Evaluation studies in the development of a commercial bacterial inoculant as an additive for grass silage

Kennedy, S. J.; Gracey, H. I.; Unsworth, E.F.; Steen, R. W. J.; Anderson, R.C.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.1989.tb01935.x

Cited by 33 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The increase in N and organic matter digestibilities of the silages when offered alone, resulting from inoculant treatment, is in accordance with the results of other authors using sheep and dairy cattle (Hooper e/a/., 1984;Hooper etal.. 1987;Anderson et al, 1989;Gordon, 1989a), but Rooke et al (1988 and . using sheep and young cattle respectively, obtained no improvements in digestibility due to inoculant treatment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…whereas and Kennedy et al (1989) obtained poor fermentations in untreated silages using herbages with dry-matter concentrations of 165 and 168 g kg"' and water-soluble carbohydrate concentrations of 102 and 124 g (kg DM)'' respectively. The good feimentation reported here may be due to the rapid filling, air-tight sealing and the silo size (0 8 t capacity).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of inoculant treatment on silage fermentation, digestibility and intake by growing cattle

Keady

Steen

Kilpatrick

et al. 1994

Grass and Forage Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A changeover design experiment involving thirtysix 3-month-old Friesian male calves (mean initial live weight 127 kg) was carried out to evaluate a bacterial inoculant based on a single strain of Lactohacillus plantarum (Ecosyl, ICI) as a silage additive. On 25-31 August 1988, nine silages were harvested using double-chop forage harvesters from the second regrowth of three swards, namely permanent pasture which had received 100 kg N ha"' and perennial ryegrass which had received either 100 or 150 kg N ha"'. Herbages (mean DM and WSC concentrations 144 and 11 2 g kg"' respectively) from each sward were treated with either no additive, formic acid (2 4 11"') or the inoculant (3-3 11"') and were ensiled in 126 silos of 0 8 t capacity. The only effects of the inoculant on chemical composition of the silages were a decrease in modified acid detergent fibre and an increase in endotoxin and crude and true protein concentrations. Silages were offered ad lihitum and supplemented with 1 -0 kg of concentrates per head daily for three periods each of 3 weeks in a partially balanced changeover design experiment. Digestibilities of the total diets were determined at the end of the experiment. For the untreated, formic acid-treated and inoculant-treated silages, silage dry matter intakes were respectively § Also members of staff of the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland and the Queen's University. Belfast. UK.3 58, 3-66 and 3-67 (s.e. 0044) kg d"', estimated metabolizable energy (ME) intakes were 46-1, 46 7 and 47-1 (s.e. 0-44) MJ d"', energy digestibilities were 0-727, 0 727 and 0-738 (s.e. 0-0046) and organic matter digestibilities were 0-770,0-771 and 0-788 (s.e. 0-0042). Rumen degradabilities of the silages were determined using two rumen-fistulated cows. Mean dry matter and nitrogen degradabilities for the control, formic acid-treated and inoculanttreated silages, assuming an outflow rate of 0-05 h"', were 10-508, 0-49, 0-491 and 0-702, 0-676 and 0-729. It is concluded that the inoculant significantly increased the digestibility of the silages but did not affect dry matter or ME intake.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Effects of inoculant treatment on silage fermentation, digestibility and intake by growing cattle

Keady

Steen

Kilpatrick

et al. 1994

Grass and Forage Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present study, formic acid treatment resulted in an increase in effluent output in line with data from a number of other studies (Norgaard-Pedersen, Moller and Skovberg, 1968;Kennedy, Gracey, Unsworth, Steen and Anderson, 1989). Pedersen, Olsen and Guttormsen (1973) suggested that the addition of formic acid to herbage at ensiling encourages a rapid release of soluble cell constituents as a result of changes in the lipophilic fraction of plant material.…”

Section: Composition Of Grass and Silage And In-silosupporting

confidence: 91%

An evaluation of an inoculant of Lactobacillus plantarum as an additive for grass silage for dairy cattle

