DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Homolactic Bacterial Inoculant Alone or Combined with an Anionic Surfactant on Fermentation, Aerobic Stability and In situ Ruminal Degradability of Barley Silage

  • Baah, J. ;
  • Addah, W. ;
  • Okine, E.K. ;
  • McAllister, T.A.
  • Received : 2010.09.08
  • Accepted : 2010.11.02
  • Published : 2011.03.01

Abstract

The effect of a homolactic inoculant containing a blend of Lactobacillus plantarum, Pediococcus acidilactici and Enterococcus faecium or, the anionic surfactant, sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS), alone or in combination on fermentation characteristics, aerobic stability and in situ DM, OM and NDF degradability of barley silage was investigated. Barley (Hordeum vulgare, L.) was harvested (45% DM), chopped and treated with water at 24 ml/kg forage (Control), inoculant at $1.09{\times}10^5$ cfu/g forage (I), SDS at 0.125% (wt/wt) of forage (S) or with the inoculant ($1.09{\times}10^5$ cfu/g) plus SDS (0.125% wt/wt; I+S). The treated forages were ensiled in triplicate mini silos and opened for chemical and microbiological analyses on d 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 42 and 77. Silage samples from d 77 were opened and aerobically exposed for 7 d. The in situ rumen degradability characteristics of silage DM, OM and NDF were also determined. The terminal concentration of NDF in S and I+S was lower (p<0.001) than in other treatments. Lactate concentration was higher (p<0.001) and the rate and extent of pH decline were greater (p<0.001) in I and I+S than S and Control silages. A homolactic pathway of fermentation in I and I+S was evidenced by reduced (p<0.001) water-soluble carbohydrates concentration, higher lactate (p<0.01), lower acetate (p<0.01) and lower pH values (p<0.001) than in S and Control silages. All silages remained stable over 7 d of exposure to air as indicated by lower temperatures and moulds, and by non-detectable yeast populations. The treated silages had lower DM and OM degradability than in the Control but NDF degradation characteristics of I+S were improved compared to other treatments. It is concluded that the inoculant alone improved the fermentation characteristics whereas the combination of the inoculant with SDS improved both fermentation and NDF degradability of barley silage.

Keywords

Aerobic Stability;Barley Silage;SDS;Homolactic Inoculant;Ruminal Degradability

References

  1. Baah, J., J. A. Shelford, A. N. Hristov, T. A. McAllister and K.-J. Cheng. 2005. The effects of Tween 80 and fibrolytic enzymes on ruminal fermentation and digestibility of feeds in Holstein cows. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 18:816-824. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2005.816
  2. Cai, Y. 1999. Identification and characterization of Enterococcus species isolated from forage crops and their influence on silage fermentation. J. Dairy Sci. 82:2466-2471. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75498-6
  3. Canadian Council on Animal Care. 1993. A guide to the care and use of experimental animals. Vol. 1, 2nd edn. (Ed. E. D. Olfert, B. M. Cross and A. A. McWilliams). CCAC, Ottawa, ON.
  4. Fitzsimmons, A., F. Duffner, D. Curtin, G. Brophy, P. O'Kiely and M. O'Connel. 1992. Assessment of Pediococcus acidilactici as a potential silage inoculant. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 58:3047-3052.
  5. Hristov, A. N. and T. A. McAllister. 2002. Effect of inoculants on whole-crop barley silage fermentation and dry matter disappearance in situ. J. Anim. Sci. 80:510-516.
  6. Inglis, G. D., L. J. Yanke, L. M. Kawchuk and T. A. McAllister. 1999. The influence of bacterial inoculants on the microbial ecology of aerobic spoilage of barley silage. Can. J. Microbiol. 45:77-87. https://doi.org/10.1139/w98-207
  7. Jung, H. G. 1997. Analysis of forage fibre and cell walls in ruminant nutrition. J. Nutr. 127:810S-813S.
  8. Kamande, G. M. 1994. Manipulation of rumen and silage fermentation. PhD Thesis. Univ. British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
  9. Keady, T. W. J. and R. W. J. Steen. 1994. Effects of treating low dry-matter grass with a bacterial inoculant on the intake and performance of beef cattle and studies on its mode of action. Grass Forage Sci. 49:438-446. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1994.tb02021.x
  10. Kim, W., Y. Gamo, Y. M. Sani, Y. Wusiman, S. Ogawa, S. Karita and M. Goto. 2006. Effect of Tween 80 on hydrolytic activity and substrate accessibility of carbohydrolase I (CBH I) from Trichoderma viride. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 19:684-689. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2006.684
  11. Kung, Jr., L., C. L. Myers, J. M. Neylon, C. C. Taylor, J. Lazartic, J. A. Mills and A. G. Whiter. 2004. The effects of buffered propionic acid-based additives alone or combined with microbial inoculation on the fermentation of high moisture corn and whole-crop barley. J. Dairy Sci. 87:1310-1316. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73280-4
  12. Lee, C. H., H. G. Sung, M. Eslami, S. Y. Lee, J. Y. Song, S. S. Lee and J. K. Ha. 2007. Effects of Tween 80 pretreatment on dry matter disappearance of rice straw and cellulolytic bacterial adhesion. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 20:1397-1401. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2007.1397
  13. Lee, S. S., H. S. Kim, Y. H. Moon, N. J. Choi and J. K. Ha. 2004. The effects of a non-ionic surfactant on the fermentation characteristics, microbial growth, enzyme activity and digestibility in the rumen of cows. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 115:37-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2004.03.001
  14. McAllister, T. A. and A. N. Hristov. 1999. Silage inoculants and enzymes - practical uses and comparisons. Proceedings of the 20th Western Nutrition Conference, Calgary, Canada. pp. 63-75.
  15. McAllister, T. A., R. Feniuk, Z. Mir, P. Mir, L. B. Selinger and K.-J. Cheng. 1998. Inoculants for alfalfa silage: effects on aerobic stability, digestibility and growth performance of feedlot steers. Livest. Prod. Sci. 53:171-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-6226(97)00150-4
  16. McAllister, T. A., L. B. Selinger, L. R. McMahon, H. D. Bae, T. J. Lysyk, S. J. Oosting and K.-J. Cheng. 1995. Intake, digestibility and aerobic stability of barley silage inoculated with mixtures of Lactobacillus plantarum and Enterococcus faecium. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 75:425-432. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas95-062
  17. McAllister, T. A., K. Stanford, H. D. Bae, R. J. Treacher, A. N. Hristov, J. Baah, J. A. Shelford and K.-J. Cheng. 2000. Effect of a surfactant and exogenous enzymes on digestibility of feed and on growth performance and carcass traits of lambs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 80:35-44. https://doi.org/10.4141/A99-053
  18. Monteils, V. and S. Jurjanz. 2005. Ruminal degradability of corn forages depending on the processing method employed. Anim. Res. 54:3-15. https://doi.org/10.1051/animres:2004041
  19. Moshtaghi Nia, S. A. and K. M. Wittenberg. 1999. Use of forage inoculants with or without enzymes to improve preservation and quality of whole crop barley forage ensiled as large bales. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 79:525-532. https://doi.org/10.4141/A99-019
  20. Muck, R. E. 1996. Inoculation of silage and its effects on silage quality. Proceedings of the Informational Conference on Dairy and Forage Industry. Dairy Research Centre, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. pp. 43-51.
  21. Muck, R. E. 2004. Effects of corn silage inoculants on aerobic stability. Trans. ASAE 47:1011-1016. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.16571
  22. Pauly, T. M. and P. Lingvall. 1999. Effects of mechanical forage treatment and surfactants on fermentation of grass silage. Acta Agric. Scand., Sect. A, Anim. Sci. 49:197-205.
  23. Rahman, P. K. S. M. and E. Gakpe. 2008. Production, characterisation and application of biosurfactants - Review. Biotechnology 7:360-380. https://doi.org/10.3923/biotech.2008.360.370
  24. Reich, L. J. and L. Kung, Jr. 2010. Effects of combining Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 with various lactic acid bacteria on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 159:105-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.06.002
  25. SAS 2006. SAS for mixed models. 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.
  26. Singh, A., J. D. van Hamme and O. P. Ward. 2006. Surfactants in microbiology and biotechnology: Part 2. Application aspects. Biotechnol. Adv. 25:99-121.
  27. Sucu, E. and I. Filya. 2006. Effects of bacterial inoculants on fermentation, aerobic stability and rumen degradability characteristics of wheat silages. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 30:187-193.
  28. van Hamme, J. D., A. Singh and O. P. Ward. 2006. Surfactants in microbiology and biotechnology: Part 1. physiological aspects. Biotechnol. Adv. 24:604-620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2006.08.001
  29. van Soest, P. J. 1982. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. O and B Books Inc. Corvallis, Oregon, USA. pp. 81-82.
  30. Weinberg, Z. G. and R. E. Muck. 1996. New trends and opportunities in the development and use of inoculants for silage. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 19:53-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.1996.tb00253.x
  31. Zahiroddini, H., J. Baah and T. A. McAllister. 2006. Effect of microbial inoculants on fermentation, nutrient retention and aerobic stability of barley silage. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 19:1429-1436. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2006.1429
  32. Zahiroddini, H., J. Baah, W. Absalom and T. A. McAllister. 2004. Effect of an inoculant and hydrolytic enzymes on fermentation characteristics and nutritive value of whole crop barley silage. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 117:317-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2004.08.013

Cited by

  1. Use of thermal imaging and the in situ technique to assess the impact of an inoculant with feruloyl esterase activity on the aerobic stability and digestibility of barley silage vol.92, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4141/cjas2012-016
  2. Effects of Bacterial Inoculants and Cutting Height on Fermentation Quality of Barley Silage vol.34, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2014.34.3.163
  3. Effect of Microbial and Chemical Combo Additives on Nutritive Value and Fermentation Characteristic of Whole Crop Barley Silage vol.28, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0106
  4. Changes in the nutritive value and aerobic stability of corn silages inoculated with Bacillus subtilis alone or combined with Lactobacillus plantarum vol.56, pp.11, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1071/AN14686
  5. A nutritional evaluation of common barley varieties grown for silage by beef and dairy producers in western Canada vol.96, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2016-0032
  6. Effects of hybrid and bacterial inoculation on fermentation quality and fatty acid profile of barley silage pp.13443941, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12923
  7. Effects of L. plantarum Application on Chemical Composition, Fermentation Indices and Fatty Acid Profiles of Barley Silage vol.49, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.14397/jals.2015.49.5.157
  8. Chemical composition, silage fermentation characteristics, and in vitro ruminal fermentation parameters of potato-wheat straw silage treated with molasses and lactic acid bacteria and corn silage1 vol.93, pp.9, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2015-9082
  9. Isolation and molecular identification of lactic acid bacteria from King grass and their application to improve the fermentation quality of sweet Sorghum vol.34, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-017-2387-2
  10. Effects of Selected Inoculants on Chemical Compositions and Fermentation Indices of Rye Silage Harvested at Dough Stage vol.38, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2018.38.2.99