تاثیر افزودن آنزیم و باکتری های مولد اسید لاکتیک بر قابلیت هضم، تولید متان و جمعیت پروتوزوآ سیلاژ تفاله گوجه فرنگی و بقایای کدو آجیلی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 گروه علوم دامی، دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، واحد قائمشهر، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قائمشهر، ایران

2 گروه علوم دامی، دانشکده کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی، دانشگاه گنبد کاووس، گنبد کاووس، ایران

10.22034/AEJ.2022.353567.2854

چکیده

این پژوهش به ­منظور بررسی تاثیر افزودنی آنزیم و باکتری ­های مولد اسید لاکتیک بر قابلیت هضم، تولید متان و جمعیت پروتوزوآ سیلاژ مخلوط تفاله گوجه فرنگی و ضایعات کدو آجیلی انجام شد. تیمارهای آزمایشی شامل: 1) مخلوط تفاله گوجه فرنگی و بقایای کدو آجیلی به نسبت 1: 1 (به عنوان شاهد)، 2) شاهد+آنزیم، 3) شاهد+افزودنی باکتریایی تولید شده در آزمایشگاه و 4) شاهد+آنزیم+افرودنی باکتریایی، بودند. تیمارهای آزمایشی در سه تکرار در کیسه ­های نایلونی به وزن 3 کیلوگرم به ­صورت دستی فشرده و به­ مدت 90 روز سیلو شدند. قابلیت هضم تیمارهای مختلف براساس روش کشت بسته، شمارش جمعیت پروتوزوآ از محلول MFS (متیل گرین، فرمالین، سیلین) و هم چنین جهت برآورد تولید گاز متان از روش آزمون تولید متان استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد. عامل تفکیک بین تیمارهای آزمایشی متفاوت بود (0/035>P) که بیش ترین عامل تفکیک مربوط به تیمار افزودنی آنزیم بود. در تولید توده میکروبی و بازده تولید گاز بین تیمارها اختلاف آماری معنی ­داری وجود نداشت (0/05<P). بازده تولید پروتئین میکروبی اختلاف آماری معنی­ دار وجود داشت (0/05>P).از نظر جمعیت پروتوزوآ بین تیمارهای آزمایشی جمعیت کل و هالوتریش ­ها اختلاف آماری معنی­ دار بود (0/05>P). ولی در جمعیت آنتودینیوم، دیپلودینیوم، افریواسکولکس،اختلاف آماری معنی­ دار نبود (0/05<p). از نظر تولید متان در فاکتور کل گاز تولیدی و  پتانسیل کاهش تولید متان اختلاف آماری معنی ­دار مشاهده شد (0/05>P). ولی از نظر متان اختلاف آماری معنی­ دار نبود (0/05<P). به ­طور کلی، نتایج نشان داد که استفاده از افزودنی ­های مختلف در مقایسه با تیمار شاهد تأثیر قابل ملاحظه ­ای بر ارزش تغذیه ­ای سیلاژ مخلوط تفاله گوجه فرنگی و ضایعات کدو آجیلی نداشتند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Effect of using enzyme and Lactic acid bacterial inoculant on digestibility, protozoa population and Methane production(CH4) of tomato pomace and pumpkin waste silage

نویسندگان [English]

  • Esmaeil Ganji Jameh Shooran 1
  • Kaveh Jafari Khorshidi 1
  • Javad Bayat Kouhsar 2
1 Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Ghaemshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ghaemshahr, Iran
2 Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Gonbad Kavous University, Gonbad Kavous, Iran
چکیده [English]

This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of enzymes and lactic acid bacterial inoculant on the digestibility, methane production and protozoa population silage mix of tomato pomace and pumpkin waste. Representative of samples were packed manually, in triplicate into plastic bags and were stored at ambient temperature and allowed to ensile for 90 days. The following treatments were applied to the forage samples: 1) tomato pomace and pumpkin waste silage mix (50:50), without any additives (control), 2) control + LAB made inoculant (8×109 CFU/ml), 3) control + fibrolytic enzyme and 4) control + Fibrolytic Enzyme+ LAB made inoculants. The results showed partitioning factor between experimental treatments showed significant difference (P<0.035), that the most parsing factor was related to enzyme additive treatment. No significant difference was seen between treatments in terms of microbial mass production and gas production efficiency (P>0.05). But, microbial protein production efficiency was significantly different (P<0.05). In terms of protozoa population, there was a significant difference between experimental treatments of total population and halotric (P<0.05). But, in the population of Antonium, Diplodinium, Africavasculus, the difference was not significant (P>0.05). Methane production in total gaseous production and MRP was significantly different (P<0.05). But, there was no significant difference in methane (P>0.05). Overall, the results showed that the use of various additives had no significant effect on the nutritional value of the silage of the mixture of tomato pomace and pumpkin waste compared to the control treatment.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Tomato Pomace Silage
  • Pumpkin Waste Silage
  • Enzyme
  • Bacterial Inoculant
  • Fermentation
  1. Paya, H. and Taghizadeh, A., 2018. Effect of Lasalocid on rumen ecosystem and fermentation parameters in Ghezel sheep. Journal of Animal Environment. 10(3): 53-58. (In persian)
  2. Fazaeli, H., 2018. Optimum use of agricultural residues in livestock feeding. The 4th national conference on the study of waste of agricultural products of Tarbiat Modares University. 204-198. (In persian)
  3. Elloitt, J., Mulvihill, E., Dumcan, C., Forsythe, R. and Kritchevsky, D., 1981. Effect of tomato pomace and mixed vegetable pomace on serum and liver cholesterol in rats. Journal Nutrition Animal Sciense. 111: 2203-2211.
  4. Bordowski, D.L. and Geisman, J.R., 1980. Protein content and amino acid composition of protein of seeds from tomatoes at various stages of ripeness. J. food. sci. 45:
    228-229.
  5. Liadakid, G.N., Tzia, C., Oreopoulou, V. and Thomopoulos, C.D., 1995. Protein isolation from tomato seed meal extraction optimization. J. food sci. 60: 477-482.
  6. Battaglini, M. and Costantini, F., 1978. Byproducts from the tomato industry in diets for growing rabbits. Coniglicoltura. 15 (10): 19-22. https:// www.feedipedia.org/ node/7743.
  7. Heuze, V., Tran, G., Bastianelli, D., Hassoun, P. and Lebas, F., 2013. Tomato pomace, tomato skins and tomato seeds. Feedipedia. org. A programme by INRA, CIRAD, AFZ and FAO. 1-11.
  8. Gasa, J., Castrillo, C., Baucells, M.D. and Guada, J.A., 1989. By-products from the canning industry as feedstuff for ruminants: Digestibility and its prediction from chemical composition and laboratory bioassays. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 25 (1-2): 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.liv.
  9. FAo. 2013. Food and Agricultural organization of United Nation, Rome, Italy. 51: 209.
  10. Hashemi, A. and Razzaghzade, S., 2007. Investigation on the possibility of ensiling Cucurit (Cucurbita Pepo) residues and determination of best silage formula. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances. 6(12): 1450-1452.

11.           Mokhtarpour, Gh. and Abbasi, A., 1994. Selection of the best silage preparation method of pumpkin and nut residues, final report of the research project, natural resources research center of khuzestan province. 45 p. (In persian)

  1. Cherch, D.C., 1996. Livestock feeds and feeding. 2nd Eedition. Princeton Hall. Newjersey.
  2. Vucetic, J., Cirovic, M. and Mati, V. Chemical composition, Nutritive value and healing properties of the Pumpkin. Hrana i Ishrana. 30(3-4): 159-161.
  3. McDonald, P., Henderson, A.R. and Heron, S.J.E., 1991. The biochemistry of silage (2nded), Chalcombe, U.K. 184 p. https://doi.org/10.1017 /S0014479700023115.
  4. Filya, I., Muck, R.E. and Contreras-Govea, F.E., 2007. Inoculant Effects on Alfalfa Silage: Fermentation Products and Nutritive Value. Journal of Dairy Science. 90:
    5108-5114.
  5. Aksu, T., Baytok, E., Akif Karsli, M. and Muruz, H., 2006. Effects of formic acid. Molasses and inoculant additives on corn silage composition. organic matter digestibility and microbial protein synthesis in sheep. Journal of Small Ruminant Research. 61: 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2004.12.01.
  6. Oude Elferink, S.J., Krooneman, J., Gottschal, J.C., Spoelstra, S.F., Faber, F. and Driehuis, F., 2001. Anaerobic conversion of lactic acid to acetic acid and 1, 2-propanediol by Lactobacillus buchneri. Appl Environ Microbiol. 67:125-132. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.67.1. 125-132.2001.
  7. Fatehi, F., 2014. Genetics and Livestock Breeding, Dibagaran Publications, Tehran. 351 p. (In persian)
  8. Kung, J.R., Myers, C.L., nylon, J.M., Taylor, C.C., Mills, J.A. and Whiter, A.G., 2004. The effects of buffered propionic acid-based additives alone or combined with microbial inoculation on the fermentation of the high moisture corn and whole-crop barley. J. Dairy Sci. 87: 1310-1316.
  9. Theodorou, M.K., Williams, B.A., Dhanoa, M.S., McAllan, A.B. and France, J., 1994. A simple production method using a pressure transducer to determine the fermentation kinetics of ruminant feeds. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 48: 185-197. https://doi.org/10.10 16/0377-8401(94)90171-6.
  10. Menke, K.H., Raab, L., Salewski, A., Steingass, H., Fritz, D. and Schneider, W., 1979. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feeding stuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. Journal of Agriculture 93: 217-222. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600 086305.
  11. Broderick, G.A. and Kang, J.H., 1980. Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. Journal of Dairy Science. 63: 64-75.
  12. Blummel, M., Steingass, H. and Becker, K., 1997. The relationship between in vitro gas production, in vitro microbial biomas yield and 15N incorporation and its implications for the prediction of voluntary feed intake of roughages. British Journal of Nutrition. 77: 911- 921.
  13. Dehority, B.A., 2003. Rumen Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK. 372 p.
  14. Fievez, V., Babayemi, O.J. and Demeyer, D., 2005. Estimation of direct and indirect gas production in syringes: A tool to estimate short chain fatty acids production that requires minimal laboratory facilities. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 123-124: 197-210.
  15. Valizadeh, R., Naserian, A. and Azhdari Fard, A., 2003. Biochemistry of silage (translation). Publications of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. 12-15. (In persian)
  16. Muck, R.E., 2010. Silage additives and management issues. Proceedings of Idaho Alfalfa Forage Conference, Best Western Burley, Idaho, USA. 16-17 February 2010, 49-55.
  17. Eun, J.S. and Beauchemine, K.A., 2007. Relationship between enzymic activitiz and in vitro degradation of alfalfa hay and corn silag. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 145: 53-67. https://doi.org /10.3168/jds.2006-820.
  18. Ganji Jamehshooran, E., Jafari Khorshidi, K. and Bayat Kouhsar, J‏., 2022. Chemical composition, aerobic stability and fermentation pattern of tomato pomace and pumpkin waste silage using fibrolytic enzymes and lactic acid bacteria. International journal of recycling organic waste in agriculture. 11(1): 47-59. https://doi.org/10.30486/IJROWA. 2021.1923435.1203.
  19. Dehghani, M.R., Weisbjerg, M.R., Hvelplund, T. and Kristensen, N.B., 2012. Effect of enzyme addition to forage at ensiling on silage chemical composition and NDF degradation characteristics. Livest. Sci. 150 :51-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.07.031.
  20. Olivera, R.M.P., 1998. Use of in vitro gas production technique to assess the contribution of both soluble and insoluble fraction on the nutritive value of forages. A thesis to the University of Aberdeen, Scotland, in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science in animal nutrition.
  21. Bayat Kohsar, J., Maqsoodlou, F., Azarnia, M., Ghanbari, F. and Rezaei, F., 2021. Effects of seed priming with some plant growth regulators and fertilization with organic manure on the chemical composition, in vitro gas production parameters and digestibility of lentils. Journal of Animal Environment. 1: 93-102. Https://doi.org/10.22034/2020.132890. (In persian)

33.           Keshavarz Gulper, Z., Bayat Kohsar, J., Ghanbari, F. and Taliei, F., 2020. Effect of using organic acid and alcoholic extract of propolis on chemical composition, aerobic stability, microbial population and gas production parameters of barley silage in ruminant nutrition. Journal of Animal Environment. 4: 111-122. Https://doi.org/10.22034/ AEJ.2020.124977. (In persian)

34.           Benchaar, C., Calsamiglia, S., Chaves, A.V., Fraser, G.R., Colombatto, D., McAllister, T.A. and Beauchemin, K.A., 2008. A review of plant-derived essential oils in in ruminant nutrition and production. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 145: 209–228.

35.           Eadie, J.M., 1967. Studies on the ecology of certain rumen ciliate protozoa. J. Gen. Microbiol. 49: 175-194.

  1. Franzolin, R. and B.A. Dehority., 2010. The role of pH on the survival of rumen protozoa in steers. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia. 39: 2262-2267.
  2. Taghizadeh, A., Alizadeh, S. and Nobakht, A., 2010. Survey the effect of lasalocid ruminal characteristics, blood parameters and performance of Ghezel lambs. Journal of Animal Science Researches. 4(1).
  3. Hobson, P.N. and Stewart, C.S., 1997. The rumen microbial ecosystem, Elsevier Sience Publishers Ltd, London and New York.
  4. Van Soest, P.G., 1994. Nutritional Ecology of Ruminants. 2nd edn. Cornelluniversity Press. 476 p.
  5. Henderson, G., Stewart, C.S. and Nekrep, F.V., 1981. The effect of monensin on pure mixed cultures of rumen bacteria. The Journal of applied bacteriology. 51: 159-169.
  6. Morgavi, D., Forano, E., Martin, C., Newbold, C., 2010. Microbial ecosystem and methanogenesis in ruminanst. Animal. 4: 1024-1036.