Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:07:05.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. S. Mayne
C. S. Mayne
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, Hillsborough, Co. Down BT26 6DR
Get access

Abstract

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 inoculant-plus-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 0·10, 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.

Keywords

dairy cattleLactobacillus plantarummilk productionsilage additives
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , August 1990 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

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

REFERENCES

Agricultural Research Council. 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux, Slough.Google Scholar
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: 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleton, M. and Done, D. 1987. The effect of an inoculant silage additive on the fermentation of grass and animal performance. Proceedings of the 8th Silage Conference, pp. 15–16. Institute for Grassland and Animal Production.Google Scholar
Carpintero, C. M., Henderson, A. R. and McDonald, P. 1979. The effect of some pre-treatments on proteolysis during the ensiling of herbage. Grass and Forage Science 34: 311–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, M. E. and Watson, J. N. 1973. Silage and milk production. A comparison between wilted grass silages made with and without formic acid. Journal of the British Grassland Society 28: 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, D. G., Thomas, P. C. and Robertson, S. 1987. The effect of formic acid, bacterial inoculants and enzyme additives on feed intake and milk production in cows given silage of high or moderate digestibility with two levels of supplementary concentrates. Proceedings of the 8th Silage Conference, pp. 31-32. Institute for Grassland and Animal Production.Google Scholar
Colenbrander, V. F., Grant, R. J. and Schaaf, G. 1988. The effect of addition of an inoculant of Lactobacillus plantarum to lucerne (Medicago saliva) at ensiling on performance of dairy cattle. Applied Agricultural Research 3: 55–59.Google Scholar
Done, D. 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: 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haigh, P. M., Appleton, M. and Clench, S. F. 1987. Effect of commercial inoculant and formic acid ± formalin silage additives on silage fermentation and intake and of liveweight change of young cattle. Grass and Forage Science 42: 405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, A. R., Anderson, D. H., Neilson, D. R. and Hunter, E. A. 1987. The effect of a commercial inoculant and Add-F applied at two levels on the chemical characteristics and utilization of ryegrass silage over two seasons. Proceedings of the 8th Silage Conference, pp. 13–14. Institute for Grassland and Animal Production.Google Scholar
Henderson, A. R., McDonald, P. and Woolhord, M. K. 1972. Chemical changes and losses during the ensilage of wilted grass treated with formic acid. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 23: 1079–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, A. R., Neilson, D. R. and Anderson, D. H. 1988. Biological additives for grass silage. In Efficient Beef Production from Grass (ed. Frame, J.), Occasional Symposium, British Grassland Society, No. 22, pp. 152–158.Google Scholar
Kennedy, S. J., Gracey, H. I., Unsworth, E. F., Steen, R. W. J. and Anderson, R. 1989. Evaluation studies in the development of a commercial bacterial inoculant as an additive for grass silage. 2. Responses in finishing cattle. Grass and Forage Science 44: 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kung, L., Satter, L. D., Jones, B. A., Genin, K. W., Sudoma, A. L., Enders, G. L. and Kim, H. S. 1987. Microbial inoculation of low moisture alfalfa silage. Journal of Dairy Science 70: 2069–2077.CrossRefGoogle 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
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland 1975. Energy allowances and feeding systems for ruminants. Technical Bulletin 33. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Norgaard-Pedersen, E. J., Moller, E. and Skovberg, E. B. 1968. [Experiments with addition of formic acid in the ensiling of fresh and prewilted pasture crops.] Tidsskrift for Planteavl 72: 356–366.Google Scholar
Offer, N. W., Chamberlain, D. G. and Johnston, C. A. 1989. Strategies for management of silage effluent. In Silage for Milk Production (ed. Mayne, C. S.), Occasional Symposium, British Grassland Society, No. 23, pp. 81–85.Google Scholar
O'Kiely, P. and Flynn, A. V. 1987. Grass silage. An Foras Taluntais, Beef Series No. 5.Google Scholar
Parker, J. W. G. and Crawshaw, R. 1982. Effects of formic acid on silage fermentation, digestibility, intake and performance of young cattle. Grass and Forage Science 37: 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, T. A., Olsen, R. A. and Guttormsen, D. M. 1973. Numbers and types of microorganisms in silage and effluent from grass ensiled with different additives. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 23: 109–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rooke, J. A., Borman, A. J. and Armstrong, D. G. 1990. The effect of inoculation with Lactobacillus plantarum on fermentation of herbage low in water soluble carbohydrate when ensiled in laboratory silos. Grass and Forage Science 45: 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Seale, D. R. 1986. Bacterial inoculants as silage additives. In Micro-organisms in Agriculture (ed. Benham, C. H., Bateson, M. and Skinner, F. A.), Society for Applied Bacteriology, Symposium Series No. 15, pp. 9–26. Blackwell Scientific Publication, Oxford.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
Sutton, J. D. 1984. Feeding and milk fat production. In Milk Compositional Quality and its Importance in Future Markets (ed. Castle, M. E. and Gunn, R. J.), Occasional Symposium, British Society of Animal Production, No. 9, pp. 43–52.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. and Thomas, P. C. 1985. Factors affecting the nutritive value of grass silage. In Recent Advances in Animal Nutrition — 1985 (ed. Haresign, W. and Cole, D. J. A.), pp. 223–256. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. W. 1978. Preservatives for conserved forage crops. Journal of Animal Science 47: 721–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyrrell, H. F. and Reid, J. T. 1965. Prediction of the energy value of cows milk. Journal of Dairy Science 48: 1215–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldo, D. R. 1977. Potential of chemical preservation and improvement of forages. Journal of Dairy Science 60: 306–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, S. J. and Nash, M. J. 1960. The Conservation of Grass and Forage Crops. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. F. and Wilkins, R. J. 1973. Formic acid as a silage additive for wet crops of cocksfoot and lucerne. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 80: 225–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlt, J. E. 1989. Use of a silage inoculant to improve feeding stability and intake of a corn silage-grain diet. Journal of Dairy Science 72: 545–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar