Evaluation of chitosan and microbial inoculants on aerobic stability and fermentative profile pearl millet, corn and sorghum silages

References

• Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelhas PC, Moraes JLG, Sparovek G. 2013. Köppen's climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol Zeitsc. 22:711–728. doi:10.1127/0941-2948/2013/0507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Zahrani SS, Bora RS, Al-Garni SM. 2021. Antimicrobial activity of chitosan nanoparticles. Biotechn Biotechnol Equipm. 35:1874–1880. doi:10.1080/13102818.2022.2027816.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashbell G. 1995. Basic principles of preservation of forage, by-products and residues as silage or hay. Beit Dagan: Agricultural Research Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Association of Official Analytical Chemistry (AOAC). 2019. Official methods of analysis. 21st ed. Gaithersburg (MD): AOAC.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardes TF, Daniel JLP, Adesogan AT, McAllister TA, Drouin P, Nussio LG, Huhtanen P, Tremblay GF, Bélanger G, Cai Y. 2018. Unique challenges of silages made in hot and cold regions. J Dairy Sci. 101:4001–1019. doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borreani G, Tabacco E, Schmidt RJ, Holmes BJ, Muck RE. 2018. Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages. J Dairy Sci. 101:3952–3979. doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13837.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camilo MG, Fernandes AM, Processi EF, Motta OV, Roseira JPS, Oliveira TS. 2023. Evaluation of the type of silo associated or not with additives on the nutritional value, aerobic stability, and microbiology of pearl millet silage. Ann Brazil Acad Sci. 95:e20210421. doi:10.1590/0002-3765202320210421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrondo MJT, Crespo JPSG, Moura MJ. 1988. Production of propionic acid using a xylose utilizing Propionibacterium. App Biochem Biotechn. 17:295–312. doi:10.1007/BF02779164.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheli F, Campagnoli A, Dell’Orto V. 2013. Fungal populations and mycotoxins in silages: from occurrence to analysis. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 183:1–16. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2013.01.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chrisostomo PHB, Camilo MG, Baffa DF, Processi EF, Glória LS, Fernandes AM, Oliveira TS. 2022. Biometric evaluation and nutrients of the corn, pearl millet, and sorghum crops. Pesq Agrop Bras. 57:e02907. doi:10.1590/s1678-3921.pab2022.v57.02907.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Del Valle TA, Zenatti TF, Antonio G, Campana M, Gandra JR, Zilio EMC, Mattos LFA, Morais JGP. 2018. Effect of chitosan on the preservation quality of sugarcane silage. Grass For Sci. 73:630–638. doi:10.1111/gfs.12356.
   Google Scholar
• Detmann E, Souza MA, Valadares Filho SC, Queiroz AC, Berchielli TT, Saliba EOE, Cabral LS, Pina DS, Ladeira MM, Azevedo JAG. 2012. Métodos para análise de alimentos (INCT - Ciência Animal). Viçosa (MG): Editora UFV. (in Portuguese, with abstract in English).
   Google Scholar
• Fenner H. 1965. Method for determining total volatile bases in rumen fluid by steam distillation. J Dairy Sci. 48:249–251. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(65)88206-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furtado RN, Carneiro MSS, Coutinho DN, Cândido MJD, Silva EB. 2019. Fermentative losses and chemical composition of elephant grass silage added with castor bean hull. Rev Cien Agron. 50:140–147. doi:10.5935/1806-6690.20190017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandra JR, Machado FS, Pedrini CA, Takiya CS, Oliveira ER, Goes RHTB, Gandra ERS. 2022. Sugarcane total mixed ration silage ensiling with chitosan and homolactic microbial inoculant: characteristics of silage and animal digestion. Rev Bras Saúde Prod Anim. 23:e202200142022. doi:10.1590/s1519-9940202200142022.
   Google Scholar
• Gandra JR, Oliveira ER, Takiya CS, Goes RHTB, Paiva PG, Oliveira KMP, Gandra ERS, Orbach ND, Haraki HMC. 2016. Chitosan improves the chemical composition, microbiological quality, and aerobic stability of sugarcane silage. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 214:44–52. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.02.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goering HK, Van Soest PJ. 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures, and some applications). Agric. Handbook No. 379. Washington (DC): ARS-USDA.
   Google Scholar
• Goy RC, Britto D, Assis OCG. 2009. A review of the antimicrobial activity of chitosan. Polím. 19:241–247. doi:10.1590/S0104-14282009000300013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groot JC, Cone JW, Williams BA, Debersaques FM, Lantinga EA. 1996. Multiphasic analysis of gas production kinetics for in vitro fermentation of ruminant feeds. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 64:77–89. doi:10.1016/S0377-8401(96)01012-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper KJ, McNeill DM. 2015. The role iNDF in the regulation of feed intake and the importance of its assessment in subtropical ruminant systems (the role of iNDF in the regulation of forage intake). Agric. 5:778–790. doi:10.3390/agriculture5030778.
   Google Scholar
• Hernández-Lauzardo NA, Bautista-Baños S, Velázquez-del Valle MG, Méndez-Montealvo MG, Sánchez-Rivera MM, Bellopérez LA 2008. Antifungal effects of chitosan with different molecular weights on in vitro development of rhizopus stolonifer (Ehrenb.:Fr.) Vuill. Carboh Polym. 73:541–547. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2007.12.020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heu MS, Kim JS, Shahidi F. 2003. Components and nutritional quality of shrimp processing by-products. Food Chem. 82:235–242. doi:10.1016/S0308-8146(02)00519-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jobim CC, Nussio LG, Reis RA, Schmidt P. 2007. Avanços metodológicos na avaliação da qualidade da forragem conservada. Rev Bras Zootec. 36:101–119. doi:10.1590/S1516-35982007001000013.
