Next Article in Journal
Seeding Rate Effects on Smooth Bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss.) Interseeded with Annual Warm-Season Grasses
Previous Article in Journal
Different Intercropped Soybean Planting Patterns Regulate Leaf Growth and Seed Quality
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 4
10.3390/agronomy15040882
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Storage Time on the Nutritional Value of Sugarcane Genotypes Treated with Calcium Oxide

by
Claudio de O. Romão
1,
Gleidson G. P. de Carvalho
1,
Manuela S. L. Tosto
1,
Stefanie A. Santos
1,
Aureliano J. V. Pires
2,
Camila M. A. Maranhão
3,
Luana M. A. Rufino
4,
George S. Correia
2 and
Henry D. R. Alba
1,*
1
Department of Animal Science, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador 40170-110, BA, Brazil
2
Department of Animal Science, Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia, Itapetinga 45700-000, BA, Brazil
3
Department of Animal Science, Universidade Estadual de Montes Claros, Janaúba 39401-089, MG, Brazil
4
Department of Animal Science, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Seropédica 23897-000, RJ, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(4), 882; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040882
Submission received: 19 February 2025 / Revised: 20 March 2025 / Accepted: 29 March 2025 / Published: 31 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Horticultural and Floricultural Crops)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The objective of this study was to evaluate the nutritive value of three sugarcane genotypes treated with 1.5% CaO and stored for three different periods. A split-plot design was used for the experiment. The treatments consisted of a 3 × 3 factorial design, involving three genotypes (IAC-862480, SP-791011, and CTC-3) and three storage periods (24, 48, and 72 h). No significant effect of genotype (p > 0.05) was observed on ether extract (EE), hemicellulose, or total carbohydrate contents. However, significant genotype effects (p < 0.05) were noted for dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), cellulose, lignin, non-fibrous carbohydrates (NFC), and total digestible nutrients (TDN) contents. Furthermore, significant genotype effects (p < 0.05) were observed for in vitro DM digestibility (IVDMD), as well as the A + B1, B2, and C carbohydrate fractions. No significant effect of storage time (p > 0.05) was found on DM, organic matter, CP, EE, lignin, IVDMD, or C fraction contents. In contrast, storage time had a significant effect (p < 0.05) on ADF, hemicellulose, cellulose, NFC, total carbohydrates, TDN, A + B1, and B2 contents. Calcium oxide was effective in preserving the nutritional characteristics of sugarcane for up to 72 h of storage. The genotypes SP-791011 and IAC-862480 exhibited higher nutritional value. Further experiments are needed to determine the safe amount of this feed component that can be ingested by ruminants.

1. Introduction

Among perennial grasses, sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) holds significant value in the industry due to its production of sugar and biofuels [1]. Brazil is the world’s leading producer, with approximately 8.6 million hectares dedicated to sugarcane cultivation, and is the second-largest producer of sugarcane ethanol, accounting for roughly 30% of global production. The importance of sugarcane is highlighted by its role in increasing ethanol production, which is projected to reach 54 billion liters annually by 2030, marking an 81% increase from 2018 levels. This goal is part of a broader effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 43% during that period [2].
Sugarcane is particularly valued for its attributes, such as its high capacity for dry matter (DM) production per hectare and its high sucrose content, both of which are desirable characteristics for quality forage [3]. In addition, it exhibits high rusticity and adaptability to various climatic conditions [4], is easy to handle, and demonstrates a strong ability for regrowth and high yield, allowing for a high stocking rate. Furthermore, sugarcane maintains its nutritional value after maturity, which allows it to be stored in the field [5]. For these reasons, certain sugarcane genotypes possess favorable traits for use as ruminant feed [3]. However, sugarcane as forage for ruminants also presents some nutritional challenges, including low protein and mineral content, as well as a high concentration of low-degradability fibrous carbohydrates [6]. These factors result in lower intake and reduced digestibility of the forage [7].
To enhance the nutritional quality of sugarcane as ruminant feed, various treatments are employed, primarily aimed at breaking chemical bonds, degrading, or reducing the content of fibrous compounds, thereby increasing nutrient availability [8]. Among these methods, alkaline treatments are particularly effective, as they promote the hydrolysis of structural components of the cell wall carbohydrates, leading to improved DM digestibility of sugarcane [9]. Alkaline treatments also improve the aerobic stability of the forage by inhibiting the action of microorganisms or cell metabolism in plants [10]. Among the alkaline additives, calcium oxide (CaO) has shown promising results in reducing fiber content and enhancing the degradability and digestibility of dry matter [11]. Additionally, the use of CaO contributes to the conservation of sugarcane [12], thereby reducing handling requirements and the frequency of cuts. Given that there is some degree of degradation and/or decomposition of sugarcane following its grinding or chopping [13], it is crucial to assess how CaO influences the longevity of sugarcane, maximizing aerobic exposure, enhancing fiber composition changes, and minimizing losses incurred during the process. These studies can provide valuable insights and help establish precise recommendations for using sugarcane in ruminant feeding based on technical criteria [11,12].
It is important to note that different genotypes of sugarcane may respond differently to additive treatments due to the unique nutrient content in each genotype, such as sucrose levels and fiber digestibility [14]. While many genotypes are cultivated, IAC-862480 is considered particularly suitable for animal feed due to its high degree of digestibility compared to other genotypes [15].
In this context, we hypothesize that chopped sugarcane can be stored for up to 72 h with a 1.5% CaO treatment, regardless of the genotype. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the nutritional quality of three sugarcane genotypes treated with 1.5% CaO over three different storage periods.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design and Treatments

For this study, three sugarcane genotypes were used: IAC-862480, SP-791011, and CTC-3. These genotypes were produced at the Experimental Farm of the Federal Institute of Minas Gerais, located in Salinas, where the experimental phase was conducted. The laboratory analyses were performed at the Forage and Grassland Laboratory of the State University of Southwest Bahia, Itapetinga, Bahia, Brazil.
A split-plot design was employed for the experiment. The main plots were composed of the sugarcane genotypes, while the subplots were defined by the storage times. The treatments followed a 3 × 3 factorial design, involving three genotypes and three storage periods (0, 24, 48, and 72 h). The experimental design was completely randomized, with four replications for each of the 3 × 3 factorial combinations, resulting in a total of 36 experimental units.
The sugarcane was harvested manually by cutting it 10 cm above the ground and removing the straw. The harvested material was then chopped into approximately 2.5 cm particles and homogenized with 1.5% calcium oxide in its natural state. To ensure thorough homogenization of the CaO and sugarcane mixture, it was placed in 10-L trays. The CaO was then evenly distributed throughout the sugarcane and mixed manually without delay. Twelve heaps, each weighing 3 kg, were prepared and left at room temperature in the shade for 72 h. During this period, the temperature inside the heaps was recorded every 6 h (as shown in Table 1), and samples were collected for further analysis.

2.2. Chemical Analysis

For the estimation of nutritional composition, samples were thawed and dried in a forced-air circulation oven at 55 °C for 72 h, then ground using a Willey knife mill with a 1 mm sieve. Dry matter, ash, organic matter (OM), crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), and lignin were determined following the AOAC methods [16]. Acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF), expressed exclusive of ash (NDFa), were analyzed according to Mertens [17] and Licitra et al. [18]. Hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin were estimated based on the values of NDF, ADF, and lignin. In vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) was determined according to the methods outlined by Goering and Van Soest [19].
Total carbohydrates (TC) and non-fiber carbohydrates (NFC) were estimated based on the methodology of Sniffen et al. [20], as follows:
TC = 100 − (%CP + %EE + %Ash),
NFC = (100 − %NDF − %CP − %EE − %Ash),
For the estimation of carbohydrate fractions, NFC was considered equivalent to the fractions A + B1. Fraction C was defined as the indigestible NDF after 288 h. The B2 fraction, corresponding to the available fraction of fiber, was obtained by the difference between NDFa and fraction C. Total digestible nutrients (TDN) were calculated using the prediction equations described by the NRC [21].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The results were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) considering the sources of variation for genotypes, storage times, and the genotype × time interaction, with statistical significance tested at a 5% probability level. The storage time was evaluated using regression analysis with orthogonal polynomials, decomposing the sum of squares into linear and quadratic effects. The interaction was analyzed using either a split or unsplit design, depending on the significance of the treatment effects, and the results were presented as figures. Normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk’s test, and homogeneity of variance was evaluated using the Bartlett test. Genotypes were compared using the Tukey’s test, and the variables were analyzed using the SAS 9.4 statistical package.
The statistical model used for the analysis was as follows:
Yijk = µ + αi + (αδ)ik + βj + (αβ)ij + Ɛijk,
where Yijk = dependent variable; µ = population mean; αi = fixed effect of the genotype, i = IAC-862480, SP-791011, and CTC-3; (αδ)ik = random error associated to the genotype; βj = fixed effect of the storage time, j = 0, 24, 48, and 72 h; (αβ)ij = interaction effect of the i genotypes and j storage time; and Ɛijk = random error associated with the genotype and storage time, normal and independently distributed with a mean of 0 and variance of σ2.

