Intake and Digestibility of Big Bluestem Hay and Baleage

Burns, J. C.; Fisher, Daniel K.

doi:10.2135/cropsci2012.02.0123

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Coblentz et al (2016c) reported a mean lactic acid concentration of 0.11% of DM across 36 round bales of alfalfa-mixed grass silage (82% alfalfa) made at 40.2% moisture. Similar responses to low bale moisture have been observed for baled silages comprised of other forage types (Huhnke et al, 1997;Burns and Fisher, 2012).…”

Section: Management Considerations For Baled Silagessupporting

confidence: 74%

“…A similar study (Burns and Fisher, 2012) that compared big bluestem (Andropogon gerardi Vitman) hay and baled silages (direct cut or wilted) found no differences between preserved forage types with respect to poststorage concentrations of in vitro true digestibility, CP, and fiber components. However, when these preserved forages were offered to Angus steers (256 ± 18 kg), voluntary DMI tended to be greater for baled silages (1.72 vs. 1.52% BW), but total-tract digestibilities of DM and fiber components were greater for the dry hays, thereby resulting in no differences between conservation types with respect to digestible intakes of DM and fiber.…”

Section: Comparisons Of Baled Silages With Dry Haymentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Silage review: Recent advances and future technologies for baled silages

Coblentz

Akins

2018

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the concept of ensiling large-round or large-square bales dates back to the late 1970s, many refinements have been made to both equipment and management since that time, resulting in much greater acceptance by small or mid-sized dairy or beef producers. This silage preservation technique is attractive to producers for several reasons, but the primary advantage is a reduced risk of weather damage to valuable forage crops compared with preservation as dry hay. Most core principles for making high-quality precision-chopped silages also apply to baled silages; among these, establishing and subsequently maintaining anaerobiosis are priorities. For baled silages, these priorities are critical, in part because recommended moisture concentrations (45 to 55%) are drier, and particle length is much longer. These factors act to restrict the rate and extent of silage fermentation, often resulting in less production of desirable fermentation acids and a greater (less acidic) final pH. Within this context, preservation of baled silages can be improved by applying polyethylene (PE) film wraps promptly, using an appropriate number of PE film layers (6 to 8), selecting a storage site free of sharp objects or other debris, and by monitoring wrapped bales closely for evidence of puncture, particularly by birds or vermin. Under certain conditions, such as those in which the bale moisture of highly buffered forages exceeds the recommended range, the heterogeneous nature of baled silages coupled with a restricted rate and extent of fermentation may increase susceptibility to clostridial activity compared with precision-chopped forages ensiled at comparable moisture concentrations. To date, research evaluating inoculants or other additives designed to improve the fermentation of challenging forages or aerobic stability has been limited, but should not be discontinued. Development of PE film embedded with an oxygen-limiting barrier has yielded positive results in some trials; however, most differences between these novel formulations and reputable commercial PE film have been related to decreases in yeast and mold counts at the surface layer. Related assessments of fermentation or nutritive value determined on a whole-bale basis have been less conclusive. Baled silages can be produced successfully by adhering to straightforward management principles; as such, this form of silage production is likely to remain popular for the foreseeable future.

show abstract

Section: Management Considerations For Baled Silagessupporting

confidence: 74%

Section: Comparisons Of Baled Silages With Dry Haymentioning

confidence: 86%

Silage review: Recent advances and future technologies for baled silages

Coblentz

Akins

2018

Journal of Dairy Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Cow–calf performance, forage utilization, and economics of warm-season annual baleage in beef cattle winter feeding systems1

Panhans

Mason

Mullenix

et al. 2019

Translational Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A 52-d winter feeding trial was conducted to determine animal performance, utilization, and economics of pearl millet (PM) baleage, sorghum × sudangrass (SS) baleage, and “Tifton 85” bermudagrass (B) hay for lactating beef cow–calf pairs. Cone (C) and open-shaped (O) rings were evaluated for potential to minimize forage wastage. The experiment was a completely randomized design with a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments for each forage type × hay ring (3 cow–calf pairs per treatment; 2 replications per treatment). Animal response measures included cow body weight (BW) change and body condition score (BCS) over the 52-d trial, initial and final calf BW, and cow milk production at the midpoint and end of the study. Forage nutritive value parameters evaluated for each forage type included ash, crude protein (CP), in vitro true digestibility (IVTD), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber, and acid detergent lignin (ADL). Forage wastage was estimated for each forage × ring treatment as the percentage of the bale weight remaining in feeding rings at the time of bale replacement. An economic evaluation of the relative costs associated with production and utilization of each forage type was calculated. There were no differences (P ≥ 0.10) in cow BW change or BCS change among forage types, between ring shapes, or an interaction observed for these response variables. Proportion of waste from PM and SS baleage was greater (P < 0.10) than for B hay, although there was no forage type × hay ring interaction or differences between O and C hay ring treatments for forage waste (P ≥ 0.10, respectively). Cow milk production and calf BW gain did not differ among forage type (P ≥ 0.10, respectively); however, beef calves in pens containing the O ring feeder weighed 6 kg more (P ≤ 0.05) than calves whose dams were fed using C rings. The economic analysis implies that it is more costly to feed warm-season annual forage baleage to cow–calf pairs than dry hay, largely due to greater costs of production, lack of difference in animal performance responses, and less utilization of baleage compared with feeding bermudagrass hay in this trial.

show abstract

Intake and Digestibility of Big Bluestem Hay and Baleage

Cited by 2 publications

References 20 publications

Silage review: Recent advances and future technologies for baled silages

Silage review: Recent advances and future technologies for baled silages

Cow–calf performance, forage utilization, and economics of warm-season annual baleage in beef cattle winter feeding systems1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About