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

▶
effect of a chemical additive containing sodium
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

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

Nov 18, 2022 284 likes •512 views

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

slide-1
SLIDE 1

T.C. da Silva1, O.G. Pereira1, L. Kung Jr.2, L.D. da Silva1, R.A. de Paula1, R.M. Martins1, V.P. da Silva1, K.G. Ribeiro1

1Universidade Federal de Vicosa, Vicosa, Minas Gerais, 36570000, Brasil. Email: timao22@hotmail.com 2University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA

Piracicaba, SP 2015

Effect of a chemical additive containing sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, and sodium nitrite on the microbial populations and aerobic stability of sugarcane silage

slide-2
SLIDE 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
slide-3
SLIDE 3
  • 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

Background

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Forage crops used for silage making in dairy farms in Brazil

82.7 27.7 23.5 21.5 6.5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 milho sorgo capins tropicais cana

  • utros

%

Corn Sorghum Grass Sugarcane Others Bernardes and Rego (2014)

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Background

17.5% of ethanol

slide-6
SLIDE 6
  • High DM loss in the fermentation process

Challenge of making sugarcane silage

  • Identify additives to control the yeasts

To overcome the challenge

48,9% (Rooke & Hatfield, 2003)

Background

slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • Microbial inoculants: Lactobacillus buchneri

Background

Author Dose, log cfu/g Treatment Ethanol, %DM DMR1, % AS2, h Siqueira et al. 2010 5×104 Control

  • 67.5b

32a LB

  • 80.8a

60a Schmidt et al. 2011 5×104 Control

  • 85.6a

34.7a LB

  • 78.7b

40.8a Pedroso et al. 2007 3.64×105 Control 3.8a 81.8b

  • LB

2.0a 92.0a

  • Avila et al. 2009

1×105 Control 6.1a

  • 24

LB 2.48b

  • 46.5

1Dry matter recovery 2Aerobic stablity

slide-8
SLIDE 8
  • Chemicals: urea, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate,

calcium oxide (CaO)

Background

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

  • 1Dry matter recovery

2Aerobic stablity

slide-9
SLIDE 9

18.0 20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 32.0 34.0 36.0 38.0 Temperature (°C) Hours

High moisture corn treated with Safesil - 90 d

Control Low Med High Ambient

Da Silva et al., 2013

slide-10
SLIDE 10

To evaluate the effect of a chemical additive containing a mixture

  • f

potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate, and sodium nitrite, (Safesil - SAFE) on the microbial populations and aerobic stability of sugarcane silage.

Objectives

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Treatments:

  • Control - untreated,
  • Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 (Lallemand, Animal Nutrition) - 1×105

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)

Materials and Methods

slide-12
SLIDE 12
slide-13
SLIDE 13
slide-14
SLIDE 14

Treatment1 SEM P-value2 Ctrl LB CaO S2 S3 S5 T D TD Day DM, % 0.43 * * * 21 24.84Ac 25.11Ac 30.95Ab 31.26Aab 31.84Aab 32.3Aa 100 24.64Ac 24.74Ac 31.07Aa 28.02Bb 31.81Aa 32.74Aa pH 0.04 * * * 21 3.22Bc 3.20Bc 4.11Aa 3.20Bc 3.22Bc 3.34Bb 100 3.65Ab 3.62Ab 4.10Aa 3.54Ac 3.55Ac 3.65Ab Lactic acid bacteria, log cfu/g 0.18 * * * 21 7.98Ab 8.02Aab 8.56Aa 7.28Ac 6.97Ac 6.97Ac 100 6.93Babc 7.88Aa 7.79Aab 6.40Babc 5.39Bcd 4.00Bd

Results and Discussion

The DM content, pH, microbial composition (fresh weight basis), aerobic stability and DM recovery of sugarcane silage

A-B, a-cMeans 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).

1Ctrl = control; LB = Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 (1  105 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.

2T = effect of treatment, D = effect of day of ensiling; T × D = interaction between treatment and day.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Treatment (T)1 SEM P-value2 Ctrl LB CaO S2 S3 S5 T D TD Day Yeasts, log cfu/g 0.18 * * * 21 5.92Aa 5.16Aa 4.76Aa 4.67Aa 2.56Bb 2.56Ab 100 2.12Bb 3.29Bab 2.84Bab 3.87Aa 3.85Aa 2.24Ab DM recovery, % 1.42 * * * 21 75.42Ac 76.38Ac 90.22Ab 96.56Aa 98.10Aa 99.20Aa 100 74.55Ac 74.97Ac 89.60Ab 84.99Bb 97.67Aa 99.72Aa Aerobic stability, h 8.60 * * * 21 51.21Ab 58.13Ab 63.43Bb 123.58Ba 164.83Aa 164.58Aa 100 37.93Ac 38.97Ac 137.57Ab 191.83Aa 178.72Aab 179.03Aab Maximum temperature, ºC 1.03 * * * 21 40.63Ab 39.50Ab 35.10Ab 25.50Aa 21.80Aa 22.38Aa 100 36.6Aa 35.60Aa 24.70Ba 23.00Aa 24.50Aa 23.59Aa Number of yeasts, DM recovery and aerobic stability of sugarcane silage

A-B, a-cMeans followed by the same uppercase letter in the columns and lowercase letter in the rows are not significantly different based

  • n Tukey’s test (P < 0.05).

1Ctrl = control; LB = Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 (1  105 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.

2T = effect of treatment, D = effect of day of ensiling; T × D = interaction between treatment and day.

slide-16
SLIDE 16

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).

Results and Discussion

slide-17
SLIDE 17

The key effect of weak-acid inhibition of the growth of undesirable yeasts is usually attributed to the rapid diffusion

  • f 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

Results and Discussion

slide-18
SLIDE 18

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.

Conclusions

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Acknowledgements

slide-20
SLIDE 20
slide-21
SLIDE 21

Obrigado!

OBRIGADO!

Thiago Carvalho da Silva timao@udel.edu (31) 9771-1985