Bromatological quality of silage from cassava residues: fractionation of proteins and carbohydrates

SANTOS, Leones Costa dos; NASCIMENTO, Willian Gonçalves do; AZEVEDO, Marcia Mourão Ramos; SILVA, Dulciene Karla de Andrade; MACEDO, Italvan Milfont; SOARES, Géssica Solanna Calado

doi:10.1590/S1519-99402121302020

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Saúde e Produção Animal

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Forestry and Grassland • Rev. bras. saúde prod. anim. 21 • 2020 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-99402121302020 copy

Bromatological quality of silage from cassava residues: fractionation of proteins and carbohydrates

Qualidade bromatológica da silagem de resíduos da mandioca: fracionamento de proteínas e carboidratos

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of silage in the upper third of cassava levels of inclusion of cassava peel, 0, 100, 200, 300, 400 g/kg out based on natural matter (NM) with 60 days of storage on fermentative profile, aerobic stability, chemical composition and protein and carbohydrate fractionation. The material was ensiled in 15 experimental silos, the experimental design adopted was completely randomised, with five treatments and three repetitions. The inclusion of cassava peel in silage from the aerial part of the cassava promoted an increasing linear effect for dry matter content. The contents of crude protein, neutral detergent fibre and acid detergent fibre decreased linearly (P < 0.05) with the inclusion of cassava peel in the silage. The inclusion of the bark promoted an increase in carbohydrate levels. Protein and carbohydrate fractions were influenced by the addition of cassava peel, decreasing the unavailable and/or indigestible fraction (Fraction C) of proteins and carbohydrates. The inclusion of cassava peel up to the level of 400 g/kg NM in silage from the aerial part of the cassava improves the fermentation process, aerobic stability and the chemical composition of the silage, and reduces the indigestible fractions of carbohydrates and proteins.

Keywords:
additive; anaerobic fermentation; mandioculture

Variables	Inclusion levels (g/kg NM⁵ 5 NM = Natural matter. )					Peel
Variables	0	100	200	300	400	Peel
Dry matter (DM) (g/kg NM)	224.20	283.47	345.35	404.96	468.11	834.01
Organic matter (OM)	929.39	933.86	939.60	939.09	938.93	943.10
Mineral matter (MM)	70.60	66.14	60.40	60.91	61.07	56.90
Ethereal extract (EE)	58.44	51.77	37.45	39.42	31.44	13.04
NDF¹ 1 NDF = Neutral detergent fibre;	402.96	511.00	330.94	446.66	421.85	310.71
ADF² 2 ADF = Acid detergent fibre;	350.13	241.47	247.48	207.68	182.09	145.07
Cellulose (CEL)	316.66	216.17	225.28	188.58	166.55	136.44
Hemicellulose (HEMI)	52.83	269.54	83.46	238.99	239.76	165.64
Lignin (LIG)	33.47	25.30	22.20	19.09	15.56	8.62
Crude protein (CP)	237.28	195.81	162.62	138.43	122.17	43.25
NDIP³ 3 NDIP = Neutral detergent insoluble protein;	37.63	39.59	46.27	29.97	30.00	15.25
ADIP⁴ 4 ADIP = Acid detergent insoluble protein;	33.17	26.55	34.85	28.59	28.85	9.20

Variable¹ 1 DM = Dry matter (g/kg NM); OM = Organic matter; MM = Mineral matter; CP = Crude protein; NDIP = Neutral detergent insoluble protein; ADIP = Acid detergent insoluble protein.; NDF = Neutral detergent fibre; ADF = Acid detergent fibre; CEL = Cellulose; HEMI = Hemicellulose; LIG =Lignin; TCH = Total carbohydrates; NFC = Non-fibrous carbohydrates (g/kg TCH).	Peel inclusion level (g/kg NM)					SEM² 2 SEM = Standard error of the mean.	Regression equation^* * Significant at 5% probability by t test.	R²
	0	100	200	300	400	SEM² 2 SEM = Standard error of the mean.		R²
DM	219.67	274.80	333.66	394.93	449.82	1.296	$Y = 218.494 + 0.580 X$	0.99
OM	928.69	928.33	930.41	929.70	930.28	0.841	NS	-
MM	71.31	71.67	69.59	70.30	69.71	0.841	NS	-
CP	245.66	218.62	160.64	136.28	120.48	1.809	$Y = 242.873 - 0.333 X$	0.95
NDIP	39.20	39.37	32.58	27.62	32.67	0.711	$Y = 39.250 - 0.025 X$	0.61
ADIP	33.10	32.02	24.15	23.84	21.71	1.575	$Y = 33.155 - 0.031 X$	0.88
NDF	399.63	414.72	363.10	395.86	289.99	11.922	$Y = 420.286 - 0.238 X$	0.56
ADF	322.39	313.92	290.68	244.72	235.65	8.691	$Y = 330.009 - 0.243 X$	0.94
CEL	288.54	286.90	268.95	228.25	220.27	8.638	$Y = 297.623 - 0.195 X$	0.90
HEMI	75.06	113.80	72.43	153.90	56.95	14.319	$Y = 72.431 + 0.428 X - 0.106 X^{2}$	0.25
LIG	33.85	27.02	21.73	16.46	15.39	1.076	$Y = 32.385 - 0.047 X$	0.95
TCH	604.32	648.10	726.79	759.06	784.76	2.884	$Y = 610.238 + 0.472 X$	0.96
NFC	210.96	239.69	368.90	367.62	500.00	13.257	$Y = 196.232 + 0.706 X$	0.92

Variable¹ 1 A = Non-protein nitrogen; B1 = fraction rapidly degraded in the rumen; B2= fraction of intermediate degradation; B3 = fraction of slow degradation in the rumen.; C = fraction unavailable.	Peel inclusion level (g/kg NM)					² 2 SEM = Standard error of the mean. SEM	Regression equation^* * Significant at 5% probability by t test.	R²
	0	100	200	300	400	² 2 SEM = Standard error of the mean. SEM		R²
A	115.83	103.81	82.97	68.92	62.24	3.559	$Y = 115.167 - 0.142 X$	0.97
B1+B2	90.63	75.44	45.09	39.73	25.57	3.007	$Y = 88.457 - 0.166 X$	0.95
B3	6.10	7.36	8.43	3.79	10.96	1.415	NS
C	33.10	32.02	24.15	23.84	21.71	1.575	$Y = 33.155 - 0.031 X$	0.88

Variable¹ 1 g/kg total carbohydrates; A = soluble sugars; B1 = starch and pectin; B2 = digestible fraction of the cell wall; C = Indigestible fraction of the cell wall.	Peel inclusion level (g/kg NM)					² 2 SEM = standard error of the mean. SEM	Regression equation ^* * Significant at 5% probability by t test.	R²
	0	100	200	300	400	² 2 SEM = standard error of the mean. SEM		R²
A+B1	270.31	321.71	473.60	463.02	625.74	17.934	$Y = 260.44 + 0.852 X$	0.92
B2	595.20	578.21	454.65	484.88	327.21	16.645	$Y = 613.89 - 0.629 X$	0.84
C	134.49	100.08	71.75	52.10	47.05	3.865	$Y = 125.66 - 0.223 X$	0.93

Variable	Peel inclusion level (g/kg NM)					² 2 SEM = Standard error of the mean. SEM	Regression equation^* * Significant at 5% probability by t test.	R²
Variable	0	100	200	300	400	² 2 SEM = Standard error of the mean. SEM		R²
EA (h)¹ 1 EA (h) = Aerobic stability;	84.00	108.00	124.00	124.00	144.00	17.435	$Y = 89.600 + 0.136 X$	0.93
CT² 2 CT = Buffer capacity (e.mg HCl/100 g DM).	67.09	55.56	51.90	38.56	39.13	2.256	$Y = 65.034 - 0.073 X$	0.92
N-NH₃ (%NT)	20.00	29.50	51.00	56.83	53.50	0.398	$Y = 17.395 + 0.212 X - 0.029 X^{2}$	0.94
pH 0h	3.98	4.02	4.02	4.06	4.04	0.004	$Y = 3.977 + 0.004 X - 0.00006 X^{2}$	0.93
pH 48h	3.98	3.96	3.96	3.99	3.97	0.018	NS	-
pH 96h	4.68	4.24	4.11	4.14	4.04	0.082	$Y = 4.634 - 0.038 X + 0.0006 X^{2}$	0.92
pH 144h	6.11	5.78	5.18	5.21	4.38	0.238	$Y = 6.136 - 0.004 X$	0.93
pH medium	4.69	4.50	4.32	4.35	4.11	0.139	$Y = 4.652 - 0.001 X$	0.92

UFBA - Universidade Federal da Bahia Avenida Adhemar de Barros nº 500 - Ondina , CEP 41170-110 Salvador-BA Brasil, Tel. 55 71 32836725, Fax. 55 71 32836718 - Salvador - BA - Brazil
E-mail: rbspa@ufba.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Mail for correspondence: leones.ls10@gmail.com