Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-mgxrv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-11T11:50:04.628Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lactobacillus buchneri inoculation compared to chitosan and facultative heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria improves sugarcane silage conservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2022

T. A. Del Valle Open the ORCID record for T. A. Del Valle [Opens in a new window] ,
M. Campana ,
N. R. Pereira ,
J. A. C. Osório ,
T. M. Garcia ,
E. Capucho  and
J. P. G. de Morais
T. A. Del Valle*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Rural Sciences Center, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, 97.105-900, RS, Brazil
M. Campana
Affiliation:
Department of Biotechnology Vegetal and Animal Production, Center of Agricultural Sciences, Federal University of São Carlos, Araras, 13600-970, Brazil
N. R. Pereira
Affiliation:
Department of Biotechnology Vegetal and Animal Production, Center of Agricultural Sciences, Federal University of São Carlos, Araras, 13600-970, Brazil
J. A. C. Osório
Affiliation:
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, San Martin University Foundation, Bogotá, 11001, Colombia
T. M. Garcia
Affiliation:
Department of Biotechnology Vegetal and Animal Production, Center of Agricultural Sciences, Federal University of São Carlos, Araras, 13600-970, Brazil
E. Capucho
Affiliation:
Department of Biotechnology Vegetal and Animal Production, Center of Agricultural Sciences, Federal University of São Carlos, Araras, 13600-970, Brazil
J. P. G. de Morais
Affiliation:
Department of Biotechnology Vegetal and Animal Production, Center of Agricultural Sciences, Federal University of São Carlos, Araras, 13600-970, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: T. A. Del Valle, E-mail: tiago.valle@ufsm.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study aimed to evaluate the effects of chitosan instead of microbial inoculants on fermentation profile, losses, chemical composition, in vitro degradation, and aerobic stability of sugarcane silage (SS). Forty experimental silos (PVC tubes with 28 cm i.d., 25 cm height) were used in a randomized block design to evaluate the following treatments: (I) Control (CON): SS with no additive; (II) LB: SS ensiled with 5.0 × 105 colony forming units (CFU) of Lactobacillus buchneri (NCIM 40788)/g as-fed; (III) LPPA: SS ensiled with 1.6 × 105 CFU of L. plantarum and 1.6 × 105 CFU of Pediococcus acidilactici/g as-fed; and (IV) Chitosan (CHI): SS ensiled with 6 g/kg dry matter (DM) of chitosan. Microbial inoculation of SS reduced (P ≤ 0.05) silage pH relative to CON and CHI treatment. The LPPA decreased ammonia-nitrogen and LB decreased (P ≤ 0.05) ethanol content and increased acetic acid content relative to other treatments. The LPPA-silos had higher (P ≤ 0.05) gas losses and lower (P ≤ 0.05) DM recovery than other treatment silos. Consequently, LPPA reduced (P ≤ 0.05) DM and non-fibre carbohydrates and increased (P ≤ 0.05) neutral detergent fibre (NDF) silage content compared to other treatments. Treatments did not affect (P ≥ 0.212) DM and NDF in vitro degradation and silage pH after aerobic exposure. However, LB reduced silage temperature after aerobic exposure. Thus, LB reduces alcoholic fermentation and improves SS aerobic stability. Inoculation of LPPA reduces DM recovery and negatively affects SS chemical composition. Although CHI positively affects SS conservation relative to CON, it shows higher gas losses and decreased SS temperature after aerobic exposure compared to LB.

Keywords

Aerobic stabilitychitinfermentationlactic acid bacteriamicrobial inoculant

Information

Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 160 , Issue 5 , October 2022 , pp. 317 - 324
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) (2000) Official Methods of Analysis, 17th Edn. Arlington, VA, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Arriola, KG, Oliveira, AS, Jiang, Y, Kim, D, Silva, HM, Kim, SC, Amaro, FX, Ogunade, IM, Sultana, H, Cervantes, AAP, Ferraretto, LF, Vyas, D and Adesogan, AT (2021) Meta-analysis of effects of inoculation with Lactobacillus buchneri, with or without other bacteria, on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and performance of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 104, 7653–7670.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ávila, CLS, Pinto, JC, Figueiredo, HCP and Schwan, RF (2009) Effects of an indigenous and a commercial Lactobacillus buchneri strain on quality of sugar cane silage. Grass and Forage Science 64, 384–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ávila, CLS, Carvalho, BF, Pinto, JC, Duarte, WF and Schwan, RF (2014) The use of Lactobacillus species as starter cultures for enhancing the quality of sugar cane silage. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 940–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernardes, TF and do Rêgo, AC (2014) Study on the practices of silage production and utilization on Brazilian dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 1852–1861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvalho, BF, Ávila, CLS, Pinto, JC, Neri, J and Schwan, RF (2014) Microbiological and chemical profile of sugar cane silage fermentation inoculated with wild strains of lactic acid bacteria. Animal Feed Science and Technology 195, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casali, AO, Detmann, E, Valadares Filho, SC, Pereira, JC, Henriques, LT, Freitas, SG and Paulino, MF (2008) Influence of incubation time and particles size on indigestible compounds contents in cattle feeds and feces obtained by in situ procedures. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 37, 335–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherney, JH and Cherney, DJR (2003) Assessing silage quality. In Buxton D, , Muck R, Harrison JH (eds). Silage Science and Technology. Wisconsin, USA: Madison, pp. 141–198.Google Scholar
CONAB (2022) Sugarcane production and coproducts. Available at https://www.conab.gov.br/component/k2/item/download/41859_91d155e38d6a9561efc268a781f1c64c (Accessed 07 July 2022).Google Scholar
Daniel, JLP, Checolli, M, Zwielehner, J, Junges, D, Fernandes, J and Nussio, LG (2015) The effects of Lactobacillus kefiri and L. brevis on the fermentation and aerobic stability of sugarcane silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 205, 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Valle, TA, Zenatti, TF, Antonio, G, Campana, M, Gandra, JR, Zilio, EMC, Mattos, LFA and Morais, JPG (2018) Effect of chitosan on the preservation quality of sugarcane silage. Grass and Forage Science 73, 630–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Valle, TA, Antonio, G, Zilio, EMC, Dias, MSS, Gandra, JR, Castro, FAB, Campana, M and Morais, JPG (2020) Chitosan level effects on fermentative profile and chemical composition of sugarcane silage. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal Science 57, e162942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Morais, JPG, Cantoia Júnior, R, Garcia, TM, Capucho, E, Campana, M, Gandra, JR, Ghizzi, LG and Del Valle, TA (2021) Chitosan and microbial inoculants in whole-plant soybean silage. The Journal of Agricultural Science 157, 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deng, Z, Wang, T, Chen, X and Liu, Y (2020) Applications of chitosan-based biomaterials: a focus on dependent antimicrobial properties. Marine Life Science & Technology 2, 398–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detmann, E, Souza MA, , Valadares Filho, SC, Queiroz, AC, Berchielli, TT, Saliba, EOS, Cabral, LS, Pina, DS, Ladeira, MM and Azevedo, JAG (2012) Métodos Para Análise de Alimentos - INCT - Ciência Animal. Visconde do Rio Branco: Suprema, p. 214.Google Scholar
dos Santos, WCC, do Nascimento, WG, Magalhães, ALR, Silva, DKA, Silva, WJCS, Santana, AVS and Soares, GSC (2015) Nutritive value, total losses of dry matter and aerobic stability of the silage from three varieties of sugarcane treated with commercial microbial additives. Animal Feed Science and Technology 204, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driehuis, F, Oude Elferink, SJWH and Spoelstra, SF (1999) Anaerobic lactic acid degradation during ensilage of whole crop maize inoculated with Lactobacillus buchneri inhibits yeast growth and improves aerobic stability. Journal of Applied Microbiology 87, 583–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gandra, JR, Oliveira, ER, Takiya, CS, Goes, RHTB, Paiva, PG, Oliveira, KMP, Gandra, ERS, Orbach, ND and Haraki, HMC (2016) Chitosan improves the chemical composition, microbiological quality, and aerobic stability of sugarcane silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 214, 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goy, RC, Britto, D and Assis, OBG (2009) A review of the antimicrobial activity of chitosan. Polímeros 19, 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández-Lauzardo, AN, Del Valle, MGV and Guerra-Sánchez, MG (2011) Current status of action mode and effect of chitosan against phytopathogens fungi. African Journal of Microbiology Research 5, 4243–4247.Google Scholar
Holden, LA (1999) Comparison of methods of in vitro dry matter digestibility for ten feeds. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 1791–1794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jobim, CC, Nussio, LG, Reis, RA and Schmidt, P (2007) Methodological advances in evaluation of preserved forage quality. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 36, 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinschmit, DH and Kung, L (2006) A meta-analysis of the effects of Lactobacillus buchneri on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn and grass and small-grain silages. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 4005–4013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kononoff, PJ (2020) Letter to the editor: a response to Adesogan et al. (2020). Journal of Dairy Science 103, 6739–6740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Licitra, G, Hernandez, TM and Van Soest, PJ (1996) Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, P, Henderson, AR and Heron, SJE (1991) The Biochemistry of Silage, 2nd Edn. Marlow, UK: Chalcomb Publications.Google Scholar
McDougall, EI (1948) Studies on ruminant saliva, I. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochemical Journal 43, 99–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moon, NJ (1983) Inhibition of the growth of acid-tolerant yeasts by acetate, lactate and propionate and their synergistic mixtures. Journal of Applied Microbiology 55, 453–460.Google Scholar
Nocek, JE (1988) In situ and other methods to estimate ruminal protein and energy digestibility: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 2051–2069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, CA and Millen, DD (2014) Survey of the nutritional recommendations and management practices adopted by feedlot cattle nutritionists in Brazil. Animal Feed Science and Technology 197, 64–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, AS, Weinberg, ZG, Ogunade, IM, Cervantes, AAP, Arriola, KG, Jiang, Y, Kim, D, Li, X, Gonçalves, MCM, Vyas, D and Adesogan, AT (2017) Meta-analysis of effects of inoculation with homofermentative and facultative heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and the performance of dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 100, 4587–4603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oude-Elferink, SJWH, Krooneman, J, Gottschal, JC, Spoelstra, SF, Faber, F and Driehuis, F (2001) Anaerobic conversion of lactic acid to acetic acid and 1,2 propanediol by Lactobacillus buchneri. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 67, 125–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pedroso, AF, Nussio, LG, Paziani, SF, Loures, DRS, Igarasi, MS, Coelho, RM, Packer, IH, Horii, J and Gomes, LH (2005) Fermentation and epiphytic microflora dynamics in sugar cane silage. Scientia Agrícola 62, 427–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedroso, ADF, Nussio, LG, Loures, DRS, Paziani, SDF, Ribeiro, JL, Mari, LJ, Zopollatto, M, Schmidt, P, Mattos, WRS and Horii, J (2008) Fermentation, losses, and aerobic stability of sugarcane silages treated with chemical or bacterial additives. Scientia Agrícola 65, 589–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryce, JDA (1969) A modification of the barker-summerson method for the determination of latic acid. The Analyst 94, 1151–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabelo, CHS, Härter, CJ, Ávila, CLS and Reis, RA (2019) Meta-analysis of the effects of Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus buchneri on fermentation, chemical composition and aerobic stability of sugarcane silage. Grassland Science 65, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/grs.12215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranjit, NK and Kung, L Jr (2000) The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum, or a chemical preservative on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage. Journal of Dairy Science 83, 526–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Şenel, S and McClure, SJ (2004) Potential applications of chitosan in veterinary medicine. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 56, 1467–1480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, CMJ (2005) Proteolysis, fermentation efficiency, and in vitro ruminal digestion of peanut stover ensiled with raw or heated corn. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 2903–2910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed