Mısır Silajına Farklı Oranlarda Sumak (Rhus coriaria) Tozu İlavesinin Silaj Fermantasyonu ve Aerobik Stabilite Üzerine Etkisi

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı, mısır hasılına farklı (%0, %0.5, %1 ve %2) oranlarda sumak tozu ilavesinin fermantasyon özellikleri, silaj kalitesi ve aerobik stabilite üzerine etkilerini belirlemektir. Araştırmada, her gruptan 4 tekerrür olmak üzere toplam 16 adet silaj örneği 1.5 litrelik cam kavanozlara konularak sıkıştırılmıştır. Silajlar 60 gün süresince fermantasyona bırakılmıştır. Ayrıca, silajlar açıldıktan hemen sonra 5 gün süre ile aerobik stabilite testine tabi tutulmuştur. En düşük CO2 değeri %0,5 sumak grubunda belirlenmiştir (P<0.05). Silajların pH değerleri 3.65 ile 3.74 arasında belirlenmiştir (P<0.05). Flieg puanlama sistemine göre silajlar kaliteli olarak değerlendirilmiştir. Mısır hasılına sumak tozu ilavesi, karbondioksit oluşumu ve toplam maya küf sayısını azaltarak, laktik asit bakteri sayısını arttırmıştır (P<0.05). Sonuç olarak mısır hasılına sumak tozunun katılmasının, silaj fermantasyonunu olumlu yönde etkilediği, aerobik stabiliteyi iyileştirdiği ve toplam maya küf oluşumunu engelleyerek, laktik asit bakterilerini artırdığı belirlenmiştir. Araştırma sonucunda mısır silajı yapılırken %1 ve %2 seviyelerinde sumak tozunun kullanılmasının silaj kalite özelliklerini artırabileceği belirlenmiştir. Yapılan bu çalışmanın in vitro ve in vivo denemelerle desteklenmesi gerektiği kanısına varılmıştır.

Keywords

• Mısır silajı
• sumak
• silaj fermantasyonu
• aerobik stabilite

The Effect of the Addition of Different Rates of Sumac (Rhus coriaria) Powder to Maize on Silage Fermentation and Aerobic Stability

Abstract

This study aims to determine the effects of adding different rates of sumac powder to maize (0%, 0.5%, 1%, and 2%) on fermentation properties, silage quality, and aerobic stability. In the study, 16 silage samples, four repetitions from each group, were placed in 1.5-liter glass jars and compressed. Silages were left to ferment for 60 days. In addition, the silages were subjected to an aerobic stability test for five days immediately after opening. The lowest CO2 value was determined in the 0.5% sumac group (P<0.05). The pH values of the silages were determined between 3.65 and 3.74 (P<0.05). Silages were evaluated as high quality according to the Flieg scoring system. The addition of sumac powder to maize increased the number of lactic acid bacteria by reducing the total yeast mold with the formation of carbon dioxide (P<0.05). As a result, it was determined that adding sumac powder to maize positively affects silage fermentation, improves aerobic stability, and increases lactic acid bacteria by preventing total yeast mold formation. As a result of the research, it was determined that using 1% and 2% sumac powder while making maize silage can increase silage quality characteristics. It was concluded that this study should be supported by in vitro and in vivo trials.

Keywords

• Aerobic stability
• corn silage
• silage fermentation
• sumac

References

1. AOAC, 1990: Official methods of analysis, Association of official analytical chemists, Washington DC.
2. Ashbell G, Weinberg ZG, Azrieli A, Hen Y, Horev B, 1991: A simple system to study the aerobic determination of silages. Can Agric Eng, 34, 171-175.
3. Batiha G ES, O gunyemi O M, S haheen H M, K utu FR, O laiya CO, Sabatier JM, De Waard M, 2022: Rhus coriaria L.(Sumac), a versatile and resourceful food spice with cornucopia of polyphenols. Molecules, 27 (16), 5179.
4. Borreani G, Tabacco E, Schmidt RJ, Holmes BJ, Muck RE, 2018: Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages. J Dairy Sci, 101 (5), 3952-3979.
5. Broderick GA, Kang JH, 1980: Automated simultaneous determination of ammonia and total amino acids in ruminal fluid and in vitro media. J Dairy Sci, 63 (1), 64-75.
6. Carpintero CM, Henderson A R, McDonald P , 1 979: T he e ffect of some pre-treatments on proteolysis during the ensiling of herbage. Grass Forage Sci, 34, 311-315.
7. Chaves AV, Baah J, Wang Y, McAllister TA, Benchaar C, 2012: Effects of cinnamon leaf, oregano and sweet orange essential oils on fermentation and aerobic stability of barley silage. J Sci Food Agric, 92, 906-915.
8. Güney E, Tan M, Gül Z D, Gül İ, 2010: Erzurum şartlarında bazı silajlık mısır çeşitlerinin verim ve silaj kalitelerinin belirlenmesi. Atatürk Üniv Ziraat Fak Derg, 41 (2), 105-111.

9. Dohi H, Yamada A, Fukukawa T,1997: Intake stimulants in perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) fed to sheep. J Dairy Sci, 80, 2083–2086.
10. Ergül M, 1993: Feeds knowledge and technology. 2nd ed., Ege University Faculty of Agriculture Publications, İzmir.
11. Filya İ, 2018: Developments in silage fermentation and a future perspective.In: 2nd International Animal Nutrition Congress, Antalya, Türkiye.
12. Formato M, Cimmino G, Brahmi-Chendouh N, Piccolella S, Pacifico S, 2022: Polyphenols for livestock feed: Sustainable perspectives for animal husbandry? Molecules, 27 (22), 7752.
13. Frozza C OS, G arcia C SC, G ambato G , d e Souza M D, S alvador M, Moura S , P adilha F F, S eixas FK, C ollares T , B orsuk S, Dellagostin OA, Henriques JA, Roesch-Ely M, 2013: Chemical characterization, antioxidant and cytotoxic activities of brazilian red propolis. Food Chem Toxicol, 52, 137-142.
14. García-Chávez I, Meraz-Romero E, Castelán-Ortega O, Esparza JZ, Avalos JO, Jimenez LER, González-Ronquillo M, 2020: Corn silage, meta-analysis of the quality and yield of different regions in the world. Preprints, 2020100094.
15. Guan H , R an Q , L i H , Z hang X , 2 021: S uccession o f microbial communities of corn silage inoculated with heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria from ensiling to aerobic exposure. Fermentation, 7 (4), 258.
16. Gülümser E, Mut H, Başaran U, Doğrusöz MÇ, 2022: Hop (Humulus lupulus L.) as a Roughage Source. Bilecik Seyh Edebali Univ J Sci, 9 (1), 609-615.
17. Keskin B, Yilmaz H, Temel S, Eren B, 2016: Determination of yield and some plant characteristics in some silage corn varieties. In: VII International Scientific Agriculture Symposium," Agrosym 2016", Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, pp. 803-807.
18. Kılıç A, 1984: Silage feed. Bilgehan Press, İzmir, Türkiye, pp. 350.
19. Kung JL, Williams P, Schmidt RJ, Hu W, 2008: A blend of essential plant oils used as an additive to alter silage fermentation or used as a feed additive for lactating dairy cows. J Dairy Sci, 91, 4793-4800.
20. Lee SHY, Humphries DJ, Cockman DA, Givens DI, Spencer JPE, 2017: Accumulation of citrus flavanones in bovine milk following citrus pulp ıncorporation into the diet of dairy cows. EC Nutr, 7 (4), 143-154. McDonald P, Henderson AR, Heron SJE, 1991: The biochemistry of silage. Chalcombe publications, Marlow, UK.
21. Önenç SS, Koç F, Coşkuntuna L, Özdüven ML, Gümüş T, 2015: The effect of oregano and cinnamon essential oils on fermentation quality and aerobic stability of field pea silages. Asianaustralas. J Anim Sci, 28 (9), 1281–1287.
22. Önenç S S, T urgud F K, U çman A T, 2 019: E ffects o f O regano and Cumin Essential Oils on Fermentation Quality, Aerobic Stability and In Vitro Metabolic Energy Contents of Alfalfa Silages. J Anim Prod, 60 (2), 117-123.
23. Paula EM, Samensari RB, Machado E, Pereira LM, Maia FJ, 2016: Effects of phenolic compounds on ruminal protozoa population, ruminal fermentation, and digestion in water buffaloes. Livest Sci, 185, 136-41.
24. Polan CE, Stieve DE, Garrett JL, 1998: Protein preservation and ruminal degradation of ensiled forage treated with heat, formic acid, ammonia, or microbial inoculant. J Dairy Sci, 81(3), 765-776.
25. Rad AH, Khaleghi M, Javadi M, 2020: Sumac in food industry: a changing outlook for consumer and producer. J Food Technol Nutr Sci, 2 (1), 1-3.
26. Rayne S, Mazza G, 2007: Biological activities of extracts from sumac (Rhus spp.): a review. Nat Prec, 1-1.
27. Rochfort S , Parker A J, Dunshea F R, 2 008: Plant bioactives f or ruminant health and productivity. Phytochem, 69 (2), 299–322.
28. Sakhr K, Khatib SE, 2020: Physiochemical properties and medicinal, nutritional and industrial applications of Lebanese Sumac (Syrian Sumac - Rhus coriaria): A review. Heliyon, 6 (1),e03207.
29. Seale DR, Pahlow G, Spoelstra SF, Lindgren S, Dellaglio F, Lowe JF, 1990: Methods for the microbiological analysis of silage. In: Proceeding of the Eurobac Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, pp.147.
30. Seradj AR, Abecia L, Crespo J, Villalba D, Fondevila M, Balcells J, 2014: The effect of Bioflavex® and ıts pure flavonoid components on in vitro fermentation parameters and methane production in rumen fluid from steers given high concentrate diets. Anim Feed Sci Technol, 197, 85-91.
31. Seydoşoğlu S, Gelir G, 2019: Research on the Silage Properties of Grasspea (Lathrus sativus L.) and Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Herbages Mixed at Different Rates. J Inst Sci Technol, 9 (1), 397-406.
32. SPPS, 2008: Inc, SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version, Chicago.
33. Turan A, 2015: Effect of cumın essentıal oıl usage on fermentatıon qualıty and aerobıc stabılıty of alfalfa sılage. Master’s thesis, NKU Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science, Tekirdağ.
34. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis B A, 1 991: M ethods of dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci, 74, 3583-3597.
35. Yalçınkaya MY, Baytok E, Yörük MA, 2012: Some Physical and Chemical Properties of Different Fruit Pulp Silages. Erciyes Üniv Vet Fak Derg, 9 (2), 95-106.