Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wastes Valorization of Wheat Straw and Wheat Bran Treated with Urea, Probiotic or Organic Acids to Enhance Ruminal Gas Production and Digestibility of Pumpkin By-product

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Waste and Biomass Valorization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study designed to evaluate the effect of dietary wastes of wheat straw, wheat bran and urea (WU) treated with probiotic (PR) and organic acids (OA) on ruminal gas production and digestibility of pumpkin by-product (PB) silage. The quantities of wheat straw (90%), wheat bran (8%) and urea (2%) were used for the initial preparation of silage. The PB was ensiled at various ratios of 80, 82.5 and 85% and 20, 17.5 and 15%, with WU, PR and OA respectively. Ecosyl Products® as a PR and acetic acid as an OA were at application rates of 0 and 0.1%. The compounds of this probiotic include dried Lactobacillus plant arum, sugar, dried mushrooms, di-potassium phosphate, glycine, magnesium sulfate, sodium aluminum oxide, sodium erythorbate. Silages were opened 60 days after ensiling, and chemical composition, produced biogas, dry matter and organic matter digestibility were determined. Dry matter, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber decreased (P < 0.05) with the addition of Ecosyl and acetic acid and the combination of both. The pumpkin silage produced gas was increased (P < 0.05) with Ecosyl additive at different hours. Moreover, silage nutritional parameters of gas production, the dry matter and organic matter digestibility increased (P < 0.05) with Ecosyl additive. The addition of probiotic was more successful in ensiling, and the best ratio of silage was 85%PB + 15%WU + PR.

Graphic Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Salami, S., Luciano, G., O’Grady, M., Biondi, L., Newbold, C., Kerry, J., Priolo, A.: Sustainability of feeding plant by-products: a review of the implications for ruminant meat production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 251, 37–55 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2019.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Paris, H.S.: Summer squash: history, diversity, and distribution. Hort. Tech. 6, 6–13 (1996). https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.6.1.6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kulczyński, B., Gramza-Michałowska, A.: The profile of secondary metabolites and other bioactive compounds in Cucurbita pepo L. and Cucurbita moschata pumpkin cultivars. Molecules 24, 2945 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24162945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pirmohammadi, R., Rouzbehan, Y., Rezayazdi, K., Zahedifar, M.: Chemical composition, digestibility and in situ degradability of dried and ensiled apple pomace and maize silage. Small Rum. Res. 66, 150–155 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2005.07.054

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Razzaghzadeh, S., Amini-jabalkandi, J., Hashemi, A.: Effects of different levels of Pumpkin (CucurbitaPepo) residue silage replacement with forage part of ration on male buffalo calves fattening performance. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 6, 575–577 (2007). https://doi.org/10.4081/ijas.2007.s2.575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Valdez-Arjona, L.P., Ramírez-Mella, M.: Pumpkin waste as livestock feed: impact on nutrition and animal health and on quality of meat, milk, and egg. Animals 9, 769 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9100769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vahedi, E.: In Vitro Determine of Nutritive Value of Dried and Ensiled Pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo) by Product. Thesis of M.Sc. Bu-Ali-Sina University, Iran (2013). (In Persian)

  8. De Oliveira, I.L., Lima, L.M., Casagrande, D.R., Lara, M.A.S., Bernardes, T.F.: Nutritive value of corn silage from intensive dairy farms in Brazil. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 46, 494–501 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-92902017000600004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ren, H., Wang, C., Fan, W., Zhang, B., Li, Z., Li, D.: Effects of formic or acetic acid on the storage quality of mixed air-dried corn stover and cabbage waste, and microbial community analysis. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 56, 71–82 (2018). https://doi.org/10.17113/ftb.56.01.18.5455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zaboli, Kh., Vahedi, E., Aliarabi, H., Ahmadi, A.: Determination of the nutritive value and investigation of the possibility of ensiling by-product pumpkin using wheat straw, wheat bran and urea. Anim. Prod. Res. 4, 39–55 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Janjan, A., Aliarabi, H., Zamani, P.: The effects of replacing pumpkin silage (Cucurbita pepo) with corn silage on performance and nutrients digestibility in Holstein dairy cows. J. Rumin. Res. 4, 77–93 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  12. AOAC: Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edn. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, D.C. (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B., Lewis, B.A.: Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74, 3583–3592 (1991). https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Menke, K.H., Steingass, H.: Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Anim. Res. Dev. 28, 7–55 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  15. France, J., Dijkstra, J., Dhanoa, M.S., Lopez, S., Bannink, A.: Estimating the extent of degradation of ruminant feeds from a description of their gas production profile observed in vitro: derivation of models and other mathematical considerations. Br. J. Nutr. 83, 143–150 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114500000180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Blümmel, M., Ørskov, E.R.: Comparison of in vitro gas production and nylon bag degradability of roughages in predicting feed intake in cattle. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 40, 109–119 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-8401(93)90150-I

