16b###1.53+-0.17b###1.02+-0.84b

###3###5.56+-0.96a###2.81+-0.79b###1.88+-0.17b###2.87+-0.09b

###5###6.78+-1.50a###2.75+-0.48b###2.61+-0.63b###2.62+-0.29b

###7###7.42+-0.94###2.36+-0.64###2.37+-0.52###2.87+-0.76

Acetic acid g/kg###14###7.18+-1.11a###2.45+-0.29b###2.25+-0.62b###2.90+-2.20b

###30###6.91+-1.43a###2.78+-0.65b###2.59+-0.41b###3.42+-0.07b

###60###13.30+-0.92a###5.90+-3.25b###5.23+-2.09b###3.22+-0.58b

###1###0.56+-0.19###1.56+-0.12###1.36+-0.18###1.12+-0.99

###3###050+-0.24b###1.36+-0.28a###1.52+-0.16a###1.17+-0.08a

###5###0.35+-0.10c###1.34+-0.10a###1.41+-0.04a###1.06+-0.06b

###7###0.31+-0.02###0.84+-0.15###1.37+-0.04###1.89+-0.63

Propionic acid g/kg###14###0.37+-0.14b###1.39+-0.12a###1.57+-0.16a###1.63+-0.16a

###30###0.43+-0.09b###1.96+-0.19a###0.70+-1.25ab###1.90+-0.60a

###60###0.66+-0.09a###0.07+-0.16b###0.10+-0.22b###0.02+-0.03b

###1###0.53+-0.06a###0.51+-0.18ab###0.39+-0.07b###0.44+-0.29b

###3###0.48+-0.42a###0.31+-0.02b###0.39+-0.16b###0.42+-0.03b

###5###0.85+-0.44a###0.51+-0.04ab###0.44+-0.08b###0.41+-0.03b

###7###0.84+-0.43a###0.67+-0.31ab###0.38+-0.06c###0.42+-0.10b

Butyric acid g/kg###14###0.91+-0.02a###0.39+-0.08c###0.46+-0.07b###0.61+-0.45ab

###30###0.76+-0.44a###0.51+-0.12b###0.57+-0.28b###0.54+-0.06b

###60###2.14+-0.21a###1.55+-0.10b###1.37+-0.19b###1.43+-0.48b

Table 3.Chemical compositions and fermentation characteristics of King grass during ensiling.