3. Results

There was no significant effect of genotype on organic matter (p = 0.05), ether extract (p = 0.50), hemicellulose (p = 0.24), lignin (p = 0.68), total carbohydrates (p = 0.31), and C fraction (p = 0.26) contents. However, significant differences (p < 0.01) were observed in dry matter content, with the SP-791011 genotype exhibiting 4.8% and 9.5% higher DM content compared to IAC-862480 and CTC-3, respectively. The crude protein content also showed significant differences (p = 0.01) between genotypes, with the IAC-862480 genotype having the highest protein content, which was approximately 10.7% higher than the average of the CTC-3 and SP-791011 genotypes (Table 2).
For neutral detergent fiber expressed exclusive of ash (p < 0.01) and acid detergent fiber (p < 0.01) contents, lower values were observed for the CTC-3 genotype. Cellulose content varied significantly between genotypes (p < 0.01). The SP-791011 genotype had the highest cellulose content (233.1 g/kg DM), while the lowest values were observed in the IAC-862480 (212.3 g/kg DM) and CTC-3 (233.1 g/kg DM) genotypes. Non-fiber carbohydrates content was highest in the CTC-3 genotype (378.4 g/kg DM; p < 0.01), while the lowest values were found in the IAC-862480 (345.6 g/kg DM) and SP-791011 (332.1 g/kg DM) genotypes. The CTC-3 genotype also showed the highest total digestible nutrients content (p = 0.01), with a 3.2% difference compared to the lowest TDN content observed in the IAC-862480 genotype, which was similar to the other two genotypes (Table 2).
The effect of genotype on in vitro dry matter digestibility mirrored that of ADF content, with the SP-791011 genotype showing a 12.8% higher IVDMD (p = 0.02) compared to the CTC-3 genotype. The IVDMD of the IAC-862480 genotype was similar to that of the other two genotypes. The A + B1 carbohydrate fraction content was highest in the CTC-3 genotype (p < 0.01), followed by the IAC-862480 genotype, while the SP-791011 genotype exhibited the lowest values. The SP-791011 and IAC-862480 genotypes had the highest content of the B2 carbohydrate fraction (p < 0.01), whereas the CTC-3 genotype had the lowest content, which was 13.4% lower than the average of the other two genotypes. The carbohydrate fraction C content was similar (p = 0.26) across all genotypes (Table 2).
There was no significant effect of storage time on crude protein (p = 0.10), ether extract (p = 0.10), and C fraction (p = 0.06) contents. However, storage time significantly affected the contents of dry matter (p < 0.01), organic matter (p < 0.01), acid detergent fiber (p < 0.01), hemicellulose (p < 0.01), cellulose (p < 0.01), non-fibrous carbohydrates (p < 0.01), total carbohydrates (p < 0.01), total digestible nutrients (p < 0.01), in vitro dry matter digestibility (p = 0.03), and the B2 carbohydrate fraction (p < 0.01).
A linear decreasing effect was observed for acid detergent fiber, total carbohydrates, and total digestible nutrients, with each decreasing by approximately 0.84 g/kg DM, 3.03 g/kg DM, and 2.57 g/kg DM, respectively, for each additional hour of storage, according to the regression equations. Conversely, the contents of cellulose and the B2 fraction increased by approximately 0.57 g/kg DM and 1.48 g/kg DM, respectively, for each additional hour of storage (Table 3).
The content of organic matter, hemicellulose, non-fibrous carbohydrates, and in vitro dry matter digestibility exhibited negative quadratic effects. In contrast, the dry matter content showed a positive quadratic effect. According to the regression equations (Table 3), the minimum contents of organic matter (883.9 g/kg DM), hemicellulose (89.8 g/kg DM), non-fibrous carbohydrates (279.4 g/kg DM), and in vitro dry matter digestibility (290.6 g/kg DM) were observed at storage times of 49.5, 31.0, 59.6, and 39.0 h, respectively. The dry matter content reached its highest value (366 g/kg on an as-basis matter) at approximately 48.7 h of storage.
There was an interaction effect between genotypes and storage times on the contents of neutral detergent fiber exclusive of ash (p < 0.01), lignin (p = 0.02), fraction A + B1 (p < 0.01), and fraction C (p = 0.03) (Table 2). The interaction for NDFa exhibited a quadratic effect of storage time for all three genotypes, with differences between genotypes observed only at 48 and 72 h. At 72 h, the SP-791011 genotype had the highest NDFa content, while the lowest content was observed for the CTC-3 genotype.
Storage time had a linear effect on the fraction A + B1 content for the CTC-3 and IAC-862480 genotypes, while a quadratic effect was observed for the SP-791011 genotype. Furthermore, the A + B1 fraction content differed between genotypes at 24, 48, and 72 h of storage. The interaction between storage time and genotype on lignin content showed a linear effect for the IAC-862480 genotype, a quadratic effect for CTC-3, and no significant effect for the SP-791011 genotype. No differences in lignin content were observed between genotypes, regardless of storage time.
For fraction C, the interaction effect revealed that only the SP-791011 genotype was influenced by storage time, exhibiting a quadratic effect. The other genotypes (IAC-862480 and CTC-3) were unaffected by storage time, with no differences observed between them (Figure 1).