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Getachew, G., Robinson, P., De Peters, E., Taylor, S.: Relationships between chemical composition, dry matter degradation and in vitro gas production of several ruminant feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 111, 57–71 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-8401(03)00217-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Menke, K., Raab, L., Salewski, A., Steingass, H., Fritz, D., Schneider, W.: The estimation of the digestibility and metabolisable energy content of ruminant feeding stuffs from the gas production technique when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. J. Agric. Sci. 93, 217–222 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600086305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Makkar, H.P.S., Blümmel, M., Becker, K.: Formation of complexes between polyvinyl pyrrolidones or polyethylene glycols and tannins, and their implication in gas production and true digestibility in in vitro techniques. Br. J. Nutr. 73, 897–913 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn19950095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Czerkawski, J.W.: An Introduction to Rumen Studies. Pergamon Press, Oxford (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Holden, L.A.: Comparison of methods of in vitro dry matter digestibility for ten feeds. J. Dairy Sci. 82, 1791–1794 (1999). https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75409-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. SAS: SAS® 9.1 SQL Procedure User’s Guide; Statistics. Statustical Analysis System Institute Inc., Cary (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Driehuis, F., Elferink, S.O., Van Wikselaar, P.G.: Fermentation characteristics and aerobic stability of grass silage inoculated with Lactobacillus buchneri, with or without homofermentative lactic acid bacteria. Grass Forage Sci. 56, 330–343 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2494.2001.00282.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Baytok, E., Aksu, T., Karsli, M.A., Muruz, H.: The effects of formic acid, molasses and inoculant as silage additives on corn silage composition and ruminal fermentation characteristics in sheep. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 29, 469–474 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Koc, F., Coskuntuna, L., Ozduven, L.: The effect of bacteria+ enzyme mixture silage inoculant on the fermentation characteristic, cell wall contents and aerobic stabilities of maize silage. Anim. Sci. J. Pak. 7, 222–226 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3923/pjn.2008.222.226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ellis, J.L., Bannink, A., Hindrichsen, I.K., Kinley, R.D., Pellikaan, W.F., Milora, N., Dijkstra, J.: The effect of lactic acid bacteria included as a probiotic or silage inoculant on in vitro rumen digestibility, total gas and methane production. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 211, 61–74 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2015.10.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Arasu, M.V., Jung, M.W., Kim, D.H., Ilavenil, S., Jane, M., Park, H.S., Al-Dhabi, N.A., Jeon, B.T., Choi, K.C.: Enhancing nutritional quality of silage by fermentation with Lactobacillus plantarum. Indian J. Microbiol. 54, 396–402 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12088-014-0473-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cao, Y., Takahashi, T., Horiguchi, K.I., Yoshida, N.: Effect of adding lactic acid bacteria and molasses on fermentation quality and in vitro ruminal digestion of total mixed ration silage prepared with whole crop rice. Grassl. Sci. 56, 19–25 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-697X.2009.00168.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jalc, D., Varadyova, Z., Laukova, A., Homolka, P., Jancik, F.: Effect of inoculated corn silage on rumen fermentation and lipid metabolism in an artificial rumen (RUSITEC). Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 152, 256–266 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2009.04.019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jalc, D., Varadyova, Z., Mihalikova, K., Laukova, A.: Nutritional status of corn silage after probiotic conservation. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 43, 141–146 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2014.928629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Muck, R.: Recent advances in silage microbiology. Agric. Food Sci. 22, 3–15 (2013). https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.6718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Colombatto, D., Mould, F.L., Bhat, M.K., Owen, E.: Influence of exogenous fibrolytic enzyme level and incubation pH on the in vitro ruminal fermentation of alfalfa stems. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 137, 150–162 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Spanghero, M., Berzaghi, P., Fortina, R., Masoero, F., Rapetti, L., Zanfi, C., Ferlito, J.C.: Precision and accuracy of in vitro digestion of neutral detergent fiber and predicted net energy of lactation content of fibrous feeds. J. Dairy Sci. 93, 4855–4859 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Filya, I.: The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri and Lactobacillus plantarum on the fermentation, aerobic stability, and ruminal degradability of low dry matter corn and sorghum silages. J. Dairy Sci. 86, 3575–3581 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73963-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rezaei, J., Rouzbehana, Y., Fazaeli, H.: Nutritive value of fresh and ensiled amaranth (Amaranthus hypochondriacus) treated with different levels of molasses. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 151, 153–160 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2008.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Ardabil, Iran

    Jamal Seifdavati, Sayyad Seifzadeh, Mohsen Ramezani, Roghaye Barzegar Mashak & Reza Seyedsharifi

  2. Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Toluca, México

    Mona M. M. Y. Elghandour, Alberto Barbabosa-Pliego & Abdelfattah Z. M. Salem

Authors
  1. Jamal Seifdavati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sayyad Seifzadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohsen Ramezani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Roghaye Barzegar Mashak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Reza Seyedsharifi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mona M. M. Y. Elghandour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alberto Barbabosa-Pliego
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Abdelfattah Z. M. Salem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization by JS, SS; methodology by MR, RBM; investigation and validation by JS, RS; Writing original draft, review editing by AZMS and MMMYE.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdelfattah Z. M. Salem.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest for the publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

This study was conducted in compliance with the guidelines approved by the University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, according to the guidelines of the Animal Care and Use Committee.

Consent to Participate

All authors agree to participate in the current work.

Consent for Publication

All authors agree to publish the findings of the current research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seifdavati, J., Seifzadeh, S., Ramezani, M. et al. Wastes Valorization of Wheat Straw and Wheat Bran Treated with Urea, Probiotic or Organic Acids to Enhance Ruminal Gas Production and Digestibility of Pumpkin By-product. Waste Biomass Valor 12, 5979–5989 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-021-01432-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-021-01432-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation