Inoculation of Lactobacillus buchneri alone or with Bacillus subtilis and total losses, aerobic stability, and microbiological quality of sunflower silage

Figures & data

Table 1. Chemical composition of sunflower plant (g/kg DM, otherwise stated).

Dry matter (g/kg fresh forage)	316
Organic matter	914
Neutral detergent fibre	481
Acid detergent fibre	359
Non-fibre carbohydrate^a	281
Crude protein	97.3
Ash	82.9
Lignin	69.6
Ether extract	58.6
Net energy of lactation (MJ/kg DM)^b	6.17

^aNon-fibre carbohydrate = 1000 – (neutral detergent fibre + crude protein + ether extract + ash), in which values were expressed in g/kg DM.

^bAccording to NRC (2001): net energy of lactation = (digestible NDF + digestible NFC + digestible CP + (digestible EE × 2.25) – 7), where neutral detergent fibre is NDF, non-fibre carbohydrate is NFC, crude protein is CP, and ether extract is EE.

Table 2. Influence of inoculation of Lactobacillus buchneri alone or with Bacillus subtilis on fermentative and effluent losses of sunflower silage.

Item	Treatment^a			SEM	P-value
	CON	LB	LB + BS
Losses
Gas (%)	1.27^a,b	1.09^b	2.05^a	0.17	.016
Gas (% DM)	8.34^b	12.9^a	10.4^a,b	0.82	.040
Effluent (kg/t)	24.2^a	23.4^b	23.6^a,b	0.13	.043
Effluent (% DM)	2.24^a	1.92^b	2.02^b	0.02	.001
Total (% DM)	10.6^b	14.8^a	12.4^a,b	0.80	.033
Dry matter recovery (% DM)	91.6^a	81.6^b	83.9^b	0.38	.001

Notes: SEM: standard error of the mean. Superscripts within a row differ significantly (P ≤ .05) according to the Tukey test.

^aControl (CON), without inoculants; L. buchneri alone (LB), inoculation at 2.6 × 10¹⁰ cfu/g; and L. buchneri with B. subtilis (LB + BS), inoculation at 9 × 10⁹ cfu/g and 1 × 10⁹ cfu/g with L. buchneri and B. subtilis, respectively. Treatments were applied at 2 g/t of fresh forage ensiled.

Table 3. Influence of inoculation of Lactobacillus buchneri alone or with Bacillus subtilis on chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of sunflower silage at the silo opening.

Item	Treatment^a			SEM	P-value
	CON	LB	LB + BS
pH	3.31	3.19	3.26	0.02	.114
NH3–N (mg/dL)	5.87	6.73	5.38	0.28	.144
Titratable acidity	2.10^a	1.93^a	1.43^b	0.06	.031
Chemical composition (g/kg DM)
Dry matter (g/kg fresh matter)	292^a	259^b	269^b	3.00	.001
Organic matter	907	907	905	0.60	.334
Crude protein	135	131	138	3.71	.456
Ether extract	140^a,b	155^a	124^b	3.92	.004
Non-fibre carbohydrate^b	242	208	223	7.05	.141
Neutral detergent fibre	389	412	418	5.73	.087
Acid detergent fibre	335	309	310	5.98	.129
Lignin	48.7	51.0	45.5	1.47	.324
Ash	93.2	92.7	95.1	6.13	.310
Total digestible nutrient	711	702	699	2.26	.087
Net energy of lactation (MJ/kg DM) in vitro digestibility (g/kg DM)	6.49	6.41	6.41	0.04	.078
Dry matter	801^b	858^a	852^a	0.24	.002
Organic matter	819^b	876^a	869^a	0.24	.045
Neutral detergent fibre	708^b	739^a	728^a	0.78	.050
Acid detergent fibre	538	514	520	0.47	.548

Notes: SEM: standard error of the mean. Superscripts within a row differ significantly (P ≤ .05) according to the Tukey test.

^aControl (CON), without inoculants; L. buchneri alone (LB), inoculation at 2.6 × 10¹⁰ cfu/g; and L. buchneri with B. subtilis (LB + BS), inoculation at 9 × 10⁹ cfu/g and 1 × 10⁹ cfu/g with L. buchneri and B. subtilis, respectively. Treatments were applied at 2 g/t of fresh forage ensiled.

^bNon-fibre carbohydrate = 1000 – (neutral detergent fibre + crude protein + ether extract + ash), in which values were expressed in g/kg DM.

Table 4. Influence of inoculation of Lactobacillus buchneri alone or with Bacillus subtilis on 5-d aerobic stability of sunflower silage.

Item	Treatment^a			SEM	P-value
	CON	LB	LB + BS
Temperature (°C)
Maximum	25.8	25.9	26.3	0.08	.516
Accumulated temperature (5 d)	374^c	378^b	386^a	0.95	.001
Stability	24.6	25.2	24.9	0.11	.743
Stability (hours)	75.4^b	91.4^a	102.9^a	2.66	.001
pH	5.60^a	4.43^b	4.88^a,b	0.12	.034
Dry matter losses (g/kg)	388^a,b	361^b	402^a	7.41	.006

Notes: SEM: standard error of the mean. Superscripts within a row differ significantly (P ≤ .05) according to the Tukey test.

^aControl (CON), without inoculants; L. buchneri alone (LB), inoculation at 2.6 × 10¹⁰ cfu/g; and L. buchneri with B. subtilis (LB + BS), inoculation at 9 × 10⁹ cfu/g and 1 × 10⁹ cfu/g with L. buchneri and B. subtilis, respectively. Treatments were applied at 2 g/t of fresh forage ensiled.

Figure 1. Influence of inoculation of Lactobacillus buchneri alone or with Bacillus subtilis on sunflower silage pH during 5-d of oxygen exposure (mean ± SD). Note: Control (CON), without inoculants; L. buchneri alone (LB), inoculation at 2.6 × 10¹⁰ cfu/g; and L. buchneri with B. subtilis (LB + BS), inoculation at 9 × 10⁹ cfu/g and 1 × 10⁹ cfu/g with L. buchneri and B. subtilis, respectively. Treatments were applied at 2 g/t of fresh forage ensiled.

Figure 2. Influence of inoculation of Lactobacillus buchneri alone or with Bacillus subtilis on dry matter losses of sunflower silage during 5-d of oxygen exposure (mean ± SD). Note: Control (CON), without inoculants; L. buchneri alone (LB), inoculation at 2.6 × 10¹⁰ cfu/g; and L. buchneri with B. subtilis (LB + BS), inoculation at 9 × 10⁹ cfu/g and 1 × 10⁹ cfu/g with L. buchneri and B. subtilis, respectively. Treatments were applied at 2 g/t of fresh forage ensiled.

Table 5. Influence of inoculation of Lactobacillus buchneri alone or with Bacillus subtilis on microbiology of sunflower silage at the silo opening.

Item	Treatment^a			SEM	P-value
	CON	LB	LB + BS
Bacteria(cfu/g log10)
Total	7.45	7.71	7.54	0.18	.316
Aerobic	6.00^a	4.49^b	4.85^b	0.15	.001
Anaerobic	7.13	7.41	7.24	0.14	.743
Lactic	5.52^b	7.29^a	7.67^a	0.11	.001
Mould and yeast (cfu/g log10)	6.88^a	4.12^c	5.85^b	0.12	.001

Notes: SEM: standard error of the mean. Superscripts within a row differ significantly (P < .05) according to the Tukey test.

^aControl (CON), without inoculants; L. buchneri alone (LB), inoculation at 2.6 × 10¹⁰ cfu/g; and L. buchneri with B. subtilis (LB + BS), inoculation at 9 × 10⁹ cfu/g and 1 × 10⁹ cfu/g with L. buchneri and B. subtilis, respectively. Treatments were applied at 2 g/t of fresh forage ensiled.

[NRC] National Research Council. 2001. Nutrient requirements of dairy cattle, 7th revised ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Science.

 Google Scholar