Effects of Packing Density and Inoculation with Lactic Acid-Producing Bacteria to Evaluate the Potential for North American Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis L.) Fodder as Silage
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Harvest and Ensiling
2.2. Nutritive Analyses
2.3. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Pre-Ensiled Nutrient Composition
3.2. Post-Ensiled Nutrient Composition
3.3. Fermentation Parameters
4. Discussion
4.1. Pre-Ensiled Nutrient Composition
4.2. Post-Ensiled Nutrient Composition
4.3. Fermentation Parameters
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Thomas, A.L.; Byers, P.L.; Vincent, P.L.; Applequist, W.L. Medicinal Attributes of American Elderberry. In Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of North America; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 119–139. [Google Scholar]
- Wieland, L.S.; Piechotta, V.; Feinberg, T.; Ludeman, E.; Hutton, B.; Kanji, S.; Seely, D.; Garritty, C. Elderberry for prevention and treatment of viral respiratory illnesses: A systematic review. BMC Complement. Med. Ther. 2021, 21, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Panter, K.E. Cyanogenic glycoside–containing plants. Vet. Toxicol. 2018, 38, 935–940. [Google Scholar]
- Szemethy, D.; Orosz, S.; Szemethy, L. Investigation of elder (Sambucus nigra) and black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia) as potential raw materials of ensiling. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference, Forage Conservation, High Tatras, Slovakia, 24–26 September 2013; pp. 113–114. [Google Scholar]
- Fonseca-López, D.; Rodríguez-Molano, C.E. Effect of a microbial inoculant on the microbiological and nutritional quality of Morus alba L. and Sambucus nigra L. silage. Rev. Logos Cienc. Tecnol. 2019, 11, 93–101. [Google Scholar]
- McDonald, P.; Henderson, A.R.; Heron, S.J.E. The Biochemistry of Silage; Chalcombe Publications: Marlow, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Muck, R.E. Factors influencing silage quality and their implications for management. J. Dairy Sci. 1988, 71, 2992–3002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pahlow, G.; Muck, R.E.; Driehuis, F. Microbiology of Ensiling. In Silage Science and Technology; Buxton, D.R., Muck, R.E., Harrison, J.H., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 2003; pp. 31–93. [Google Scholar]
- Pitt, R.E.; Leibensperger, R.Y. The effectiveness of silage inoculants: A systems approach. Agric. Syst. 1987, 25, 27–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muck, R.E.; Holmes, B.J. Density and losses in pressed bag silos. In 2001 ASAE Annual Meeting; American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Jennings, J.A. Baled Silage for Livestock; FSA3051-PD-4–11RV; University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service: Little Rock, AR, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). Official Method of Analysis, 990.03. In Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 18th ed.; Latimer, G.W., Horwitz, W., Eds.; AOAC International: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- ANKOM Technology. Neutral Detergent Fiber in Feeds: Filter Bag Technique; ANKOM Technology: Macedon, NY, USA, 2020; Available online: https://www.ankom.com/sites/default/files/document-files/Method_15_NDF_DELTA.pdf. (accessed on 22 November 2022).
- ANKOM Technology. Acid Detergent Fiber in Feeds—Filter Bag Technique; ANKOM Technology: Macedon, NY, USA, 2020. Available online: https://www.ankom.com/sites/default/files/document-files/Method_14_ADF_DELTA.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2022).
