Abstract
A systematic use of biofertilizers can improve both the quality of a farming system and the parameters of milk. Some issues related to biofertilization experiments on six farms in the Po Valley (NW Italy) involved in the production of milk from dairy cattle fed maize silage or grazed on hay produced from permanent meadows are reported in this paper. Biofertilized maize was found to lower the live stem pH by about 2.3%, and NIR spectroscopy foreshadowing major changes in the composition. Overall, the plant silage was improved in quantity (+10%) but also in quality, as shown by the delayed maturity stage of the leaves (crop maturity index -4%), the lower indigestible NDF content (-7%), and the higher digestible carbohydrates and protein in the whole plants. Such favorable feeding conditions, together with the improved palatability of the feed ration, boosted the nutrient values of the protein (+4.6%) and fat contents (+5.7%) in the milk. Moreover, the functional properties of the milk were ameliorated, as testified by the higher levels of vitamin A (+27%) and vitamin E (+25%) and the reduced levels of saturated fatty acids (-6%), especially myristic (-18%) and stearic (-32%) acids, while the unsaturated acids increased by 15%. As far as economy aspects are concerned, the biofertilization of maize for silage has led to consistent rewards pertaining to the marginal price of the milk, which in turn has led to a value chain increase of about 9%, because of the fields cultivation, but mainly of the cow transformation in milk quality issues. On another farm, intensive maize was substituted with permanent biofertilized meadows, over a greening path, and a + 17% value chain increase was obtained that already derived mainly from the best price for milk quality parameters. Such an evolutionary leap toward a new vision of sustainable agriculture for the environment and for animals, in which a better quality of products, animal welfare and company budget are combined with soil biofertilization, can be considered a bonanza.
Author Contributions
Copyright© 2021
Masoero Giorgio, et al.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Competing interests The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Funding Interests:
Citation:
Introduction
Biofertilizers, whose use is considered an acclaimed strategy for multifunctional soil management, as regard the biological and physical features, and an increasing plant resistance to pathogens and to biotic and abiotic stress, represent a promising tool that may provide a response to the new challenges of modern agriculture However, the impacts of a biofertilizer on the qualitative improvements of the yield have been studied less, and those studies that have been conducted have mainly focused on the first chain of the raw feeds The present study reports some issues pertaining to medium-term biofertilization experiments, focused on milk quality, which were carried out on intensive dairy cattle farms in Italy. Considering the high value of the lands in Italy and the need to maximize production, the dominant food system is based on the cultivation of maize ( The practice of permanent hay meadows, which had been abandoned by conventional agriculturists for about half a century, is now considered, by a prescient minority, a winning high quality choice, with benefits and substantial help from the use of a controlled biofertilizer management. In the present study, we examine the impact of such a reorientation, that is, from maize to meadows, on the quality of milk and on a company budget. An asynchronous model was utilized to compare the production of milk – from a quantity and quality perspective - under normal conventional feeding (C) and under an improved regimen (B). The improvement that was tested was due to the use of a biofertilizer consortium applied to the main crops considered in order to satisfy the feeding necessities of a herd, pertaining to maintenance, reproduction and production, that is, a maize crop and a meadow. Four farms were enrolled in the maize experiment over a period of two years, while one farm was followed over three years for the meadow study.
Materials And Methods
In the first year, four farms were involved in producing a trench silo of biofertilized whole-plant maize, in a quantity considered sufficient to feed milking Details of the methods used for cropping and monitoring the growth and yield were published in a study by Masoero and Giovannetti The spectra were imported in a format that was compatible with the WinISI II v1.04 software (FOSS NIRSystem / Tecator, Infrasoft International, LLC) for chemometric processing, by means of a Partial Least Squares (PLS) method, to calibrate the binary condition C A low cost NIR device was used for this purpose; the SCiOTM 23 and the spectra were downloaded, imported in WinISI and the quality traits were predicted using models validated in a previous sorghum study Analyses were carried out on chopped green whole maize plants, by means of a NIRSystem 5000, which is currently used by the Regional Breeder Association. In the first year, one farm changed its crop organisation from intensive maize feeding and dairy production to meadow feeding and hay -haylage production, using the aforementioned biofertilizer over the entire crop area. The meadows included In the transition period, the ration of the milking was gradually enlarged for the forage-to-concentrate ratio. Several kinds of measurements involved the controls on milk. Individual dairy surveys were conducted on the milking cow farms by means of a functional control conducted by the Italian Herd Breeder Association. A total of 14833 yield records (kg) were collected and several paired standard analyses (fat%, protein%, somatic cell count 000, linear score, dressing% (fat% * 0.9979 + protein% * 4.19 -5.24) and cheese yield (kg*dressing%) were carried out in the two C and B maize silage feeding phases. Over the whole 2013-14 years, about 90% of the controls were conducted during the conventional feeding period and the remaining 10% during the biofertilized feeding period. Bulk milk samples (No. 98) were regularly examined to establish their quality and cheesemaking properties using a MilkoScan FT120
Results
A significant rise in yield was obtained as a result of the biofertilizer treatment, more so for the stem system (+15%) than for the ears (+2%), and an increased S to H ratio (+10%) was observed ( ln(B/C)% is shown in parentheses; * P<0.05 The pH of the stem was lowered significantly by the biofertilizer, more so at the bottom measuring point (-2.9%) than at the top point (-0,8%), although the up-bot difference was more pronounced (-144%) ( ln(B/C)% is shown in parentheses; * P<0.05 As far as the putative leaf composition is concerned, as fingerprinted in the 1278 NIR spectra, the difference between the two theses was extremely high, with an R2 of 0.82 ( Where considering the 1627 extra leaves ( All items unitless are % dry matter; differences in ln(B/C)% are shown in parentheses; * P<0.05 As far as the foliar composition, predicted by means of SCiOTM NIRS, is concerned ( All items unitless are % dry matter; differences in ln(B/C)% are shown in parentheses; * P<0.05 In the context of the ProLacte project, the results pertaining to the quantity of milk produced by individual cows, carried out by the AIA on 13171 cases of feeding with conventional silomais (C) and 1662 of biofertilized feeding (B), indicated a slightly negative production trend (-2.7%) after a comparative analysis. This is mainly due to the voluntary reduction of the feeding level verified on farm #2 and to sanitary reasons on farm #3 ( On the other hand, the results on the composition of the milk are interesting. Overall, the fat content increased by +5.5%, while the protein content increased by +3.3%. This has led to an increase in the dairy dressing percentage of 5.3%, and +2.3% in cheesemaking. In parallel, the results of the bulk-milk analyses ( Significantly different percentages of ln(B/C)% are shown in parentheses. A clear characterization of the differences is presented in Functional results of considerable dietary interest were obtained concerning the vitamins and the composition of the fatty acids. In fact, significant increases were observed for the Vitamin E (+25%) and Vitamin A (+27%) contents on 3 out of the 4 farms ( The amount of saturated fatty acids decreased significantly (-6%): myristic acid (-18); stearic acid -32%, with a balanced increase in unsaturated acids (+15%) and a decrease in the saturated / unsaturated ratio (-25%) ( Significantly different percentages in ln(B/C)% are shown in parentheses. The transition from conventional maize to biofertilized meadow was accompanied by a reduction in the individual milk yield of about 8% ( Significantly different percentages in ln(T/C)% and in ln(B/C)% are shown in parentheses. The value chain examined in the unique farm and pertaining to the biofertilized meadow (B) stage was compared with results obtained for the conventional stage ( The value chain pertaining to the biofertilized maize was compared with the results verified in the conventional stage for the average of the four farms ( Percentages in ln(B/C)% are shown in parentheses; * P<0.05
Farms
C\B
Plant #m-2
Stems kg m-2
Earskg m-2
S/H
Total masskg m-2
1
C
6.5
14.0
7.4
1.9
21.4
1
B
7.5
15.1
7.7
2.0
22.8
2
C
5.9
15.3
15.3
1.0
30.5
2
B
7.7
18.5
12.5
1.5
31.0
3
C
6.3
10.4
9.3
1.1
19.6
3
B
7.4
12.4
11.0
1.1
23.4
4
C
8.1
23.2
12.3
1.9
35.4
4
B
8.5
25.9
12.7
2.0
38.5
5
C
6.8
17.4
9.9
1.8
27.3
5
B
7.5
20.6
11.3
1.8
31.8
Mean
C
16.0
10.8
1.5
26.8
Mean
B
18.5 (15)*
11.0 (2)*
1.7 (10)*
29.5 (10)*
No. 760
C- conventional
B-biofertilized
pH_up
4.83
4.79 (-0.8)
pH_bot
4.90
4.76 (-2.9)*
Diff. (pH up - pH_bot)
-0.07
0.03 (-144)*
Leaves - No.1627
Whole plants - No. 8
Items
C
B
C
B
Foliar pH, unit
5.14
4.97 (-3)*
Stem pH bot, unit
4.90
4.76 (-2.9)*
Crop maturity index, n
2.45
2.35 (-4)*
Lignin, ADL
8.11
7.68 (-5)*
Ether extract
1.31
1.27 (-2)*
2.67
2.65 (-1)
ADF
42.81
42.13 (-2)*
Crude fiber
28.01
27.83 (-1)
Indigestible NDF
25.43
24.56 (-3)*
10.31
9.55 (-7)
N-free extract
46.02
46.99(2)*
Gross energy, MJ/kg DM
17.43
17.42 (0)
In vitro tot. digestibility, IVTD %
71.58
71.64 (0)
NDF
46.20
46.53 (1)*
39.88
38.21 (-4)
NDF digestibility, %
44.93
46.75 (4)*
74.22
75.06 (1)
Hemicellulose
7.91
8.92 (13)*
Digestible NDF
21.24
21.67 (2)*
29.57
28.66 (-3)
Cellulose
27.64
28.44 (3)*
Crude protein
8.83
9.40 (6.4)*
6.86
7.05 (3)
Dry matter, %
27.05
28.09 (4)*
35.58
35.61 (0)
Ash
6.43
6.89 (7)*
4.03
3.73 (-7)
Non -structural carbohydrate, NSC
46.56
48.33 (4)
Starch
36.95
37.91 (3)
Total Sugars
5.57
6.05 (11)
Herd
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1-5
Conventional\Biofertilized
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
B
No
2397
187
2416
387
5970
387
1205
353
1183
348
kg milk
27.26
28.52
24.36
21.01
32.64
29.93
26.88
28.04
31.42
31.26
Fat %
3.78
4.15
3.91
4.44
3.95
3.89
3.73
3.89
3.73
3.80
Protein %
3.34
3.53
3.54
3.76
3.41
3.38
3.44
3.58
3.46
3.51
Somatic Cells 000
334
296
309
267
483
660
395
274
358
517
Linear Score
3.10
3.03
3.04
2.99
3.11
3.29
4.33
4.07
4.10
4.11
Dressing %
12.52
13.67
13.50
14.94
13.00
12.78
12.88
13.64
12.97
13.25
Cheese kg
3.41
3.90
3.29
3.14
4.24
3.83
3.46
3.83
3.98
4.04
P
lnB/C
P
lnB/C
P
lnB/C
P
lnB/C
P
lnB/C
lnB/C
kg milk
0.01
4.6%
<.0001
-13.8%
<.0001
-8.3%
0.0217
4.3%
0.304
-0.5%
-2.7%
Fat %
<.0001
9.7%
<.0001
13.5%
0.13
-1.7%
0.0014
4.2%
0.033
1.7%
5.5%
Protein %
<.0001
5.6%
<.0001
6.2%
0.04
-1.1%
<.0001
4.2%
0.001
1.5%
3.3%
Somatic Cells
0.48
-11.3%
0.37
-13.9%
0.01
36.5%
0.0775
-30.6%
0.484
44.4%
5.0%
Linear Score
0.14
-2.1%
0.09
-1.6%
<.0001
5.8%
0.3846
-5.9%
0.422
0.3%
-0.7%
Dressing %
9.2%
10.7%
-1.7%
5.9%
0.001
2.2%
5.3%
Cheese kg
14.2%
-4.5%
-9.9%
10.5%
0.458
1.4%
2.3%
No. 98
C
B
Fat
%
3.45
3.65 (5.7)
Protein
%
3.32
3.47 (4.6)
Casein
%
2.58
2.59
Dressing %
%
12.10
12.94 (6.9)
Lactose
%
4.50
4.61
Somatic Cells
000
296.31
299.79
Linear Score
Log
3.44
3.45
Bacterial charge
000
106.32
107.50
Cryostatic point
°C
-0.5284
-0.5268
N= 97
Farms
AllFarms
1
2
3
4
Vit.Aµg/100g
C
30.9
32.8
34.3
54.0
38.0
M
42.4
40.6
52.5
56.8
48.1
Ln(B/C)%
37%
24%
53%
5%
27%
Prob
0.0023
0.0238
<.0001
0.6009
<.0001
Vit.EIU
C
177
188
195
298
215
M
261
242
255
312
268
Ln(B/C)%
48%
28%
31%
5%
25%
Prob
<.0001
0.0008
<.0001
0.57
<.0001
Fatty acid
C-Conventional
B- Biofertilized
C8_0
Caprylic
0.53
0.52
C10_1
cis-9C10:1
0.04
0.04
C10_0
Capric
0.96
0.97
C12_0
Lauric
1.95
1.99
C12_1
cis9C12:1
0.14
0.15
C14_0
Miristic
10.40
8.52 (-18)
C15_0
pentadecanoic
0.08
0.07
C14_0_m12
12MTD
0.16
0.16
C15_0_m14
0.04
0.04
C16_0
Palmitic
47.50
48.34
C16_2
Palmitolitic
0.73
0.74
C17_0
Margaric
0.19
0.19
C17_1
9-eptadecenoic
0.09
0.09
C18_0
Stearic
9.97
6.74 (-32)
C18_1cis9
Oleic
33.12
33.85
C18_1_11
Vaccenic
0.50
0.49
C18_1_m14
14-metil-esadecanoic
0.13
0.14
C18_1_m15
15-metil-esadecanoic
0.13
0.13
C18_2
Linoleic
0.10
0.11
C19_1
0.04
0.04
C20_1
0.07
0.07
C20_3_n3
Ecosatrienoic
0.53
0.55
Total
Saturated
71.78
67.54 (-6)
Total
Unsaturated
28.22
32.46 (15)
Ratio S / U
3.11
2.35 (-25)
No. 4578
C-Conventional before changing
T-Transition
B- Biofertilized
N° Records
2800
702
1076
Calving order
1.716
1.823 (6)
2.019 (18)
Daily Milk Yield
30.5
27.1 (-11)
27.9 (-8)
Total Milk Yield, kg
7075
6938
6520 (-8)
Fat %
3.80
3.80
3.83
Protein %
3.45
3.70 (7)
3.75 (9)
Dressing %
13.0
14.1 (8)
14.3 (10)
Cheese, kg
3.83
3.66 (-4)
3.74 (-3)
Items
B-CPer farm,k€ Y-1
B-CPer cow, € Y-1
Fields
Chemicals: B-meadows
-6
Labor: B-meadows
-1.5
Difference in total field cost
-7.5
-84
Herd & dairy
External feeds
-10
Reduced production
-18
Bonus from milk quality
57.5
Differences in dairy incomes
29.5
331
Total
37
416 (+17%)
C- Conventional
B- Biofertilized
B-C
B-C
Items
Per maize, € ha-1
Per cow, € Y-1
Fields
Biofertilizer cost
150
Silage mass value
400
Net maize value
250
23
Stable and dairy
Milk, kg d-1
27.62
28.52 (3.2)*
Fat%
3.45
3.65 (5.8)*
Protein%
3.32
3.47 (4.5)*
Final price, .00€ kg-1
39.43
41.53 (5.3)
Gross income, € cow-1 d-1
10.9
11.8 (8.7)
Gross income, € cow-1 Y-1
3321.6
3612.5
291
Total
Total chain value, € cow-1 Y-1
314 (+9%)
Discussion
The pivotal role of the foliar pH as a marker of mycorrhization - as previously published According to Sabia et al It seems absurd that corn, the main bioenergy crop throughout the world, is not affected by the results in biofertilization studies. Literature comparisons, limited to the early stages in pot experiments 38, 39 were mostly focused on physiological agronomic traits and showed evidence of a higher leaf-supply of N, P, Mg and Ca, but not of K. A different consideration derives from an expansion of the category of biofertilizers to the biofertilizers issued from biogas. Such products cannot be defined exactly as bio-inoculants since they are derived from anaerobic fermentation, while the useful microflora in the soil, which represent the core of a biofertilizer, are aerobic Corn silage, despite being scarce in protein, is the most relevant feed for intensive ruminant production. Other important pawns on the cultural chessboard are needed in the sustainable farm, especially in cropping systems. In this strategy, chemical and chicken manure fertilizers, biofertilizers based on N-fixing bacteria and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria have shown profitability in intercropping corn-soybean systems In stable practice, the difference between a conventional feeding and a biofertilized one resides in several aspects that are derived from a better palatability and lower level of mycotoxins in the ration, as shown in the Amico project in which the maize grain was measured directly, as well as after poultry feeding experiments The energy balance of dairy cows must be analytically measured from input-output measures and changes in the body reserves, and as this requires the measurement of all the energetic inputs (feed intake) and outputs (milk, fetus, growth), but this it is not feasible under the current commercial conditions. An indirect option that has been put forward for measuring the energy balance is to consider the changes in the milk composition, for example, the changes in the fat and protein contents of the milk. According to the proposal of Friggens et al Energy Balance (Mj d-1 ) = 82.4 + 5* Fat% - 80.5 (Fat/Protein), has provided an average comparison of ln(B/C) negative on farms 1 (-17%) and 2 (-26%), null on farm 3 and positive on farm 4 (+15%), but +55% on the farm with meadows, where the real livable conditions were improved, as pointed out by the lower elimination rate of the cows that raised the order of the calving. Milk producers are concerned about the raw commercial features, but consumers may have different opinions, and some are willing to pay for top quality products. Different Spectroscopy and Electronic Nose Techniques can be used to objectively characterize milk features In that survey, which involved a total of 106 dairy farms in Puglia, the farms were classified as belonging to four characteristic dairy Types: 3-SCH (Silage Concentrate-High, n=25); 4-HCH (Hay Concentrate-High, n=33); 5-HCL (Hay Concentrate- Low, n=32); 6-PCZ (Pasture Concentrate Zero, with Podolic cows, n=16). The comparisons in highlight that the saturated FAs decreased in parallel to a lower intensity of the feeding-cow system, and, conversely, the unsaturated FAs grew. Vitamin A appeared slightly different, for the systems in the two experiments. According to Bernardini et al. Confirmation of the high correlation of the two functional properties (r =0.81) observed in the present work can be found in the work of Strusińska et al As the health of a dairy cow depends on the quality of the feed, how much of this health will be transferred to the biologically active components (particularly vitamins and trace elements) that are fundamental for promoting the neonatal and adult health of humans? Previous experiments with mycorrhized corn grain However, it is the protein in milk that appears to be a kind of cornerstone of the construction that starts from the mycorrhizal symbiosis, runs through energized metabolic pathways, highlighted by a lower foliar pH in the stalk, and finally determines a better nitrogen efficiency of the entire soil-root-plant-cow system. The experimental evidence obtained from the quantitative analysis of vitamin A and vitamin E in the raw milk of cows fed mycorrhized corn silage could be related to a greater availability of nitrogen present in the mycorrhized cultivar, compared to the untreated cultivar. The results of this study have in fact confirmed many findings in the literature. Some studies have shown how the availability of nitrogen determines a variation in the photosynthetic pigment content, for example, in the chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, lutein, β-carotene, neoxanthin, xanthine violet, zeaxanthin and xanthine anther contents. A study by Lipppert et al Kopsell et al. Another study A further study The better protein yield of cows fed with biofertilized forages can be an indicator of a lower dispersion of methane into the environment by lactating cows fed biofertilized maize. Methane is formed from a bacterial biotransformation of hydrogen, as generated by rumen protozoa As a corollary, we here report the experience of two colleagues
Conclusion
In this work, it has been shown that a subtle Biofertilizers based on arbuscular mycorrhizae have so far been noted for their P solubilizing performances in the soil. But in this longer way, it is the nitrogen that excels in efficiency, from the brown of the soil to the white of the milk. Moreover, the functional properties of a milk labeled as biofertilized or a “symbiotic” dimension, equipped with a particular set of antioxidant vitamins, that is, A and E, and fewer saturated fatty acids, allows a real evolutionary leap to be made toward a new vision of sustainable agriculture for the environment and for animals, by combining a better quality of products, animal welfare and at the same time improving the company budget about 9-17%. In conclusion, the experimental observations summarized in this work constitute the analytical core of an interdisciplinary study related to the repercussions of the use of Micosat F in