بررسی فراسنجه‌های فیزیکی و شیمیایی سیلاژ چغندر علوفه‌ای (Beta vulgaris L.) با و بدون استفاده از لاکتوباسیلوس بوچنری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، بخش تحقیقات علوم دامی، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان قم

2 مربی، بخش تحقیقات علوم دامی، مرکز تحقیقات و آموزش کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان قم

3 استاد، بخش تحقیقات تغذیه و فیزیولوژی، موسسه تحقیقات علوم دامی کشور

4 دانشیار، بخش تحقیقات تغذیه و فیزیولوژی، موسسه تحقیقات علوم دامی کشور

چکیده

برخی فراسنجه‌های فیزیکی و شیمیایی سیلاژ چغندر علوفه‌ای در ترکیب با مواد اولیه مختلف و افزودنی میکروبی لاکتوباسیلوس در قالب یک آزمایش فاکتوریل2×3 در قالب طرح کاملاً تصادفی با چهار تکرار بررسی شد. عامل اول شامل 1) چغندر علوفه‌ای بدون افزودنی (شاهد)، 2) شاهد+10% تفاله چغندر، و 3) شاهد+ 15% تفاله چغندر بود. عامل دوم شامل کاربرد یا عدم کاربرد افزودنی لاکتوباسیلوس به میزان CFU/g 1010×6 ماده خشک بود. تعداد 24 کیسه پلاستیکی حاوی 25 کیلوگرم سیلاژ چغندر علوفه‌ای از تیمارهای مختلف بعد از عملیات سیلو کردن، پرس و هواگیری به انبار با دمای اتاق منتقل و 75 روز بعد، از هر تیمار، چهار کیسه گشوده شده و بلافاصله pH، دما و کیفیت ظاهری آن‌ها بررسی شد. از هر کیسه، نمونه‌ای به آزمایشگاه منتقل شده و ماده خشک، پروتئین خام، خاکستر، NDF، ADF و نیتروژن آمونیاکی اندازه‌گیری شدند. ارزیابی صفات ظاهری و pH نمونه‌ها نشان داد تیمارهای دارای تفاله خشک و افزودنی میکروبی از کیفیت بهتری نسبت به شاهد (میانگین امتیاز کیفی 16/0±5/6 در مقابل 21/0±4/9 و میانگین  pH06/0±04/4 در مقابل 08/0±59/4) برخوردار بودند (01/0P<). نوع مخلوط مورد استفاده بر ترکیب شیمیایی (ماده خشک، پروتئین خام، NDF و ADF) و پایداری سیلاژ در هنگام باز کردن اثر معنی‌داری داشت (01/0P<)، اما افزودنی میکروبی در بیشتر موارد، اثر معنی‌داری نشان نداد. اتلاف شیرابه‌ای گروه شاهد زیادتر و کیفیت نامطلوب‌تری نسبت به سیلاژهای دیگر داشت (01/0P<). بر اساس نتایج این آزمایش، مناسب‌ترین ترکیب سیلاژ تهیه شده مربوط به مخلوط شاهد+ 15% تفاله چغندر بود که از کیفیت بالاتر و ماندگاری بیشتری برخوردار بود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Investigation of the physical and chemical characteristics of ensiled fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L.) with and without Lactobacillus buchneri

نویسندگان [English]

