Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:43:24.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fungal growth in silages of sugarbeet press pulp and maize

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. J. R. Nout
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science, Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
H. M. Bouwmeester
Affiliation:
Department of Food Science, Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
J. Haaksma
Affiliation:
Institute for Rational Sugar Production, Bergen op Zoom, The Netherlands
H. Van Dijk
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Fisheries, Lelystad, The Netherlands

Summary

Fungal spoilage of animal feed silage occurs frequently. In spoiled silage of sugarbeet press pulp sampled in The Netherlands during the period 1986–90, 40% of the samples were infested by Penicillium roquefortii. Other fungi of health significance included Aspergillus fumigatus (8% of all samples) and Byssochlamys spp. (4 % of all samples). P. roquefortii is also the dominant spoilage mould in maize silage. However, no PR-toxin could be detected in 25 lumps of P. roquefortii-intested maize silage, although one lump contained a fluorescent substance, with an Rff-value close to that of PR-toxin. This silage sample was not mutagenic, but had a cytotoxic effect towards Salmonella typhimurium in the Ames test. All P. roquefortii-infested lumps contained fluorescent fungal metabolites which were absent in samples taken at 5 cm distance from the corresponding lumps in the silage heaps. It is recommended that lumps of fungal-infested silage are removed before feeding the silage to cattle.

Type
Crops and Soils
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amend, R. & Müller, H. M. (1986). Anhäufung von PR-toxin und Mycophenolsäure durch Penicillien im YES medium und in Grünmaissilage. Landwirtschaftliche Forschung 37, Sonderheft No. 41, 606614.Google Scholar
Ames, B. N. & Maron, D. M. (1982). Revised methods for the Salmonella mutagenicity test. Mutation Research 113, 173215.Google Scholar
Counter, D. E. (1973). An outbreak of mycotic abortion apparently due to mould-infested sugarbeet pulp. Veterinary Record 93, 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filtenborg, O., Frisvad, J. C. & Svendsen, J. A. (1983). Simple screening method for molds producing intracellular mycotoxins in pure cultures. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 45, 581585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frisvad, J. C. (1988). Fungal species and their specific production of mycotoxins. In Introduction to Food-borne Fungi (Eds Samson, R. A. & Van Reenen-Hoekstra, E. S.), pp. 239249. Baarn, The Netherlands: Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures.Google Scholar
Gedek, B., Bauer, J. & Schreiber, H. (1981). Zur Mykotoxinbildung Silage-verderbender Schimmelpilze. Wiener Tierärztliche Monalsschrift 68, 299301.Google Scholar
Häggblom, P. (1990). Isolation of roquefortine C from feed grain. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 56, 29242926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lacey, J. (1971). The microbiology of moist barley storage in unsealed silos. Annals of Applied Biology 69, 187212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoch, U.Luthy, J. & Schlatter, C. (1984). Mutagenicity testing of commercial Penicillium camemberti and Penicillium roquefortii strains. Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und -Forschung 178, 351355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vesely, D., Vesela, D. & Adamkova, A. (1981). Fund des das PR-toxin produzierenden Schimmelpilzes Penicillium roquefortii in Maissilagen. Veterinárni Medicina Praha 26, 110115.Google Scholar
Wei, R-D.& Liu, G-X. (1978). PR toxin production in different Penicillium roquefortii strains. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 35, 797799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar