Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:13:14.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of system of harvesting grass for silage on the output of silage and milk per hectare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. C. Small  and
F. J. Gordon
J. C. Small
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
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Four systems of harvesting grass for silage were evaluated in terms of in-field losses, in-silo losses and milk output per hectare. The systems were: single-chop flail harvester direct cutting (SCD); doublechop flail harvester direct cutting (DCD); mown with a rotary mower and picked up with a precisionchop harvester either immediately (PCU) or after wilting until the dry-matter concentration had increased by approximately 100 g/kg (PCW). The in-field and in-silo losses were measured at each of three consecutive harvests during 1984 and during the following winter the resulting silages were evaluated through eight British Friesian cows in a balanced change-over design experiment using four periods each of 5 weeks duration.

There was a greater quantity of herbage ensiled with the two direct cutting systems (SCD and DCD) than with the systems involving pre-mowing and picking up with the ensiled yields, being 12·4, 11·8, 10·8 and 10·8t OM/ha for the SCD, DCD, PCU and PCW systems respectively. These differences were only partly reflected in greater mechanical in-field losses with the pre-mown systems.

Losses during the in-silo period tended to be greater with the wilted than the unwilted silages being 98, 76, 83 and 132 g/kg OM with the SCD, DCD, PCU, and PCW systems, respectively.

Animals offered the PCW silage tended to have a higher silage organic-matter intake and had a significantly higher milk yield than those offered the other silages with fat corrected milk yields being 25·1, 24·5, 24·5 and 25·9 kg/day for the SCD, DCD, PCU and PCW systems, respectively. Milk outputs per hectare, at 30·3, 27·8, 25·7 and 240 for the SCD, PCD, PCU and PCW systems respectively, was lowest for the PCW treatment.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 111 , Issue 2 , October 1988 , pp. 369 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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. (1982). Effect of stage of maturity and chop length on the chemical composition and utilization of formic acid-treated ryegrass and formic acid silage by sheep. Grass and Forage Science 37, 139–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleton, M. & Done, D. (1984). In ‘Eurowilt’ efficiency of silage systems: a comparison between unwilted and wilted silages. Landbauforschung Volkenrode, Sonderheft 69, 24–27.Google Scholar
Apolant, S. M. (1982). A study on the value of grass silagebased diets for sheep with particular reference to the breeding ewe. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, The Queen's University of Belfast.Google Scholar
Bastiman, B. & Altman, J. F. B. (1985). Losses at various stages in silage making. Research and Development in Agriculture 2, 19–25.Google Scholar
Butler, T. M., Gleeson, P. A. & Comerford, P. J. (1975). Dairy cow nutrition. An Foras Taluntais Animal Production Research Report 1975, pp. 102–104.Google Scholar
Castle, M. E. & Watson, J. N. (1973). The relationship between the dry matter content of herbage for silage making and effluent production. Journal of the British Grassland Society 28, 135–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. & Watson, J. N. (1982). Silage and milk production: comparisons between unwilted and wilted grass silages made with different additives. Grass and Forage Science 37, 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. & Watson, J. N. (1984). Silage and milk production: a comparison between unwilted and wilted grass silages. Grass and Forage Science 39, 187–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charmley, E. & Thomas, C. (1984). In ‘Eurowilt’ efficiency of silage systems: a comparison between unwilted and wilted silages. Landbauforschung Volkenrode, Sonderheft 69, 21–23.Google Scholar
Dulphy, J. P. & Demarquilly, C. (1975). Influence of the type of forage harvester on the silage intake level and the peformances of dairy cows. Annales de Zootechnie 24, 363–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulphy, J. P., Lienard, G., Andrieu, J. P. & Garel, J. P. (1983). Interest in a new double cutting ensilage machine: study in a semi-mountain area and economic consequences for milk production. Herbage Abstracts 53, No. 2960.Google Scholar
Dulphy, J. P., Michalet-Doreau, B. & Demarquilly, C. (1984). Comparative study of feed intake, feeding and ruminating behaviour in sheep and cattle fed silages subjected to different treatments. Annales de Zootechnie 33, 291–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ettala, E., Rissanen, H., Virtanen, E., Huida, L. & Kiviniemi, J. (1982). Wilted and unwilted silage in the feeding of dairy cattle. Annales Agriculture Fenniae 21, 67–83.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J. (1980). The effect of interval between harvests and wilting of herbage on silage for milk production. Animal Production 31, 35–41.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J. (1982). The effect of degree of chopping grass for silage and method of concentrate allocation on the performance of dairy cows. Grass and Forage Science 37, 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. (1984). The effect of system of silage harvesting on the nutrient losses during conservation and on the output of milk per hectare. Proceedings of the 7th Silage Conference, The, Queen's University of Belfast (ed. Gordon, F. J. and Unsworth, E. F.), pp. 109–110.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J. (1986). The effect of system of silage harvesting and feeding on milk production. Grass and Forage Science 41, 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, F. J. (1987). The influence of system of silage harvesting and feeding and the use of protected protein on milk production. Grass and Forage Science 42, 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinks, C. E. & Henderson, A. R. (1984). In ‘Eurowilt’ efficiency of silage systems: a comparison between unwilted and wilted silages. Landbauforschung Volkenrode, Sonderheft 69, 18–20.Google Scholar
Honig, H. (1978). The influence of chopping on the fermentation process, losses and nutritive value of grass and maize silages. Proceedings of the 5th Silage Conference, Hannah Research Institute, Ayr (ed. Harkess, R. D.), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
Honig, H., Rohr, K. & Daenicke, R. (1984). In ‘Eurowilt’ efficiency of silage systems: a comparison between unwilted and wilted silages. Landbauforschung Volkenrode, Sonderheft 69, 39–41.Google Scholar
Jones, E. L. (1983). The production and persistency of different grass species cut at different heights. Grass and Forage Science 38, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. & Chestnutt, D. M. B. (1968). Measurement of dry matter losses in grass during the wilting period. 2. The effects of rain, mechanical treatment, maturity of grass and some other factors. Record of Agricultural Research of Ministry of Agriculture of Northern Ireland 17, 59–65.Google Scholar
McDonald, P. (1981). The Biochemistry of Silage. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Marsh, R. (1978). A review of the effects of mechanical treatment of forages on the feeding value of silages. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 6, 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, R. (1979). The effects of wilting on fermentation in the silo and on the nutritive value of silage. Grass and Forage Science 34, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayne, C. S. (1983). Studies on field and storage losses occurring during ensilage and on the supplementation of grass silage for milk production. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, The Queen's University of Belfast.Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S. & Gordon, F. J. (1984 a). The effect of type of concentrate and level of concentrate feeding on milk production. Animal Production 39, 65–76.Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S. & Gordon, F. J. (1984 b). The effect of harvesting system on nutrient losses during ensilage. Proceedings of the 7th Silage Conference, The Queen's University of Belfast (ed. Gordon, F. J. and Unsworth, E. F.), pp. 21–22.Google Scholar
Mayne, C. S. & Gordon, F. J. (1986 a). The effect of harvesting system on nutrient losses during silage making. 1. Field losses. Grass and Forage Science 41, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayne, C. S. & Gordon, F. J. (1986 b). The effect of harvesting system on nutrient losses during silage making. 2. In-silo losses. Grass and Forage Science 41, 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, J. J. & Gleeson, P. A. (1984). Effect or wilting and formic acid treatment on silage preservation and performance of autumn-calving cows. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 105–116.Google Scholar
Nash, M. J. (1959). Partial wilting of grass crops for silage. 1. Field trials. Journal of the British Grassland Society 14, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Lucas, H. L. (1962). Change-over designs. Technical Bulletin No. 147, North Carolina Agricultural Experimental Station.Google Scholar
Porter, M. G., Patterson, D. C, Steen, R. W. J. & Gordon, F. J. (1984). Determination of dry matter and gross energy of grass silage. Proceedings of the 7th Silage Conference, The Queen's University of Belfast (ed. Gordon, F. J. and Unsworth, E. F.), pp. 89–90.Google Scholar
Schukking, S. & Overvest, J. (1980). Direct and indirect losses caused by wilting. In Forage Conservation in the 80s (ed.Thomas, C.), pp. 210–213. Occasional Symposium No. 11, British Grassland Society.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. (1985). The effect of field wilting and mechanical treatment on the feeding value of grass silage for beef cattle and on beef output per hectare. Animal Production 41, 281–291.Google Scholar
Steen, R. W. J. & Gordon, F. J. (1980). The effect of type of silage and level of concentrate supplementation offered during early lactation on total lactation performance of January/February calving cows. Animal Production 30, 341–354.Google Scholar
Unsworth, E. F. & Gordon, F. J. (1985). The energy utilization of wilted and unwilted grass silages by lactating dairy cows. In 58th Annual Report 1984–1985, Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, pp. 13–20.Google Scholar
Vogel, R., Daccord, R., Gallasz, E. & Jans, F. (1984). In ‘Eurowilt’, efficiency of silage systems: a comparison between unwilted and wilted silages. Landbauforschung Volkenrode, Sonderheft 69, 42–46.Google Scholar
Watson, S. J. & Nash, M. J. (1960). The losses involved in silages. In The Conservation of Grass and Forage Crops, pp. 319–395. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Weiss, Ph., Girard, P. & Lemaitre, G. (1980). In Forage Conservation in the 80s (ed. Thomas, C.), pp. 403–407. Occasional Symposium No. II, Grassland Society.Google Scholar
Wilkins, R. J. (1984). A review of the effects of wilting on the composition and feeding value of silages. In ‘Eurowilt’, efficiency of silage systems: a comparison between unwilted and wilted silages. Landbauforschung Volkenrode, Sonderheft 69, 5–12.Google Scholar