effect of a chemical additive containing sodium
play

Effect of a chemical additive containing sodium benzoate, potassium - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Effect of a chemical additive containing sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, and sodium nitrite on the microbial populations and aerobic stability of sugarcane silage T.C. da Silva 1 , O.G. Pereira 1 , L. Kung Jr. 2 , L.D. da Silva 1 , R.A. de


  1. Effect of a chemical additive containing sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, and sodium nitrite on the microbial populations and aerobic stability of sugarcane silage T.C. da Silva 1 , O.G. Pereira 1 , L. Kung Jr. 2 , L.D. da Silva 1 , R.A. de Paula 1 , R.M. Martins 1 , V.P. da Silva 1 , K.G. Ribeiro 1 1 Universidade Federal de Vicosa, Vicosa, Minas Gerais, 36570000, Brasil. Email: timao22@hotmail.com 2 University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA Piracicaba, SP 2015

  2. Background  Brazil – largest producer (FAO, 2014)  High dry matter (DM) yield - 50 – 100 t/ha (Oliveira et al., 2010)  High nitrogen use efficiency  Nitrogen fixation

  3. Background  Why make sugarcane silage?  daily harvesting of fresh forage is labor intensive  improves flexibility of harvest  better management of the field  preservation of nutritive value

  4. 90 80 70 60 50 % 82.7 40 30 20 27.7 23.5 21.5 10 6.5 0 milho sorgo capins cana outros Corn Sorghum Grass Sugarcane Others tropicais Forage crops used for silage making in dairy farms in Brazil Bernardes and Rego (2014)

  5. Background 17.5% of ethanol

  6. Background Challenge of making sugarcane silage • High DM loss in the fermentation process 48,9% (Rooke & Hatfield, 2003) To overcome the challenge • Identify additives to control the yeasts

  7. Background  Microbial inoculants: Lactobacillus buchneri Author Dose, log cfu/g Treatment Ethanol, %DM DMR 1 , % AS 2 , h 5 × 10 4 Siqueira et al. 2010 Control - 67.5b 32a LB - 80.8a 60a 5 × 10 4 Schmidt et al. 2011 Control - 85.6a 34.7a LB - 78.7b 40.8a 3.64 × 10 5 Pedroso et al. 2007 Control 3.8a 81.8b - LB 2.0a 92.0a - 1 × 10 5 Avila et al. 2009 Control 6.1a - 24 LB 2.48b - 46.5 1 Dry matter recovery 2 Aerobic stablity

  8. Background  Chemicals: urea, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, calcium oxide (CaO) Author Treatment Ethanol DMR AS Siqueira et al., 2010 Control - 67.5b 32a SB, 0.1% - 74.5a 40a Urea, 1.5 72.8ab 40a Pedroso et al., 2007 Control 3.82a 81.8b - SB, 0.1% 2.52a 83.1b - Urea, 1.5 3.47a 93.44a - 1 Dry matter recovery 2 Aerobic stablity

  9. High moisture corn treated with Safesil - 90 d 38.0 36.0 34.0 32.0 Temperature ( ° C) 30.0 28.0 26.0 24.0 22.0 20.0 18.0 Hours Control Low Med High Ambient Da Silva et al., 2013

  10. Objectives To evaluate the effect of a chemical additive containing a mixture of potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate, and sodium nitrite, (Safesil - SAFE) on the microbial populations and aerobic stability of sugarcane silage.

  11. Materials and Methods Treatments: - Control - untreated, Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 (Lallemand, Animal Nutrition) - 1 × 10 5 - cfu/g of fresh forage, - Calcium oxide (CaO) - 0.1 g/kg fresh basis, - 2 L SAFE (Salinity Agro)/t of fresh forage (S2), - 3 L SAFE/t of fresh forage (S3), and - 5 L SAFE/t of fresh forage (S4). - Openings: 21, and 100 d - Statistical analysis: effects of treatment (T), day of ensiling (D) and their interaction (T × D) by using the software SAS 9.3 ( P < 0.05)

  12. Results and Discussion The DM content, pH, microbial composition (fresh weight basis), aerobic stability and DM recovery of sugarcane silage Treatment 1 P -value 2 SEM T  D Ctrl LB CaO S2 S3 S5 T D Day DM, % 0.43 * * * 24.84 Ac 25.11 Ac 30.95 Ab 31.26 Aab 31.84 Aab 32.3 Aa 21 24.64 Ac 24.74 Ac 31.07 Aa 28.02 Bb 31.81 Aa 32.74 Aa 100 pH 0.04 * * * 3.22 Bc 3.20 Bc 4.11 Aa 3.20 Bc 3.22 Bc 3.34 Bb 21 3.65 Ab 3.62 Ab 4.10 Aa 3.54 Ac 3.55 Ac 3.65 Ab 100 Lactic acid bacteria, log cfu/g 0.18 * * * 21 7.98 Ab 8.02 Aab 8.56 Aa 7.28 Ac 6.97 Ac 6.97 Ac 6.93 Babc 7.88 Aa 7.79 Aab 6.40 Babc 5.39 Bcd 4.00 Bd 100 A-B, a-c Means followed by the same uppercase letter in the columns and lowercase letter in the rows are not significantly different based on Tukey’s test ( P < 0.05). 1 Ctrl = control; LB = Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 (1  10 5 CFU/g); CaO = calcium oxide (10 g/kg); S2 = 2 L Safesil/t fresh weight; S3 = 3 L Safesil/t; S3 = 4 L Safesil/t. 2 T = effect of treatment, D = effect of day of ensiling; T × D = interaction between treatment and day.

  13. Number of yeasts, DM recovery and aerobic stability of sugarcane silage Treatment (T) 1 P -value 2 SEM T  D Ctrl LB CaO S2 S3 S5 T D Day Yeasts, log cfu/g 0.18 * * * 5.92 Aa 5.16 Aa 4.76 Aa 4.67 Aa 2.56 Bb 2.56 Ab 21 2.12 Bb 3.29 Bab 2.84 Bab 3.87 Aa 3.85 Aa 2.24 Ab 100 DM recovery, % 1.42 * * * 75.42 Ac 76.38 Ac 90.22 Ab 96.56 Aa 98.10 Aa 99.20 Aa 21 74.55 Ac 74.97 Ac 89.60 Ab 84.99 Bb 97.67 Aa 99.72 Aa 100 Aerobic stability, h 8.60 * * * 51.21 Ab 58.13 Ab 63.43 Bb 123.58 Ba 164.83 Aa 164.58 Aa 21 100 37.93 Ac 38.97 Ac 137.57 Ab 191.83 Aa 178.72 Aab 179.03 Aab Maximum temperature, ºC 1.03 * * * 21 40.63 Ab 39.50 Ab 35.10 Ab 25.50 Aa 21.80 Aa 22.38 Aa 100 36.6 Aa 35.60 Aa 24.70 Ba 23.00 Aa 24.50 Aa 23.59 Aa A-B, a-c Means followed by the same uppercase letter in the columns and lowercase letter in the rows are not significantly different based on Tukey’s test ( P < 0.05). 1 Ctrl = control; LB = Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 (1  10 5 CFU/g); CaO = calcium oxide (10 g/kg); S2 = 2 L Safesil/t fresh weight; S3 = 3 L Safesil/t; S3 = 4 L Safesil/t. 2 T = effect of treatment, D = effect of day of ensiling; T × D = interaction between treatment and day.

  14. Results and Discussion Synergistic effects of sodium nitrate, potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate against various fungi and bacteria have been reported (Stanojevic et al., 2009). This suggests that the high effectiveness observed in the present study even in the lowest dose used was due to the synergistic effects of those preservatives, because the amount of applied of each ingredient was lower than that reported in previous studies (Bernardes et al., 2014, Hafner et al., 2014).

  15. Results and Discussion The key effect of weak-acid inhibition of the growth of undesirable yeasts is usually attributed to the rapid diffusion of undissociated molecules through the plasma membrane. When the pH is low, the concentration of undissociated acids increases and the dissociation of these acids within the cells liberates protons and acidifies the cytoplasm disrupting internal cell mechanisms (Lambert and Stratford, 1999). There are other effects we do not know – need more studies

  16. Conclusions This was the first evaluation of Safesil in South America with sugarcane silage. This chemical additive markedly improved the fermentation by controlling yeasts which resulted in more DM recovery and better aerobic stability.

  17. Acknowledgements

  18. OBRIGADO! Obrigado! Thiago Carvalho da Silva timao@udel.edu (31) 9771-1985

Recommend


More recommend