4. Discussion

After chopping, plant decomposition is a natural process that can be influenced or accelerated by various factors, including plant species, genotype, nutrient content, temperature, and time, among others [22,23]. Alkaline treatment, such as calcium oxide, can be used to reduce the degree of decomposition over time and maintain the quality characteristics of the plant [24]. In the present study, CaO was applied to maintain the stability and nutritional characteristics of three sugarcane genotypes over time. It is important to note that CaO has additional effects on plants. It partially facilitates the solubilization of hemicellulose bonds and enhances the expansion of cellulose molecules, leading to bond breaking [25]. These processes improve the availability of nutrients, and consequently, the nutritional quality of forages treated with CaO, making them more digestible.
While there is limited information specifically regarding sugarcane genotypes, the findings of this study regarding the differences between sugarcane genotypes align with those observed in the literature [10,26,27,28]. These studies have shown that the IAC-862480 genotype exhibits better productive characteristics as forage due to its higher dry matter (DM) content and lower fiber fractions. In contrast, the CTC-3 genotype showed the lowest DM content and the highest fiber fraction content. In the current study, the SP-791011 genotype exhibited the highest DM content, indicating its superior productivity. This result is consistent with the work of Melo et al. [29], who identified this genotype as having high mass productivity. These data are important for determining the ideal genotype for forage production, the management practices that should be implemented before the forage is supplied to animals, and its potential use in reducing feed costs.
In terms of stability and nutritional quality, the use of CaO produced significant results over time when sugarcane was chopped and stored in its natural form. The results are consistent with those reported by Mota et al. [30], who found that the hydrolysis of sugarcane IAC-862480 with quicklime or hydrated lime did not affect nutrient content over different storage times (12, 36, and 60 h), except for crude protein and hemicellulose contents. In this study, the 1.5% CaO dose was efficient in inhibiting fermentation in the heaps and preserving the nutritional characteristics of the genotypes with similar DM contents. CaO is widely used in sugarcane silage to preserve nutritional quality and improve fermentative characteristics [31]. The antimicrobial effects of CaO reduce gas loss and lower the NDF concentration per gram of added CaO, which helps preserve NFC in silages. These characteristics are important for ruminant nutrition, particularly when the goal is increased productivity due to the higher nutritional quality of CaO-treated sugarcane silage [12].
The antimicrobial capacity of CaO is attributed to its alkaline nature and the molecules produced during its reaction, such as reactive oxygen species, as explained by Liang et al. [32]. According to these authors, CaO reacts with water to produce Ca(OH)₂ (pH > 11); the OH⁻ ions then interfere with the respiratory electron transport chain, limiting bacterial growth and reproduction. The second mechanism involves the production of ROS, which oxidize macromolecules (proteins, lipids) and DNA, leading to bacterial death. Additionally, the Ca2+ ions generated from CaO affect the charge balance of the cell membrane, further contributing to bacterial death.
The acid detergent fiber content aligns with the findings of Rezende et al. [33], who observed that when assessing fresh and hydrolyzed sugarcane treated with quicklime over various storage periods, the content of this fraction decreased. The lowest ADF values in the treatments with extended storage times likely reflect the effective hydrolysis of the cell wall by calcium oxide during this exposure period. The reduction in hemicellulose may be attributed to the partial solubilization of the cell wall components [25], which facilitates microbial degradation of this structure. Conversely, the observed increase in hemicellulose is likely associated with longer exposure times, which could be linked to the activity of yeasts and filamentous fungi [34] that may consume the soluble carbohydrates present in sugarcane. Additionally, a decrease in dry matter content is noted, and the concentration of fibrous components appears to increase. The quadratic trend observed in hemicellulose content mirrors the quadratic effect seen in NDF, and since ADF has a linear negative impact, the increase in hemicellulose may suggest a more degradable feed. Mota et al. [30] also reported a quadratic effect on hemicellulose content in sugarcane as storage time increased.
The lack of a CaO effect on lignin content has been confirmed in other studies, such as that of Carvalho et al. [35]. These authors found that treating sugarcane residue with CaO (at concentrations of 0%, 1.25%, 2.5%, and 3.75% dry matter) for 12 to 36 h had no discernible effect on lignin levels, regardless of the CaO concentration or exposure time. Similarly, Mota et al. [30] observed no change in lignin content following the hydrolysis of sugarcane with either quicklime or hydrated lime. However, in the present study, two genotypes (IAC-862480 and CTC-3) exhibited a decrease in lignin content as a function of storage time, with the CTC-3 genotype showing an increase in lignin content after 56 h of storage. This increase is likely due to the reduction in the concentration of other fibrous components, as lignin, being largely unaffected by fungi and considered non-degradable, consequently increases.
The assessment of fiber components is critical as these nutrients can limit dry matter intake in ruminants [36]. In this context, the reduction of these components, as observed in the present study, enhances the quality of sugarcane as a feed due to its potentially higher digestibility. If sugarcane untreated with CaO is stored for an extended period, as noted by Pate et al. [37], environmental conditions could diminish the effects of CaO, decreasing moisture levels in the sugarcane and, in turn, increasing NDF concentration. According to these authors, such changes lead to a decrease in the digestibility of sugarcane organic matter, which is undesirable for ruminant feeding. The lower cellulose content observed in this study reflects an increase in the availability of non-fiber carbohydrates in the forage. The cellulose results are consistent with those reported by Mota et al. [30], who found that cellulose content increased over time, ranging from 13.11% to 15.77% at 12 and 36 h of storage, respectively. This difference may be due to the fact that the storage duration in this study was 72 h, whereas Mota et al. [30] conducted their analysis for a maximum of 36 h. It is important to note that, alkali treatments are known to effectively break the bonds between hemicellulose-lignin and lignocellulose, hydrolyze uronic and acetic acid esters, and disrupt the crystallinity of cellulose by promoting its swelling. Moreover, alkali treatment has the potential to degrade lignin, enhancing its water solubility and facilitating its removal from the cell wall.
The non-fibrous carbohydrates results suggest greater availability of readily fermentable energy in the CTC-3 genotype, which may contribute to improved production rates in ruminants. Total digestible nutrients is a parameter that reflects the energy potential of ruminant feed, and both the IAC-862480 and CTC-3 genotypes exhibited higher TDN values compared to the other genotypes. The reduction in total carbohydrates may be attributed to the passage of time and the alkalinizing effect of lime on the sugar content of the cane, leading to a reduction in total carbohydrates. Feeds with a high proportion of the A + B1 fraction are considered excellent energy sources for microorganisms that utilize NFC.
The linear decrease in total digestible nutrients content as a function of storage time can be attributed to the reduction in both organic matter and non-fiber carbohydrates over time. Rabelo et al. [38] evaluated the chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of the dry matter of sugarcane hydrolyzed with quicklime and found that the TDN of untreated sugarcane decreased by 0.12% per hour, while the mass treated with 1.0% quicklime exhibited a decrease of 0.17%. The same study also noted that masses treated with 0.5% and 2.0% quicklime showed an increase in TDN after 6 h of hydrolysis. Rezende et al. [31] observed that the IVDMD of hydrolyzed sugarcane exhibited a quadratic trend as a function of storage time, with the highest IVDMD coefficient recorded at 120 h of storage. This result can be explained by the positive quadratic behavior of the C fraction, an indigestible fraction. As the C fraction increases, IVDMD decreases.
The increase in the percentage of fractions A + B1 is linked to the reduction of the C fraction during fermentation. These carbohydrates increase in proportion to the decrease in cell wall constituents, implying that the rise in the A + B1 fraction corresponds to a decrease in the C fraction. According to Carvalho et al. [39], feeds with a high proportion of fractions A + B1 are considered excellent energy sources for the growth of microorganisms that utilize NFC. The increase in the B2 fraction of sugarcane carbohydrates is likely due to changes in the cell wall material, resulting from the solubilization of indigestible components and the release of potentially digestible components. Therefore, the lower the C fraction, the greater the availability of cell wall material, which provides more structural carbohydrates and nutrients [40]. Sniffen et al. [20] also noted that this fraction can negatively impact the voluntary intake of feed and energy availability.
The use of CaO in the nutritional quality of sugarcane has been shown to be essential for maintaining crude protein and ether extract content over time. Additionally, it contributes to a reduction in the NDF content, a nutrient known to negatively affect the digestibility of this forage in ruminants. The enhancement in quality, as evidenced by the reduction in NDF, is further supported by the observed increase in in vitro digestibility of dry matter. Therefore, it can be concluded that the application of CaO is effective in maintaining and/or improving the nutritional quality of sugarcane for up to 72 h of storage, without the need for ensiling.

5. Conclusions

The use of 1.5% calcium oxide was effective in preserving the nutritional characteristics of sugarcane for up to 72 h of storage. The CTC-3 genotype exhibited the lowest fraction of non-degradable carbohydrates, while the SP-791011 and IAC-862480 genotypes showed higher nutritional value. Based on the chemical composition and in vitro dry matter digestibility, we recommend the IAC-862480 genotype. Regarding storage time, sugarcane treated with CaO can be stored for up to 72 h. However, regression equations should be utilized to estimate the chemical composition of sugarcane at specific times when formulating diets for ruminants. Additional research is needed to determine the maximum amount of sugarcane byproducts that can be ingested by ruminants under this chemical treatment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.G.P.d.C. and C.d.O.R.; Methodology, G.G.P.d.C., A.J.V.P. and C.M.A.M.; Validation, G.G.P.d.C., S.A.S. and A.J.V.P.; Formal Analysis, S.A.S. and L.M.A.R.; Investigation, C.d.O.R., G.S.C. and C.M.A.M.; Resources, G.G.P.d.C.; Data Curation, G.G.P.d.C., A.J.V.P. and S.A.S.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, L.M.A.R., C.M.A.M., G.S.C. and C.d.O.R.; Writing—Review & Editing, G.G.P.d.C., M.S.L.T. and H.D.R.A.; Visualization, G.G.P.d.C. and A.J.V.P.; Supervision, C.M.A.M., M.S.L.T. and H.D.R.A.; Project Administration, G.G.P.d.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Pereira, J.O.; Oliveira, D.; Faustino, M.; Vidigal, S.S.; Pereira, A.M.; Ferreira, C.M.H.; Oliveira, A.S.; Durão, J.; Rodríguez-Alcalá, L.M.; Pintado, M.E.; et al. Use of Various Sugarcane Byproducts to Produce Lipid Extracts with Bioactive Properties: Physicochemical and Biological Characterization. Biomolecules 2024, 14, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sanches, G.M.; Bordonal, R.O.; Magalhães, P.S.G.; Otto, R.; Chagas, M.F.; Cardoso, T.F.; Luciano, A.C.S. Towards greater sustainability of sugarcane production by precision agriculture to meet ethanol demands in south-central Brazil based on a life cycle assessment. Biosyst. Eng. 2023, 229, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Moura, R.R.; Camilo, M.G.; Processi, E.F.; Fernandes, A.M.; Silva, I.N.D.; Aniceto, E.S.; Oliveira, T.S.D. Evaluation of sugarcane rind on the nutritional value of ruminant feeding. Sci. Agric. 2024, 81, e20220245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhao, D.; Li, Y.R. Climate change and sugarcane production: Potential impact and mitigation strategies. Int. J. Agron. 2015, 2015, 547386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Da Cruz, T.V.; Machado, R.L. Measuring climate change’s impact on different sugarcane varieties production in the South of Goiás. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 11637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Molavian, M.; Ghorbani, G.R.; Rafiee, H.; Beauchemin, K.A. Substitution of wheat straw with sugarcane bagasse in low-forage diets fed to mid-lactation dairy cows: Milk production, digestibility, and chewing behavior. J. Dairy Sci. 2020, 103, 8034–8047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Almeida, G.A.P.; Andrade Ferreira, M.; de Lima Silva, J.; Chagas, J.C.C.; Véras, A.S.C.; de Barros, L.J.A.; de Almeida, G.L.P. Sugarcane bagasse as exclusive roughage for dairy cows in smallholder livestock system. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mahmud, M.A.; Anannya, F.R. Sugarcane bagasse-A source of cellulosic fiber for diverse applications. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kim, J.S.; Lee, Y.Y.; Kim, T.H. A review on alkaline pretreatment technology for bioconversion of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 199, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Romão, C.O.; Tosto, M.S.L.; Santos, S.A.; Pires, A.J.V.; Ribeiro, O.L.; Maranhão, C.M.A.; Rufino, L.M.A.; Correia, G.S.; Alba, H.D.R.; de Carvalho, G.G.P. Nutritive profile, digestibility, and carbohydrate fractionation of three sugarcane genotypes treated with calcium oxide. Agronomy 2023, 13, 733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Melo, V.M.; Ferreira, G.F.; Fregolente, L.V. Sustainable catalysts for biodiesel production: The potential of CaO supported on sugarcane bagasse biochar. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 189, 114042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jacovaci, F.A.; Jobim, C.C.; Schmidt, P.; Nussio, L.G.; Daniel, J.L.P. A data-analysis on the conservation and nutritive value of sugarcane silage treated with calcium oxide. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2017, 225, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Khan, N.A.; Khan, M.; Sufyan, A.; Saeed, A.; Sun, L.; Wang, S.; Nazar, M.; Tan, Z.; Liu, Y.; Tang, S. Biotechnological processing of sugarcane bagasse through solid-state fermentation with white rot fungi into nutritionally rich and digestible ruminant feed. Fermentation 2024, 10, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ishikawa, C.; Date, Y.; Umeda, M.; Tarumoto, Y.; Okubo, M.; Morimitsu, Y.; Tamura, Y.; Nishiba, Y.; Ono, H. A Data-Driven Approach to Sugarcane Breeding Programs with Agronomic Characteristics and Amino Acid Constituent Profiling. Metabolites 2024, 14, 243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Carvalho, M.V.; Rodrigues, P.H.M.; Lima, M.L.P.; dos ANJOS, I.A.; de Andrade Landell, M.G.; dos Santos, M.V.; Prada, L.F. Chemical composition and digestibility of sugarcane harvested at two periods of the year. Braz. J. Vet. Res. Anim. Sci. 2010, 47, 298–306. [Google Scholar]
  16. AOAC—Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 18th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists Inc.: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mertens, D.R. Gravimetric determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds with refluxing in beakers or crucibles: Collaborative study. J. AOAC Int. 2002, 85, 1217–1240. [Google Scholar]
  18. Licitra, G.; Hernandez, T.M.; Van Soest, P.J. Standardization of procedures for nitrogen fractionation of ruminant feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1996, 57, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Goering, H.K.; Van Soest, P.J. Forage Fiber Analysis; Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sniffen, C.J.; O’connor, J.D.; Van Soest, P.J.; Fox, D.G.; Russell, J.B. A net carbohydrate and protein system for evaluating cattle diets: II. Carbohydrate and protein availability. J. Anim. Sci. 1992, 70, 3562–3577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. NRC—National Research Council. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle, 7th ed.; National Academic Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mori, A.S.; Cornelissen, J.H.C.; Fujii, S.; Okada, K.I.; Isbell, F. A meta-analysis on decomposition quantifies afterlife effects of plant diversity as a global change driver. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 4547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhou, X.; Dong, K.; Tang, Y.; Huang, H.; Peng, G.; Wang, D. Research Progress on the Decomposition Process of Plant Litter in Wetlands: A Review. Water 2023, 15, 3246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Le, Q.; Price, G.W. A review of the influence of heat drying, alkaline treatment, and composting on biosolids characteristics and their impacts on nitrogen dynamics in biosolids-amended soils. Waste Manag. 2024, 176, 85–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Shi, M.; Ma, Z.; Tian, Y.; Zhang, X.; Shan, H. Effects of maize straw treated with various levels of CaO and moisture on composition, structure, and digestion by in vitro gas production. Anim. Biosci. 2021, 34, 1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Oliveira, M.D.S.; Rêgo, A.C.D.; Sforcini, M.P.R.; Freitas Júnior, J.E.; Santos, J.D.; Carvalho, M.V.D. Bromatological characteristics and in vitro digestibility of four sugarcane varieties subjected or not to the application of quicklime. Acta Sci. Anim. Sci. 2012, 34, 355–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Andrade Junior, A.S.; Bastos, E.A.; Ribeiro, V.Q.; Athayde, C.; Silva, P.H.D. Stalk yield of sugarcane cultivars under different water regimes by subsurface drip irrigation. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agric. Ambient. 2017, 21, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Romão, C.O.; de Carvalho, G.G.P.; Tosto, M.S.L.; Santos, S.A.; Pires, A.J.V.; Maranhão, C.M.A.; Rufino, L.M.A.; Correia, G.S.; Oliveira, P.A. Nutritional profiles of three genotypes of sugarcane silage associated with calcium oxide. Grassl. Sci. 2018, 64, 16–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Melo, L.J.O.T.D.; Oliveira, F.J.D.; Bastos, G.Q.; Anunciação Filho, C.J.D.; Reis, O.V.D. Sugarcane genotype x harvest cycles interaction in Zona da Mata Norte of Pernambuco. Bragantia 2006, 65, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mota, D.A.; Oliveira, M.D.S.D.; Domingues, F.N.; Manzi, G.M.; Ferreira, D.D.S.; Santos, J.D. Hydrolysis of cane sugar with lime or hydrated lime. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2010, 39, 1186–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Balieiro Neto, G.; Siqueira, G.R.; Reis, R.A.; Nogueira, J.R.; Roth, M.D.T.P.; Roth, A.P.D.T.P. Calcium oxide as additive on the sugarcane ensilage. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2007, 36, 1231–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liang, X.; Dai, R.; Chang, S.; Wei, Y.; Zhang, B. Antibacterial mechanism of biogenic calcium oxide and antibacterial activity of calcium oxide/polypropylene composites. Colloids Surf. A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 2022, 650, 129446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rezende, A.V.; Rabelo, C.H.S.; Andrade, L.P.; Rabelo, F.H.S.; Santos, W.B. Characteristics of sugar cane in natura and hydrolyzed with lime in different storage times. Rev. Caatinga 2013, 26, 107–116. [Google Scholar]
  34. Amaral, R.C.; Pires, A.V.; Susin, I.; Nussio, L.G.; Ferreira, E.M.; Gentil, R.S. Fresh sugarcane or ensiled without and with chemical additives: Aerobic stability of forage and diets. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2009, 38, 1857–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Carvalho, G.G.P.; Cavali, J.; Fernandes, F.E.P.; Rosa, L.O.; Olivindo, C.S.; Porto, M.O.; Pires, A.J.V.; Garcia, R. Chemical composition and dry matter digestibility of sugarcane bagasse treated with calcium oxide. Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zoo. 2009, 61, 1346–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Heering, R.; Baumont, R.; Selje-Aßmann, N.; Dickhoefer, U. Effect of physically effective fibre on chewing behaviour, ruminal fermentation, digesta passage and protein metabolism of dairy cows. J. Agric. Sci. 2023, 161, 720–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pate, F.M.; Alvarez, J.; Phillips, J.D.; Eiland, B.R. Sugarcane as a cattle feed: Production and utilization. Bulletin 2002, 844, 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  38. Rabelo, C.H.S.; Rezende, A.V.; Rabelo, F.H.S.; Nogueira, D.A.; Vieira, P.F. Chemical-bromatologic composition of hidrolyzed sugarcane with white-wash. Rev. Caatinga 2010, 23, 135–143. [Google Scholar]
  39. Carvalho, G.G.P.; Garcia, R.; Pires, A.J.V.; Pereira, O.G.; Fernandes, F.E.P.; Obeid, J.A.; Carvalho, B.M.A. Carbohydrate fractioning of elephantgrass silage wilted or enriched with cocoa meal. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2007, 36, 1000–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Singh, S.; Koli, P.; Ahmed, S.; Kumar, N.; Rana, M.; Singhal, R.; Indu; Choudhary, M.; Ren, Y. Exploring the genetic variability in yield, nutritional and digestibility traits in oat grains through ruminant nutrition. Heliyon 2024, 10, e31541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 00882 g001
