Advertisement

Ensiling of Conocarpus erectus tree leaves with molasses, exogenous enzyme and Lactobacillus plantarum impacts on ruminal sheep biogases production and fermentation

  • Morteza ChajiEmail author
  • Ehsan Direkvandi
  • Abdelfattah Z. M. SalemEmail author
Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

This study was performed to evaluate the effect of applying molasses (5% w/w) (M), exogenous enzyme (cellulase; 6 millions U kg−1) (E) and Lactobacillus plantarum (3 × 105 cfu g−1 of fresh material) (LAB) on the ensiling characteristics of Conocarpus erectus leaves. Eight treatments were studied; (1) without additive (conocarpus silage: CS), (2) CS + E (CSE), (3) CS + M (CSM), (4) CS + LAB (CSL), (5) CS + E + M (CSEM), (6) CS + E + LAB (CSEL), (7) CS + M + LAB (CSML) and (8) CS + E + M + LAB (CSEML). The lowest amount (P < 0.05) of ash-free neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and ash-free acid detergent fiber were observed for CSE. The pH only affected by addition of molasses (P < 0.05), while the concentration of ammonia-N of Conocarpus silage was affected (P < 0.05) by molasses, meanwhile it decreased significantly for CSEM and CSM. The results of gas production parameter and in vitro digestibility showed that the use of silage additives leads to increase (P < 0.05) the coefficients b and c for CSML. The cumulative gas production in all hours significantly increased in treatment CSEML, CSML and CSL (P  < 0.05). The highest amount (P < 0.05) of produced gas, organic matter disappearance, apparently degraded substrate (ADS) and microbial crude protein (MCP) were affected by silage additives and increased for CSE (519 and 485 mg g−1 of DM, respectively). In addition, ADS and MCP were affected (P < 0.05) by silage additives and increased for CSE (519 and 485 mg g−1 of DM, respectively). The concentration of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) increased (P < 0.05) significantly for CSML (0.414 mmol l−1). However, the amount of metabolizable energy (ME) and pH were not affected by experimental treatment (P  > 0.05). In vitro digestibility of dry matter (DMD) and in vitro digestibility of NDF (NDFD) increased (P < 0.05)  for CSML and the highest concentration of ammonia-N was observed in silage without additive. The result of these experiments showed due to the positive effect of a treatment containing molasses and lactic acid bacteria (CSML), maybe the treatment with it will be effective in improving the nutritional value of conocarpus leaves in ruminants.

Keywords

Conocarpus Silage additives Gas production In vitro digestibility 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of Khuzestan for their financial support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdel-Hameed ESS, Bazaid SA, Sabra ANA (2013) Protective effect of conocarpus erectus extracts on CCl4-induced chronic liver injury in Mice. Glob J Pharma 7:52–60Google Scholar
  2. Addah W, Baah J, McAllister TA (2016) Effects of an exogenous enzyme-containing inoculant on fermentation characteristics of barley silage and on growth performance of feedlot steers. Can J Anim Sci 96(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aksu T, Baytok E, Karslı MA, Muruz H (2006) Effects of formic acid, molasses and inoculant additives on corn silage composition, organic matter digestibility and microbial protein synthesis in sheep. Small Rumin Res 61(1):29–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Koaik F, El-Waziry AM, Khalil AI, Metwally H, Al-Mahasneh MA (2014) Evaluation of Conocarpus (Conocarpus erectus) leaves and bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon L.) using chemical analysis and in vitro gas production technique. Bulg J Agric Sci 20(4):824–829Google Scholar
  5. Al-Surrayai T, Baroon Z (2005) Investigation of the chemical and microbiological quality of fresh plants, silages and calves meat. Technical report KISR 7764. Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, SafatGoogle Scholar
  6. Amanullah SM, Kim DH, Lee HJ, Joo YH, Kim SB, Kim SC (2014) Effects of microbial additives on chemical composition and fermentation characteristics of barley silage. Asian Aust J Anim Sci 27(4):511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. AOAC (1990) Official method of analysis, 15th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Babaeinasab Y, Rouzbehan Y, Fazaeli H, Rezaei J (2015) Chemical composition, silage fermentation characteristics, and in vitro ruminal fermentation parameters of potato-wheat straw silage treated with molasses and lactic acid bacteria and corn silage. J Anim Sci 93(9):4377–4386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baroon Z, Razzaque MA (2012) Nutritional evaluation and palatability trial of ensiled Conocarpus Greenery residues. Exp Agric 48(1):138–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Baytok E, Aksu T, Karsli MA, Muruz H (2005) The effects of formic acid, molasses and inoculant AS silage additives on corn silage composition and ruminal fermentation in sheep. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 29:469–474Google Scholar
