4.7 Article

Sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate and sodium nitrite as silage additives

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
卷 89, 期 15, 页码 2659-2667

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.3771

关键词

aerobic stability; clostridia; silage fermentation; losses

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The hygienic quality of silage is important for animal health, animal production and food quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of five silage additive mixtures on yeast, mould, and clostridia growth and other silage quality criteria. The additives, composed of sodium nitrite, sodium benzoate and/or potassium sorbate, were used to treat a grass forage crop before ensiling. The silages were compared with untreated silage and silages treated with two commercial additives: Promyr NF (PNF), which is based on formic and propionic acid, and Kofasil Ultra (KU), a mixture of sodium nitrite, sodium benzoate, sodium propionate and hexamine. RESULTS: All tested additives significantly (P < 0.001) reduced butyric acid and ammonia-N formation in low-dry-matter (DM) silages compared to the control. Only KU and the mixtures of 600 g sodium nitrite, 250 g sodium propionate, 750 g sodium benzoate (All) and 250 g sodium nitrite with 1000 g sodium benzoate and 500 g potassium sorbate (AS) ton(-1) of fresh forage were found to reduce (P < 0.001) the presence of clostridia spores in low-DM silages. In high-DM silages, treatments All, AS and A2 (250 g sodium nitrite and 1000 g sodium benzoate) contained less (P < 0.02) yeast than the control and PNF, but not KU. All treated silages were aerobically stable. The concentrations of nitrate-N in all silages and nitrite-N in low-DM were below the threshold level for feed at the end of storage. CONCLUSIONS: The additive mixtures All and particularly A5 improved silage quality at least to the same extent as commercial products, even though they contained no hexamine and less nitrite. (C) 2009 Society of Chemical Industry

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