- National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th ed.; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, J.E.; Undersander, D.J. Relative Forage Quality: An Alternative to Relative Feed Value and Quality Index. In Proceedings of the 13th annual Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symposium, Gainesville, FL, USA, 11–12 January 2002; Volume 32, pp. 16–32. [Google Scholar]
- Krom, M.D. Spectrophotometric determination of ammonia: A study of a modified Berthelot reaction using salicylate and dichloroisocyanurate. Analyst 1980, 105, 305–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle, 8th ed.; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, J.; Kuoppala, K.; Yáñez-Ruiz, D.; Leach, K.; Rinne, M. Nutritional and fermentation quality of ensiled willow from an integrated feed and bioenergy agroforestry system in UK. Suom. Maatal. Seuran Tied. 2014, 30, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baertsche, S.R.; Yokoyama, M.T.; Hanover, J.W. Short rotation, hardwood tree biomass as potential ruminant feed-chemical composition, nylon bag ruminal degradation and ensilement of selected species. J. Anim. Sci. 1986, 63, 2028–2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blajman, J.E.; Paez, R.B.; Vinderola, C.G.; Lingua, M.S.; Signorini, M.L. A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of homofermentative and heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria for corn silage. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 125, 1655–1669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmes, B.J.; Muck, R.E. Packing bunker and pile silos to minimize porosity. In Focus on Forage; University of Wisconsin-Extension: Madison, WI, USA, 2008; Volume 10. [Google Scholar]
- Borreani, G.; Tabacco, E.; Schmidt, R.J.; Holmes, B.J.; Muck, R.E. Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 10, 3952–3979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kung, L., Jr.; Shaver, R.D.; Grant, R.J.; Schmidt, R.J. Silage review: Interpretation of chemical, microbial, and organoleptic components of silages. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 4020–4033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oliveira, A.S.; Weinberg, Z.G.; Ogunade, I.M.; Cervantes, A.A.; Arriola, K.G.; Jiang, Y.; Adesogan, A.T. Meta-analysis of effects of inoculation with homofermentative and facultative heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and the performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 4587–4603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oude Elferink, S.J.W.H.; Krooneman, J.; Gottschal, J.C.; Spoelstra, S.F.; Faber, F.; Driehuis, F. Anaerobic conversion of lactic acid to acetic acid and 1, 2-propanediol by Lactobacillus buchneri. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 67, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Driehuis, F.; Oude Elferink, S.J.W.H.; van Wikselaar, P.G. Fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of grass silage inoculated with Lactobacillus buchneri, with or without homofermentative lactic acid bacteria. Grass Forage Sci. 2001, 56, 330–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muck, R. Recent advances in silage microbiology. Agric. Food Sci. 2013, 22, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
CP 2 | ADF | NDF | NFC | TDN | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% | ||||||||||
Fresh elderberry fodder | 5.6 | 62.5 | 72.5 | 11.4 | 53 | |||||
Tall fescue | 9.2 | 40.3 | 65 | n/a 3 | n/a | |||||
Ca | P | Mg | K | Na | Fe | Zn | Cu | Mn | Mo | |
% | ppm | |||||||||
Fresh elderberry fodder | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 0.04 | 48 | 18 | 5 | 50 | 0.5 |
Tall fescue | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1.7 | 0.21 | n/a | 21 | 5 | 90 | 1 |
Treatment | CP 1 | ADF | NDF | NFC | TDN | NEL | NEM | NEG | RFV |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Density | % | % | % | % | % | McaL/kg | McaL/kg | McaL/kg | % |
High | 5.9 | 67.5 | 77.5 | 6.2 | 51.8 | 0.67 | 0.9 | 0.36 | 43.8 |
Low | 5.6 | 67.7 | 77.5 | 6.4 | 51.8 | 0.67 | 0.9 | 0.36 | 43.5 |
SEM 2 | 0.09 | 0.25 | 0.47 | 0.46 | 0.16 | 0.018 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.35 |