  11. Bhat NR, Suleiman MK, Al-Menaie H, Al-Ali EH, Al-Mulla L, Christopher A, Lekha VS, Ali SI, George P (2009) Polyacrylamide polymer and salinity effects on water requirement of conocarpus lancifolius and selected properties of sandy loam soil. Eur J Sci Res 25(4):549–558Google Scholar
  12. Blümmel M, Steinga H, Becker K (1997) The relationship between in vitro gas production, in vitro microbial biomass yield and 15N incorporation and its implications for the prediction of voluntary feed intake of roughages. Br J Nutr 77(6):911–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Broderick GA, Kang JH (1980) Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. J Dairy Sci 63:64–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bureenok S, Suksombat W, Kawamoto Y (2011) Effects of the fermented juice of epiphytic lactic acid bacteria (FJLB) and molasses on digestibility and rumen fermentation characteristics of ruzigrass (Brachiaria ruziziensis) silages. Livest Sci 138:266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cai Y, Fujita Y, Murai M, Ogawa M, Yoshida N, Kitamura A, Miura T (2003) Application of lactic acid bacteria (Lactobacillus plantarum Chikuso-1) for silage preparation of forage paddy rice. Jpn J Grassl Sci 49:477–485Google Scholar
  16. Cajarville C, Britos A, Garciarena D, Repetto JL (2012) Temperate forages ensiled with molasses or fresh cheese whey: effects on conservation quality, effluent losses and ruminal degradation. Anim Feed Sci Technol 171(1):14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cao Y, Cai Y, Takahashi T (2013) Ruminal digestibility and quality of silage conserved via fermentation by lactobacilli. In: Kongo M (ed) Lactic acid bacteria-R&D for food, health and livestock purposes. InTech, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Castillo-González AR, Burrola-Barraza ME, Domínguez-Viveros J, Chávez-Martínez A (2014) Microorganismos y fermentación ruminal. Arch Med Vet 46(3):349–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Charmley E (2001) Towards improved silage quality—a review. Can J Anim Sci 81:157–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Colombatto D, Mould FL, Bhat MK, Morgavi DP, Beauchemin KA, Owen E (2003) Influence of fibrolytic enzymes on the hydrolysis and fermentation of pure cellulose and xylan by mixed ruminal microorganisms in vitro. J Anim Sci 81(4):1040–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Contreras-Govea FE, Muck RE, Mertens DR, Weimer PJ (2011) Microbial inoculant effects on silage and in vitro ruminal fermentation, and microbial biomass estimation for alfalfa, bmr corn, and corn silages. Anim Feed Sci Technol 163(1):2–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dehghani MR, Weisbjerg MR, Hvelplund T, Kristensen NB (2012) Effect of enzyme addition to forage at ensiling on silage chemical composition and NDF degradation characteristics. Livest Sci 150(1–3):51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dönmez N, Karslı MA, Çınar A, Aksu T, Baytok E (2003) The effects of different silage additives on rumen protozoan number and volatile fatty acid concentration in sheep fed corn silage. Small Rumin Res 48(3):227–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ehsen S, Qasim M, Abideen ZA, Rizvi RF, Gul B, Ansari R, Khan MA (2016) Secondary metabolites as anti-nutritional factors in locally used halophytic forage/fodder. Pak J Bot 48(2):629–636Google Scholar
  25. Eun JS, Beauchemin KA (2007) Enhancing in vitro degradation of alfalfa hay and corn silage using feed enzymes. J Dairy Sci 6:2839–2851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Filya I (2003) The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, with or without homofermentativelactic acid bacteria, on the fermentation, aerobic stability andruminal degradability of wheat, sorghum and maize silages. J Appl Microbiol 95:1080–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Getachew G, Makkar HPS, Becker K (2002) Tropical browses: contents of phenolic compounds, in vitro gas production and stoichiometric relationship between short chain fatty acid and in vitro gas production. J Agric Sci 139(3):341–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Getachew G, DePeters E, Robinson P (2004) In vitro gas production provides effective method for assessing ruminant feeds. Calif Agric 58(1):54–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huuskonen A (2016) Effects of silage additives on intake, gain and carcass traits of growing and finishing dairy bulls. Research report 18.04.2016. Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Tutkimusasemantie 15, FI-92400, RuukkiGoogle Scholar
  30. Islam M, Enishi O, Purnomoadi A, Higuchi K, Takusari N, Terada F (2001) Energy and protein utilization by goats fed Italian ryegrass silage treated with molasses, urea, cellulase or cellulase + lactic acid bacteria. Small Rumin Res 42(1):49–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jalč D, Lauková A, Váradyová Z, Homolka P, Koukolová V (2009) Effect of inoculated grass silages on rumen fermentation and lipid metabolism in an artificial rumen (RUSITEC). Anim Feed Sci Technol 151(1–2):55–64Google Scholar
  32. Jeon BT, Moon SH, Lee SM, Kim KH, Hudson RJ (2003) Voluntary intake, digestibility and nitrogen balance in spotted deer (Cervus nippon) fed forest by-product silage, oak leaf hay and commercial mixed ration. Asian Aust J Anim Sci 16(5):702–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaur R, Garcia SC, Fulkerson WJ, Barchia I (2010) Utilisation of forage rape (Brassica napus) and Persian clover (Trifolium resupinatum) diets by sheep: effects on whole tract digestibility and rumen parameters. Animal Prod Sci 50(1):59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Khorvash M, Colombatto D, Beauchemin KA, Ghorbani GR, Samei A (2006) Use of absorbants and inoculants to enhance the quality of corn silage. Can J Anim Sci 86(1):97–107Google Scholar
  35. Kristensen NB, Sloth KH, Højberg O, Spliid NH, Jensen C, Thøgersen R (2010) Effects of microbial inoculants on corn silage fermentation, microbial contents, aerobic stability, and milk production under field conditions. J Dairy Sci 93(8):3764–3774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kung L, Shaver R (2001) Interpretation and use of silage fermentation analysis reports. Focus Forage 3(13):1–5Google Scholar
  37. Kung L Jr, Stokes MR, Lin CJ (2003) Silage additives. In: Buxton DR, Muck RE, Harrison JH (eds) Silage science and technology. Agronomy monograph, vol 42. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, pp 305–360Google Scholar
  38. Lima R, Díaz RF, Castro A, Hoedtke S, Fievez V (2011) Multifactorial models to assess responses to sorghum proportion, molasses and bacterial inoculant on in vitro quality of sorghum–soybean silages. Anim Feed Sci Technol 164(3–4):161–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mahala AG, Khalifa IM (2007) The effect of molasses levels on quality of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) silage. Res Vet Sci 2:43–46Google Scholar
  40. Maheri-Sis N, Chamani M, Ali-Asghar S, Mirza-Aghazadeh A, Aghajanzadeh-Golshani A (2008) Nutritional evaluation of kabuli and desi type chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) for ruminants using in vitro gas production technique. Afr J Biotechnol 7(16):2946–2951Google Scholar
  41. Maiga HA, Schingoethe DJ (1997) Optimizing the utilization of animal fat and ruminal bypass proteins in the diets of lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 80(2):343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McDonald P, Henderson A, Heron S (1991) The biochemistry of silage, 2nd edn. Chalcombe Publications, BucksGoogle Scholar
  43. McDonald P, Edwards RA, Greenhalgh JF, Morgan CA (2010) Animal nutrition, 6th edn. Pearson, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Menke KH, Steingass H (1988) Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and gas production using rumen fluid. Anim Res Dev 28:7–55Google Scholar
  45. Menke KH, Raab L, Salewski A, Steingass H, Fritz D, Schneider W (1979) The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J Agric Sci 93(1):217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Migwie PK, Gallagher JR, Van Barneveld RJ (2000) Effect of molasses on the fermentation quality of wheat straw and poultry litter ensiled with citrus pulp. Aust J Exp Agric 40(6):825–829CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Muck RE, Filya I, Contreras-Govea FE (2007) Inoculant effects on alfalfa silage: in vitro gas and volatile fatty acid production. J Dairy Sci 90(11):5115–5125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nadeau EMG, Buxton DR, Russell JR, Allison MJ, Young JW (2000) Enzyme, bacterial inoculant, and formic acid effects on silage composition of orchard grass and alfalfa. J Dairy Sci 83(7):1487–1502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nishino N, Wada H, Yoshida M, Shiota H (2004) Microbial counts, fermentation products, and aerobic stability of whole crop corn and a total mixed ration ensiled with and without inoculation of Lactobacillus casei or Lactobacillus buchneri. J Dairy Sci 87(8):2563–2570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nkosi BD, Meeske R, Van der Merwe HJ, Groenewald IB (2010) Effects of homofermentative and heterofermentative bacterial silage inoculants on potato hash silage fermentation and digestibility in rams. Anim Feed Sci Technol 157(3–4):195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nkosi BD, Groenewald IB, Meeske R, Van der Merwe HJ (2012) Laboratory evaluation of absorbents and additives on the fermentation quality of potato hash. Afr J Agric Res 7(40):5506–5517Google Scholar
  52. Oliveira AS (1995) Rapid pH reductions in silages, vol 12. Revista Brasileira de Saúde e Produção Animal, Salvador, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  53. Ørskov ER, McDonald I (1979) The estimation of protein degradability in the rumen from incubation measurements weighted according to rate of passage. J Agric Sci 92(2):499–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Patra AK, Saxena J (2011) Exploitation of dietary tannins to improve rumen metabolism and ruminant nutrition. J Sci Food Agric 91(1):24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Paviz MM, Ghoorchi T, Ghanbari F (2011) Effects of molasses and bacterial inoculant on chemical composition and aerobic stability of sorghum silage. Asian J Anim Vet Adv 6:385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Razzaque MA, Al-Nasser A (2003) Status of animal production sub-sector and animal origin foods in Kuwait and recommended measures for improvement. Technical report. Report no. KISR 6722. Kuwait Institute for Scientific ResearchGoogle Scholar
  57. Reynal SM, Ipharraguerre IR, Lineiro M, Brito AF, Broderick GA, Clark JH (2007) Omasal flow of soluble proteins, peptides, and free amino acids in dairy cows fed diets supplemented with proteins of varying ruminal degradabilities. J Dairy Sci 90(4):1887–1903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rezaei J, Rouzbehan Y, Fazaeli H (2009) Nutritive value of fresh and ensiled amaranth (Amaranthus hypochondriacus) treated with different levels of molasses. Anim Feed Sci Technol 151(1–2):153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rowghani E, Zamiri MJ (2009) 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. Iran J Vet Res 10(2):110–118Google Scholar
  60. Sahoo B, Walli TK (2008) Effects of formaldehyde treated mustard cake and molasses supplementation on nutrient utilization, microbial protein supply and feed efficiency in growing kids. Anim Feed Sci Technol 142(3–4):220–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Salem AZ, Zhou CS, Tan ZL, Mellado M, Salazar MC, Elghandopur MM, Odongo NE (2013) In vitro ruminal gas production kinetics of four fodder trees ensiled with or without molasses and urea. J Integr Agric 12(7):1234–1242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sanchez WK, Hunt CW, Guy MA, Pritchard GT, Swanson BI, Warner TB, Higgins JM, Treacher RJ (1996) Effect of fibrolytic enzymes on lactational performance of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci 79(Suppl 1):183Google Scholar
  63. Sandoval-Castro CA, Lizarraga-Sanchez HL, Solorio-Sanchez FJ (2005) Assessment of tree fodder preference by cattle using chemical composition, in vitro gas production and in situ degradability. Anim Feed Sci Technol 123:277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shellito SM, Ward MA, Lardy GP, Bauer ML, Caton JS (2006) Effects of concentrated separator by-product (desugared molasses) on intake, ruminal fermentation, digestion, and microbial efficiency in beef steers fed grass hay. J Anim Sci 84(6):1535–1543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Shepherd AC, Kung L (1996) An enzyme additive for corn silage: effects on silage composition and animal performance. J Dairy Sci 79(10):1760–1766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (2008) SAS/STAT 9.2 user’s guide. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  67. Suleiman MK, Bhat NR, Abdal MS, Bellen RR (2005) Testing newly introduced ornamental plants to the arid climate of Kuwait. Arch Agron Soil Sci 51(4):469–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tabacco E, Borreani G, Crovetto GM, Galassi G, Colombo D, Cavallarin L (2006) Effect of chestnut tannin on fermentation quality, proteolysis, and protein rumen degradability of alfalfa silage. J Dairy Sci 89(12):4736–4746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Taylor CC, Kung L (2002) The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 on the fermentation and aerobic stability of high moisture corn in laboratory silos. J Dairy Sci 85(6):1526–1532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tilley JMA, Terry RA (1963) A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass Forage Sci 18(2):104–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Van Soest PV, Robertson JB, Lewis BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci 74(10):3583–3597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang X, Li X, Zhao C, Hu P, Chen H, Liu Z, Liu G, Wang Z (2012) Correlation between composition of the bacterial community and concentration of volatile fatty acids in the rumen during the transition period and ketosis in dairy cows. Appl Environ Microbiol 78(7):2386–2392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Xande X, Archimede H, Gourdine JL, Anais C, Renaudeau D (2010) Effects of the level of sugarcane molasses on growth and carcass performance of Caribbean growing pigs reared under a ground sugarcane stalks feeding system. Trop Anim Health Prod 42(1):13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yitbarek MB, Tamir B (2014) Silage additives: review. Open J Appl Sci 4:258–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Young KM, Lim JM, Der Bedrosian MC, Kung L Jr (2012) Effect of exogenous protease enzymes on the fermentation and nutritive value of corn silage. J Dairy Sci 95(11):6687–6694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zhang Q, Yang H, Yu Z (2017) Effects of sucrose, formic acid and lactic acid bacteria inoculant on quality, in vitro rumen digestibility and fermentability of drooping wild ryegrass (Elymus nutans Griseb.) silage. J Anim Feed Sci 26(1):26–32Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Animal Science and Food TechnologyAgricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University of KhuzestanMollasaniIran
  2. 2.Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y ZootecniaUniversidad Autónoma del Estado de MéxicoTolucaMexico

Personalised recommendations