Item###Ensiling day###Control (SK)###SKP###SKN###SKI

###1###160.63+-0.19b###170.39+-1.08###190.06+-1.53a###170.83+-1.02b

###3###170.22+-1.26b###180.83+-0.40a###180.12+-0.67ab###170.66+-0.51ab

###5###160.30+-2.35###140.87+-0.29###160.14+-0.71###150.97+-0.92

Dry Matter g/kg###7###160.64+-0.45###170.59+-1.66###170.02+-0.60###160.14+-1.84

###14###160.54+-0.81###160.91+-1.03###170.27+-0.29###150.55+-1.14

###30###150.21+-1.29###150.72+-0.84###150.46+-1.18###140.55+-1.13

###60###140.65+-1.04###140.83+-0.49###150.35+-0.86###140.76+-0.67

###1###6.66+-0.43###5.09+-4.79###5.10+-1.19###5.95+-0.43

###3###7.78+-0.74###7.65+-3.42###5.60+-0.74###8.32+-1.12

###5###8.55+-2.81###8.23+-0.53###8.50+-1.87###8.97+-2.45

Ethanol g/kg###7###9.03+-1.68###10.18+-4.43###4.84+-0.74###9.18+-2.56

###14###8.95+-0.37ab###7.94+-1.41b###8.99+-0.60ab###11.25+-2.71ab

###30###6.86+-1.70b###10.71+-3.04a###11.95+-1.67a###10.78+-0.25a

###60###11.44+-1.96###12.52+-6.66###15.25+-3.07###12.71+-3.12

###1###1.19+-0,03a###0.50+-0.03b###0.56+-0.03b###0.50+-0.08b

###3###1.11+-0.11a###0.66+-0.07b###0.50+-0.02b###0.51+-0.07b

###5###1.16+-0.10a###0.77+-0.07b###0.55+-0.04b###0.68+-0.10ab

NH3-N/ total N###7###1.37+-0.07a###0.91+-0.09b###0.89+-0.11b###0.87+-0.08b

g/kg###14###1.52+-0.08a###1.02+-0.11ab###0.87+-0.12c###1.08+-0.07b

###30###1.39+-0.18a###1.18+-0.16a###0.90+-0.04b###1.18+-0.10a

###60###1.04+-0.18###1.03+-0.90###0.37+-0.17###0.71+-0.19

###1###22.57+-1.30###18.67+-2.36###18.98+-2.32###19.96+-2.92

###3###16.66+-1.28b###6.15+-1.08b###8.25+-1.72ab###10.46+-0.59a

###5###12.69+-0.48b###3.88+-0.79b###5.76+-1.44a###3.85+-0.82b

WSC g/kg###7###11.46+-0.33###3.20+-1.32###2.16+-0.74###2.57+-1.85

###14###10.50+-1.19b###4.74+-1.16a###2.06+-1.96ab###2.29+-1.21ab

###30###9.11+-0.21c###3.46+-0.18a###2.35+-0.53b###2.46+-0.65b

###60###7.61+-1.79b###6.13+-2.03a###3.04+-0.61b###2.24+-0.35b

Table 4.Microbial compositions of King grassduring ensiling.

Item###Ensiling day###Control (SK)###SKP###SKN###SKI

###1###6.59+-0.31b###7.15+-0.36a###7.14+-0.22###7.00+-0.06a

###3###6.72+-0.42###6.67+-0.67###7.08+-0.01###6.52+-0.68

###5###6.72+-0.66###3.88+-0.79###5.76+-1.44###3.85+-0.82

###7###6.54+-0.03a###6.10+-0.15ab###5.75+-0.50b###5.92+-0.34b

LAB log10cfu/g###14###5.71+-0.19a###5.20+-0.04b###5.22+-0.02b###5.26+-0.21b

###30###5.15+-0.22###5.28+-0.26###5.40+-0.17###5.00+-0.51

###60###5.30+-0.24###5.53+-0.30###5.00+-0.73###4.87+-0.19

###1###4.97+-0.35###4.30+-040###5.04+-013###4.74+-0.72

###3###3.68+-0.14###3.59+-0.11###3.99+-0.26###3.91+-0.53

###5###3.68+-0.14###1.15+-2.00###1.20+-2.00###1.10+-1.90

###7###4.94+-0.62a###4.00+-0.46b###4.66+-0.27ab###4.27+-0.3ab

Yeast log10cfu/g###14###3.62+-0.12###4.07+-0.57###3.95+-0.56###4.15+-.034

###30###4.71+-0.10###4.76+-0.15###4.56+-0.07###5.03+-0.51

###60###3.73+-0.33###3.92+-0.67###3.89+-0.19###3.72+-0.50

###1###3.75+-0.78###3.01+-0.24###4.50+-0.89###3.83+-1.10

###3###2.56+-0.22###2.95+-0.59###2.78+-0.35###3.16+-0.40

###5###2.43+-0.22###2.69+-0.67###2.78+-0.35###3.16+-0.40

###7###3.83+-0.07a###3.37+-0.16b###3.74+-0.21a###3.74+-0.33a

Aerobic bacteria log10cfu/g###14###3.66+-0.26###3.23+-0.94###2.95+-0.88###3.05+-0.63

###30###2.62+-0.12b###2.59+-0.25b###3.47+-0.25a###2.90+-0.4b1

###60###3.33+-0.45###3.67+-0.41###3.47+-0.18###3.15+-0.37

Table 5.Chemical compositions and fermentation characteristics on 90 days of ensiling.

Items###Control(SK)###SKP###SKN###SKI###Std Error###Sig.

