The use of bacterial inoculants for grass silage: their effects on nutrient composition and fermentation parameters in grass silages

Abstract

ABSTRACT:The effect of three microbial inoculants (Lactobacillus plantarum CCM 4000, L. fermentum LF2, and Enterococcus faecium CCM 4231) on the fermentation and nutritive value of orchard grass silage was studied under laboratory conditions. The first-cut orchard grass (280 g of dry matter/kg) was ensiled at 21°C for 105 days. All inoculants were applied at 1.0 × 10(9) CFU/ml. Uninoculated silage served as control. After inoculation, the chopped orchard grass was ensiled in 40 (1 l) plastic jars divided into four groups. The counts of the silage inoculants dominated on day 21 of ensiling: CCM 4231 strain amounted to 9.40 ± 0.30 (log10) CFU/g followed by LF2 (8.69 ± 0.39 CFU/g) and by CCM 4000 (7.55 ± 0.39 CFU/g). However, on day 105 (the end of ensiling) the highest counts of L. plantarum CCM 4000 were determined. Overall, microbial inoculants generally had a positive effect on orchard grass silage characteristics in terms of lower pH and higher lactic acid concentration. The inoculants significantly increased the lactic to acetic acid ratio in inoculated silages. The total concentration of acids (acetic, propionic, n-butyric, lactic acid) was 2-3 times higher in inoculated silages compared to control silage. The percentage proportion of fatty acids -SFA, UFA, SCFA and MCFA -was similar in all grass silages. Only the proportions of LCFA -α-linolenic acid (C 18:3 ) were lower (P < 0.001) while those of oleic acid (C 18:1 ) and linoleic acid (C 18:2 ) were higher (P < 0.001) in inoculated silages in comparison with control silage.

The effect of biological and chemical additives on the chemical composition and fermentation process of Dactylis glomerata silage

“…The decrease of concentrations of LA and AA in silages from the first cut observed in our study was in agreement with the study by Váradyová et al (2013), where similar effects were reported from microbial inoculants compared to untreated silage of cocksfoot. Nevertheless, in the second cut, increased concentrations of these acids were observed; hence, our findings are consistent with studies reported by Jalč et al (2009) once more on cocksfoot.…”

“…These findings are consistent with the study realized by Jalč et al (2009), where the content of NDF in cocksfoot silage tion activity associated with catabolism of cellulose and hemicellulose in inoculated forage grasses. In accordance with different findings, the DM losses of up to 12% are considered a reliable indicator of inoculant activity in silages forage (Driehuis et al, 2001).…”

“…In general, based on expected vegetation changes and known environmental effects on forage protein, carbohydrate, and fibre contents, both positive and negative changes in forage quality are possible as a result of atmospheric and climatic changes (Hatfield did not significantly differ from untreated silage when the silage was treated separately with Enterocococcus faecium and with Lactobacillus fermentum; however, the treatment with Lactobacillus plantarum presented significant differences in comparison with the control (Jalč et al, 2009).…”

Effects of biological and chemical additives on fermentation progress in maize silage

“…The lactic acid : acetic acid ratio is a good efficiency indicator for silage fermentation (Jalc et al 2009). This ratio ideally should not be less than 3 : 1, and the higher it is the better (Kung and Shaver 2001).…”

“…Most commercially available inoculants contain homofermentative LAB, which are used with the objective of stimulating the rate and extent of fermentation so that either the concentration or the proportion of lactic acid in the total fermentation acids in the silage is as high as possible (Jalc et al 2009;Wilkinson and Davies 2013).…”