IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/caa/jnlcjs/v54y2009i2id1665-cjas.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The use of bacterial inoculants for grass silage: their effects on nutrient composition and fermentation parameters in grass silages

Author

Listed:
  • D. Jalč

    (Institute of Animal Physiology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, Slovak Republic)

  • A. Lauková

    (Institute of Animal Physiology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, Slovak Republic)

  • M. Simonová

    (Institute of Animal Physiology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, Slovak Republic)

  • Z. Váradyová

    (Institute of Animal Physiology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Košice, Slovak Republic)

  • P. Homolka

    (Research Institute of Animal Production, Prague-Uhříněves, Czech Republic)

Abstract

The effect of three microbial inoculants (Lactobacillus plantarum CCM 4000, L. fermentum LF2, and Enterococcus faecium CCM 4231) on the fermentation and nutritive value of orchard grass silage was studied under laboratory conditions. The first-cut orchard grass (280 g of dry matter/kg) was ensiled at 21°C for 105 days. All inoculants were applied at 1.0 × 10(9) CFU/ml. Uninoculated silage served as control. After inoculation, the chopped orchard grass was ensiled in 40 (1 l) plastic jars divided into four groups. The counts of the silage inoculants dominated on day 21 of ensiling: CCM 4231 strain amounted to 9.40 ± 0.30 (log10) CFU/g followed by LF2 (8.69 ± 0.39 CFU/g) and by CCM 4000 (7.55 ± 0.39 CFU/g). However, on day 105 (the end of ensiling) the highest counts of L. plantarum CCM 4000 were determined. Overall, microbial inoculants generally had a positive effect on orchard grass silage characteristics in terms of lower pH and higher lactic acid concentration. The inoculants significantly increased the lactic to acetic acid ratio in inoculated silages. The total concentration of acids (acetic, propionic, n-butyric, lactic acid) was 2-3 times higher in inoculated silages compared to control silage. The percentage proportion of fatty acids - SFA, UFA, SCFA and MCFA - was similar in all grass silages. Only the proportions of LCFA - α- linolenic acid (C18:3) were lower (P < 0.001) while those of oleic acid (C18:1) and linoleic acid (C18:2) were higher (P < 0.001) in inoculated silages in comparison with control silage.

Suggested Citation

  • D. Jalč & A. Lauková & M. Simonová & Z. Váradyová & P. Homolka, 2009. "The use of bacterial inoculants for grass silage: their effects on nutrient composition and fermentation parameters in grass silages," Czech Journal of Animal Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 84-91.
    • Handle: RePEc:caa:jnlcjs:v:54:y:2009:i:2:id:1665-cjas
    DOI: 10.17221/1665-CJAS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cjas.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/1665-CJAS.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://cjas.agriculturejournals.cz/doi/10.17221/1665-CJAS.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17221/1665-CJAS?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. F. Jančík & V. Koukolová & P. Homolka, 2010. "Ruminal degradability of dry matter and neutral detergent fibre of grasses," Czech Journal of Animal Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 55(9), pages 359-371.
    2. Yvona Tyrolová & Luděk Bartoň & Radko Loučka, 2017. "Effects of biological and chemical additives on fermentation progress in maize silage," Czech Journal of Animal Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(7), pages 306-312.
    3. Y. Tyrolová & A. Výborná, 2011. "The effects of wilting and biological and chemical additives on the fermentation process in field pea silage," Czech Journal of Animal Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 56(10), pages 427-432.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:caa:jnlcjs:v:54:y:2009:i:2:id:1665-cjas. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ivo Andrle (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cazv.cz/en/home/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.