| Literature DB >> 25049776 |
Ho Thanh Tham1, Ngo Van Man1, Thomas Pauly1.
Abstract
A lab-scale ensiling study was carried out to investigate the fermentation quality of water hyacinth (WH) supplemented with molasses, rice bran, as an absorbent, and an inoculant in the form of fermented vegetable juice and their combinations. After wilting the water hyacinths for 7 h to a dry matter (DM) content of 240 to 250 g/kg, the following treatments were applied: i) Control (C), WH only; ii) WH with sugarcane molasses at 40 g/kg WH (CM); iii) WH inoculated with fermented vegetable juice at 10 ml/kg WH (CI); iv) CM and CI (CMI) combined; v) WH with 150 g rice bran/kg WH (CA); vi) CA and CI combined (CAI); vii) CA and CM combined (CAM); and viii) CA, CM and CI combined (CAMI). After application of additives, the differently treated forages were mixed and ensiled in triplicates in 1,500-ml polyethylene jars. After ensiling for 3 d, pH values in all treatments, except C and CI, had decreased to approximately 4.0 and remained low till 14 d. After 56 d, pH had increased between 0.4 to 0.9 pH-units compared to those at 14 d. The ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) concentration ranged from an acceptable level in treatment CM (8 g/kg N) to a high NH3-N value in treatment CMI (16 g/kg N). Lactic acid formation was higher in CI than in all other treatments. Butyric acid contents, which indicate badly fermented silages, were low in all silages (<2 g/kg DM). There were two-way interactions (p-values from <0.001 to 0.045) for almost all fermentation end-products and pH, except for the molasses×inoculant interaction on NH3-N (p = 0.26). Significant 3-way interactions were found on all observed variables except for weight losses of silages. It is concluded that conserving wilted WH as silage for ruminants may be improved by the addition of molasses or rice bran.Entities:
Keywords: Inoculant; Molasses; Rice Bran; Silage; Water Hyacinth
Year: 2013 PMID: 25049776 PMCID: PMC4093161 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2012.12378
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Dry matter and chemical composition (g/kg DM) of the wilted water hyacinth, rice bran and sugarcane molasses (n = 3)
| Item | Water hyacinth
| Rice bran
| Sugarcane molasses
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
| Dry matter | 244 | 0.83 | 920 | 1.26 | 814 | 4.22 |
| Crude protein | 155 | 0.61 | 82 | 0.52 | 33 | 0.91 |
| Ash | 165 | 1.45 | 117 | 0.27 | 64 | 0.47 |
| ADFom | 364 | 1.66 | 337 | 1.20 | nd | nd |
| NDFom | 622 | 3.81 | 479 | 22.1 | nd | nd |
| WSC | 4.3 | - | nd | nd | nd | nd |
ADFom = Acid detergent fibre; NDFom = Neutral detergent fibre; WSC = Water soluble carbohydrates; nd = Not determined.
Dry matter (DM) and concentrations (g/kg DM) of water soluble carbohydrates (WSC), crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fibre (NDFom) and ash of water hyacinth (WH) silages after ensiling for 56 d (n = 3)
| Treatments | SEM | p | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||
| C | CM | CI | CMI | CA | CAI | CAM | CAMI | |||
| DM | 242 | 258 | 234 | 252 | 301 | 306 | 334 | 318 | 0.57 | <0.001 |
| WSC | 0.7 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 5.4 | 6.9 | 12.1 | 11.4 | 0.52 | <0.001 |
| CP | 157 | 164 | 156 | 156 | 139 | 136 | 135 | 139 | 1.82 | <0.001 |
| NDFom | 587 | 500 | 584 | 520 | 557 | 549 | 529 | 522 | 3.04 | <0.001 |
| Ash | 180 | 164 | 178 | 174 | 153 | 160 | 152 | 152 | 2.36 | <0.001 |
C = WH only (Control); CM = C+40 g sugarcane molasses/kg WH; CI = C+10 ml inoculant/kg WH; CMI = CM+CI; CA = C+150 g rice bran/kg WH; CAI = CA+CI; CAM = CA+CM; CAMI = CA+CM+CI.
SEM = Standard error of means.
Means within rows with different letters differ (p<0.05).
Fermentation end-product concentrations, pH and weight losses in water hyacinth (WH) silages after 56 days of ensiling (g/kg DM or as otherwise stated) after addition of molasses (M), absorbent (A), inoculants (I) or combinations
| Item | Treatments | SEM | p | p
| |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | CM | CI | CMI | CA | CAI | CAM | CAMI | M | A | I | M×A | M×I | A×I | M×A×I | |||
| Lactic acid | 10.9 | 21.1 | 95.4 | 11.7 | 60.4 | 69.2 | 44.9 | 40.2 | 0.06 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Acetic acid | 1.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.03 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.005 | <0.001 | 0.653 |
| Propionic acid | 0.4 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.02 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.015 | <0.001 |
| Butyric acid | 0.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 0.02 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Ethanol | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.01 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.006 | <0.001 |
| pH | 5.4 | 4.9 | 5.2 | 4.6 | 4.9 | 4.7 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 0.02 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.001 | <0.001 | 0.045 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| NH3-N (g/kg N) | 15.2 | 8.4 | 14.4 | 15.6 | 11.2 | 13.4 | 14.7 | 10.9 | 0.55 | <0.001 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.007 | 0.001 | 0.259 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Weight loss | 39.8 | 35.0 | 42.0 | 45.2 | 26.1 | 22.4 | 18.2 | 21.0 | 2.45 | <0.001 | 0.135 | <0.001 | 0.115 | 0.281 | 0.054 | 0.075 | 0.84 |
C = WH only (control); CM = C+40 g sugarcane molasses/kg WH; CI = C+10 ml inoculant/kg WH; CMI = CM+CI; CA = C+150 g rice bran/kg WH; CAI = CA+CI; CAM = CA+CM; CAMI = CA+CM+CI.
SEM = Standard error of means.
Means within rows with different letters differ (p<0.05).
Figure 1Changes in pH during ensilage of water hyacinth (WH). C = WH only (control); CM = C+40 g sugarcane molasses/kg WH; CI = C+10 ml inoculant/kg WH; CMI = CM+CI; CA = C+150 g rice bran/kg WH; CAI = CA+CI; CAM = CA+CM; CAMI = CA+CM+CI.