Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5187/jast.2021.e7

Effects of formic acid and lactic acid bacteria inoculant on main summer crop silages in Korea  

Wei, Sheng Nan (Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Seoul National University)
Li, Yan Fen (Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Seoul National University)
Jeong, Eun Chan (Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Seoul National University)
Kim, Hak Jin (Research Institute of Eco-friendly Livestock Science, GBST, Seoul National University)
Kim, Jong Geun (Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of Animal Science and Technology / v.63, no.1, 2021 , pp. 91-103 More about this Journal
Abstract
To improve the fermentation quality of silage and reduce the nutrients loss of raw materials during the ensiling process, silage additives are widely used. The effect of additives on silage is also affected by the species of crop. Therefore, this study was designed to explore the effects of formic acid (FA) and lactic acid bacterial inoculant on the quality of main summer crop silage. The experiment was consisted on split-plot design with three replications. The experiment used the main summer forage crops of proso millet ("Geumsilchal"), silage corn ("Gwangpyeongok"), and a sorghum-sudangrass hybrid ("Turbo-gold"). Treatments included silage with Lactic acid bacterial Inoculant (Lactobacillus plantarum [LP], 1.0 × 106 CFU/g fresh matter), with FA (98%, 5 mL/kg), and a control (C, without additive). All silages were stored for 60 days after preparation. All additives significantly increased the crude protein content and in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) of the silages and also reduced the content of ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) and pH. Corn had the highest content of IVDMD, total digestible nutrients and relative feed value among silages. Compared with the control, irrespective of whether FA or LP was added, the water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) of three crops was largely preserved and the WSC content in the proso millet treated with FA was the highest. The treatment of LP significantly increased the lactic acid content of the all silage, while the use of FA significantly increased the content of acetic acid (p < 0.05). The highest count of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) was detected in the LP treatment of corn. In all FA treatment groups, the total microorganism and mold numbers were significantly lower than those of the control and LP groups (p < 0.05). In conclusion, both additives improved the fermentation quality and nutritional composition of the main summer forage crops. The application of FA effectively inhibited the fermentation of the three crops, whereas LAB promoted fermentation. So, both FA and LP can improve the quality of various species of silage.
Keywords
Corn; Sorghum-sudangrass hybrid; Proso millet; Additives; Silage;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Kim DA. Forage crops: its characteristics and cultivation methods. Seoul: Seonjinmunhwasa; 1991.
2 Sarrantonio M. Northeast cover crop handbook. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Institute; 1994.
3 Valenzuela H, Smith J. Sorghum-sudangrass hybrids (Green Manure Crops). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa; 2020. Report No.: SA-GM-10. 2002.
4 Kumar KA, Adrews DJ. Genetics of qualitative traits in pearl millet: a review. Crop Sci. 1993;33:1-20. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1993.0011183X003300010001x   DOI
5 Kim JH, Park HS, Cho JW. Comparison of forage yields and growth of summer forage sorghum, proso millet and Japanese millet according to cropping system with winter forage barley. J Korean Soc Grassl Forage Sci. 2018;38:286-90. https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2018.38.4.286   DOI
6 McDonald P, Henderson AR, Heron SJE. The biochemistry of silage. 2nd ed. Marlow, UK: Chalcombe; 1991.
7 Kung L, Muck R. Animal response to silage additives. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Conference on Silage: Field to Feedbunk, North American Conference; 1997 Feb 11-13; Hershey, PA.
8 Tao Z. Screening of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) silage agents, mechanism of action and application research. Beijing: China Agricultural University; 2005.
9 Wilson RF, Wilkins RJ. Formic acid as a silage additive for wet crops of cocksfoot and lucerne. J Agric Sci. 1973;80:225-31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600057671   DOI
10 Silveira AC, Tosi H, De Faria, V, Spers A. Efeito de diferentes tratamentos na digestibilidade in vitro de silagens de capim Napier. Rev Da Soc Bras Zootec. 1973;2:216-26.
11 Jean-Baptiste-Andre Dumas. Science. 1884;3:750-2. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ns3.72.750
12 Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991;74:3583-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2   DOI
13 Yemm EW, Willis AJ. The estimation of carbohydrates in plant extracts by anthrone. Biochem J. 1954;57:508-14. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0570508   DOI
14 Podkowka W. Modern methods of ensiling. Warszawa, Poland: PWRiL; 1978.
15 Holland C, Kezar W, Kautz WP, Lazowski EJ, Mahanna WC, Reinhart R. The pioneer forage manual: a nutritional guide. Desmoines, IA: Pioneer Hi-Bred International; 1990. p. 1-55.
16 Tilley JMA. Terry RA. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. J Brit Grassl Soc. 1963;18:104-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x   DOI
17 Madigan MT. Brock biology of microorganisms. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2012.
18 Amer S, Hassanat F, Berthiaume R, Seguin P, Mustafa AF. Effects of water soluble carbohydrate content on ensiling characteristics, chemical composition and in vitro gas production of forage millet and forage sorghum silages. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2012;177:23-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.07.024   DOI
19 Playne MJ, McDonald P. The buffering constituents of herbage and of silage. J Sci Food Agric. 1966;17:264-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740170609   DOI
20 Broderick GA, Kang JH. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. J Dairy Sci. 1980;63:64-75. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(80)82888-8   DOI
21 Henderson N. Silage additives. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 1993;45:35-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(93)90070-Z   DOI
22 Rowghani E, Zamiri MJ. The effects of a microbial inoculant and formic acid as silage additives on chemical composition, ruminal degradability and nutrient digestibility of corn silage in sheep. Iranian J Vet Res. 2009;10:110-18.
23 Weinberg ZG, Ashbell G, Hen Y, Azrieli A, Szakacs G, Filya I. Ensiling whole-crop wheat and corn in large containers with Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus buchneri. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2002;28:7-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj/jim/7000207   DOI
24 Rooke JA, Maya FM, Arnold JA, Armstrong DG. The chemical composition and nutritive value of grass silages prepared with no additive or with the application of additives containing either Lactobacillus plantarum or formic acid. Grass Forage Sci. 1988;43:87-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1988.tb02144.x   DOI
25 Desta ST, Yuan X, Li J, Shao T. Ensiling characteristics, structural and nonstructural carbohydrate composition and enzymatic digestibility of Napier grass ensiled with additives. Bioresour Technol. 2016;221:447-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.09.068   DOI
26 Zhao J, Dong Z, Li J, Chen L, Bai Y, Jia Y, et al. Effects of lactic acid bacteria and molasses on fermentation dynamics, structural and nonstructural carbohydrate composition and in vitro ruminal fermentation of rice straw silage. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2019;32:783-91. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0543   DOI
27 Chamberlain D, Martin P, Robertson S. The effectiveness of the extent of fermentation in the silo on the nutritional value of grass silage for milk production. Proceedings of the 9th Silage Conference; 1990 DEC 1; Newcastle, UK.
28 Baytok E, Aksu T, Karsli MA, Muruz H. The effects of formic acid, molasses and inoculant as silage additives on corn silage composition and ruminal fermentation characteristics in sheep. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 2005;29:469-74.
29 FIilya I. The effects of lactic acid bacterial inoculants on the fermentation, aerobic stability and in situ rumen degradability characteristics of maize and sorghum silages. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 2002;26:815-23.
30 Li P, Ji S, Hou C, Tang H, Wang Q, Shen Y. Effects of chemical additives on the fermentation quality and N distribution of alfalfa silage in south of China. Anim Sci J. 2016;87:1472-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12600   DOI
31 Meeske R, Van der Merwe G, Greyling JF, Cruywagen CW. The effect of the addition of a lactic acid bacterial inoculant to maize at ensiling on silage composition, silage intake, milk production and milk composition. S Afr J Anim Sci. 2002;32:263-70.
32 Adesogan AT, Salawu MB. The effect of different additives on the fermentation quality, aerobic stability and in vitro digestibility of pea/wheat bi‐crop silages containing contrasting pea to wheat ratios. Grass Forage Sci. 2002;57:25-32. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2494.2002.00298.x   DOI
33 Kung L, Shaver RD, Grant RJ, Schmidt RJ. Silage review: interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. J Dairy Sci. 2018;101:4020-33. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13909   DOI
34 Contreras-Govea FE, Muck RE, Broderick GA, Weimer PJ. Lactobacillus plantarum effects on silage fermentation and in vitro microbial yield. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2013;179:61-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2012.11.008   DOI
35 Nsereko VL, Rooke JA. Effects of peptidase inhibitors and other additives on fermentation and nitrogen distribution in perennial ryegrass silage. J Sci Food Agric. 1999;79:679-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0010(199904)79:5<679::AID-JSFA235>3.0.CO;2-3   DOI
36 Kennedy SJ. Comparison of the fermentation quality and nutritive value of sulphuric and formic acid‐treated silages fed to beef cattle. Grass Forage Sci. 1990;45:17-28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1990.tb02178.x   DOI
37 Tyrolova Y, Barton L, Loucka R. Effects of biological and chemical additives on fermentation progress in maize silage. Czech J Anim Sci. 2017;62:306-12. https://doi.org/10.17221/67/2016-CJAS   DOI
38 Zhang Q, Yu Z, Na RS. Effects of different additives on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of Leymus chinensis silage. Grass Forage Sci. 2018;73:413-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12301   DOI
39 Jones BA, Satter LD, Muck RE. Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents. Grass Forage Sci. 1992;47:19-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1992.tb02243.x   DOI
40 Oladosu Y, Rafii MY, Abdullah N, Magaji U, Hussin G, Ramli A, et al. Fermentation quality and additives: a case of rice straw silage. BioMed Res Int. 2016;1-14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7985167   DOI
41 Da Silva TC, Smith ML, Barnard AM, Kung L. The effect of a chemical additive on the fermentation and aerobic stability of high-moisture corn. J Dairy Sci. 2015;98:8904-12. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9640   DOI
42 Muck RE. Silage microbiology and its control through additives. R Brasi Zootec. 2010;39:183-91. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-35982010001300021   DOI