   Google Scholar
• Kung L Jr. 1996. Preparation of silage water extracts for chemical analyses: standard operating procedure - 001 6.03.96. University of Delaware.
   Google Scholar
• Kung L Jr, Shaver RD, Grant RJ, Schmidt RJ. 2018. Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. J Dairy Sci. 101:4020–4033. doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13909.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Zhuang S. 2020. Antibacterial activity of chitosan and its derivatives and their interaction mechanism with bacteria: current state and perspectives. Europ Polym J. 138:10998. doi:10.1016/j.eurpolymj.2020.109984.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma Z, Garrido-Maestu A, Jeong KC. 2017. Application, mode of action, and in vivo activity of chitosan and its micro-and nanoparticles as antimicrobial agents: a review. Carboh Polym. 176:257–265. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.08.082.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald P, Henderson AR, Heron SJE. 1991. The biochemistry of silage. 2nd ed. Marlow: Chalcomb Publications.
   Google Scholar
• McDougall EI. 1948. The composition and output of sheep’s saliva. Biochem J. 43:99–109. doi:10.1042/bj0430099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melvin JF. 1965. Variations in the carbohydrate content of lucerne and the effect on ensilage. Austral J Agric Res. 16:951–959. doi:10.1071/AR9650951.
   Google Scholar
• Menke KH, Steingass H. 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim Res Develop. 28:7–55.
   Google Scholar
• Morais JPG, Cantoia R Jr, Garcia TM, Capucho E, Campana M, Gandra JR, Ghizzi LG, Del Valle TA. 2021. Chitosan and microbial inoculants in whole-plant soybean silage. J Agric Sci. 159:227–235. doi:10.1017/S0021859621000447.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muck RE. 2010. Silage microbiology and its control through additives. Rev Bras Zootec. 39:183–191. doi:10.1590/S1516-35982010001300021.
   Google Scholar
• Muck RE, Nadeau EMG, McAllister TA, Contreras-Govea FE, Santos MC, Kung L Jr. 2018. Recent advances and future uses of silage aditives. J Dairy Sci. 101:3980–4000. doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13839.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagy A, Harrison A, Sabbani S, Munson RS Jr, Dutta PK, Waldman WJ. 2011. Silver nanoparticles embedded in zeolite membranes: release of silver ions and mechanism of antibacterial action. Intern J Nanomedic. 6:1833–1855. doi:10.2147/IJN.S24019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pahlow G, Muck RE, Driehuis F, Oude Elferink SJWH, Spoelstra SF. 2003. Microbiology of ensiling. Americ Soc Agron. 42:31–93. doi:10.2134/agronmonogr42.c2.
   Google Scholar
• Ranjit NK, Kung L Jr. 2000. The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri, Lactobacillus plantarum or chemical preservative on the fermentation and stability of corn silage. J Dairy Sci. 83:526–535. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74912-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roller S, Covill N. 1999. The antifungal properties of chitosan in laboratory media and apple juice. Intern J Food Microbiol. 47:67–77. doi:10.1016/S0168-1605(99)00006-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Senel S, McClure SJ. 2004. Potential applications of chitosan in veterinary medicine. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 56:1467–1480. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2004.02.007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sirakaya S, Beyzi SB. 2022. Treatment of alfalfa silage with chitosan at different levels to determine chemical, nutritional, fermentation, and microbial parameters. J Anim Feed Sci. 31:73–80. doi:10.22358/jafs/147014/2022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sultan B, Roudier P, Alhassane A, Muller B, Dingkuhn M, Ciais P, Guimberteau M, Traore S, Baron C. 2013. Assessing climate change impacts on sorghum and millet yields in the Sudanian and Sahelian savannas of West Africa. Environm Res Lett. 8:1–10. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 74:3583–3597. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie Y, Xu S, Li W, Wang M, Wu Z, Bao J, Jia T, Yu Z. 2020. Effects of the application of lactobacillus plantarum inoculant and potassium sorbate on the fermentation quality, in vitro digestibility and aerobic stability of total mixed ration silage based on alfalfa silage. Anim. 10:2229–2242. doi:10.3390/ani10122229.
   Google Scholar
• Yahaya MS, Kimura A, Harai J, Nguyen HV, Kawai M, Takahashi J, Matsuoka S. 2001. Effect of length of ensiling on silo degradation and digestibility of structural carbohydrates of lucerne and orchardgrass. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 92:141–148. doi:10.1016/S0377-8401(01)00265-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yáñez-Ruiz DR, Bannink A, Dijkstra J, Kebreab E, Morgavi DP, O’Kiely P, Reynolds CK, Schwarm A, Shingfield KJ, Yu Z, Hristov AN. 2016. Design, implementation and interpretation of in vitro batch culture experiments to assess enteric methane mitigation in ruminants—a review. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 216:1–18. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.03.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanine AM, Sene OA, Ferreira DJ, Parente HN, Parente MOM, Pinho RMA, Santos EM, Nascimento TVC, Lima AGVO, Perazzo AF, et al. 2020. Fermentative profile, losses and chemical composition of silage soybean genotypes amended with sugarcane levels. Scient Rep. 10:21064. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-78217-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar