Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:49:40.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of treating low dry matter herbage with a bacterial inoculant or formic acid on the intake and performance of lactating dairy cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

T. W. J. Keady  and
J. J. Murphy
T. W. J. Keady
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
J. J. Murphy
Affiliation:
Teagasc, Moorepark Research Centre, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland
Get access

Abstract

A randomized block design experiment involving 64 lactating dairy cattle was carried out to evaluate a bacterial inoculant and two rates of formic acid as silage additives. Herbage from the primary growth of a predominantly perennial ryegrass sward was ensiled unwilted using two precision-chop harvesters. Alternate loads of herbage were either untreated (UT) or treated with formic acid applied at the rate of 2·7 l/t grass (LF) and 5·7 l/t grass (HF) or an inoculant enzyme preparation applied at the rate of 2·2 l/t grass (I). The mean dry matter (DM) and water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC) concentrations and buffering capacity of the UT herbage were 148 g/kg, 151 g/kg DM and 638 mEq/kg DM. Inoculant treatment had no effect on the rate of silage fermentation post ensiling relative to the UT silage whereas HF treatment produced a restricted fermented silage. For silages UT, LF, I and HF, pH values were 4·53, 3·89, 4·32 and 4·05 (s.e.d. = 0·061); ammonia nitrogen (N) concentrations were 179, 89, 150 and 73 g/kg total N (s.e.d. = 10·4); butyrate concentrations were 6·0,1·9, 5·1 and 2·0 g/kg DM (s.e.d. = 1·24); and WSC concentrations were 14·4, 35·2, 18·0 and 100·7 g/kg DM (s.e.d. = 1·24), respectively. The silages were offered ad libitum. The UT silage was supplemented with either 2 (UT2), 4 (UT4) or 6 (UT6) kg concentrates per head daily while the LF, I and HF silages were supplemented with 4 kg (LF4,14, HF4) of concentrates. For treatments UT4, LF4, 14 and HF4, silage DM intakes were 9·69, 10·89, 9·93 and 10·89 (average s.e.d. = 0·465) kg/day; fat plus protein yields 1·39,1·44,1·32 and 1·49 (average s.e.d. = 0·057) kg/day; protein concentrations 29·2, 31·1, 29·9 and 30·2 (average s.e.d. = 1·01) g/kg. Inoculant treatment increased N apparent digestibility (P < 0·05) of the total diets relative to UT. The apparent digestibilities of neutral-detergent fibre (P < 0·05) and hemicellulose (P < 0·01) were decreased due to HF treatment. For the production of a constant milk fat plus protein yield it was estimated that an extra 0·63 kg per head per day and 1·04 and 1·77 kg per head per day less concentrate would be required for the I, LF and HF treatments, respectively. It is concluded that relative to the UT treatment, I treatment had no beneficial effects on silage fermentation, total diet apparent digestibility (other than N apparent digestibility) or animal performance. The LF treatment improve lage fermentation and intake, and tended to increase the yield of fat plus protein (P > 0·05) whereas HF treatment restricted silage preservation and increased silage intake and the yields of protein and fat plus protein.

Keywords

concentratesdairy cowsmilk productionsilage additivessilage fermentation
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , February 1997 , pp. 25 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1997

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

Chamberlain, D. G. and Quig, J. 1987. The effects of the rate of addition of formic acid and sulphuric acid on the ensilage of perennial ryegrass in laboratory silos. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 38:217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, D. G., Robertson, S., Martin, P. A. and Jackson, D. A. 1990. The effects of the addition of a mixture of ammonium salts of methanoic and propanoic acids and octanoic acid at ensiling on the nutritional value of silage for milk production. Proceedings of the ninth international silage conference, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, pp. 120–121.Google Scholar
Davies, O. D. 1990. The effect of silage additives on the efficiency of milk production from conserved grass. Proceedings of the ninth international silage conference, Neivcastle-upon-Tyne, pp. 74–75.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1984. The effect of level of concentrate supplementation given with grass silage during the winter on the total lactation performance of autumn-calving dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102:163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1989a. An evaluation through lactating cattle of a bacterial inoculant as an additive for grass silage. Grass and Forage Science 44:169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1989b. A further study on the evaluation through lactating cattle of a bacterial inoculant as an additive for grass silage. Grass and Forage Science 44: 353–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haigh, P. M. 1993. Comparison of an inoculant treated grass silage and formic acid treated silage fed to friesian dairy cows. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on silage research, Dublin City University, Ireland, pp. 176–177.Google Scholar
Henderson, A. R., Anderson, D. H. and Neilson, D. R. 1987. The effect of a commercial inoculant and Add-F applied at two levels on the chemical characteristics and utilisation of ryegrass silages over two seasons. Proceedings of the eighth silage conference, Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
Henderson, A. R., McDonald, P. and Woolford, M. K. 1972. Chemical changes and losses during the ensilage of wilted grass treated with formic acid. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 23:1079–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, W. H. 1986. Chemical factors involved in ruminal fiber digestion. Journal of Dairy Science 69: 2755–2766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, R. 1992. Effect of a biological additive on silage quality, effluent production and beef production. Proceedings of the British Grassland Society third research conference, pp. 107–108.Google Scholar
Keady, T. W. J. 1991. Studies of the mode of action of a bacterial inoculant as a silage additive and an evaluation of its efficiency. Ph.D. thesis, Queen's University, Belfast.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, T. W. J. and Murphy, J. J. 1996. Effect of inoculant treatment on silage fermentation, digestibility, rumen fermentation, intake and performance of lactating dairy cattle. Grass and Forage Science In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, T. W. J., Murphy, J. J. and Harrington, D. 1996. The effects of ensiling on dry matter intake and milk production of lactating dairy cattle given forage as the sole diet. Grass and Forage Science In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, T. W. J. and O'Kiely, P. 1996. An evaluation of the effects of nitrogen fertilisation of grassland on silage fermentation, in-silo losses, effluent production and aerobic stability. Grass and Forage Science In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, T. W. J. and Steen, R. W. J. 1994. Effects of treating low dry matter grass with a bacterial inoculant on the intake and performance of beef cattle and studies on its mode of action. Grass and Forage Science 49:438–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, T. W. J. and Steen, R. W. J. 1995. The effects of treating low dry matter, low digestibility grass with a bacterial inoculant on the intake and performance of beef cattle, and studies on its mode of action. Grass and Forage Science 50: 217–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keady, T. W. J., Steen, R. W. J., Kilpatrick, D. J. and Mayne, C. S. 1994. Effects of inoculant treatment on silage fermentation, digestibility and intake by growing cattle. Grass and Forage Science 49: 284–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, S., Axelesson, L. T. and McFeeters, R. F. 1990. Anaerobic L. lactate degradation by lactobacillus plantarum. FEMS Microbiology Letters 66: 209–214.Google Scholar
McDonald, P., Henderson, A. R. and Heron, S. J. E. 1991. The biochemistry of silage. Chalcombe Publications, Buckinghamshire.Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S. 1990. An evaluation of an inoculant of lactobacillus plantarum as an additive for grass silage for dairy cattle. Animal Production 51:1–13.Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S. 1992. An evaluation of the concentrate sparing effect of four silage additives. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production winter meeting, p. 153.Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S. 1993. The effect of formic acid, sulphuric acid and a bacterial inoculant on silage fermentation and the food intake and milk production of lactating dairy cows. Animal Production 56:29–42.Google Scholar
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1984. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.Google Scholar
O'Kiely, P. 1993. Influence of a partially neutralised blend of aliphatic organic acids on fermentation, effluent production and aerobic stability of autumn grass silage. Irish journal of Agricultural and Food Research 32:13–26.Google Scholar
O'Kiely, P., Flynn, A. V. and Wilson, R. 1987. New concepts in silage making. Irish Grassland and Animal Production Association journal 21: 38–50.Google Scholar
Pettersson, K. 1988. Ensiling of forages: factors affecting silage fermentation and quality. Report no. 179. Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala.Google Scholar
Smith, E. J., Henderson, A. R., Oldham, J. D., Whitaker, D. A., Aitchison, K., Anderson, D. H. and Kelly, J. M. 1993. The influence of an inoculant/enzyme preparation as an additive for grass silage offered in combination with three levels of concentrate supplementation on performance of lactating dairy cows. Animal Production 56: 301–310.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. 1990. Recent advances in the use of silage additives for dairy cattle. In Management issues for the grassland farmer in the 1990's. Occasional symposium no. 25, British Grassland Society, pp. 87–101.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J., Unsworth, E. F., Gracey, H. I., Kennedy, S. J., Anderson, R. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1989. Evaluation studies in the development of a commercial bacterial inoculant as an additive for grass silage. 3. Responses in growing cattle and interaction with protein supplementation. Grass and Forage Science 44: 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, S. D. 1984. Feeding and milk fat production. In Milk compositional quality and its importance in future markets (ed. Castle, M. E. and Gunn, R. J.), occasional symposium, British Society of Animal Production, no. 9, pp. 43–52.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. C. and Morrison, I. M. 1982. Silage for milk production. Technical bulletin no. 2. (ed. Rook, J. A. F. and Thomas, P. C.), pp. 13–38. National Institute for Research in Dairying and Hannah Research Institute.Google Scholar
Woodford, M. K. 1984. Silage fermentation. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar