4.6 Article

The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, with or without homofermentative lactic acid bacteria, on the fermentation, aerobic stability and ruminal degradability of wheat, sorghum and maize silages

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 95, 期 5, 页码 1080-1086

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.02081.x

关键词

aerobic stability; in situ rumen degradability; Lactobacillus buchneri; silage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To determine the effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, alone or in combination with homofermentative lactic acid bacteria (LAB), on the fermentation, aerobic stability and ruminal degradability of wheat, sorghum and maize silages. Methods and Results: The inoculants were applied at 1.0 x 10(6) CFU g(-1). Silages with no additives served as control. Three jars per treatment were sampled on days 2, 4, 8, 15 and 60 after ensiling, for chemical and microbiological analysis. At the end of the ensiling period, the silages were subjected to an aerobic stability test. The L. buchneri- and L. buchneri + L. plantarum-inoculated silages had significantly higher levels of acetic acid than the control and L. plantarum-inoculated silages (P < 0.05). Therefore, yeast activity was impaired in the L. buchneri- and L. buchneri + L. plantarum-inoculated silages. As a result, L. buchneri, with or without L. plantarum, improved aerobic stability of the silages. The combination of L. buchneri and L. plantarum reduced pH, ammonia-N, and fermentation losses in the silages. However, L. buchneri, L. plantarum and L. buchneri + L. plantarum did not affect in situ dry matter, organic matters, and neutral detergent fibre degradability of the silages. Conclulsions: The L. buchneri was very effective in protecting the wheat, sorghum and maize silages exposed to air under laboratory conditions. Significance and Impact of the Study: The use of L. buchneri, with or without homofermentative LAB, as a silage inoculant can improve the aerobic stability of silages by inhibition of yeast activity.

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