| Literature DB >> 34149665 |
Francesco Ferrero1, Ernesto Tabacco1, Giorgio Borreani1.
Abstract
Heterofermentative Lentilactobacillus hilgardii isolated from sugarcane silage, has recently been proposed as a silage inoculant to increase aerobic stability. Various conditions can influence the activity of LAB and their ability to alter silage quality (e.g., DM content and length of conservation). The aim of this study has been to evaluate the effect of L. hilgardii on the fermentation quality and aerobic stability of whole crop corn silage with different DM contents (from 26 to 45%), conserved for various conservation lengths (13-272 days). The silages were analyzed for their DM content, pH, fermentative profile, microbial count, and aerobic stability. L. hilgardii showed a positive effect on improving the aerobic stability of silages, due its ability to produce acetic acid, and reduced the yeast count. The acetic acid content increased as the conservation period increased and decreased as the DM content increased. The yeast count was reduced during conservation in a DM dependent manner and the inoculation with LH determined a reduction in the count of 0.48 log cfu/g. The aerobic stability increased as the conservation period increased, and the treatment with LH on average increased the aerobic stability by 19 h. The results of this experiment suggest that higher aerobic stability could be achieved in corn silages by ensiling at medium or low DM contents, or by increasing the length of conservation if a higher DM content at ensiling is needed. The inoculation with LH helps to improve the aerobic stability of corn silages by reducing the yeast count.Entities:
Keywords: aerobic stability; conservation time; dry matter; inocula; yeast count
Year: 2021 PMID: 34149665 PMCID: PMC8208169 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.675563
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Chemical and microbial characteristics of corn silages at ensiling.
| Items | Mean | Min | Max | |
| DM (%) | 34.7 | 5.81 | 25.2 | 45.1 |
| pH | 5.72 | 0.34 | 5.54 | 6.03 |
| NO3 (mg/kg DM) | <100 | 61 | <100 | 156 |
| aw | 0.992 | 0.006 | 0.981 | 0.999 |
| Buffering capacity (meq/kg DM) | 44 | 15 | 23 | 69 |
| Yeast (log cfu/g) | 6.72 | 0.27 | 6.03 | 7.37 |
| Mold (log cfu/g) | 5.40 | 0.48 | 4.54 | 6.65 |
| Lactic acid bacteria (log cfu/g) | 7.76 | 0.76 | 5.63 | 8.74 |
| Crude protein (% DM) | 7.1 | 0.86 | 5.8 | 8.3 |
| Ash (% DM) | 4.5 | 0.90 | 2.8 | 5.7 |
| Starch (% DM) | 30.5 | 4.20 | 21.7 | 37.2 |
| NDF (% DM) | 40.2 | 4.20 | 32.0 | 48.8 |
| ADF (% DM) | 20.3 | 2.96 | 14.9 | 25.7 |
| Hemicellulose (% DM) | 19.9 | 1.38 | 17.0 | 23.2 |
| ADL (% DM) | 4.1 | 0.49 | 2.9 | 5.0 |
Pearson correlation coefficients of chemical and microbiological characteristics of corn silages (n = 150).
| DAY | DM | pH | LA | AA | ET | 1,2-PD | Yeast | Mold | LAB | AS | NDF | ADF | HEM | ASH | CP | STARCH | |
| DM | –0.122 | ||||||||||||||||
| pH | −0.540*** | 0.143 | |||||||||||||||
| LA | 0.654*** | −0.751*** | −0.418*** | ||||||||||||||
| AA | 0.718*** | −0.573*** | −0.393*** | 0.771*** | |||||||||||||
| ET | –0.073 | 0.220* | 0.212* | –0.122 | –0.116 | ||||||||||||
| 1,2-PD | 0.439*** | 0.021 | −0.280** | 0.128 | 0.592*** | –0.013 | |||||||||||
| Yeast | −0.691*** | 0.551*** | 0.423*** | −0.783*** | −0.801*** | 0.139 | −0.410*** | ||||||||||
| Mold | −0.296** | 0.339*** | 0.186* | −0.392*** | −0.388*** | 0.082 | –0.156 | 0.392*** | |||||||||
| LAB | −0.687*** | –0.093 | 0.515*** | −0.412*** | −0.337*** | –0.000 | –0.100 | 0.342*** | 0.134 | ||||||||
| AS | 0.600*** | −0.345*** | −0.254* | 0.624*** | 0.598*** | –0.063 | 0.293** | −0.737*** | −0.269** | −0.398*** | |||||||
| NDF | −0.331*** | −0.707*** | 0.101 | 0.272* | 0.218* | –0.050 | –0.123 | –0.055 | −0.185* | 0.348*** | –0.133 | ||||||
| ADF | −0.214* | −0.764*** | –0.018 | 0.383*** | 0.291** | –0.020 | –0.0915 | –0.1565 | –0.158 | 0.262* | 0.008 | 0.953*** | |||||
| HEM | −0.431*** | −0.545*** | 0.234* | 0.100 | 0.100 | –0.082 | –0.146 | 0.076 | −0.194* | 0.410*** | −0.291** | 0.927*** | 0.771*** | ||||
| ASH | 0.127 | −0.745*** | –0.108 | 0.569*** | 0.598*** | −0.293** | 0.124 | −0.473*** | −0.368*** | –0.019 | 0.141 | 0.690*** | 0.602*** | 0.709*** | |||
| CP | 0.288** | −0.575*** | −0.266* | 0.558*** | 0.634*** | −0.374*** | 0.231* | −0.477*** | −0.369*** | −0.188* | 0.178* | 0.525*** | 0.455*** | 0.543*** | 0.888*** | ||
| STARCH | 0.091 | 0.844*** | 0.167 | −0.512*** | −0.406*** | 0.195* | 0.060 | 0.321*** | 0.219* | –0.154 | –0.139 | −0.862*** | −0.923*** | −0.675*** | −0.717*** | −0.591*** | |
| LOSSES | 0.470*** | 0.403*** | −0.347*** | 0.027 | 0.171 | 0.374*** | 0.400*** | –0.153 | 0.122 | −0.401*** | 0.242* | −0.478*** | −0.319*** | −0.612*** | −0.445*** | −0.291** | 0.325*** |
Chemical, fermentative and microbiological characteristics of corn silages as affected by inoculum.
| Items | CONT | LH | SEM | |
| DM (%) | 36.4 | 36.2 | 0.438 | 0.718 |
| pH | 3.76 | 3.77 | 0.006 | 0.297 |
| Lactic acid (g/kg DM) | 49.7 | 49.6 | 1.070 | 0.991 |
| Acetic acid (g/kg DM) | 11.9 | 13.7 | 0.377 | 0.013 |
| Lactic-to-acetic ratio | 4.3 | 3.8 | 0.060 | <0.001 |
| Ethanol (g/kg DM) | 11.8 | 12.3 | 0.313 | 0.413 |
| 1,2-Propanediol (g/kg DM) | 0.1 | 1.3 | 0.127 | <0.001 |
| Yeast (log cfu/g) | 3.35 | 2.83 | 0.114 | 0.021 |
| Mold (log cfu/g) | <1.00 | <1.00 | – | – |
| LAB (log cfu/g) | 7.43 | 7.88 | 0.075 | 0.002 |
| Aerobic stability (h) | 96 | 116 | 5.005 | 0.044 |
| DM losses (%) | 2.21 | 2.35 | 0.047 | 0.129 |
| Crude protein (% DM) | 7.5 | 7.6 | 0.082 | 0.797 |
| Ash (% DM) | 4.6 | 4.8 | 0.096 | 0.290 |
| Starch (% DM) | 34.0 | 33.7 | 0.327 | 0.729 |
| NDF (% DM) | 38.0 | 38.7 | 0.361 | 0.318 |
| ADF (% DM) | 19.8 | 20.2 | 0.212 | 0.367 |
| Hemicellulose (% DM) | 18.2 | 18.5 | 0.171 | 0.324 |
Chemical, fermentative and microbiological characteristics of corn silages as affected by DM content.
| Items | Low DM <33% | Medium DM 33–38% | High DM >38% | SEM | |
| DM (%) | 29.4c | 36.2b | 42.4a | 0.438 | <0.001 |
| pH | 3.75 | 3.77 | 3.76 | 0.006 | 0.223 |
| Lactic acid (g/kg DM) | 61.5a | 49.1b | 39.9c | 1.070 | <0.001 |
| Acetic acid (g/kg DM) | 15.8a | 13.6b | 9.2c | 0.377 | <0.001 |
| Lactic-to-acetic ratio | 4.0b | 3.8b | 4.5a | 0.060 | <0.001 |
| Ethanol (g/kg DM) | 10.9b | 10.7b | 14.8a | 0.313 | <0.001 |
| 1,2-Propanediol (g/kg DM) | 0.57 | 0.95 | 0.54 | 0.127 | 0.316 |
| Yeast (log cfu/g) | 2.17c | 2.88b | 4.15a | 0.114 | <0.001 |
| Mold (log cfu/g) | <1.00 | <1.00 | 1.39 | – | – |
| LAB (log cfu/g) | 7.94a | 7.66ab | 7.39b | 0.075 | 0.018 |
| Aerobic stability (h) | 141a | 97b | 85b | 5.005 | <0.001 |
| DM losses (%) | 2.09b | 2.09b | 2.68a | 0.047 | <0.001 |
| Crude protein (% DM) | 8.0a | 8.0a | 6.2b | 0.082 | <0.001 |
| Ash (% DM) | 5.3a | 5.1a | 2.9b | 0.096 | <0.001 |
| Starch (% DM) | 29.9c | 34.6b | 37.8a | 0.327 | <0.001 |
| NDF (% DM) | 41.6a | 38.3b | 33.9c | 0.361 | <0.001 |
| ADF (% DM) | 22.4a | 19.4b | 17.8c | 0.212 | <0.001 |
| Hemicellulose (% DM) | 19.3a | 18.9a | 16.1b | 0.171 | <0.001 |
Chemical, fermentative and microbiological characteristics of corn silages as affected by time of conservation.
| Items | Very short <15 days | Short 15–30 days | Medium 31–120 days | Long >120 days | SEM | |
| DM (%) | 35.6 | 37.2 | 36.6 | 35.3 | 0.438 | 0.419 |
| pH | 3.82a | 3.78b | 3.73c | 3.71c | 0.006 | <0.001 |
| Lactic acid (g/kg DM) | 41.2c | 44.5c | 51.8b | 63.9a | 1.070 | <0.001 |
| Acetic acid (g/kg DM) | 9.4c | 10.7c | 13.9b | 18.0a | 0.377 | <0.001 |
| Lactic-to-acetic ratio | 4.5a | 4.3a | 3.8b | 3.7b | 0.060 | <0.001 |
| Ethanol (g/kg DM) | 11.0b | 11.8ab | 12.1ab | 13.8a | 0.313 | 0.030 |
| 1,2-Propanediol (g/kg DM) | 0.11c | 0.23bc | 1.04ab | 1.73a | 0.127 | <0.001 |
| Yeast (log cfu/g) | 4.08a | 3.44ab | 2.90b | 1.68c | 0.114 | <0.001 |
| Mold (log cfu/g) | 1.45 | 1.09 | <1.00 | <1.00 | – | – |
| LAB (log cfu/g) | 8.41a | 8.19a | 7.16b | 6.72c | 0.075 | <0.001 |
| Aerobic stability (h) | 62a | 87a | 125b | 159c | 5.005 | <0.001 |
| DM losses (%) | 1.95c | 2.05c | 2.41b | 2.84a | 0.047 | <0.001 |
| Crude protein (% DM) | 7.2b | 7.5b | 7.6ab | 8.1a | 0.082 | 0.025 |
| Ash (% DM) | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 5.0 | 0.096 | 0.389 |
| Starch (% DM) | 33.9 | 33.5 | 33.9 | 34.1 | 0.327 | 0.906 |
| NDF (% DM) | 39.9a | 38.6ab | 38.2ab | 36.2b | 0.361 | 0.006 |
| ADF (% DM) | 20.7 | 19.9 | 19.9 | 19.3 | 0.212 | 0.176 |
| Hemicellulose (% DM) | 19.3a | 18.7a | 18.2a | 16.9b | 0.171 | <0.001 |
Regression models of acetic acid, yeast count, and aerobic stability on days of conservation, dry matter content and treatment with L. hilgardii as independent variables.
| Model | RMSE | Adjusted | ||
| Acetic acid (g/kg DM) | y = 16.81 + 0.06012 × DAY – 0.0071 × DM2 + 1.731 × TREAT | 2.074 | 0.798 | <0.001 |
| Yeast (log cfu/g) | y = 1.478 – 0.0084 × DAY + 0.0023 × DM2 – 0.4812 × TREAT | 0.775 | 0.691 | <0.001 |
| Aerobic stability (h) | y = 202.3 + 0.3658 × DAY – 3.956 × DM + 18.85 × TREAT | 44.9 | 0.462 | <0.001 |
FIGURE 1The acetic acid content as affected by treatment with Lentilactobacillus hilgardii, DM content and days of conservation.
FIGURE 3The aerobic stability as affected by treatment with Lentilactobacillus hilgardii, DM content and days of conservation.