Figure 1. Ash-corrected neutral detergent fiber (NDFa), lignin, A + B1 carbohydrate fraction, and C carbohydrate fraction content on sugarcane genotypes; IAC-862480, SP-791011, and CTC-3, treated with 1.5% calcium oxide (CaO) in three storage times; 0, 24, 48, and 72 h. Effect of storage time: L = linear, Q = quadratic, and N.S. = non-significant. Effect of sugarcane: capital letters indicate significant differences between sugarcane genotypes.
Figure 1. Ash-corrected neutral detergent fiber (NDFa), lignin, A + B1 carbohydrate fraction, and C carbohydrate fraction content on sugarcane genotypes; IAC-862480, SP-791011, and CTC-3, treated with 1.5% calcium oxide (CaO) in three storage times; 0, 24, 48, and 72 h. Effect of storage time: L = linear, Q = quadratic, and N.S. = non-significant. Effect of sugarcane: capital letters indicate significant differences between sugarcane genotypes.
Agronomy 15 00882 g001
Table 1. Temperatures of the heaps obtained in the sugarcane treated with 1.5% calcium oxide (CaO) and measured at different storage times.
Table 1. Temperatures of the heaps obtained in the sugarcane treated with 1.5% calcium oxide (CaO) and measured at different storage times.
GenotypeStorage Time (Hours)
244872
Temperature (°C)
IAC-86248033.328.828.8
SP-79101132.629.128.3
CTC-329.329.528.0
Table 2. Chemical composition (g/kg DM) of the sugarcane genotypes treated with calcium oxide at different storage times.
Table 2. Chemical composition (g/kg DM) of the sugarcane genotypes treated with calcium oxide at different storage times.
ItemGenotypesStorage TimeSEM 1p-Value 2
IAC-862480SP-791011CTC-30 h24 h48 h72 hGenotype (G)Time (P)G × P 3
Dry matter 4343.1 b360.5 a326.2 c302.9356.2360.0353.83.23<0.01<0.011.00
Organic matter908.0911.9918.6964.1898.7890.1898.33.270.05<0.010.11
Crude protein46.7 a41.3 b42.1 b45.841.042.044.50.570.010.100.79
Ether extract9.979.8410.029.979.6610.0710.070.050.500.100.49
NDFa 5367.1 a375.5 a349.3 b401.9338.2346.7368.93.24<0.01<0.01<0.01
ADF 6269.6 ab290.1 a256.7 b305.4271.3274.5237.33.64<0.01<0.010.21
Hemicellulose122.4114.7112.7122.098.593.3152.62.840.24<0.010.82
Cellulose212.3 b233.1 a200.5 b236.4216.1219.3189.32.91<0.01<0.010.64
Lignin51.052.751.059.850.050.845.70.840.68<0.010.02
NFC 7345.6 b332.1 b378.4 a491.8321.2317.4277.88.79<0.01<0.010.06
Total carbohydrates737.6733.8742.7908.3691.0685.2667.610.100.31<0.010.24
TDN 8552.1 ab540.1 b557.9 a696.8507.8502.9492.68.750.01<0.010.13
IVDMD 9305.1 ab335.2 a297.1 b335.1301.9288.5324.44.640.020.030.16
A + B1 10463.3 b445.0 c505.0 a541.3464.9462.8415.45.71<0.01<0.01<0.01
B2 10370.4 a380.2 a330.9 b300.8361.7359.3420.35.20<0.01<0.010.47
C 10166.3174.7164.1157.9173.4178.0164.32.190.260.060.03
1 SEM = Standard error of the mean; 2 p-value = probability. For the genotype, the means followed by different lowercase letters differ at 5% probability by the Tukey test; 3 Interaction between genotype and time; 4 expressed in g/kg as-basis matter; 5 NDFa = neutral detergent fiber expressed exclusive of residual ash; 6 ADF = acid detergent fiber; 7 NFC = non-fibrous carbohydrates; 8 TDN = total digestible nutrients; 9 IVDMD = In vitro dry matter digestibility; 10 A = rapidly fermented carbohydrates (sugars), organic acids and short oligosaccharides; B1 = starch and pectin; B2 = carbohydrates with slow degradation rate; C = non-degradable carbohydrates.
Table 3. Regression equations in sugarcane genotypes treated with calcium oxide (CaO) at different storage times (n = 36).
Table 3. Regression equations in sugarcane genotypes treated with calcium oxide (CaO) at different storage times (n = 36).
ItemRegression EquationDetermination Coefficient
Dry matterŶ = 304.88 + 2.5115X − 0.0258X20.96
Organic matterŶ = 962.1 − 3.1583X + 0.0319X20.98
Acid detergent fiberŶ = 302.29 − 0.8379X0.87
HemicelluloseŶ = 124.31 − 2.2267X + 0.0359X20.95
CelluloseŶ = 235.99 − 0.5754X0.84
Non-fibrous carbohydratesŶ = 481.67 − 6.7846X + 0.0569X20.92
Total carbohydratesŶ = 847.21 − 3.0329X0.68
Total digestible nutrientsŶ = 642.65 − 2.5729X0.66
In vitro dry matter digestibilityŶ = 336.58 − 2.349X + 0.03X20.91
B2Ŷ = 307.11 + 1.4838X0.89
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Romão, C.d.O.; Carvalho, G.G.P.d.; Tosto, M.S.L.; Santos, S.A.; Pires, A.J.V.; Maranhão, C.M.A.; Rufino, L.M.A.; Correia, G.S.; Alba, H.D.R. Effect of Storage Time on the Nutritional Value of Sugarcane Genotypes Treated with Calcium Oxide. Agronomy 2025, 15, 882. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040882

AMA Style

Romão CdO, Carvalho GGPd, Tosto MSL, Santos SA, Pires AJV, Maranhão CMA, Rufino LMA, Correia GS, Alba HDR. Effect of Storage Time on the Nutritional Value of Sugarcane Genotypes Treated with Calcium Oxide. Agronomy. 2025; 15(4):882. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040882

Chicago/Turabian Style

Romão, Claudio de O., Gleidson G. P. de Carvalho, Manuela S. L. Tosto, Stefanie A. Santos, Aureliano J. V. Pires, Camila M. A. Maranhão, Luana M. A. Rufino, George S. Correia, and Henry D. R. Alba. 2025. "Effect of Storage Time on the Nutritional Value of Sugarcane Genotypes Treated with Calcium Oxide" Agronomy 15, no. 4: 882. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040882

APA Style

Romão, C. d. O., Carvalho, G. G. P. d., Tosto, M. S. L., Santos, S. A., Pires, A. J. V., Maranhão, C. M. A., Rufino, L. M. A., Correia, G. S., & Alba, H. D. R. (2025). Effect of Storage Time on the Nutritional Value of Sugarcane Genotypes Treated with Calcium Oxide. Agronomy, 15(4), 882. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040882

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop