DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative analysis of silage fermentation and in vitro digestibility of tropical grass prepared with Acremonium and Tricoderma species producing cellulases

  • Khota, Waroon (Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University) ;
  • Pholsen, Suradej (Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University) ;
  • Higgs, David (Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Hertfordshire) ;
  • Cai, Yimin (Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Science (JIRCAS))
  • Received : 2018.01.22
  • Accepted : 2018.05.11
  • Published : 2018.12.01

Abstract

Objective: To find out ways of improving fermentation quality of silage, the comparative analysis of fermentation characteristics and in vitro digestibility of tropical grasses silage applied with cellulases produced from Acremonium or Tricoderma species were studied in Thailand. Methods: Fresh and wilted Guinea grass and Napier grass silages were prepared with cellulases from Acremonium (AC) or Trichoderma (TC) at 0.0025%, 0.005%, and 0.01% on a fresh matter (FM), and their fermentation quality, chemical composition and in vitro digestibility were analyzed. Results: All silages of fresh Napier grass were good quality with lower pH, butyric acid, and ammonia nitrogen, but higher lactic acid content than wilted Napier grass and Guinea grass silage. Silages treated with AC 0.01% had the best result in terms of fermentation quality. They also had higher in vitro dry matter digestibility and in vitro organic matter digestibility at 6 and 48 h after incubation than other silages. Silages treated with lower levels at 0.005% or 0.0025% of AC and all levels of TC did not improve silage fermentation. Conclusion: The AC could improve silage fermentation and in vitro degradation of Guinea grass and Napier grass silages, and the suitable addition ration is 0.01% (73.5 U) of FM for tropical silage preparation.

Keywords

Cellulase;In vitro Digestibility;Silage Fermentation;Tropical Grass

Acknowledgement

Grant : The Establishment of the Sustainable and Independent Farm Household Economy in the Rural Areas of Indo-China

Supported by : Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS)

References

  1. Phitsuwan P, Charupongrat S, Klednark R, Ratanakhanokchai K. Structural features and enzymatic digestibility of Napier grass fibre treated with aqueous ammonia. J Ind Eng Chem 2015;32:360-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2015.09.006
  2. Reddy KO, Maheswari CU, Shukla M, Rajulu AV. Chemical composition and structural characterization of Napier grass fibers. Mater Lett 2012;67:35-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2011.09.027
  3. Hare M, Tatsapong P, Phengphet S. Herbage yield and quality of Brachiaria cultivars, Paspalum atratum and Panicum maximum in north-east Thailand. Trop Grassl 2009;43:65-72.
  4. Kiyothong K. Manual for planting Napier pakchong 1. Nakhonrajasrima, Thailand: Department of Livestock Development, Thailand; 2014.
  5. Pholsen S, Khota W, Pang H, Higgs D, Cai Y. Characterization and application of lactic acid bacteria for tropical silage preparation. Anim Sci J 2016;87:1202-1211. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12534
  6. Zhu Y, Nishino N, Xusheng G. Chemical changes during ensilage and in sacco degradation of two tropical grasses: Rhodesgrass and guineagrass treated with cell wall-degrading enzymes. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2011;24:214-221.
  7. Yitbarek M, Tamir B. Silage additives: review. Open J Appl Sci 2014;4:258-274. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojapps.2014.45026
  8. Takekhalaf M, Torbatinejad NM, Zerehdaran S, Toghdory AH. Effect of treated alfalfa silage with lactobacillus plant arum and sugar beet pulp molasses on performance of Holstein dairy cows. J Appl Environ Biol Sci 2015;5:254-259.
  9. Xing L, Chen LJ, Han LJ. The effect of an inoculant and enzymes on fermentation and nutritive value of sorghum straw silages. Bioresour Technol 2009;100:488-491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.06.017
  10. Li M, Zi X, Zhou H, Hou G, Cai Y. Effects of sucrose, glucose, molasses and cellulase on fermentation quality and in vitro gas production of king grass silage. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2014;197:206-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2014.06.016
  11. Eun J-S, Beauchemin KA. Relationship between enzymic activities and in vitro degradation of alfalfa hay and corn silage. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2008;145:53-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2007.05.039
  12. Ridla M, Uchida S. Effect of combined treatment of lactic acid bacteria and cell wall degrading enzymes on fermentation and composition of rhodesgrass (Chloris gayana Kunth.) silage. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 1998;11:522-529. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.1998.522
  13. McDonald P, Henderson A, Heron S. The biochemistry of silage. Marlow, UK: Chalcombe Publications; 1991.
  14. Li X, Yang H, Roy B, et al. Enhanced cellulase production of the Trichoderma viride mutated by microwave and ultraviolet. Microbiol Res 2010;165:190-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2009.04.001
  15. Desta ST, Yuan XJ, Li J, Shao T. Ensiling characteristics, structural and nonstructural carbohydrate composition and enzymatic digestibility of Napier grass ensiled with additives. Bioresour Technol 2016;221:447-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.09.068
  16. Khota W, Pholsen S, Higgs D, Cai Y. Natural lactic acid bacteria population of tropical grasses and their fermentation factor analysis of silage prepared with cellulase and inoculant. J Dairy Sci 2016;99:9768-9781. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11180
  17. Yoottasanong C, Pholsen S, Higgs DEB. Dry matter yields and forage quality of grass alone and grass plus legume mixture in relation to cattle manure rates and production methods. Pakistan J Biol Sci 2015;18:324-332. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2015.324.332
  18. Cai Y, Kumai S, Ogawa M, Benno Y, Nakase T. Characterization and identification of Pediococcus species isolated from forage crops and their application for silage preparation. Appl Environ Microbiol 1999;65:2901-2906.
  19. Kozaki M, Uchimura T, Okada S. Experimental manual for lactic acid bacteria. Tokyo, Japan: Asakurasyoten; 1992. p. 29-72.
  20. Cai Y. Analysis method for silage. In: Japanese Society of Grassland Science, editor. Field and Laboratory methods for grassland science. Tokyo, Japan: Tosho Printing Co. Ltd.; 2004.
  21. Fawcett JK, Scott JE. A rapid and precise method for the determination of urea. J Clin Pathol 1960;13:156-159. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.13.2.156
  22. AOAC. Official methods of analysis. 15th edn. Arlington, VA, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 1990.
  23. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 1991;74:3583-3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  24. European Commission. "European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015", Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament. The Council and the European Economic and Social Committee; 2002. COM 6 final/2, 15 Feb, 2012.
  25. Makkar HP, Blümmel M, Becker K. Formation of complexes between polyvinyl pyrrolidones or polyethylene glycols and tannins, and their implication in gas production and true digestibility in in vitro techniques. Br J Nutr 1995;73:897-913. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN19950095
  26. Steel RGD, Torrie JH. Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach. 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.; 1980.
  27. Wilkinson M. Silage UK. Great Britain: Cambrian printers; 1990.
  28. Nkosi BD, Meeske R, Langa T, Motiang MD, Mutavhatsindi TF. The influence of ensiling potato hash waste with enzyme/bacterial inoculant mixtures on the fermentation characteristics, aerobic stability and nutrient digestion of the resultant silages by rams. Small Rumin Res 2015;127:28-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2015.04.013
  29. Zhang Q, Yu Z, Yang H, Na RS. The effects of stage of growth and additives with or without cellulase on fermentation and in vitro degradation characteristics of Leymus chinensis silage. Grass Forage Sci 2016;71:595-606. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12210
  30. Cai Y, Benno Y, Ogawa M, Kumai S. Effect of applying lactic acid bacteria isolated from forage crops on fermentation characteristics and aerobic deterioration of silage. J Dairy Sci 1999;82:520-526. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75263-X
  31. Rotz CA, Muck RE. Changes in forage quality during harvest and storage. In: Fahey GC, Collins M, Mertens DR, Moser LE, editors. Forage quality, evaluation, and utilization. Madison, USA: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America; 1994. pp. 828-68.
  32. King GA, Woollard DC, Irving DE, Borst WM. Physiological changes in asparagus spear tips after harvest. Physiol Plant 1990;80:393-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1990.tb00058.x
  33. Oladosu Y, Rafii MY, Abdullah N, et al. Fermentation quality and additives: a case of rice straw silage. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:1-14.
  34. Guo G, Yuan X, Li L, Wen A, Shao T. Effects of fibrolytic enzymes, molasses and lactic acid bacteria on fermentation quality of mixed silage of corn and hulless-barely straw in the Tibetan Plateau. Grassl Sci 2014;60:240-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/grs.12060
  35. Ebrahimi M, Rajion MA, YongMeng G, et al. The effects of adding lactic acid bacteria and cellulase in oil palm (Elais guineensis Jacq.) frond silages on fermentation quality, chemical composition and in vitro digestibility. Ital J Anim Sci 2014;13:557-62.
  36. Nkosi BD, Vadlani PV, Brijwani K, Nanjunda A, Meeske R. Effects of bacterial inoculants and an enzyme on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of ensiled whole-crop sweet sorghum. S Afr J Anim Sci 2012;42:232-40.
  37. Ni K, Wang Y, Pang H, Cai Y. Effect of cellulase and lactic acid bacteria on fermentation quality and chemical composition of wheat straw silage. Am J Plant Sci 2014;5:1877-84. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2014.513201
  38. Kung L, Carmean B, Tung R. Microbial inoculation or cellulase enzyme treatment of barley and vetch silage harvested at three maturities. J Dairy Sci 1990;73:1304-11. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(90)78796-6
  39. Huhtanen P, Rinne M, Nousiainen J. Evaluation of the factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows: a revision of the relative silage dry-matter intake index. Animal 2007;1:758-70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173110773673X
  40. Moharrery A, Hvelplund T, Weisbjerg MR. Effect of forage type, harvesting time and exogenous enzyme application on degradation characteristics measured using in vitro technique. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2009;153:178-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.06.001