Journals / Harran Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi / 2015 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 4

Chemical and Nutritional Changes in Sunflower Silage Associated With Molasses, Lactic Acid Bacteria and Enzyme Supplementation

Ayçiçeği Silajlarına Melas, Laktik Asit Bakterisi ve Enzim İlavesinin Silajların Kimyasal ve Besin Madde Değişimi Üzerine Etkileri

Pages
223–231
Publication Date
2016-01-02
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In conclusion, addition of the bacterial inoculants (LAB and LEN) and molasses to sunflower crop before ensiling positively affected some quality traits.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study was conducted to determine the effects of different silage additives on sunflower silage quality.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The treatments were as follows: (1) control (C, no additive), (2) 5% molasses (M) (3) inoculation of lactic acid bacteria (LAB; 1.5 g/ton, a mixture of Lactobacillus plantarum and Enterococcus faecium applied at a rate of 6.00 log10 cfu LAB/g of fresh material) and (4) LAB+enzyme mixture 2 g/ton (LEN, Lactobacillus plantarum bacterium (6.00 log10 cfu/g) and cellulase (150000 CMCU/kg) and amylase (200000 SKB/kg) enzymes).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In conclusion, addition of the bacterial inoculants (LAB and LEN) and molasses to sunflower crop before ensiling positively affected some quality traits.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ayçiçeği · inokulant · silaj kalitesi

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the effects of different silage additives on sunflower silage quality. The treatments were as follows: (1) control (C, no additive), (2) 5% molasses (M) (3) inoculation of lactic acid bacteria (LAB; 1.5 g/ton, a mixture of Lactobacillus plantarum and Enterococcus faecium applied at a rate of 6.00 log10 cfu LAB/g of fresh material) and (4) LAB+enzyme mixture 2 g/ton (LEN, Lactobacillus plantarum bacterium (6.00 log10 cfu/g) and cellulase (150000 CMCU/kg) and amylase (200000 SKB/kg) enzymes). Silage additives were mixed and stored in glass jars with 5 replicates for 90 days. There were no significant differences among the groups in terms of pH, ether extract (EE), acid detergent lignin (ADL) and hemicellulose (HEM). The water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) concentration was higher in the M group than those of other groups (P<0.01). Lactic and acetic acid concentration were lower in the LEN group than the other groups (P<0.05). In the LAB group, dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), crude ash (CA) and fleig point (FP) contents were lower than those of other groups (P<0.01). In the M group, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) contents were lower and the total digestibility nutrient (TDN) and non-fiber carbohydrate (NFC) contents were higher than those of other groups (P<0.01). The crude cellulose (CC) contents of M and LEN groups were lower than that of C and LAB groups. In conclusion, addition of the bacterial inoculants (LAB and LEN) and molasses to sunflower crop before ensiling positively affected some quality traits.

Özet

Bu çalışma, farklı katkı maddelerinin ayçiçeği silajlarının kalitesi üzerine olan etkilerini belirlemek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Muameleler: (1) kontrol (K, katkı maddesi yok), (2) %5 melas ilavesi (M), (3) Laktik asit bakteri ilavesi (LAB; 1.5 g/ton, Lactobacillus plantarum ve Enterococcus faecium bakterisi içerir, 6.00 log10 cfu LAB/g içerir) ve (4) LAB+enzim karışımı 2 g/ton (LEN, Lactobacillus plantarum (6.00 log10 cfu/g) ve selülaz (150,000 CMCU/kg) ve amilaz (200,000 SKB/kg içerir). Silaj katımı maddeleri homojen biçimde ilave edilip 90 günlük fermantasyona bırakıldı. Gruplar arasında, pH, ham yağ (HY), asit deterjan lignin (ADL) ve hemiselüloz (HEM) bakımından farklılık bulunmadı. Suda çözünebilir karbonhidrat (SÇK) oranı M grubunda diğer gruplardan daha yüksek bulunmuştur (P<0.01). Laktik asit (LA) konsantrasyonu LEN grubunda (P<0.05) ve LAB grubunda kuru madde (KM), ham protein (HP), ham kül (HK) ve fleig puanı(FP) diğer gruplardan daha düşük bulunmuştur (P<0.01). Melas katılan grupta, nötral deterjan fiber (NDF) ve asit deterjan fiber (ADF) içeriği düşük; toplam besin madde sindirilebilirliği (TSBM) ile selüloz olmayan karbonhidrat içeriği diğer gruplardan daha yüksek olmuştur (P<0.01). Ham selüloz (HS) içeriği M ve LEN gruplarında K ve LAB gruplarından daha düşük bulunmuştur. Sonuç olarak, ayçiçeği silajmateryallerine bakteriyel inokulantların, (LAB ve LEN) ve melas ilavesi silaj kalitesini olumlu yönde etkilediği tespit edilmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KONCA, Y., BEYZI, S. B., KALIBER, M., ÜLGER, İ. (2016). Chemical and Nutritional Changes in Sunflower Silage Associated With Molasses, Lactic Acid Bacteria and Enzyme Supplementation. Harran Tarım ve Gıda Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 4, 223–231. https://ajindex.com/articles/423447

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Aksu, T., Baytok, E., Bolat, D., 2004. Effects of a bacterial silage inoculant on corn silage fermentation and nutrient digestibility. Small Ruminant Research, 55(1): 249-252.
  2. Akyildiz, A.R., 1986. Feed science and technology. Ankara University. Agricultural Faculty Publications. Ankara. pp. 974. AOAC. 2005. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International. 18th Edition.
  3. Gaithersburg, MD. Ayaşan, T., Karakozak, E., 2012. Effects of using inoculant in silages in which different forage crops on crude nutrient content and quality. Fırat University Journal of Medicinal Science, 26: 93-98.
  4. Bal, M.A., Coors, J.G., Shaver, R.D., 1997. Impact of the maturity of corn for use as silage in the diets of dairy cows on intake, digestion, and milk production. Journal of Dairy Science, 80: 2497-2503.
  5. Baytok, E., Aksu, T., Karsli, M.A., Muruz, H., 2005. The effects of formic acid, molasses and inoculant as silage additives on corn silage composition and ruminal fermentation characteristics in sheep. Turkish Journal of Veterinary Animal Science, 29: 469-474.
  6. Chandler, P., 1990. Energy prediction of feeds by forage testing explorer. Feedstuffs, 62(36): 12. Demirel, M., Bolat, D., Celik, S., Bakici, Y., Tekeli, A., 2006. Evaluation of fermentation quality and digestibility of silages made from sorghum and sunflower alone and the mixtures of sorghum-sunflower. Journal of Biological Science, 6 (5): 926- 930. Denek, N., Can, A., Tufenk, S., 2004. The effect of different silage additives to corn, sorghum and sunflower on silage quality and dry matter digestibility. Journal of Harran University Agriculture Faculty, 8: 1-10.
  7. Dubois, M., Gilles, K.A., Hamilton, J.K., Rebers, P.A., Smith, F., 1956. Calorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical Chemistry, 28: 350-356.
  8. Filya, İ., 2004. Nutritive value and aerobic stability of whole crop maize silage harvested at four stages of maturity. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 116: 141–150.
  9. Filya, I., Sucu, E., Karabulut, A., 2006. The effect of lactobacillus buchneri on the fermentation, aerobic stability and ruminal degradability of maize silage. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 101: 1216–1223.
  10. Gonçalves, L.C., Rodriguez, N.M., Pereira, L.G.R., Rodrigues, J.A.S., 1999. Evaluation of different harvest times of four genotypes of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) for ensiling. FAO Electronic conference on tropical silage, pp. 1-6.
  11. Gregoire, T., 1999. Pro Crop. Sunflower Silage. NDSU Extension Service, No