| Literature DB >> 25049981 |
S M Amanullah1, D H Kim2, H J Lee2, Y H Joo2, S B Kim3, S C Kim2.
Abstract
This study examined the effects of bacterial inoculants on chemical composition and fermentation indices of barley silage. Barley forage (Youngyang) was harvested at 24% dry matter (DM) and wilted to 47.9% DM. The wilted barley forage was chopped to 3-5 cm length and applied with no inoculant (CON), L. plantarum (1×10(10) cfu/g, LP) or Effective Microorganisms (0.5×10(9) cfu/g, EM). Then the forages were ensiled in four replications for each treatment in 20 L mini silos and stored for 100 days. The contents of crude protein and ether extract were higher in CON silage ensiled for 100-d, while the contents of DM and crude ash were higher in EM silage (p<0.05). The contents of ADF, NDF and hemicellulose as well as the in vitro DM digestibility were not affected by microbial inoculation (p>0.05). The pH, ammonia-N concentration and lactate to acetate ratio were higher (p<0.05) in CON silage, while lactate concentrations were higher (p<0.05) in CON and LP silage. Acetate concentration and lactic acid bacteria was increased (p<0.05) by both inoculants (LP and EM), but propionate concentration and yeast was increased (p<0.05) by EM and LP, respectively. These results indicated that the fermentation quality of barley silage was improved by the application of bacterial inoculants.Entities:
Keywords: Aerobic Stability; Bacterial Inoculant; Barley Silage; Fermentation Indices
Year: 2014 PMID: 25049981 PMCID: PMC4093519 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2013.13617
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Chemical composition of barley forage (Youngyang) before ensiling (%, DM)
| Barley forage | |
|---|---|
| Dry matter | 47.9 |
| Crude protein | 7.23 |
| Ether extract | 2.32 |
| Crude ash | 8.21 |
| Neutral detergent fiber | 57.4 |
| Acid detergent fiber | 34.8 |
| Hemicellulose | 22.6 |
Effects of microbial additives on chemical composition and in vitro dry matter digestibility of barley silage (Youngyang) ensiled for 100 d (%, DM)
| Item | Treatment | SEM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| CON | LP | EM | ||
| Dry matter | 43.1 | 43.5 | 46.2 | 0.694 |
| Crude protein | 8.72 | 8.28 | 8.03 | 0.185 |
| Ether extract | 4.08 | 3.04 | 3.18 | 0.137 |
| Crude ash | 7.70 | 7.94 | 8.43 | 0.105 |
| Neutral detergent fiber | 57.3 | 57.5 | 58.9 | 1.675 |
| Acid detergent fiber | 35.6 | 37.2 | 37.7 | 1.435 |
| Hemicellulose | 21.7 | 20.3 | 21.2 | 0.546 |
| 41.4 | 41.7 | 40.0 | 1.797 | |
CON = No additive; LP = L. plantarum (2×1010 cfu/g) with barley forage; EM = Effective microorganisms (0.5×109 cfu/g) with barley forage.
Means in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05).
Effect of microbial additives on fermentation characteristics of barley silage (Youngyang) ensiled for 100 d (% of DM or as stated)
| Item | Treatment | SEM | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| CON | LP | EM | ||
| pH | 5.15 | 4.57 | 4.72 | 0.038 |
| Ammonia-N (%) | 0.090 | 0.072 | 0.072 | 0.004 |
| Lactate (%) | 0.93 | 1.15 | 0.20 | 0.168 |
| Acetate (%) | 0.48 | 1.04 | 0.92 | 0.124 |
| Propionate (%) | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.64 | 0.025 |
| Buytrate (%) | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.22 | 0.017 |
| Lactate/acetate ratio | 1.94 | 1.11 | 0.22 | 0.171 |
CON = No additive; LP = L. plantarum (2×1010 cfu/g) with barley forage; EM = Effective microorganisms (0.5×109 cfu/g) with barley forage.
Means in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05).
Effect of microbial additives on aerobic stability and microbial counts of barley silage (Youngyang) ensiled for 100 d
| Treatment | SEM | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| CON | LP | EM | ||
| Aerobic stability (h) | 75.7 | 76.4 | 76.0 | 0.955 |
| Yeast (log10 cfu/g) | 5.43 | 5.73 | 5.23 | 0.163 |
| Mold (log10 cfu/g) | 5.20 | 5.05 | 4.48 | 0.309 |
| Lactic acid bacteria (log10 cfu/g) | 3.52 | 4.13 | 4.10 | 0.122 |
CON = No additive; LP = L. plantarum (2×1010 cfu/g) with barley forage; EM = Effective microorganisms (0.5×109 cfu/g) with barley forage.
Means in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05).
Figure 1Gel electrophoresis analysis after PCR amplification of L. plantarum DNA in different silages. Lanes: M, DNA ladder/marker; Pure, pure culture of L. plantarum; CON, untreated control; LP, silage treated with L. plantarum; EM, silage treated with effective microorganism (EM); N, negative control.