Evaluation of sugarcane laboratory ensiling and analysis techniques
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2014 |
Outros Autores: | , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-35982014000400169 |
Resumo: | The objective was to evaluate the effects of laboratory-silo type and method of silage extract production, respectively, on sugarcane silage fermentation and recovery of fermentation products. Sugarcane was mechanically harvested and ensiled in three different types of laboratory silos (five replicates): 9.7 × 30 cm PVC tubes with tight lids, equipped or unequipped with Bunsen valves, and 20 L plastic buckets with tight lids and Bunsen valves. Three methods were used to produce silage extracts for pH, ethanol, acetic and lactic acids determination: extraction of silage juice by a hydraulic press and production of water extracts using a stomacher or a blender. Total dry matter loss (231 g/kg DM) was not affected by silo type. No interactions between silo type and method of silage extract production were observed for ethanol and organic acids contents in the silages. Interaction between silo type and method of silage extract preparation was detected for pH. Silo type affected ethanol content but did not affect lactic and acetic acids concentration in the silages. Dry matter, crude protein, neutral detergent fiber and ash were not affected by silo type. The method used to produce silage extracts affected the recovery of all fermentation products analyzed in the silages. Recovery of ethanol and acetic acid was higher when silage extracts were produced using a blender. For lactic acid recovery, the hydraulic press method was superior to the other two methods. Silage fermentation pattern is not affected by silo type, but the method used to produce silage extracts and some characteristics of silos affect the recovery of volatile fermentation products. |
id |
SBZ-1_09f8f04c4e2eea1f9e0ebc1d8e0a1866 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1516-35982014000400169 |
network_acronym_str |
SBZ-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Evaluation of sugarcane laboratory ensiling and analysis techniquesacetic acidethanollaboratory silolactic acidsilage extractsugarcane silageThe objective was to evaluate the effects of laboratory-silo type and method of silage extract production, respectively, on sugarcane silage fermentation and recovery of fermentation products. Sugarcane was mechanically harvested and ensiled in three different types of laboratory silos (five replicates): 9.7 × 30 cm PVC tubes with tight lids, equipped or unequipped with Bunsen valves, and 20 L plastic buckets with tight lids and Bunsen valves. Three methods were used to produce silage extracts for pH, ethanol, acetic and lactic acids determination: extraction of silage juice by a hydraulic press and production of water extracts using a stomacher or a blender. Total dry matter loss (231 g/kg DM) was not affected by silo type. No interactions between silo type and method of silage extract production were observed for ethanol and organic acids contents in the silages. Interaction between silo type and method of silage extract preparation was detected for pH. Silo type affected ethanol content but did not affect lactic and acetic acids concentration in the silages. Dry matter, crude protein, neutral detergent fiber and ash were not affected by silo type. The method used to produce silage extracts affected the recovery of all fermentation products analyzed in the silages. Recovery of ethanol and acetic acid was higher when silage extracts were produced using a blender. For lactic acid recovery, the hydraulic press method was superior to the other two methods. Silage fermentation pattern is not affected by silo type, but the method used to produce silage extracts and some characteristics of silos affect the recovery of volatile fermentation products.Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia2014-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-35982014000400169Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia v.43 n.4 2014reponame:Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia (SBZ)instacron:SBZ10.1590/S1516-35982014000400002info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessPedroso,André de FariaPedroso,Alexandre MendonçaBarioni Júnior,WaldomiroSouza,Gilberto Batista deeng2015-10-09T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1516-35982014000400169Revistahttps://www.rbz.org.br/pt-br/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||bz@sbz.org.br|| secretariarbz@sbz.org.br1806-92901516-3598opendoar:2015-10-09T00:00Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia (SBZ)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Evaluation of sugarcane laboratory ensiling and analysis techniques |
title |
Evaluation of sugarcane laboratory ensiling and analysis techniques |
spellingShingle |
Evaluation of sugarcane laboratory ensiling and analysis techniques Pedroso,André de Faria acetic acid ethanol laboratory silo lactic acid silage extract sugarcane silage |
title_short |
Evaluation of sugarcane laboratory ensiling and analysis techniques |
title_full |
Evaluation of sugarcane laboratory ensiling and analysis techniques |
title_fullStr |
Evaluation of sugarcane laboratory ensiling and analysis techniques |
title_full_unstemmed |
Evaluation of sugarcane laboratory ensiling and analysis techniques |
title_sort |
Evaluation of sugarcane laboratory ensiling and analysis techniques |
author |
Pedroso,André de Faria |
author_facet |
Pedroso,André de Faria Pedroso,Alexandre Mendonça Barioni Júnior,Waldomiro Souza,Gilberto Batista de |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Pedroso,Alexandre Mendonça Barioni Júnior,Waldomiro Souza,Gilberto Batista de |
author2_role |
author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Pedroso,André de Faria Pedroso,Alexandre Mendonça Barioni Júnior,Waldomiro Souza,Gilberto Batista de |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
acetic acid ethanol laboratory silo lactic acid silage extract sugarcane silage |
topic |
acetic acid ethanol laboratory silo lactic acid silage extract sugarcane silage |
description |
The objective was to evaluate the effects of laboratory-silo type and method of silage extract production, respectively, on sugarcane silage fermentation and recovery of fermentation products. Sugarcane was mechanically harvested and ensiled in three different types of laboratory silos (five replicates): 9.7 × 30 cm PVC tubes with tight lids, equipped or unequipped with Bunsen valves, and 20 L plastic buckets with tight lids and Bunsen valves. Three methods were used to produce silage extracts for pH, ethanol, acetic and lactic acids determination: extraction of silage juice by a hydraulic press and production of water extracts using a stomacher or a blender. Total dry matter loss (231 g/kg DM) was not affected by silo type. No interactions between silo type and method of silage extract production were observed for ethanol and organic acids contents in the silages. Interaction between silo type and method of silage extract preparation was detected for pH. Silo type affected ethanol content but did not affect lactic and acetic acids concentration in the silages. Dry matter, crude protein, neutral detergent fiber and ash were not affected by silo type. The method used to produce silage extracts affected the recovery of all fermentation products analyzed in the silages. Recovery of ethanol and acetic acid was higher when silage extracts were produced using a blender. For lactic acid recovery, the hydraulic press method was superior to the other two methods. Silage fermentation pattern is not affected by silo type, but the method used to produce silage extracts and some characteristics of silos affect the recovery of volatile fermentation products. |
publishDate |
2014 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2014-04-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-35982014000400169 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-35982014000400169 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/S1516-35982014000400002 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia v.43 n.4 2014 reponame:Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online) instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia (SBZ) instacron:SBZ |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia (SBZ) |
instacron_str |
SBZ |
institution |
SBZ |
reponame_str |
Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online) |
collection |
Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia (SBZ) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||bz@sbz.org.br|| secretariarbz@sbz.org.br |
_version_ |
1750318150993313792 |