  • M. Kalantar 1
  • M. Yeganehparast 2
  • H. Fazaeli 3
  • A. Aghashahi 4
  • M. Khojastehkey 1
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Animal Science, Agricultural Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Qom, Iran
2 Research Instructor, Department of Animal Science, Agricultural Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization, Qom, Iran
3 Professor, Department of Nutrition and Physiology, Animal Science Research Institute, Karaj, Iran
4 Associate Professor, Department of Nutrition and Physiology, Animal Science Research Institute, Karaj, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Fodder beet is a valuable source of fodder in livestock diets due to favorable agronomic characteristics such as resistance to salinity and drought, less water requirement, and proper nutritional characteristics such as forage production and silage with high nutritional value, good taste, and good resistance to environmental changes. Despite the long history of using fodder beet in animal rations, its nutritional issues and physicochemical properties of it are not fully understood and further research is needed. Silage of fodder beet can be used well in the diet of all ruminants, but studying the proper ways of silage and controlling the physical and chemical properties of silage is one of the important issues that should be addressed. In addition to the stated benefits for fodder beet, such as low dry matter content, fiber, and fat, disruption of ion exchange and change in silo buffering capacity, as well as the difficulty of processing it for permanent consumption of livestock and also important restrictions such as high sugar and moisture in the roots and excess leachate and lack of production of quality silage are the most important obstacles to the consumption of this silage. Harvest time of fodder beet coincides with the heat of the summer season and the occurrence of numerous problems, so it is necessary to silo it to prevent spoilage with the correct method. Today with the introduction of new improved cultivars and the growth of processing technology, these limitations have been almost removed. This study aimed to evaluate some of the physicochemical parameters of ensiled fodder beet with and without Lactobacillus buchneri as a microbial additive.
Materials and methods: Some physicochemical parameters of ensiled fodder beet with and without Lactobacillus buchneri as a microbial additive in combination with 10 and 15% dry beet pulp were investigated through a 3×2 factorial arrangement in four replicates. Different silages included: 1) 100% pure fodder beet without additive (control), 2) control + 10% dry beet pulp, and 3) control + 15% dry beet pulp. The microbial additive was added at the level of 6×1010 CFU/g of dry matter. 24 plastic bags containing 25 kg of different material were compacted, sealed, and stored at room temperature. After 75 days, four bags of each group were opened and pH, temperature, and quality were immediately determined. Also, a sample from each bag was used to measure the chemical compositions. Measurements of temperature and pH were performed. Two samples of silage, one for extraction and determination of ammonia nitrogen (using selective ion absorption electrode) by AFIA recommendations and the other sample for measurement of dry matter, crude protein, and ash according to the AOAC method were used. Measurement of NDF and ADF were done according to the Van Soest method. To evaluate the aerobic stability of silages when opening plastic bags, the characteristics of color, odor, and texture of silage in the range of 1 to 10 for high to poor quality were determined using the modified Konigsberg Scores method. Data were analyzed using a completely randomized design in a 3×2 factorial arrangement in four replicates using the mixed model procedure of the SAS program.



