» Articles » PMID: 35350073

Effect of Chemical and Biological Preservatives and Ensiling Stage on the Dry Matter Loss, Nutritional Value, Microbial Counts, and Ruminal in Vitro Gas Production Kinetics of Wet Brewer's Grain Silage

Overview
Journal J Anim Sci
Date 2022 Mar 29
PMID 35350073
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study evaluated the effects of chemical and biological preservatives and ensiling stage on spoilage, ruminal in vitro fermentation, and methane production of wet brewer's grain (WBG) silage. Treatments (TRT) were sodium lignosulfonate at 10 g/kg fresh WBG (NaL1) and 20 g/kg (NaL2), propionic acid at 5 g/kg fresh WBG (PRP, 99%), a combination inoculant (INO; Lactococcus lactis and Lactobacillus buchneri each at 4.9 log cfu per fresh WBG g), and untreated WBG (CON). Fresh WBG was treated and then ensiled for 60 d, after which mini silos were opened and aerobically exposed (AES) for 10 d. Data were analyzed as an RCBD (five blocks) with a 5 TRT × 3 stages (STG; fresh, ensiled, and AES) factorial arrangement. Results showed that ensiled PRP-treated WBG markedly preserved more water-soluble carbohydrates and starch than all other ensiled TRT (P < 0.001). Dry matter losses of ensiled PRP-treated WBG were 48% lower than all other ensiled TRT (P = 0.009) but were not different than CON in AES (P = 0.350). Due to its greater concentration of digestible nutrients, PRP-treated AES was less aerobically stable than CON (P = 0.03). Preservation was not improved by INO, NaL1, or NaL2 but the latter prevented the increase of neutral detergent fiber across STG (P = 0.392). Apparent in vitro DM digestibility (IVDMD) decreased only in ensiled CON, INO, and NaL1 relative to fresh WBG and AES NaL2 had greater IVDMD than all other AES TRT (P ≤ 0.032). In vitro ruminal fermentation of fresh WBG resulted in a greater methane concentration and yield than the other STG (P < 0.033). In conclusion, PRP was the most effective at preserving WBG during ensiling but failed to improve aerobic stability under the conditions tested.

References
1.
Hall M . Challenges with nonfiber carbohydrate methods. J Anim Sci. 2003; 81(12):3226-32. DOI: 10.2527/2003.81123226x. View

2.
McDougall E . Studies on ruminant saliva. 1. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochem J. 1948; 43(1):99-109. PMC: 1274641. View

3.
Van Soest P, Robertson J, Lewis B . Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991; 74(10):3583-97. DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2. View

4.
Coblentz W, Coffey K, Young A, Bertram M . Storage characteristics, nutritive value, energy content, and in vivo digestibility of moist, large rectangular bales of alfalfa-orchardgrass hay treated with a propionic acid-based preservative. J Dairy Sci. 2013; 96(4):2521-2535. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2012-6145. View

5.
Arriola K, Oliveira A, Jiang Y, Kim D, Silva H, Kim S . Meta-analysis of effects of inoculation with Lactobacillus buchneri, with or without other bacteria, on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and performance of dairy cows. J Dairy Sci. 2021; 104(7):7653-7670. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2020-19647. View