| Literature DB >> 31208184 |
Tingting Jia1, Zhiqiang Sun1, Run Gao1, Zhu Yu1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Information regarding the vitamin content of silage is limited. This study investigated the changes in the vitamin content of alfalfa and Chinese leymus silages with or without a lactic acid bacterial inoculant.Entities:
Keywords: Alfalfa Silage; Chinese Leymus Silage; Lactobacillus Inoculants; Vitamin
Year: 2019 PMID: 31208184 PMCID: PMC6819681 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.19.0135
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Chemical composition and vitamin content of alfalfa and Chinese leymus prior to treatment and ensiling
| Items | Forage | SEM | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Alfalfa | Chinese leymus | |||
| Dry matter (g/kg) | 358.2±5.65 | 450.1±0.71 | 5.70 | <0.001 |
| Buffering capacity (mEq/kg DM) | 947.4±73.2 | 296.0±6.70 | 73.5 | <0.001 |
| Chemical composition (g/kg DM) | ||||
| Neutral detergent fiber | 374.2±4.39 | 630.8±8.02 | 9.14 | 0.001 |
| Acid detergent fiber | 269.9±1.52 | 324.3±3.94 | 3.53 | <0.001 |
| Hemicellulose | 105.6±5.76 | 296.6±1.97 | 6.09 | 0.001 |
| Crude protein | 229.0±0.73 | 67.1±0.34 | 0.81 | <0.001 |
| Water-soluble carbohydrates | 37.30±1.07 | 81.3±0.02 | 1.07 | <0.001 |
| Vitamins content (mg/kg DM) | ||||
| Thiamin | 8.858±0.28 | 5.317±0.19 | 0.33 | <0.001 |
| Riboflavin | 90.35±1.10 | 28.90±0.93 | 1.44 | <0.001 |
| Niacin | 1.950±0.11 | 0.967±0.06 | 0.12 | 0.001 |
| Pantothenic acid | 31.82±0.39 | 10.18±0.33 | 0.51 | <0.001 |
| Pyridoxine | 2.688±0.10 | 2.082±0.09 | 0.13 | <0.01 |
| α-Tocopherol | 205.9±5.79 | 107.0±3.34 | 7.88 | <0.01 |
DM, dry matter; SEM, Standard error of means.
Fermentation characteristics of alfalfa and Chinese leymus silages
| Items | Treatment | SEM | Significance | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| Control | LP | F | T | F× T | ||
| pH value | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 5.22aA±0.02 | 4.82bA±0.05 | 0.018 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.012 |
| Chinese leymus | 4.20aB±0.04 | 4.04bB±0.00 | ||||
| Lactic acid (g/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 67.0bA±1.64 | 79.9aA±1.40 | 0.706 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.030 |
| Chinese leymus | 36.3bB±0.33 | 41.3aB±0.60 | ||||
| Acetic acid (g/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 21.7bA±0.05 | 26.2aA±0.20 | 0.478 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.194 |
| Chinese leymus | 6.37bB±1.29 | 13.6aB±1.08 | ||||
| Propionic acid (g/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 11.7a±0.36 | 3.89bB±0.34 | 0.170 | 0.002 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Chinese leymus | 10.8a±0.27 | 8.75bA±0.23 | ||||
| Butyric acid (g/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 0.84A±0.06 | 0.79A±0.00 | 0.012 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Chinese leymus | 0.55aB±0.01 | 0.11bB±0.01 | ||||
| Lactic acid:acetic acid ratio | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 3.08B±0.08 | 3.05±0.07 | 0.106 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Chinese leymus | 7.14aA±0.20 | 3.01b±0.43 | ||||
| Ammonia nitrogen (g/kg TN) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 165.9aA±3.62 | 120.2bA±3.84 | 1.428 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Chinese leymus | 23.4B±1.87 | 18.7B±0.63 | ||||
| Flieg’s point | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 68.2bB±0.48 | 83.9aA±2.62 | 0.823 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.032 |
| Chinese leymus | 129.5bA±1.14 | 136.4aB±0.30 | ||||
LP, Lactobacillus plantarum inoculant; SEM, standard error of means; DM, dry matter; TN, total nitrogen.
