Cited by 60Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyBiofuel production and bioconversion

Chitosan improves the chemical composition, microbiological quality, and aerobic stability of sugarcane silage

Open access
Gandra, J.R., Oliveira, E.R., Takiya, C.S., Goes, R.H.T.B., Paiva, P.G., Oliveira, K.M.P., Gandra, E.R.S., Orbach, N.D. +1 more·2016·Animal Feed Science and Technology

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of inoculants on chemical composition, dry matter (DM) and neutral detergent fiber (aNDF) in vitro degradation, fermentative and effluent losses, microbiology, fermentative profile, and aerobic stability of sugarcane mini-silos. Treatments were randomly distributed to the mini-silos, in which: (1) Control (CON); (2) Lactobacillus buchneri (Lb), addition of Lb at 2.6×1010cfu/g; (3) Lactobacillus buchneri and Bacillus subtilis (Lb+Bs), addition of Lb at 2.6×1010cfu/g and Bs at 1×109cfu/g; and (4) Chitosan (CHI), addition of 1% of CHI on wet basis of sugarcane ensiled. Treatments 2 and 3 were incorporated to the silage at 2g/t of natural matter ensiled. Lb and Lb+Bs did not alter the in vitro degradation of DM and NDF. Chitosan incorporation increased the DM content (P=0.013, 18.7g/kg DM) and improved (P=0.029, 45.6g/kg DM) the NDF in vitro degradation of sugarcane silage. In addition, CHI incorporation showed higher (P=0.002) DM content in silage than Lb and Lb+Bs. Microbial inoculants (Lb and Lb+Bs) reduced the total losses (P=0.009) of sugarcane silage. Moreover, CHI incorporation showed lower (P=0.001, 84.9g/kg DM) total losses and higher (P=0.031, 84.8g/kg DM) dry matter recovery than Lb and Lb+Bs. Lactic acid bacteria concentration was increased (P=0.001) with additives, and CHI incorporation showed higher (P=0.001) lactic acid bacteria concentration than silages treated Lb and Lb+Bs. All additives decreased the ethanol concentration in sugarcane silage, but CHI showed lower (P=0.002) ethanol concentration compared to Lb and Lb+Bs. Inoculants improved the aerobic stability of sugarcane silage. In general, the incorporation of CHI to sugarcane silage showed better results of NDF in vitro degradation and gas and effluent losses than Lb and Lb+Bs. Moreover, CHI incorporation showed higher concentration of lactic acid bacteria and lower concentration of ethanol compared to silages treated Lb and Lb+Bs. Chitosan may be an alternative additive to microbial inoculants used in sugarcane ensiling.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2016.02.020

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Kulasek, G.A., 1972. A micromethod for determination of urea in plasma, whole blood and blood cells using urease and phenol reagent. Pol. Arch. Wet. 15, 801-810 (no doi) -http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4663270?dopt=.
  2. Kung Jr., L., Strokes, M.R., Lin, C.J., 2003. Silage Additives. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp. 305-360.
  3. Todovora, S., Kozhuharova, L., 2010. Characteristics and antimicrobial activity of Bacillus subtilis strains isolated from soil. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 26, 1207-1216, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11274-009-0290-1. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gandra, J. R., Oliveira, E. R., Takiya, C. S., Goes, R. H. T. B., Paiva, P. G., Oliveira, K. M. P., Gandra, E. R. S., Orbach, N. D., & Haraki, H. M. C.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados (BR)
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
  • Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) (BR)
Corresponding author
Gandra, J.R.
Venue
Animal Feed Science and Technology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
214
Pages
44-52
ISSN
0377-8401 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2283491487
Cited by
60
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
FWCI
10.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Animal Feed Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biofuel production and bioconversion
Keywords
sugarcane silage, chitosan, silage inoculants, Lactobacillus buchneri, Bacillus subtilis, aerobic stability, in vitro degradation, dry matter loss, silage fermentation, lactic acid bacteria, ethanol concentration, silage microbiology, ensiling additives, neutral detergent fiber, dry matter recovery, forage preservation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review