Dry Matter g/kg###160.00###150.20###150.92###140.82###0.527###0.380

pH value###3.87a###3.56b###3.50b###3.47b###0.047###0.001

Lactic acid g/kg###101.05b###132.44a###122.58a###138.28a###7.367###0.032

Acetic acid g/kg###8.09a###3.56b###3.35b###3.89b###0.534###0.001

Propionic acid g/kg###0.61###0.01###0.00###0.03###0.137###0.032

Butyric acid g/kg###1.59a###1.35b###1.21b###1.11b###0.072###0.132

Ethanol g/kg###8.59c###9.18ab###10.87b###11.31a###1.270###0.420

Curd protein (%)###16.05###15.23###15.07###15.40###0.509###0.310

NH3-N/total Ng/kg###1.62a###1.05ab###0.71b###0.97b###0.179###0.038

WSC g/kg###11.28b###4.36a###3.40a###6.04a###0.930###0.038

NDF g/kg###986.03###987.03###986.81###986.52###0.547###0.616

ADF g/kg###746.42###752.90###721###746.12###27.763###0.864

LAB log10cfu/g###4.66###4.30###4.50###4.49###0.148###0.443

Yeast log10cfu/g###3.37ab###3.56ab###3.56b###4.17a###0.211###0.058

Aerobic bacteria###3.37a###3.29a###3.03ab###2.46b###0.213###0.122

log10cfu/g

DISCUSSION

As observed in this study, the effect of different LAB inoculates in King grass on different ensiling days, pH, acetic acid (AA) and butyric acid (BA) significantly (P<0.05) decreased. Similar to our findings, Kimet al. (2015) and Yuanet al. (2015) reported that the addition of LAB, significantly (P<0.05) decreased pH, acetic acid, and butyric acid and the silage DM content was unaffected by bacterial application. Generally, the use of L. plantarum is well thought out to be advantageous than the Hetero-fermentative lactic acid bacteria due to its ability to produce a rapid drop in pH and reduction in the NH3-N concentration (Amanullahet al., 2014).Wanget al. (2016) reported lowest pH and highest lactic acid concentration in total mixed ration and whole crop corn silage on day 7, 14, 28 and 56 day of ensiling. Baah et al. (2011) reported increased lactic acid concentration and decreased acetic acid, water soluble carbohydrates, butyric acid, NH3-N and pH in lactic acid bacteria treated.

Homolactic acid bacteria treated silage alone or combination of different strains caused a rapid drop in pH and higher lactic acid concentration (Hassanat et al., 2007; Reich and Kung, 2010). Some researchers also reported that LAB improved the Pearl millet (Pennisetumamericanum Schum), Barley (Hordeum vulgare) Elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) and King Grass (Pennisetum purpureophoides) silage fermentation (Zahiroddiniet al., 2004; Baahet al., 2011).

Zhanget al. (2011) observed that a high amount of ethanol accumulation could delay the fermentation quality of the Napier grass silage for the period of the early stage of ensiling. The current study also enhanced the ethanol concentration in the 30 day of ensiling. Filya (2003) found that the number of microbial lactic acid bacteria, yeast and aerobic bacteria numbers were the highest in the L. plantarum inoculated silage compared with the control.

Many researchers also observed that the silage DM content was unchanged by inoculation of lactic acid bacteria in prolong period of ensiling (Zahiroddini et al., 2004; Zahiroddini et al., 2006; Baah et al., 2011). Amanullah et al. (2014) and Kim et al. (2015) reported that during the 100 days of ensiling, there was no significant (P<0.05) difference in DM, CP, NDF, ADF. This result of our study agreed with previously reported study where King grass was treated with ELAB and tannin of acacia (Santoso et al., 2011). During the period of ensiling, protein is degraded to peptides and free amino acid by plant proteases (Owens et al., 2002). In addition, degradation of amino acids to ammonia and non-protein nitrogenous fraction is predominantly due to proteolytic clostridia.

The production of acetic acid (AA), butyric acid (BA) and other acids, is the indication of wasteful fermentation or of secondary fermentation of LA to BA and degradation of amino acid to NH3 by way of the production of AA from the carbon framework of the amino acid (Chamberlain and Wilkinson, 1996; Santoso et al., 2011). The NDF and ADF were lower in the untreated silage. This result is in concurrence with the previous studies of (Yahaya et al., 2004; de Oliveira et al., 2009; Santoso et al., 2011). One of the justifications for the lower NDF and ADF in the silage is that enzymatic action for example hemicelluloses cellulose present in the original forage on cell wall during ensiling. The concentration of the NDF and ADF was decreased with treated of the LAB had positive effect of silage nutritive value and enhanced digestibility.

The water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) concentration was significantly (P<0.05) decreased in all treatments as compared to control after 90 days. Similar results were reported by Adesogan (2006). Generally, increasing WSC concentration can control BA fermentation and promotes the LA fermentation, ultimately improving the silage fermentation quality (Selmer-olsenet al., 1993; Zhanget al., 2010).

The aerobic stability is an important factor in ensuring that silage provides useful nutrients in animal production. When oxygen is exposed to silo, result in spoilage of silage. In the present study, pH showed an increasing trend in the LAB additive after exposure air. Li et al. (2016) reported that aerobic weakening occurred within 7 days after exposure air. Hao et al. (2015) reported that the weak aerobic stability in additive silage is probably attributable to the high AA and yeast count, which result from the high water soluble carbohydrate concentration. After the exposure to the air, the temperature will enhance in silage and is connected with the microbial oxidation of acid and water soluble carbohydrate to CO2 and H2O. In this study, the pH was increased, which is due to the fact that catabolism of protein to ammonia contributes to the enhancement in pH (Swensson, 2003).

Liu et al. (2015) recently reported that the fermented straw had no effect on the temperature, pH and NH3-N concentration of the fermented straw. The adsorbed straw had lower pH, AA and high WSC and LA concentration, subsequently it deteriorated much more without difficulty than the fermented straw. Silage that has spoiled because of exposure to air is undesirable due to poorer quality, lower digestibility and the increased risk of the disease and negative effects on the animal production performance. Several studies have been conducted to improve the aerobic stability of silages by inoculating them with Lactobacillus buchneri (Holzer et al., 2003; Schmidt et al., 2009; Reich and Kung, 2010).

Conclusion: The inoculation of lactic acid bacteria improved the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of the King grass silage.

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundationof China (31672488; 31502015), the Project of the Key Technol*ogies RandD Program of China during the 13th Five Year Plan period (2016YFC0502005), Jiangsu Independent Innovation (CX(15) 1003*3)

REFERENCES

Abdelbasset, M. and K. Djamila (2008). Antimicrobial activity of autochthonous lactic acid bacteria isolated from algerian traditional fermented milk "raib". African J. Biotech. 7(16):2908-2914.

Adesogan, A.T., (2006). Factors affecting corn silage quality in hot and humid climates. In: 17th Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium. pp: 108-127.

Amanullah, S., D. Kim, H. Lee, Y. Joo, S. Kim and S. Kim (2014). Effects of microbial additives on chemical composition and fermentation characteristics of barley silage. Asian-Aust. J Anim. Sci., 27(4): 511.

Ammor, S., G. Tauveron, E. Dufour and I. Chevallier (2006). Antibacterial activity of lactic acid bacteria against spoilage and pathogenic bacteria isolated from the same meat small-scale facility: 1-screening and characterization of the antibacterial compounds. Food control, 17(6): 454-461.

Arthur Thomas, T. (1977). An automated procedure for the determination of soluble carbohydrates in herbage. J. Sci. Food and Agri. 28(7): 639-642.

Ashbell, G., Z. Weinberg, A. Azrieli, Y. Hen and B. Horev, (1991). A simple system to study the aerobic determination of silages. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 34: 171-175.

Baah, J., W. Addah, E. Okine and T. McAllister (2011). Effects of homolactic bacterial inoculant alone or combined with an anionic surfactant on fermentation, aerobic stability and in situ ruminal degradability of barley silage. Asian-Austr. J. Anim. Sci., 24(3): 369-378.

Barker, S.B. and W.H. Summerson (1941). The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in biological material. J. Biological Chemistry, 138: 535-554.

Chamberlain, A. and J.M. Wilkinson (1996). Feeding the dairy cow. Chalcombe publications.

Chaney, A.L. and E.P. Marbach (1962). Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clinical chemistry, 8(2): 130-132.

de Oliveira, S.G., T.T. Berchielli, R.A. Reis, M.E. Vechetini and M. dos Santos Pedreira (2009). Fermentative characteristics and aerobic stability of sorghum silages containing different tannin levels. Animal feed science and technology, 154(1): 1-8.

Driehuis, F., S. Oude Elferink and P. Van Wikselaar (2001). Fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of grass silage inoculated with lactobacillus buchneri, with or without homofermentative lactic acid bacteria. Grass and Forage Science, 56(4): 330-343.

Filya, I. (2003). The effect of lactobacillus buchneri and lactobacillus plantarum on the fermentation, aerobic stability, and ruminal degradability of low dry matter corn and sorghum silages. J. DairyScience, 86(11): 3575-3581.

Hao, W., H. Wang, T. Ning, F. Yang and C. Xu (2015). Aerobic stability and effects of yeasts during deterioration of non-fermented and fermented total mixed ration with different moisture levels. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 28(6): 816.

Hassanat, F., A. Mustafa and P. Seguin (2007). Effects of inoculation on ensiling characteristics, chemical composition and aerobic stability of regular and brown midrib millet silages. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech., 139(1): 125-140.

Holzer, M., E. Mayrhuber, H. Danner and R. Braun (2003). The role of lactobacillus buchneri in forage preservation. Trends in biotechnology, 21(6): 282-287.

International, A. (2005). Official methods of analysis of aoac international. AOAC International.

Kim, D.H., S.M. Amanullah, H.J. Lee, Y.H. Joo and S.C. Kim (2015). Effect of microbial and chemical combo additives on nutritive value and fermentation characteristic of whole crop barley silage. Asian-Australasian J. Anim. Sciences, 28(9): 1274.

Kung, L. and N. Ranjit (2001). The effect of lactobacillus buchneri and other additives on the fermentation and aerobic stability of barley silage. J. Dairy Science, 84(5): 1149-1155.

Li, M., X. Zi, H. Zhou, G. Hou and Y. Cai (2014). Effects of sucrose, glucose, molasses and cellulase on fermentation quality and in vitro gas production of King grass silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 197: 206-212.

Li, Y., F. Wang and N. Nishino (2016). Lactic acid bacteria in total mixed ration silage containing soybean curd residue: Their isolation, identification and ability to inhibit aerobic deterioration. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 29(4): 516.

Liu, J. J., X. P. Liu, J.W. Ren, H.Y. Zhao, X.F. Yuan, X.F. Wang, A.Z. Salem and Z.J. Cui (2015). The effects of fermentation and adsorption using lactic acid bacteria culture broth on the feed quality of rice straw. J. Integrative Agriculture, 14(3): 503-513.

Owens, V., K. Albrecht and R. Muck (2002). Protein degradation and fermentation characteristics of unwilted red clover and alfalfa silage harvested at various times during the day. Grass and forage science, 57(4): 329-341.

Playne, M. and P. McDonald (1966). The buffering constituents of herbage and of silage. J. Science Food Agri. 17(6): 264-268.

Queiroz, O., K. Arriola, J. Daniel and A. Adesogan (2013). Effects of 8 chemical and bacterial additives on the quality of corn silage. J. Dairy Science, 96(9): 5836-5843.

Reich, L.J. and L. Kung (2010). Effects of combining lactobacillus buchneri 40788 with various lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech., 159(3): 105-109.

SAS (2003). Statistical analysis system user's guide; Statistics version 9.1; SAS Institute; Cary; NC; USA.

Santoso, B., B.T. Hariadia, H. Manik and H. Abubakar (2011). Silage quality of King grass (pennisetum purpureophoides) treated with epiphytic lactic acid bacteria and tannin of acacia. Media Peternakan-J. Anim. Sci. Tech. 34(2):140-145.

Schmidt, R., W. Hu, J. Mills and L. Kung (2009). The development of lactic acid bacteria and lactobacillus buchneri and their effects on the fermentation of alfalfa silage. J.Dairy Science, 92(10): 5005-5010.

Selmer-olsen, I., A. Henderson, S. Robertson and R. McGinn (1993). Cell wall degrading enzymes for silage. 1. The fermentation of enzyme-treated ryegrass in laboratory silos. Grass and Forage Science, 48(1): 45-54.

Shao, T., Z. Zhang, M. Shimojo, T. Wang and Y. Masuda (2005). Comparison of fermentation characteristics of italian ryegrass (lolium multiflorum lam.) and guineagrass (panicum maximum jacq.) during the early stage of ensiling. Asian Australasian J. Anim. Sciences, 18(12): 1727.

Swensson, C. (2003). Relationship between content of crude protein in rations for dairy cows, n in urine and ammonia release. Livestock production science, 84(2): 125-133.

Van Soest, P.v., J. Robertson and B. Lewis (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Science, 74(10): 3583-3597.

Wang, H., T. Ning, W. Hao, M. Zheng and C. Xu (2016). Dynamics associated with prolonged ensiling and aerobic deterioration of total mixed ration silage containing whole crop corn. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 29(1): 62.

Weinberg, Z.G., R.E. Muck, P.J. Weimer, Y. Chen and M. Gamburg (2004). Lactic acid bacteria used in inoculants for silage as probiotics for ruminants. Applied biochemistry and biotechnology, 118(1-3): 1-9.

Wrobel, B., A. Zielinska and A. Suterska (2008). Evaluation of quality and aerobic stability of grass silage treated with bacterial inoculants containing lactobacillus buchneri. In: Proceedings, 13th International Conference on Forage Conservation, Nitra, Slovak Republic. pp: 122-123.

Yahaya, M., M. Goto, W. Yimiti, B. Smerjai and Y. Kawamoto (2004). Evaluation of fermentation quality of a tropical and temperate forage crops ensiled with additives of fermented juice of epiphytic lactic acid bacteria (fjlb). Cellulose, 31: 28.25.

Yuan, X., A. Wen, J. Wang, G. Guo, S.T. Desta and T. Shao (2015). Effects of ethanol, molasses and lactobacillus plantarum on the fermentation quality, in vitro digestibility and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silages in the tibetan plateau of china. Animal Science J.

Zahiroddini, H., J. Baah, W. Absalom and T. McAllister (2004). Effect of an inoculant and hydrolytic enzymes on fermentation and nutritive value of whole crop barley silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 117(3): 317-330.

Zahiroddini, H., J. Baah and T. McAllister (2006). Effects of microbial inoculants on the fermentation, nutrient retention, and aerobic stability of barley silage. Asian Australasian J. Anim. Sciences, 19(10): 1429.

Zhang, J.G., H. Kawamoto and Y.M. CAI (2010). Relationships between the addition rates of cellulase or glucose and silage fermentation at different temperatures. Anim.Science J. 81(3): 325-330.

Zhang, L., C. Yu, M. Shimojo and T. Shao (2011). Effect of different rates of ethanol additive on fermentation quality of napiergrass (pennisetum purpureum). Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci., 24(5): 636-642.
COPYRIGHT 2017 Asianet-Pakistan
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences
Geographic Code:9CHIN
Date:Jun 30, 2017
Words:6233
Previous Article:GENETIC POLYMORPHISM IN MEAT FATTY ACIDS IN ARAUCANO CREOLE SHEEPS.
Next Article:ASSOCIATION OF TWO SUMO3 GENE SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISMS WITH CARCASS AND MEAT QUALITY TRAITS OF THE CHINESE SIMMENTAL CATTLE.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |