Animal Bioscience

  • 제37권9호
  • /
  • Pages.1595-1602
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2765-0189(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2765-0235(eISSN)
아세아태평양축산학회 (Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of fruit and vegetable waste addition on corn stalk silage quality

  • Li Li Wang (Research Institute of Eco-friendly Livestock Science, Institute of GreenBio Science Technology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yan Fen Li (Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Li Zhuang Wu (Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Young Sang Yu (Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Xaysana Panyavong (Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Seoul National University) ;
  • Jong Geun Kim (Research Institute of Eco-friendly Livestock Science, Institute of GreenBio Science Technology, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2024.02.20
  • 심사 : 2024.05.26
  • 발행 : 2024.09.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: In this study, we explored the effect of fruit and vegetable waste addition on the quality of corn stalk silage. Methods: Corn stalks were ensiled 20 days after ear harvesting and mixed with fruit and vegetable waste (FVW) consisting of apple, orange, broccoli, and Chinese cabbage waste as 3% of fresh matter. Fruit waste consisted of solid residue obtained after juicing, and vegetable waste was collected from farms and cut into small pieces (2 to 3 cm). The materials were stored anaerobically in 20-L silo buckets and opened after 60 days of fermentation. Results: There were significant differences in dry matter (DM), acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), total digestible nutrient (TDN), and relative feed value (RFV) levels in FVW derived from all tested raw materials (p<0.05). Corn stalk mixed with orange waste (CSOW) had the highest DM content (28.77%), lowest ADF and NDF content (47.78% and 26.62% of DM, respectively), and highest TDN and RFV content (69.21 and 133, respectively). After 60 days, there were significant differences in all chemical parameters examined (p<0.05). Corn stalk mixed with broccoli waste (CSBW) had the lowest DM loss (2.23%), and the CSOW group had the lowest NDF and ADF content and highest in vitro DM digestibility. CSBW had the lowest pH and ammonia nitrogen content, but the highest lactic acid/acetic acid ratio among the treatment groups. CSOW had the highest lactic acid content (2.27% of DM). The microbial contents of each group differed only in lactic acid bacteria counts before and after ensiling, showing a slight increase (p>0.05) and significant decreases in yeast and mold counts (p<0.05) after ensiling. Conclusion: These findings confirmed that mixing various FVW materials, particularly orange waste, with corn stalks improved the nutritional value of silage. Adding broccoli waste resulted in better fermentation quality than the addition of other FVW materials.

키워드

과제정보

This study was financially supported by the Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project No. RS-2021-RD010124).

참고문헌

  1. Erenstein O, Jaleta M, Sonder K, Mottaleb K, Prasanna BM. Global maize production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implications. Food Secur 2022;14:1295-319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7
  2. Clark A. Managing cover crops profitably. 3rd ed. Beltsville, MD, USA: Sutable Agricultural Network; 2008.
  3. Su B, Chen X. Current status and potential of Moringa oleifera leaf as an alternative protein source for animal feeds. Front Vet Sci 2020;7:53. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.00053
  4. Ngalavu A, Jiang H, El-Ashram S, et al. Effect of dietary fiber sources on in-vitro fermentation and microbiota in monogastrics. Animals (Basel) 2020;10:674. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10040674
  5. Jalal H, Giammarco M, Lanzoni L, et al. Potential of fruits and vegetable by-products as an alternative feed source for sustainable ruminant nutrition and production: a review. Agriculture 2023;13:286. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020286
  6. Brennan JG, Grandison AS. Food processing handbook, 2 volume set. 2nd ed. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley; 2011.
  7. China NBoSo. Vegetable production volume in China from 2011 to 2021 (in million metric tons) [Graph] [Internet]. Beiging, China: National Bureau of Statistics of China; c2022 [cited 2022 Oct 31]. Available from: https://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=C01&zb=A0D0F&sj=2021
  8. Textor C. Fruit acreage in China between 2011 and 2021 (in million hectares) [Graph] [Internet]. Beijing, China: Statista; c2023 [cited 2022 Oct 31]. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/242150/fruit-acreage-in-china/?locale=en
  9. Textor C. Fruit production volume in China from 2011 to 2021 (in million metric tons) [Graph] [Internet]. Beijing, China: Statista; c2022 [cited 2022 Oct 31]. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/275640/fruit-productionin-china/ ?locale=en
  10. Textor C. Vegetable acreage in China from 2011 to 2021 (in million hectares) [Graph] [Internet]. Beijing, China: Statista;c2022 [cited 2022 Oct 31]. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/242129/vegetable-acreage-in-china/?locale=en
  11. Kyawt YY, Win KS, Mu KS, Aung A, Aung M. Feeding pineapple waste silage as roughage source improved the nutrient intakes, energy status and growth performances of growing Myanmar local cattle. J Adv Vet Anim Res 2020;7:436-41. https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2020.g439
  12. Yemm EW, Willis AJ. The estimation of carbohydrates in plant extracts by anthrone. Biochem J 1954;57:508-14. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0570508
  13. Ali G, Liu Q, Yuan X, et al. Characteristics of lactic acid bacteria isolates and their effects on the fermentation quality of acacia (Sophora japonica L.) leaf silage at low temperatures. Grassland Sci 2017;63:141-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/grs.12162
  14. 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;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  15. Tilley JMA, Terry RA. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass Forage Sci 1963;18:104-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x
  16. Silva DJ, de Queiroz AC. Food analysis: chemical and biological methods. 3rd ed. Vicosa, Brazil: Universidade Federal de Vicosa (UFV); 2002.
  17. Rohweder DA, Barnes RF, Jorgensen N. Proposed Hay grading standards based on laboratory analyses for evaluating quality. J Anim Sci 1978;47:747-59. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1978.473747x
  18. Broderick GA, Kang JH. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. J Dairy Sci 1980;63:64-75. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(80)82888-8
  19. Mevlut T, Albayrak S. Effect of harvesting stages on forage yield and quality of different leaf types pea cultivar. Turk J Field Crops 2012;17:111-4.
  20. Woolford MK. The silage fermentation. 1st ed. New York, USA: Marcel Dekker Inc; 1984.
  21. Pieper R, Hackl W, Korn U, Zeyner A, Souffrant WB, Pieper B. Effect of ensiling triticale, barley and wheat grains at different moisture content and addition of Lactobacillus plantarum (DSMZ 8866 and 8862) on fermentation characteristics and nutrient digestibility in pigs. Anim Feed Sci Technol 2011;164:96-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.11.013
  22. Silva TC, Silva LD, Santos EM, Oliveira JS, Perazzo AF. Importance of the fermentation to produce high-quality silage. In: Angela Faustino J, editor. Fermentation processes. Rijeka, Croatia: IntechOpen; 2017.
  23. Wrobel B, Nowak J, Fabiszewska A, Paszkiewicz-Jasinska A, Przystupa W. Dry matter losses in silages resulting from epiphytic microbiota activity-a comprehensive study. Agronomy 2023;13:450. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13020450
  24. Borreani G, Tabacco E, Schmidt RJ, Holmes BJ, Muck RE. Silage review: factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:3952-79. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13837
  25. Xiong H, Zhu Y, Wen Z, Liu G, Guo Y, Sun B. Effects of cellulase, Lactobacillus plantarum, and sucrose on fermentation parameters, chemical composition, and bacterial community of hybrid pennisetum silage. Fermentation 2022;8:356. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8080356
  26. Shao T, Ohba N, Shimojo M, Masuda Y. Effects of adding glucose, sorbic acid and pre-fermented juices on the fermentation quality of guineagrass (Panicum maximum Jacq.) silages. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2004;17:808-13. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2004.808
  27. Sun L, Wang Z, Gentu G, Jia Y, Hou M, Cai Y. Changes in microbial population and chemical composition of corn stover during field exposure and effects on silage fermentation and in vitro digestibility. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2019;32:815-25. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0514
  28. Vendramini JMB, Aguiar AD, Adesogan AT, et al. Effects of genotype, wilting, and additives on the nutritive value and fermentation of bermudagrass silage. J Anim Sci 2016;94:3061-71. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016-0306
  29. Hugenholtz J. The lactic acid bacterium as a cell factory for food ingredient production. Int Dairy J 2008;18:466-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2007.11.015
  30. Du G, Zhang G, Shi J, et al. Keystone taxa Lactiplantibacillus and Lacticaseibacillus directly improve the ensiling performance and microflora profile in co-ensiling cabbage byproduct and rice straw. Microorganisms 2021;9:1099. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9051099
  31. Kung Jr. L, Stokes MR, Lin CJ. Silage additives. In: Buston DR, Muck RE, Harrison JH, editors. Silage science and technology. Madison, WI, USA: American Society of Agronomy; 2003. pp. 305-60. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr42.c7
  32. Kung Jr L, Muck RE. Effects of silage additives on ensiling. In: Proceedings from the Silage: Field to Feedbunk North American Conference; 1997 February 11-13: Hershey, PA, USA. New York, USA: Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service; 1997.
  33. He L, Chen N, Lv H, et al. Gallic acid influencing fermentation quality, nitrogen distribution and bacterial community of high-moisture mulberry leaves and stylo silage. Bioresour Technol 2020;295:122255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122255
  34. Wang YL, Wang WK, Wu QC, et al. The effect of different lactic acid bacteria inoculants on silage quality, phenolic acid profiles, bacterial community and in vitro rumen fermentation characteristic of whole corn silage. Fermentation 2022;8:285. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation8060285
  35. Queiroz OCM, Ogunade IM, Weinberg Z, Adesogan AT. Silage review: foodborne pathogens in silage and their mitigation by silage additives. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:4132-42. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13901
  36. UK, AFRC Working Party on the Nutritive Requirements of Ruminant Animals: Energy. AFRC technical committee on responses to nutrients, report number 5, nutritive requirements of ruminant animals: energy. Nutr Abstr Rev B Livest Feeds Feed 1990;60:729-804.
  37. Blajman JE, Paez RB, Vinderola CG, Lingua MS, Signorini ML. A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of homofermentative and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria for corn silage. J Appl Microbiol 2018;125:1655-69. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.14084