F, forage type; T, treatment; F×T, interaction between forage type and treatment.
Means within the same row (a,b) or within the same column (A,B) with difference superscripts differ significantly from each other (p<0.05).
Chemical compositions of alfalfa and Chinese leymus silages
| Items | Treatment | SEM | Significance | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| Control | LP | F | T | F×T | ||
| DM (g/kg) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 359.9B±2.35 | 359.8B±5.03 | 1.169 | <0.001 | 0.787 | 0.737 |
| Chinese leymus | 462.2A±1.62 | 463.7A±0.47 | ||||
| WSC (g/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 7.80B±0.35 | 6.64B±0.70 | 0.500 | <0.001 | 0.078 | 0.396 |
| Chinese leymus | 14.7A±1.58 | 11.73A±0.01 | ||||
| CP (g/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 219.4bA±0.23 | 226.1aA±2.71 | 0.542 | <0.001 | 0.028 | <0.001 |
| Chinese leymus | 67.1B±0.79 | 66.6B±0.34 | ||||
| NDF (g/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 364.0B±5.93 | 354.5B±8.38 | 3.673 | <0.001 | 0.143 | 0.749 |
| Chinese leymus | 604.5A±5.43 | 590.1A±9.00 | ||||
| ADF (g/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 279.1A±3.53 | 269.1B±5.96 | 1.975 | <0.001 | 0.048 | 0.901 |
| Chinese leymus | 316.3aA±0.57 | 307.4bA±0.70 | ||||
| HC (g/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 84.90B±3.80 | 85.35B±2.98 | 1.970 | <0.001 | 0.849 | 0.777 |
| Chinese leymus | 288.1A±5.09 | 285.8A±6.18 | ||||
LP, Lactobacillus plantarum inoculant; SEM, standard error of means; DM, dry matter; WSC, water-soluble carbohydrate; CP, crude protein; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADF, acid detergent fiber; HC, hemicellulose.
F, forage type; T, treatment; F×T, interaction between forage type and treatment.
Means within the same row (a,b) or within the same column (A,B) with difference superscripts differ significantly from each other (p<0.05).
Vitamin concentrations of alfalfa and Chinese leymus silages
| Items | Treatment | SEM | Significance | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| Control | LP | F | T | F×T | ||
| Thiamin (mg/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 2.475a±0.04 | 1.663bB±0.09 | 0.044 | 0.012 | <0.001 | 0.006 |
| Chinese leymus | 2.438a±0.08 | 2.158bA±0.06 | ||||
| Riboflavin (mg/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 52.21aA±0.55 | 42.53bA±0.15 | 0.162 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Chinese leymus | 11.50aB±0.44 | 10.09bB±0.09 | ||||
| Niacin (mg/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 0.743aA±0.03 | 0.558bA±0.03 | 0.017 | <0.001 | 0.001 | 0.396 |
| Chinese leymus | 0.340aB±0.05 | 0.093bB±0.02 | ||||
| Pantothenic acid (mg/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 18.38aA±0.40 | 14.89bA±0.07 | 0.109 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| Chinese leymus | 4.043aB±0.15 | 3.425bB±0.04 | ||||
| Pyridoxine (mg/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 1.140A±0.12 | 1.108A±0.06 | 0.027 | <0.001 | 0.952 | 0.613 |
| Chinese leymus | 0.700B±0.02 | 0.725B±0.02 | ||||
| α-Tocopherol (mg/kg DM) | ||||||
| Alfalfa | 142.6b±6.96 | 189.4a±8.94 | 3.926 | 0.591 | 0.030 | 0.020 |
| Chinese leymus | 162.8±7.38 | 160.4±2.02 | ||||
LP, Lactobacillus plantarum inoculant; SEM, standard error of means; DM, dry matter.
F, forage type; T, treatment; F×T, interaction between forage type and treatment.
Means within the same row (a–c) or within the same column (A–B) with difference superscripts differ significantly from each other (p<0.05).