p-Value | 0.06 | 0.56 | 0.99 | 0.68 | 1 | 0.92 | 1 | 1 | 0.62 |
Inoculant | |||||||||
Yes | 5.8 | 67.1 b3 | 77.1 | 6.7 | 51.8 | 0.69 | 0.9 | 0.36 | 44.4 a |
No | 5.7 | 68.1 a | 77.8 | 5.9 | 51.6 | 0.66 | 0.89 | 0.36 | 42.9 b |
SEM | 0.09 | 0.25 | 0.47 | 0.46 | 0.16 | 0.018 | 0.006 | 0.006 | 0.35 |
p-Value | 0.85 | 0.01 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.3 | 0.27 | 0.2 | 0.58 | <0.01 |
Density × Inoculant | |||||||||
High × Yes | 6 | 66.7 | 77.1 | 6.4 | 51.8 | 0.69 | 0.9 | 0.36 | 44.8 |
High × No | 5.8 | 68.3 | 77.8 | 5.9 | 51.8 | 0.66 | 0.9 | 0.36 | 42.8 |
Low × Yes | 5.6 | 67.4 | 77 | 6.9 | 52 | 0.69 | 0.91 | 0.36 | 44 |
Low × No | 5.7 | 67.9 | 77.9 | 5.9 | 51.5 | 0.66 | 0.89 | 0.36 | 43 |
SEM | 0.13 | 0.35 | 0.66 | 0.65 | 0.23 | 0.026 | 0.008 | 0.009 | 0.49 |
p-Value | 0.28 | 0.15 | 0.87 | 0.71 | 0.3 | 0.92 | 0.51 | 1 | 0.33 |
Moisture | NH3-N | pH | Lactic Acid | Acetic Acid | Propionic Acid | Succinic Acid | Formic Acid | Ethanol | Propanediol | Propanol | Butanediol | Total Acids | Total Alcohol | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Density | % | % of N | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |
High | 55.5 | 0.27 | 4.6 | 0.83 a | 1.24 | 0.33 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.99 | 0.49 | 0.08 | 0.45 | 2.51 | 2.02 |
Low | 55.0 | 0.23 | 4.6 | 0.62 b | 1.43 | 0.25 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 1.07 | 0.48 | 0.05 | 0.44 | 2.39 | 2.04 |
SEM 1 | 0.22 | 0.014 | 0.10 | 0.065 | 0.132 | 0.039 | 0.008 | 0.035 | 0.091 | 0.076 | 0.011 | 0.015 | 0.165 | 0.166 |
p-Value | 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.64 | 0.04 | 0.33 | 0.18 | 0.67 | 0.75 | 0.56 | 0.95 | 0.16 | 0.65 | 0.62 | 0.90 |
Inoculant | ||||||||||||||
Yes | 55.3 | 0.22 b3 | 4.6 | 0.50 b | 1.78 a | 0.29 | 0.05 b | 0.01 | 0.71 b | 0.77 a | 0.09 a | 0.44 | 2.62 | 2.02 |
No | 55.2 | 0.27 a | 4.7 | 0.96 a | 0.89 b | 0.29 | 0.08 a | 0.07 | 1.35 a | 0.20 b | 0.04 b | 0.45 | 2.28 | 2.04 |
SEM | 0.22 | 0.014 | 0.10 | 0.065 | 0.132 | 0.039 | 0.008 | 0.035 | 0.091 | 0.076 | 0.011 | 0.015 | 0.165 | 0.166 |
p-Value | 0.56 | 0.03 | 0.50 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.98 | 0.02 | 0.24 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.74 | 0.17 | 0.92 |
Density × Inoculant | ||||||||||||||
High × Yes | 55.7 | 0.26 | 4.6 | 0.54 | 1.68 | 0.29 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 1.36 | 0.82 | 0.11 | 0.45 | 2.58 | 2.02 |
High × No | 55.3 | 0.28 | 4.7 | 1.13 | 0.79 | 0.36 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 1.35 | 0.16 | 0.05 | 0.46 | 2.44 | 2.01 |
Low × Yes | 55.0 | 0.19 | 4.6 | 0.46 | 1.87 | 0.29 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.78 | 0.73 | 0.07 | 0.44 | 2.66 | 2.02 |
Low × No | 55.0 | 0.27 | 4.6 | 0.79 | 0.98 | 0.21 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 1.36 | 0.23 | 0.04 | 0.44 | 2.12 | 2.07 |
SEM | 0.31 | 0.019 | 0.14 | 0.092 | 0.186 | 0.055 | 0.011 | 0.050 | 0.128 | 0.107 | 0.016 | 0.022 | 0.233 | 0.235 |
p-Value | 0.54 | 0.16 | 0.76 | 0.18 | 0.99 | 0.20 | 0.67 | 0.98 | 0.64 | 0.46 | 0.55 | 0.82 | 0.40 | 0.90 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nieman, C.C.; Conway-Anderson, A.C. Effects of Packing Density and Inoculation with Lactic Acid-Producing Bacteria to Evaluate the Potential for North American Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis L.) Fodder as Silage. Agronomy 2022, 12, 3212. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123212
Nieman CC, Conway-Anderson AC. Effects of Packing Density and Inoculation with Lactic Acid-Producing Bacteria to Evaluate the Potential for North American Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis L.) Fodder as Silage. Agronomy. 2022; 12(12):3212. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123212
Chicago/Turabian StyleNieman, Christine C., and Ashley C. Conway-Anderson. 2022. "Effects of Packing Density and Inoculation with Lactic Acid-Producing Bacteria to Evaluate the Potential for North American Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis L.) Fodder as Silage" Agronomy 12, no. 12: 3212. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12123212