Performance of dairy cows fed high levels of acetic acid or ethanol

Abstract

Ethanol and acetic acid are common end products from silages. The main objective of this study was to determine whether high concentrations of ethanol or acetic acid in total mixed ration would affect performance in dairy cows. Thirty mid-lactation Holstein cows were grouped in 10 blocks and fed one of the following diets for 7 wk: (1) control (33% Bermuda hay + 67% concentrates), (2) ethanol [control diet + 5% ethanol, dry matter (DM) basis], or (3) acetic acid (control diet + 5% acetic acid, DM basis). Ethanol and acetic acid were diluted in water (1:2) and sprayed onto total mixed rations twice daily before feeding. An equal amount of water was mixed with the control ration. To adapt animals to these treatments, cows were fed only half of the treatment dose during the first week of study. Cows fed ethanol yielded more milk (37.9 kg/d) than those fed the control (35.8 kg/d) or acetic acid (35.3 kg/d) diets, mainly due to the higher DM intake (DMI; 23.7, 22.2, and 21.6 kg/d, respectively). The significant diet × week interaction for DMI, mainly during wk 2 and 3 (when acetic acid reached the full dose), was related to the decrease in DMI observed for the acetic acid treatment. There was a diet × week interaction in excretion of milk energy per DMI during wk 2 and 3, due to cows fed acetic acid sustained milk yield despite lower DMI. Energy efficiency was similar across diets. Blood metabolites (glucose, insulin, nonesterified fatty acids, ethanol, and γ-glutamyl transferase activity) and sensory characteristics of milk were not affected by these treatments. Animal performance suggested similar energy value for the diet containing ethanol compared with other diets. Rumen conversion of ethanol to acetate and a concomitant increase in methane production might be a plausible explanation for the deviation of the predicted energy value based on the heat of combustion. Therefore, the loss of volatile compounds during the drying process in the laboratory should be considered when calculating energy content of fermented feedstuffs.

Aerobic exposure of lucerne silages and its impact on preference and dry matter intake by goats

“…At least ethanol does not seem to impact preference negatively, which supports previous studies (Daniel et al, 2013;Randby et al, 1999) with dairy cows. Besides significant reductions in preference and DMI, volatilization of ethanol and methanol during aerobic exposure adds losses of energy to the silage DM.…”

“…This might be caused by oxidation by aerobic microorganisms but could be more likely a result of volatilization (Daniel et al, 2013). A stronger heating on d8 was observed in TRE despite a better hygienic quality at opening.…”

Effects of Lactobacillus buchneri inoculation or 1-propanol supplementation to corn silage on the performance of lactating Holstein cows

“…Notwithstanding, acetic acid concentration was low and similar across treatments (13.0 and 13.8 g/kg for the control and inoculated silages, respectively), with no interference on animal performance. Previous studies reported a clear negative effect of acetic acid on feeding behavior, but the dietary concentrations of acetic acid were higher than those found in the present trial (Dinius et al, 1968;Hutchinson and Wilkins, 1971;Krizsan et al, 2012;Daniel et al, 2013).…”

The effects of Lactobacillus kefiri and L. brevis on the fermentation and aerobic stability of sugarcane silage

“…Therefore, ensiling sugarcane results in the conversion of most of the SC into fermentation end-products, which are characterized by high levels of volatile organic compounds, primarily ethanol (Kung and Stanley, 1982;Pedroso et al, 2005;Daniel et al, 2013b). Although the gross energy is almost completely recovered during alcoholic fermentation (McDonald et al, 1991), large amounts of DM and net energy are lost (Daniel and Nussio, 2011;Daniel et al, 2013a). Because of the undesirable characteristics of natural fermentation in sugarcane silages, there is a need to identify additives that can inhibit epiphytic yeast populations, and mitigate nutrient losses (Ávila et al, 2014).…”