Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:49:38.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of wilting of grass prior to ensiling on the response to bacterial inoculation. 1. Silage fermentation and nutrient utilization over three harvests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

T. Yan ,
D. C. Patterson ,
F. J. Gordon  and
M. G. Porter
T. Yan
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
D. C. Patterson
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
F. J. Gordon
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
M. G. Porter
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
Get access

Abstract

Four silages were prepared from perennial ryegrass swards at each of first (primary growth), second (first regrowth) and third (second regrowth) harvests during the 1993 growing season. At each harvest the four silages included two unwilted (without and with inoculant at 2·4 l/t) and two wilted (without and with inoculant at 24 l/t). The four silages within a single harvest, were offered as the total diet at maintenance levels to 12 wether sheep for 3 weeks to determine nutrient apparent digestibilities. They were also given to 12 lactating dairy coivs together with a concentrate supplement, in a three-period change-over study with experimental periods of 8-weeks duration, to examine dry matter (DM) apparent digestibility and utilization of nitrogen (N) and energy in the diets.

Inoculation tended to improve silage fermentation with on average lower pH and ammonia-N/total-N across the three harvests, while wilting of grass prior to ensiling significantly increased silage pH fP < 0·001) and ammonia-N/total-N (P < 0·001). Neither inoculation nor wilting had any significant effect on mean nutrient apparent digestibilities, assessed through sheep, across the three harvests. However, at the second harvest inoculation significantly reduced apparent digestibilities of DM (P < 0·001) and N (P < 0·001). At this harvest, wilting also significantly decreased apparent digestibilities of DM (P<0·05) and N (P <0·01), but significantly increased apparent digestibilities of DM (P < 0·05), energy (P < 0·001) and N (F < 0·05) at the third harvest. When the silages were offered as mixed diets to dairy cattle, neither inoculation nor wilting had significant effects on digestibilities of DM, N and energy at any of the three harvests, except for wilting which significantly decreased DM apparent digestibilities (P < 0·05) at the second harvest. However, the mean apparent digestibilities of DM (P < 0·01), N (P < 0·05) and energy (P < 0·01) across the three harvests were significantly lower following wilting, and N apparent digestibility (P < 0·05) was significantly higher following inoculation. The calorimetric data indicated that inoculaton had no significant effects on either methane energy output or heat production. Wilting also had no significant effect on methane energy output, but significantly increased daily heat production (P<0·05) at the first harvest. The efficiencies of metabolizable energy utilization for lactation (k1) were similar between the four silages at each of the first and second harvests, with the average being 0·50. The results of the present study indicated that inoculation tended to improve silage fermentation and significantly increased mean N apparent digestibility of mixed diets across the three harvests, while wilting significantly reduced mean DM, N and energy apparent digestibilities of mixed diets. Neither inoculation nor wilting had significant effects on Rvalue.

Keywords

digestibilityenergy consumptioninoculantsilage fermentationwilting
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , June 1996 , pp. 405 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996

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

Anderson, R., Gracey, H. I., Kennedy, S. J., Unsworth, E. F. and Steen, R. W. J. 1989. Evaluation studies in the development of a commercial bacterial inoculant as an additive for grass silage. 1. Using pilot-scale tower silos. Grass and Forage Science 44:361–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertilsson, J. 1990. Effect of conservation method and stage of maturity on the feeding value of forages to dairy cows. 4. Effect of wilting on silage quality, digestibility and milk production at restricted feeding of silage. Swedish Journal Agricultural Research 20:135–140.Google Scholar
Chen, J., Stokes, M. R. and Wallace, C. R. 1994. Effects of enzyme-inoculant systems on preservation and nutritive value of haycrop and corn silages. Journal of Dairy Science 77:501–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Done, D. L. 1986. Silage inoculants — a review of experimental work. Research and Development in Agriculture 3:83–87.Google 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
Gordon, F. J., Patterson, D. C., Porter, M. G. and Unsworth, E. F. 1995a. The effect of degree of wilting of grass prior to ensiling on the performance and energy and nitrogen utilisation by dairy cattle. Grass and Forage Science In pressGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J., Porter, M. G., Mayne, S. C., Unsworth, E. F. and Kilpatrick, D. J. 1995b. Effect of forage digestiibility and type of concentrate on nutrient utilisation by lactating dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Research 62:15–27.Google Scholar
Heron, S. J. E. and Owen, T. R. 1991. Review of the effects of ‘Ecosyl’ silage inoculant on in vivo digestibilities and metabolisable energy of grass silages. In Management issues for the grassland farmer in the 1990's (ed. Mayne, C. S.), Occasional symposium, British Grassland Society, pp.230–233.Google Scholar
Jones, B. A., Satter, L. D. and Muck, R. E. 1992. Influence of bacterial inoculant and substrate addition to lucerne ensiled at different dry matter contents. Grass and Forage Science 47:19–27.Google 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
Martinsson, K. 1991. A comparison between formic acid and an inoculant for the preservation of grass silage for dairy cows. Swedish journal of Agricultural Research 21:121–130.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. 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
Mayne, C. S. and Gordon, F. J. 1984. The effect of type of concentrate and level of concentrate feeding on milk production. Animal Production 39:65–76.Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S. and Steen, R. W. J. 1993. A review of animal production responses to formic acid and inoculant treatment of grass silage in trials at the Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland. In Silage research 1993. Proceedings of the tenth international conference on research, Dublin, pp.178–179.Google Scholar
O'Kiely, P. 1994. Effects of adding a Lactobacillus plantarum inoculant to grass ensiled at different dry matter concentrations and offered to beef cattle. Animal Science 58:456A (abstr.).Google Scholar
Patterson, D. C. 1993. The effects of grass and swath treatment factors on the rate of drying of silage grass. In Silage research 1993. Proceedings of the tenth international conference on silage research, Dublin, pp.52–53.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. C., Yan, T. and Gordon, F. J. 1996. The effects of wilting of grass prior to ensiling on the response to bacterial inoculation. 2. Intake and performance by dairy cattle over three harvests. Animal Science 62:419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peoples, A. C. and Gordon, F. J. 1989. The influence of wilting and season of silage harvest and the fat and protein concentration of the supplement on milk production and food utilization by lactating cattle. Animal Production 48:305–317.Google Scholar
Rohr, K. and Thomas, C. 1984. Intake, digestibility and animal performance. In Efficiency of silage systems: a comparison between unwilted and wilted silages (ed. Zimmer, E. and Wilkins, R. J.), pp. 64–70. Landbauforschung Volkenrode, Sonderheft 69.Google Scholar
Rooke, J. A., Greife, H. A. and Armstrong, D. G. 1985. The digestion by cattle of silage containing diets fed at two dry matter intakes. British Journal of Nutrition 53:691–708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rooke, J. A., Maya, F. M., Arnold, J. A. and Armstrong, D. G. 1988. The chemical composition and nutritive value of grass silages prepared with no additive or with the application of additives containing either Lactobacillus plantarum or formic acid. Grass and Forage Science 43:87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, R., Hooper, P. G. and Armstrong, D. G. 1994. The digestion of grass silages produced using inoculants of lactic acid bacteria. Grass and Forage Science 49:42–53.CrossRefGoogle 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., Unsworth, E. F., Gracey, H. I., Kennedy, S. J. and Anderson, R. 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
Thomas, P. C. and Morrison, I. M. 1982. In Silage for milk production (ed. Rook, J. A. F. and Thomas, P. C.), pp. 13–38, Technical Bulletin 2. National Institute for Research in Dairying and Hannah Research Institute.Google Scholar
Tomes, N., Kleinmans, J. and Ruser, B. 1993. Optimization of inoculation level of silage inoculant. In Silage Research 1993. Proceedings of the tenth international conference on silage research, Dublin, p.25.Google Scholar
Tuori, M., Syrjala-Qvist, L. and Kokkonen, T. 1993. Rumen fermentation and passage rate of the digesta of direct cut and prewilted grass silage. In Silage Research 1993. Proceedings of the tenth international conference on silage research, Dublin, pp.143–144.Google Scholar
Unsworth, E. F. and Gordon, F. J. 1985. The energy utilisation of wilted and vmwilted grass silages by lactating dairy cows. The fifty-eighth annual report of the Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, pp.13–20.Google Scholar
Wilkins, R. J. 1984. Review of former data. In Efficiency of silage systems: a comparison between unwilted and wilted silages (ed. Zimmer, E. and Wilkins, R. J.), pp. 5–12. Landbauforschung Volkenrode, Sonderheft 69.Google Scholar