Results and discussion: Experimental groups with 10 and 15% of dry beet pulp with microbial additive had a better quality (score: 6.5±0.16 vs. 9.4±0.21; pH: 4.04±0.06 vs. 4.59±0.08) than the control group (P<0.01). The type of ensiled materials had a significant effect on chemical compositions (DM, CP, NDF, and ADF) and the aerobic stability of silages at opening time (P<0.01). But microbial additives almost had no significant effect on the traits. Watery loss of silage for the control group was higher and its quality was lower than that in other groups (P<0.01). The best quality and more stability of silage were observed in the group with fodder beet+15% of dry beet pulp which is advisable.
Conclusions: According to the results of this study, adding 10 and 15% of dry beet pulp to fodder beet silage improved the appearance and aerobic stability of the resulting silages compared to the control group. Evaluation of appearance traits and pH of the samples showed that the treatments with dry pulp and the microbial additive had better quality than the control group. The type of mixture used had a significant effect on the chemical composition of silage and its aerobic stability when opened, but the microbial additive did not show a significant effect in most cases. The watery loss in the control group was higher than the other treatments and had a worse appearance quality than other silages. Overall, the most suitable silage composition in this experiment was a mixture of the control group+15% sugar beet pulp, which had better appearance quality, longer shelf life, higher dry matter level, and lower ammonia nitrogen than the other two groups.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Fodder beet
  • Physicochemical property
  • Silage
  • Lactobacillus
AFIA. 2011. Australian Fodder Industry Association Laboratory Methods Manual, Melbourne, Australia.
Albayarak S. and Necdet C. 2008. Effects of temperature and light intensity on growth of fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L. var. Crassa Mansf.). Bangladesh Journal of Botany, 36(1): 1-12.
AOAC. 2010. Official Methods of Analysis (18th edition). Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC. USA.
Benedict C. A., Corbin A. T., Harrison J. H. and Miles C. A.  2015.  Case study:  Alternative fodder crops for livestock feed in western Washington. The Professional Animal Scientist, 31(1): 80-87.
Collins M. and Owens V. N.  2003. Preservation of forage as hay and silage. In Forages: An Introduction to Grassland Agriculture, 6th edition. Iowa State University press. Pp. 443-471.
Dehghani M., Sharifi Hosseini M. M., Dayani O. and Maddahian A. 2021.  Effect of particle size and inoculation of homofermentative and heterofermentative bacteria in high moisture corn forage on the silage quality. Animal Production Research, 10(1): 37-49. (In Persian).
Evans E. and Messerschmidt U. 2017. Review: Sugar beets as a substitute for grain for lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 8: 25-35.
Hedayatipour A., Khorvash M., Qorbani Q., Al-Modarres A. and Abedi M. 2012. Comparison of chemical properties and degradability of forage and sorghum silage with corn in vitro and nylon bag method. Iranian Journal of Animal Science Research, 4(3): 224-232. (In Persian).
Jonker A., Scobie D., Dynes R., Edwards G., De Klein C., Hague H., McAuliff R., Taylor A., Knight T. and Waghorn G. 2017. Feeding fodder beet decreased methane emissions from dry and lactating dairy cows in pastoral systems. Animal Production Science, 57: 1445-1450.
Karimi M., Besharati M., Taghizadeh A. and Safari R. 2017. Effects of lactobacillus inoculants on characteristics and composition of alfalfa wilted by orange pulp silage. Animal Production Research, 6(1): 27-37. (In Persian).
Kızılsimsek M., Erol A. and Calıslar S. 2005. Effects of raw material and silo size on silage quality. Livestock Research for Rural Development, Volume 17, and Article number: 33, Retrieved June 30, 2021, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/3/ kizi17033.htm.
Kleinschmit D. H. and Kung L. Jr. 2006. A Meta-analysis of the effects of Lactobacillus buchneri on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn and grass and small grain silages. Journal of Dairy Science, 89: 4005-4013.
Matthew C., Nelson N. J., Ferguson D. and Xie Y. 2011. Fodder beet revisited. Journal of Agronomy, 41: 39-48.
McBurney M. I., Van Soest P. J. and Chase L. E. 1983. Cation exchange capacity and buffering capacity of neutral detergent fibers. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 34(9): 910-916.
Mousa M. R. M. 2011. Effect of partial replacement of dietary concentrate feed mixture by fodder beet roots on productive performance of ewes and doe goats under the conditions of North Sinai. Asian Journal of Animal Science, 5(4): 228-242.
NRC. 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle. Seventh revised edition. Washington, DC. Pp. 3-42.
O'Kiely P. and Moloney A. P. 1999. Conservation characteristics of ensiled whole-crop fodder beet and its nutritive value for beef cattle. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 38(1): 25-39.
Olomonchi E. O. A., Kilic U., Garipoglu A. V. and Erisek A. 2019. Comparison of forage quality and in vitro digestibility of fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L.) fresh material and silage. Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 6(11): 172-178.
Oude Elferink S. J. W. H., Krooneman J., Gottschal J. C., Spoelstra S. F., Faber F. and Driehuis F. 2001. Anaerobic conversion of lactic acid to acetic acid and 1, 2-propanediol by Lactobacillus buchneri. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 67: 125-132.
Pacheco D., Muetzel S., Lewis S., Dalley D., Bryant M. and Waghorn G. C. 2020.  Rumen digesta and products  of  fermentation  in  cows  fed  varying  proportions  of  fodder  beet  (Beta vulgaris L.) with fresh  pasture  or  silage  or  straw. Animal Production Science, 60(4): 524-534.
Papi N., Kafilzadeh F. and Fazaeli H. 2016. Study of silage ability of artichoke forage and the effect of adding different levels of molasses on its silage properties. Animal Science Journal (Pajouhesh and Sazandegi), 113: 41-50. (In Persian).
Robert D. J. 1987. The effects of feeding fodder beet to dairy cows offered silage ad libitum. Grass and Forage Science, 42(4): 391-395.
Van Soest P. J., Robertson J. B. and Lewis B. A. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74: 3583-3597.
Waghorn G. C., Collier K.,  Bryant M. and  Dalley D. E. 2018. Feeding fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L.) with either barley straw or pasture silage to non-lactating dairy cows. New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 66(4): 178-185.