Publicação:
What is the best additive to use at the ensiling of sugarcane SP81-3250?

dc.contributor.authorRabelo, Carlos Henrique Silveira [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorCosta, A. P.
dc.contributor.authorRezende, A. V.
dc.contributor.authorHärter, Carla Joice [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorFlorentino, L. A.
dc.contributor.authorRabelo, F. H. S.
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.institutionUniv Jose do Rosario Vellano
dc.contributor.institutionCtr Energia Nucl Agr
dc.date.accessioned2015-03-18T15:54:31Z
dc.date.available2015-03-18T15:54:31Z
dc.date.issued2014-01-01
dc.description.abstractOur objective was to determine the best additive to use for the ensiling of sugarcane SP81-3250 based on the nutritional properties and aerobic stability of the silages. The additives evaluated were (1) and (2): salt (NaCl) at rates of 1.0 or 2.0 kg/100 kg fresh sugarcane (as-is basis), respectively; (3) and (4): quicklime (CaO) at rates of 1.0 or 2.0 kg/100 kg fresh sugarcane, respectively; (5) and (6): commercial inoculants Silobac (R) and Maize All (R); and a control treatment. The addition of quicklime reduced the NDF and ADF contents of the silages by 11% compared with the control treatment, but did not increase the digestibility. On the other hand, after 24 h of in vitro fermentation, the application of 1.0 and 2.0% salt reduced the gas production by 34.15 and 33.55 mL/g OM, respectively, and the IVOMD was reduced 5.74 and 5.90%, respectively, compared with the untreated silage. Moreover, the addition of quicklime elevated the pH of the sugarcane silages, with a trend towards an increase in the DM recovery. In contrast, the bacterial inoculants did not alter the pH values, but there was an upward trend for a DM recovery. After the silos were opened, the silages that were treated with salt (independent of the dose) and 1.0% quicklime exhibited greater stability. We recommend applying 1.0 kg of quicklime to each 100 kg of sugarcane at the time of ensiling to improve the nutritional characteristics of sugarcane silage variety SP81-3250.en
dc.description.affiliationUniv Estadual Paulista, UNESP, Dept Anim Sci, BR-14884900 Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUniv Jose do Rosario Vellano, Dept Agr, BR-37130000 Alfenas, MG, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationCtr Energia Nucl Agr, BR-13418900 Piracicaba, SP, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUnespUniv Estadual Paulista, UNESP, Dept Anim Sci, BR-14884900 Jaboticabal, SP, Brazil
dc.format.extent1682-1686
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1071/AN14158
dc.identifier.citationAnimal Production Science. Collingwood: Csiro Publishing, v. 54, n. 10, p. 1682-1686, 2014.
dc.identifier.doi10.1071/AN14158
dc.identifier.issn1836-0939
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/116912
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000340723900025
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherCsiro Publishing
dc.relation.ispartofAnimal Production Science
dc.relation.ispartofjcr1.371
dc.relation.ispartofsjr0,637
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restrito
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectanimal nutritionen
dc.subjectdigestibilityen
dc.subjectquicklimeen
dc.subjectLactobacillus spp.en
dc.subjectsodium chlorideen
dc.titleWhat is the best additive to use at the ensiling of sugarcane SP81-3250?en
dc.typeArtigo
dcterms.rightsHolderCsiro Publishing
dspace.entity.typePublication
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-2511-3488[6]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0003-1995-1466[4]
unesp.author.orcid0000-0002-8804-7182[6]
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Jaboticabalpt
unesp.departmentZootecnia - FCAVpt

Arquivos