4.6 Article

The effect of lactic acid bacteria inoculums on in vitro rumen fermentation, methane production, ruminal cellulolytic bacteria populations and cellulase activities of corn stover silage

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTEGRATIVE AGRICULTURE
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 838-847

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S2095-3119(19)62707-3

关键词

corn stover; in vitro digestibility; lactic acid bacteria; silage

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31502015, 31672488]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi Province of China [2015021162]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) inoculums on fermentation quality and in vitro digestibility of corn stover silage. Corn stover was ensiled without (control) or with Lactobacillus plantarum (LP), Enterococcus faecalis (EF), and Enterococcus mundtii (EM) for 45 days. The fermentation characteristics were assessed, and subsequent in vitro dry matter digestibility (DM-D), neutral detergent fiber digestibility (NDF-D), volatile fatty acids (VFA), methane (CH4) production, cellulolytic bacteria proportions and their activities per corn stover silage were also determined. There was no significant difference (P>0.05) among the silage pH, lactic acid, crude protein (CP), water soluble carbohydrates (WSC) and lignocelluloses contents of different treatments. The relative proportions of Ruminococcus flavefaciens and Fibrobacter succinogenes, carboxymethyl-ocellulose and beta-glycosidase activities, DM-D, NDF-D, and VFA production of in vitro incubation was higher (P<0.05) for silages inoculated with LP and EF than those of the control silage. Silage inoculated with LP showed the lowest (P<0.05) CH4 production per unit yield of VFA, which was positively corresponded to the lowest (P<0.05) ratio of acetate to propionate. In summary, the ensiling fermentation quality and subsequent utilization of corn stover silage were efficiently improved by inoculated with L. plantarum.

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

4.6
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