Mayne

1990

Anim. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herbage from the first regrowth of perennial ryegrass based swards was direct-ensiled following treatment with either an inoculant of Lactobacillus plantarum (Ecosyl, Imperial Chemical Industries pic) at 3-0 1/t, formic acid (850 g/kg) at 2-9 1/t, or no additive (control). During harvesting, alternate loads of inoculant material were treated with an absorbent polymer (ammonium polyacrylamide) at the rate of 1 kg/t herbage and ensiled in separate 100-t capacity silos. The mean dry matter (DM) and water soluble carbohydrate concentrations of herbage used for the four treatments was 157 and 120 g/kg respectively. Lactic acid levels post ensiling increased more rapidly in inoculant-treated herbage than with the other treatments. Formic acid and inoculant-treated silages were well preserved whereas control and inoculantplus-polymer silages were only moderately well preserved. Losses of DM during ensilage were greater with the formic acid treatment with DM recovery values of 0-78, 0-72, 0-76 and 0-73 for the control, formic acid, inoculant and inoculant-plus-polymer silages respectively. Treatment of herbage with an absorbent polymer prior to ensiling resulted in a proportional reduction in effluent volume of 0-2 whereas formic acid treatment increased effluent flow by 0-28. The silages were evaluated in a changeover design experiment with two periods each of 4 weeks duration, using 24 British Friesian dairy cows. Animals were housed in individual stalls and in addition to the treatment silages, received 5 kg/day of supplement containing 193 g crude protein per kg DM. Silage intakes were increased by proportionately 010, 0-14 and 0-05 respectively with the formic acid, inoculant and inoculant-plus-polymer treatments compared with the control. The increased silage intakes with the inoculant treatment were reflected in an increased milk yield of 1-1 kg milk per day whereas formic acid and inoculant-plus-polymer treatments had no significant effect, although formic acid treatment did result in a significant increase in milk fat concentration. There were no major differences between treatments in energy or nitrogen digestibility, when determined on a complete ration basis. In conclusion, a large milk yield response was obtained as a result of treatment of herbage with inoculant prior to ensiling and this resulted from increased silage and hence energy intake. Treatment with formic acid increased silage and energy intake but had no effect on milk energy output.

show abstract

“…Treatment of grass with inoculant had no effect on nutrient recovery after ensilage, in comparison with the overall mean recovery with the controls. Kennedy et al (1989) observed no effect of inoculant on recovery of DM. The tendency towards a higher recovery of energy with formic acid treat-ment reflects the findings of the review of Waldo (1977) that potential GE losses were reduced from 0·19 to 0·12 by the addition of formic acid to unwilted herbage.…”

Section: Silage Composition and In-silo Lossesmentioning

confidence: 78%

An evaluation of an inoculant/enzyme preparation as an additive for grass silage for dairy cattle

Patterson¹,

Mayne²,

Gordon³

et al. 1997

Grass and Forage Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Herbage from the first regrowth of perennial ryegrass-based swards was directly ensiled after treatment with a bacterial inoculant/enzyme preparation (SIL-ALL, Alltech UK) at 3·0 l t Ϫ1 , formic acid (850 g kg Ϫ1 ) at 2·59 l t Ϫ1 or no additive (Control). The mean dry matter (DM) and water-soluble carbohydrate concentrations of the grass were 185 and 24·0 g kg Ϫ1 (fresh basis) respectively. Lactic acid concentrations after ensiling increased at a lower rate in formic acid-treated herbage than with the other treatments. All silages were well preserved and formic acid-treated silage had a lower ultimate concentration of lactic acid and higher concentration of water-soluble carbohydrate. Effluent output was increased on a proportional basis by ≈0·06 with formic treatment, whereas the inoculant reduced effluent output by 0·05 in comparison with the mean effluent production of the control silage. The in vivo digestibilities of the silages were determined using sheep. The digestibilities of DM, organic matter and energy were significantly higher with inoculanttreated silage than with formic acid treatment, whereas values for the control silage were intermediate. The three silages were offered ad libitum to forty dairy cows with individual recording of daily intakes for a 10-week period in a randomized block experiment with four treatments. Sixteen animals were offered the control silage with half of these offered 3 kg concentrates per day (C3) and the other half offered 7 kg concentrates per day (C7). Twelve animals were allocated to each of the additivetreated silages, with concentrates offered at 5 kg d Ϫ1 . Treatment effects on animal performance were measured in weeks 7-10. To compare animal performance for the treated silages with the control, an estimate of performance at 5 kg concentrates per day was obtained by regression using values obtained at 3 and 7 kg concentrates. In comparison with estimated silage intake for the control silage with 5 kg d Ϫ1 concentrates, inoculant and formic acid treatment of the silages increased dry matter intake by 0·04 (P > 0·05) and 0·13 (P < 0·01) respectively. In comparison with estimated milk production and yield of fat plus protein for the control treatment with 5 kg d Ϫ1 concentrates, neither inoculant treatment nor formic acid treatment produced any significant differences.

show abstract

Evaluation studies in the development of a commercial bacterial inoculant as an additive for grass silage

Cited by 33 publications

References 5 publications

Effects of inoculant treatment on silage fermentation, digestibility and intake by growing cattle

Effects of inoculant treatment on silage fermentation, digestibility and intake by growing cattle

An evaluation of an inoculant of Lactobacillus plantarum as an additive for grass silage for dairy cattle

An evaluation of an inoculant/enzyme preparation as an additive for grass silage for dairy cattle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About