Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:48:30.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chitosan and microbial inoculants in whole-plant soybean silage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2021

J. P. G. de Morais ,
R. Cantoia Júnior ,
T. M. Garcia ,
E. Capucho ,
M. Campana ,
J. R. Gandra ,
Lucas G. Ghizzi  and
T. A. Del Valle Open the ORCID record for T. A. Del Valle [Opens in a new window]
J. P. G. de Morais
Affiliation:
Department of Biotechnology Vegetal and Animal Production, Agricultural Science Center, Federal University of São Carlos, Araras, 13600-970, Brazil
R. Cantoia Júnior
Affiliation:
Umuarama Campus, State University of Maringá, Umuarama, PR 87506-370, Brazil
T. M. Garcia
Affiliation:
Department of Biotechnology Vegetal and Animal Production, Agricultural Science Center, Federal University of São Carlos, Araras, 13600-970, Brazil
E. Capucho
Affiliation:
Department of Biotechnology Vegetal and Animal Production, Agricultural Science Center, Federal University of São Carlos, Araras, 13600-970, Brazil
M. Campana
Affiliation:
Department of Biotechnology Vegetal and Animal Production, Agricultural Science Center, Federal University of São Carlos, Araras, 13600-970, Brazil
J. R. Gandra
Affiliation:
Institute of Agrarian and Regional Development, Federal University of Southern and Southeastern Pará, Marabá, 68.555-410, Brazil
Lucas G. Ghizzi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Nutrition and Production, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of São Paulo, Pirassununga, 13.635-900, Brazil
T. A. Del Valle*
Affiliation:
Departament of Animal Science, Rural Sciences Center, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, 97105-340, Brazil.
*
Author for correspondence: T. A. Del Valle, E-mail: tiago.valle@ufsm.br
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Whole-plant soybean silage (WPSS) is a potential high-protein roughage source for ruminant diets. However, WPSS can be difficult to ensile and fermentation is a challenge. This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of chitosan and microbial inoculants on fermentation profile, fermentation losses, chemical composition, and in vitro degradation of WPSS. Forty experimental silos (PVC tubing with 28 cm i.d. and 25 cm height) were produced. Soybean plants from 10 plots were ensiled in a completely randomized block design to evaluate the following treatments: (1) control (CON): WPSS without additives; (2) chitosan (CHI): WPSS additive with 6 g/kg DM of chitosan; (3) LBB: WPSS treated with 5.0 × 107 colony-forming units (CFU) of Lactobacillus buchneri (NCIM 40788) per kg of fresh matter and (4) LPP: WPSS treated with 1.6 × 108 CFU of Lactobacillus plantarum and 1.6 × 108 CFU of Pediococcus acidilactici per kg of fresh matter. Silos were opened 120 days after ensiling. Microbial inoculants reduced silage pH, whereas LPP-treated silos showed the lowest concentration of NH3-N, ethanol, butyric, acetic, branched-chain, and propionic organic acids. LBB-treatment decreased lactic acid bacteria (LAB) count relative to other treatments, and LPP-treatment showed the lowest fermentation losses, improving dry matter (DM) recovery. Relative to other treatments, LPP increased silage DM, organic matter, and decreased acid detergent insoluble crude protein (CP), improving DM and neutral detergent fibre in vitro degradation. Treatments showed no effect on silage aerobic stability. Thus, LPP-treatment improves fermentation profile, reduces fermentation losses, and increases the nutritional value of WPSS.

Keywords

Chitin derivatedigestibilityL. buchneriLegume silage
Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 159 , Issue 3-4 , April 2021 , pp. 227 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. 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.)

References

AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) (2000) Official Methods of Analysis, 17th Edn. Arlington, VA, USA.Google Scholar
Briceño, AG and Martínez, R (1995) Comparison of methods for the detection and enumeration of lactic acid bacteria. Revista de la Sociedad Latinoamericana de Nutrición 45, 207–212.Google ScholarPubMed
Buxton, DR, Muck, RE and Harrison, JH (2003) Preharvest plant factors affecting ensiling. In Rooke, JA and Hatfield, RD (eds), Chapter 5: Biochemistry of ensiling, volume 42. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, pp. 199–250.Google Scholar
Casali, AO, Detmann, E, Valadares Filho, SC, Pereira, JC, Henriques, LT, de 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. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 37, 335–342.Google Scholar
Casquete, R, Castro, SM and Teixeira, P (2016) Evaluation of the combined effect of chitosan and lactic acid bacteria in alheira (fermented meat sausage) paste. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 41, e12866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffey, KP, Granade, GV, Moyer, JL, Anderson, DC and Bush, LJ (1995) In vitro digestibility and preference by sheep for silages made from whole-plant soybeans. The Professional Animal Scientist 11, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, JLP, Weiß, K, Custódio, L, Neto, AS, Santos, MC, Zopollatto, M and Nussio, LG (2013) Occurrence of volatile organic compounds in sugarcane silages. Animal Feed Science and Technology 185, 101–105.10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.06.011CrossRefGoogle 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
Driehuis, F and Wikselaar, PG (2000) The occurrence and prevention of ethanol fermentation in high-dry-matter grass silage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 80, 711–718.3.0.CO;2-6>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Filya, I (2003) The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, with or without homofermentative lactic acid bacteria, on the fermentation, aerobic stability and ruminal degradability of wheat, sorghum and maize silages. Journal of Applied Microbiology 95, 1080–1086.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, 44–52.10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.02.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gandra, JR, Takiya, CS, Del Valle, TA, Oliveira, ER, de Goes, RHTB, Gandra, ERS, Batista, JDO and Araki, HMC (2018) Soybean whole-plant ensiled with chitosan and lactic acid bacteria: microorganism counts, fermentative profile, and total losses. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 7871–7880.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goy, RC, Brito, D and Assis, OBG (2009) A review of the antimicrobial activity of chitosan. Polymerous 19, 241–247.Google Scholar
Holden, LA (1999) Comparison of methods of in vitro matter digestibility for ten feeds. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 1791–1794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jatkauskas, J and Vrotniakiene, V (2011) The effects of silage inoculants on the fermentation and aerobic stability of legume-grass silage. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 98, 367‒374.Google Scholar
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 Jr (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, 4005–4013.10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72444-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kong, M, Chen, XG, Xing, K and Park, HJ (2010) Antimicrobial properties and mode of action: a state of the art review. International Journal of Food Microbiology 144, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kung, L Jr, Smith, ML, da Silva, EB, Windle, MC, Silva, TC and Polukis, SA (2018) An evaluation of the effectiveness of a chemical additive based on sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, and sodium nitrite on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 5949–5960.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maulfair, DD, Fustini, M and Heinrichs, AJ (2011) Effect of varying total mixed ration particle size on rumen digesta and fecal particle size and digestibility in lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 3527–3536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Muck, RE (2010) Silage microbiology and its control through additives. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 39, 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mustafa, AF and Seguin, P (2003) Characteristics and in situ degradability of whole crop faba bean, pea, and soybean silages. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 84, 737–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ni, K, Wang, F, Zhu, B, Yang, J, Zhou, G, Pan, Y, Tao, Y and Zhong, J (2017) Effects of lactic acid bacteria and molasses additives on the microbial community and fermentation quality of soybean silage. Bioresource Technology 238, 706–715.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, 125–132.10.1128/AEM.67.1.125-132.2001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pahlow, G, Muck, RE, Driehuis, F, Oude-Elferink, SJWH and Spoelstra, SF (2003) Microbiology of ensiling. In Buxton, DR, Muck, RE and Harrison, JH (eds), Silage Science and Technology. Madison, WI, USA: American Society of Agronomy, pp. 31–93.Google Scholar
Parra, CS, Bolson, DC, Jacovaci, FA, Nussio, LG, Jobim, CC and Daniel, JLP (2019) Influence of soybean-crop proportion on the conservation of maize-soybean bi-crop silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 257, 114295.10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.114295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Playne, MJ and McDonald, P (1966). The buffering constituents of herbage and of silage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 17, 264–268.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
Rabie, CJ, Liibben, A, Marais, GJ and Jansen van Vuuren, H (1997) Enumeration of fungi in barley. International Journal of Food Microbiology 35, 117–127.10.1016/S0168-1605(96)01210-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roe, MB, Sniffen, CJ and Chase, LE (1990) Techniques for measuring protein fractions in feedstuffs. Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Proceedings of Cornell Nutrition Conference, pp. 81–88.Google Scholar
Rooke, JA and Hatfield, RD (2003) Biochemistry of ensiling. In Buxton, DR, Muck, RE and Harrison, JH (eds), Silage Science and Technology. Madison: American Society of Agronomy; Crop Science Society of America; Soil Science Society of America, pp. 251–304.Google Scholar
Schmidt, RJ, Hu, W, Mills, JA and Kung, L Jr (2009) The development of lactic acid bacteria and Lactobacillus buchneri and their effects on the fermentation of alfalfa silage. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5005–5010.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Senel, S and McClure, SJ (2004) Potential applications of chitosan in veterinary medicine. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 56, 1467–1480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sniffen, CJ, O'Connor, JD, Van Soest, PJ, Fox, DG and Russell, JB (1992) A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. Journal of Animal Science 70, 3562–3577.10.2527/1992.70113562xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tilley, JMA and Terry, RA (1963) A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass and Forage Science 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Sniffen, CJ, Mertens, DR, Fox, DG, Robinson, PH and Krishnamoorthy, UC (1981) A net protein system for cattle: the rumen submodel for nitrogen. In: Owens FN. Proceedings of International Symposium (MP109-P), Stillwater, USA, p. 265.Google Scholar
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
Weinberg, ZG and Muck, RE (1996) New trends and opportunities in the development and use of inoculants for silage. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 19, 53–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, ZG, Ashbell, G, Hen, Y and Azrieli, A (1993) The effect of applying lactic acid bacteria at ensiling on the aerobic stability of silages. Journal of Applied Microbiology 75, 512–518.Google Scholar
Weinberg, ZG, Ashbell, G and Hen, Y (1999) The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri and L. plantarum, applied at ensiling, on the ensiling fermentation and aerobic stability of wheat and sorghum silages. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology 23, 218–222.10.1038/sj.jim.2900726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissbach, F and Honig, H (1996) Über die vorhersage und steuer-ung des gärungsverlaufs bei der silierung von grünfutter aus ex-tensivem anbau. Landbauforsch Völkenrode 1, 10–17.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, JM (2005) Assessing silage quality. In Wilkinson, JM (ed). Chapter 19: Analysis and Clinical Assessment of Silage. Southampton, UK: Silage, Chalcombe Publications, pp. 198–208.Google Scholar