Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T18:36:38.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of formaldehyde or glutaraldehyde application to lucerne before ensiling on silage fermentation and silage N digestion in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. C. Siddons ,
C. Arricastres ,
D. L. Gale  and
D. E. Beever
R. C. Siddons
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
C. Arricastres
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
D. L. Gale
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
D. E. Beever
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 5LR
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The primary growth of lucerne (Medicago sativa) was ensiled after treatment with either formic acid alone (4.1 litres/t; silage F) or with formic acid and either formaldehyde (30.5 g/kg crude protein (nitrogen x 6.25; CP); silage FF), glutaraldehyde (44.2 g/kg CP; silage FG) or a mixture of the two aldehydes at approximately half their individual application rates (silage FFG).

2. Compared with formic acid alone, both formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde reduced protein breakdown and carbohydrate fermentation during ensiling. The extent of protein protection afforded within the silo was similar for the two aldehydes, whereas formaldehyde was more effective in restricting carbohydrate fermentation. The effect of treatment FFG on silage fermentation was confounded by the silo bag bursting and the development of a clostridial-type fermentation. All aldehyde treatments reduced silage soluble-N content but N disappearance when the silages were incubated in polyester bags in the rumen was high for all silages and reductions due to the aldehydes were small.

3. Silage digestion was studied in four mature sheep each fitted with a rumen cannula and re-entrant cannulas in the proximal duodenum and distal ileum.

4. The apparent digestibility of organic matter (OM) in the whole tract was reduced (P < 0.05) to a similar extent by both aldehydes, whereas rumen OM digestion was reduced (P < 0.05) more by glutaraldehyde than by formaldehyde. The effects on digestion appeared to be due to the action of the aldehydes on the foods rather than to any adverse influences of the aldehydes on the metabolism of the rumen microbes because, although rumen ammonia levels were lower (P < 0.05) when the aldehyde-treated silages were given, rumen casein-degrading activity, the degradation of different feedstuffs when incubated in polyester bags in the rumen and microbial N flow at the duodenum did not differ (P < 0.05) between silages.

5. All aldehyde treatments decreased (P < 0.05) the apparent digestibility of N in the whole tract. Silage N degradability in the rumen was also decreased (P < 0.05) from 0.82 for silage F to 0.67, 0.60 and 0.62 for silages FF, FG and FFG respectively, and consequently non-ammonia-N (NAN) flow at the duodenum increased (P < 0.05). The aldehydes did not adversely affect the apparent digestibility of NAN in the small intestine, and net NAN absorption from the small intestine increased from 8.8 g/d with silage F to 11.4, 15.3 and 14.2 g/d with silages FF, FG and FFG respectively. Both the decrease in N degradability in the rumen and the increase in net NAN absorption from the small intestine were greater (P < 0.05) with glutaraldehyde than with formaldehyde.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , September 1984 , pp. 391 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1984

References

Beever, D. E., Thomson, D. J., Cammell, S. B. & Harrison, D. G. (1977). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, C. J. (1960). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 11, 276–284.Google Scholar
Brett, P. A., Dowson, S. & Armstrong, D. G. (1981). Proceedings of the 6th Silage Conference, Edinburgh. pp. 21–22.Google Scholar
Cammell, S. B. (1977). Technical report no. 24. Hurley: Grassland Research Institute.Google Scholar
Carpintero, C. M., Henderson, A. R. & McDonald, P. (1979). Grass and Forage Science 34, 311–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlain, D. G., Thomas, P. C. & Wait, M. K. (1982). Grass and Forage Science 37, 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demarquilly, C. & Dulphy, J. P. (1977). Proceedings of the International meeting on Animal Production from Temperate Grassland, Dublin. pp. 53–61.Google Scholar
Dewar, W. A. & McDonald, P. (1961). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 12, 790–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsden, S. R. & Gibson, Q. H. (1954). Biochemical Journal 58, 154–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faichney, G. J. (1975). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, K. A., Hemsley, J. A. & Reis, P. J. (1967). Australian Journal of Science 30, 215–217.Google Scholar
Gehrke, G. W., Kaiser, F. E. & Ussary, J. P. (1968). Journal of the Association of Officia1 Analytical Chemists 51, 200–211.Google Scholar
Hove, E. L. & Lohrey, E. (1976). Journal of Nutrition 106, 382–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. I. H. & Hayward, M. V. (1975). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 26, 711–718.Google Scholar
Kaiser, A. G. (1979). The Effects of formaldehyde application at ensiling on the utilisation of silage by young growing cattle. Ph.D thesis, Reading University.Google Scholar
Kowalczyk, J. & Otwinowska, A. (1983). Zeitschrifr fur Tierphysiologie, Tierernahrung und Futtermittelkunde 49, 38–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, E. I. (1948). Biochemical Journal 43, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangan, J. L., Jordan, D. J., West, J. & Webb, P. J. (1980). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95, 603–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathers, J. C. & Miller, E. L. (1980). British Journal of Nutrition 43, 503–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E. L. (1972). Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 31, 27a.Google Scholar
Overend, M. A. & Armstrong, D. G. (1982). Occasional Publication of the British Society of Animal Production no. 6, 162–163.Google Scholar
Siddons, R. C., Beever, D. E. & Kaiser, A. G. (1982). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 33, 609–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddons, R. C., Evans, R. T. & Beever, D. E. (1979). British Journal of Nutrition 42, 535–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddons, R. C. & Paradine, J. (1981). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 32, 973–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Technicon instruments co. ltd (1969). Technicon Methodology sheet N9 B. Basingstoke: Technicon instruments co. ltd.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. J., Beever, D. E., Lonsdale, C. R., Haines, M. J., Cammell, S. B. & Austin, A. R. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 46, 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. A. & Terry, R. A. (1963). Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldo, D. R., Keys, J. E., Smith, L. W. & Gordon, C. H. (1971). Journal of Dairy Science 54, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warner, A. C. I. & Stacey, B. D. (1968). British Journal of Nutrition 22, 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, R. A., Gray, E. V., Pilgrim, A. F. & Jones, G. B. (1967). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 18, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, R. J., Wilson, R. F. & Woolford, M. K. (1974). Proceedings of the 5th General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation, Uppsala, Vaxtodling 29, 197–201.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. M., Wilson, R. F. & Barry, T. N. (1976). Outlook on Agriculture 9, 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. F. & Jordan, D. J. (1982). Occasional Publication of the British Society of Animal Production no. 6, 183–184.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. F., Wilkins, R. J. & Cook, J. E. (1974). Proceedings of the 12th International Grassland Congress, Moscow 3, 674–690.Google Scholar