Journal of Animal Production, Print ISSN: 2008-6776., Online ISSN: 2382-994X

Effect of multi enzyme and bacterial inoculant on chemical composition and in vitro fermentation parameters of ensiled wilted barely

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Asma Absalan 1
Golnaz Taasoli 2
Shahryar Kargar 3
Farshid Fatahnia 4
Zohre Kowsar 5
Alidad Boostani 6

1 Department of Animal science- Ilam University

2 University assistant professor

3 Department of Animal Science- Shiraz University

4 Ilam University

5 Department of Animal Science- Isfahan University of Technology

6 Department of Animal Science- Fars Agriculture and Natural Resources Research and Education Center

https://doi.org/10.22059/jap.2019.268120.623329
Abstract
This experiment was aimed to study the effect of multi enzyme and bacterial inoculant on chemical composition and fermentation parameters of barley silage. Robovio multi enzyme was added at three levels, 0, 500 and 1000 mg/kg of barley dry matter (DM) and Prosage bacterial inoculant (a mixture of Lactobacillus buchneri,Lactobacillus plantarum, Enterococcus faecium and Propionibacterium acidophilus) was added at three levels, 0, 5 and 10 mg/kg of silage DM. Chemical composition, in vitro gas production, protozoa population and protein fractions of experimental silages were measured. Results showed that multi enzyme addition decreased NDF (P<0.05), pH, ash, B2 and C fractions (P<0.01) and increased A and B3 fractions (P<0.01) compared to the control. Barley silage containing 5 mg bacterial inoculant had greater DM, pH and B2 fraction (P<0.01) and lower C fraction compared to the control and silage containing 10 mg of bacterial inoculant. Protozoa population, N-ammonia concentration, estimated metabolizable energy, short chain fatty acids and in vitro organic matter digestibility were not affected (P>0.05).  Based on these results use of bacterial and multi enzyme additives for the preparation of wilted barley silage is not recommended due to their costs.

Keywords

Bacterial additive
Barley silage
fermentation parameters
Multi enzyme
Protein fractions
  1. معینی‌زاده س، خادم ع ا، اسدی الموتی ع و افضل‌زاده ا (1392) اثر افزودن یونجه خشک به‌عنوان جاذب رطوبت بر کیفیت تخمیر و تولید پساب در سیلاژ. تولیدات دامی. 15: 43-31.
  2. مکاری ف، بیات کوهسار ج، قنبری ف و فلاحی ح (1396) اثر استفاده از افزودنی باکتریایی، اسید آلی و اوره بر ترکیب شیمیایی، خصوصیات تخمیری، فراسنجه‌های تولید گاز و گوارش‌پذیری علوفه سیلوشده تریتیکاله در شرایط برون‌تنی. تحقیقات تولیدات دامی. 6: 27- 13.
    1. Addah W, Baah J and McAllister TA (2016) Effects of an exogenous enzyme-containing inoculant on fermentation characteristics of barley silage and on growth performance of feedlot steers. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 96: 1-10.
    2. Addah W, Baah J, Groenewegen P, Okine EK and McAllister TA (2011) Comparison of the fermentation characteristics, aerobic stability and nutritive value of barley and corn silages ensiled with or without a mixed bacterial inoculant. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 91: 133-146.
    3. Amanullah SM, Kim DH, Lee HJ, Joo YH, Kim SB and Kim SC (2013) Effects of microbial additives on chemical composition and fermentation characteristics of barley silage. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science 4: 511-517.Menke KH and Steingass H (1988) Estimation of energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro production using rumen fluid.  Journal of Animal Research and Development 28: 7-55.
      1. AOAC (2000) Association of official analytical chemists. Official Methods of Analysis. 17th ed., Arlington. VA.
      2. Ashbell G and Weinberg  ZG (1992) Top silage losses in horizontal silos. Canadian Agriculture Engineering 34: 171-175.
      3. Blummel M, Karsli A and Russell J R (2003) Influence of diet on growth yields of rumen micro-organisms in vitro and in vivo: influence on growth yield of variable carbon fluxes to fermentation products. British Journal of Nutrition 90: 625-634.
      4. Broderick GA and Kang JH (1980) Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. Journal of Dairy Science 63:64-75.
      5. 10-Buxton DR, Muck RE and Harrison JH (2003) Silage science and technology. American society of  agronomy, Inc. Crop science society of America, Inc. Soil science society of America, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
      6. Dehority BA (2003) Rumen Microbiology. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data.
      7. Donmez N,. Karsl MA, Cınar A, Aksu T and Baytok E (2003) The effects of different silage additives on rumen protozoan number and volatile fatty acid concentration in sheep fed corn silage. Small Ruminant Research 48: 227–231.
      8. Keles G, Coskun B, İnal F,. Alatas MS and Ates S (2014) Conservation characteristics and protein fractions of cereal silages ensiled with additives at the booting and dough stages of maturity. Turkish Journal of Veterinary Animal Science 38: 285-294.
      9. Kung L, Carmean BR and Tung S (1989) Microbial inoculation or cellulase enzyme treatment of barley and vetch silage harvested at three maturities. Journal of Dairy Science 73:1304-1311.
      10. Licitra C, Hernandez TN and Van Soest PJ (1996) Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology 57: 347-358.
      11. Lopez S, Dhanoa MS, Dijkstra J, Bannink A, Kebreab E and France J (2007) Some methodological and analytical considerations regarding application of the gas production technique. Animal Feed Science and Technology 135: 139-156.
      12. Makkar HPS (2010) In vitro screening of feed resources for efficiency of microbial protein synthesis. In: Vercoe, PE, Makkar HPS, Schlink AC (Eds.), In vitro screening of plant resources for extra nutritional. Attributes in Ruminants: Nuclear and Related Methodologies. IAEA, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 107.144.
    4. McAllister TA, Oosting SJ, Popp JD, Mir Z, Yanke LJ, Hristov AN, Treacher RJ and Cheng KJ (1999) Effect of exogenous enzymes on digestibility of barley silage and growth performance of feedlot cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 79: 353-360.
    5. Moshtaghi Nia SA and Wittenberg KM (1999) Use of forage inoculants with or without enzymes to improve preservation and quality of whole crop barley forage ensiled as large bales. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 79: 525-532.
    6. Preston NG, Nair JK, Yu P, Christensen DA, McKinnon JJ and McAllister TA (2017) Ensiling barley cultivars selected for varied levels of in vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibility in mini and bunker silos to evaluate effects on fermentation. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 97: 314-327.
    7. Rodrigues MAM, Cone JW, Sequeiria CA and Mascarenhas A (2001) Effect of addition of cell wall degrading enzymes of fermentation kinetics of perennial ryegrass silage. Journal of Agricultural Science 136: 443-449.
    8. 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.
    9. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3583-3597.
    10. Zahiroddini H, Baah J and McAllister TA (2006) Effects of microbial inoculants on the fermentation, nutrient retention, and aerobic stability of barley silage.Asian Australasian. Journal of Animal Science 19: 1429-1436.
    11. Zahiroddini H, Baah J, Absalom W and McAllister TA (2004) Effects of an inoculant and hydrolytic enzymes on fermentation and nutritive value of whole crop barley silage. Animal Feed Science and Technology 117: 317-330.

Journal of Animal Production, Print ISSN: 2008-6776., Online ISSN: 2382-994X
Volume 21, Issue 1
Spring 2019
Pages 11-22

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us