4.7 Article

The use of Lactobacillus species as starter cultures for enhancing the quality of sugar cane silage

期刊

JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE
卷 97, 期 2, 页码 940-951

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2013-6987

关键词

inoculant; Lactobacillus hilgardii; 1,2-propanediol; yeast

资金

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico do Brasil (CNPQ)
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG, Brazil)
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior(CAPES, Brazil)
  4. Lallemand Animal Nutrition SAS (Milwaukee, WI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sugar cane (Saccharum spp.) is a forage crop widely used in animal feed because of its high dry matter (DM) production (25 to 40 t/ha) and high energy concentration. The ensiling of sugar cane often incurs problems with the growth of yeasts, which leads to high losses of DM throughout the fermentative process. The selection of specific inoculants for sugar cane silage can improve the quality of the silage. The present study aimed to select strains of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) isolated from sugar cane silage and to assess their effects when used as additives on the same type of silage. The LAB strains were inoculated into sugar cane broth to evaluate their production of metabolites. The selected strains produced higher concentrations of acetic and propionic acids and resulted in better silage characteristics, such as low yeast population, lower ethanol content, and lesser DM loss. These data confirmed that facultative heterofermentative strains are not good candidates for sugar cane silage inoculation and may even worsen the quality of the silage fermentation by increasing DM losses throughout the process. Lactobacillus hilgardii strains UFLA SIL51 and UFLA SIL52 resulted in silage with the best characteristics in relation to DM loss, low ethanol content, higher LAB population, and low butyric acid content. Strains UFLA SIL51 and SIL52 are recommended as starter cultures for sugar cane silage.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据