The work aimed to evaluate the effect of lactic acid bacteria, natamycin and hexanoic acid on the fermentation quality, aerobic stability and in vitro digestibility of total mixed ration (TMR) silages containing water bamboo sheath leaves. The treatments were as follows: (1) no additives (control, C), (2) lactic acid bacteria (L), (3) natamycin (N), (4) hexanoic acid (H), (5) lactic acid bacteria + natamycin (LN), (6) lactic acid bacteria + hexanoic acid (LH). Silos were opened and silages were evaluated to assess fermentation quality, aerobic stability and in vitro digestibility. All TMR silages were well-preserved as indicated by dominant lactic acid content, low ammonia nitrogen/total nitrogen, trace propionic acid and negligible butyric acid contents. All additives improved the fermentation quality and in vitro digestibility, evidenced by higher lactic acid/acetic acid ratio, lactic acid, acetic acid, water-soluble carbohydrate contents and lactic acid bacteria count, and lower pH, aerobic bacteria and yeast counts. The LN had the highest lactic acid, acetic acid, lactic acid/acetic acid ratio, in vitro gas production and in vitro digestibility. During aerobic exposure, the LN silage had the highest lactic acid and acetic acid contents, and the lowest pH among all TMR silages. The LN and LH prolonged aerobic stability, reaching 85.5 and 81.5 h, respectively. The LN is recommended to improve the fermentation quality, aerobic stability and in vitro digestibility of TMR prepared with water bamboo sheath leaves.

A randomized block design experiment involving 64 lactating dairy cattle was carried out to evaluate a bacterial inoculant and two rates of formic acid as silage additives. Herbage from the primary growth of a predominantly perennial ryegrass sward was ensiled unwilted using two precision-chop harvesters. Alternate loads of herbage were either untreated (UT) or treated with formic acid applied at the rate of 2·7 l/t grass (LF) and 5·7 l/t grass (HF) or an inoculant enzyme preparation applied at the rate of 2·2 l/t grass (I). The mean dry matter (DM) and water-soluble carbohydrate (WSC) concentrations and buffering capacity of the UT herbage were 148 g/kg, 151 g/kg DM and 638 mEq/kg DM. Inoculant treatment had no effect on the rate of silage fermentation post ensiling relative to the UT silage whereas HF treatment produced a restricted fermented silage. For silages UT, LF, I and HF, pH values were 4·53, 3·89, 4·32 and 4·05 (s.e.d. = 0·061); ammonia nitrogen (N) concentrations were 179, 89, 150 and 73 g/kg total N (s.e.d. = 10·4); butyrate concentrations were 6·0,1·9, 5·1 and 2·0 g/kg DM (s.e.d. = 1·24); and WSC concentrations were 14·4, 35·2, 18·0 and 100·7 g/kg DM (s.e.d. = 1·24), respectively. The silages were offered ad libitum. The UT silage was supplemented with either 2 (UT2), 4 (UT4) or 6 (UT6) kg concentrates per head daily while the LF, I and HF silages were supplemented with 4 kg (LF4,14, HF4) of concentrates. For treatments UT4, LF4, 14 and HF4, silage DM intakes were 9·69, 10·89, 9·93 and 10·89 (average s.e.d. = 0·465) kg/day; fat plus protein yields 1·39,1·44,1·32 and 1·49 (average s.e.d. = 0·057) kg/day; protein concentrations 29·2, 31·1, 29·9 and 30·2 (average s.e.d. = 1·01) g/kg. Inoculant treatment increased N apparent digestibility (P < 0·05) of the total diets relative to UT. The apparent digestibilities of neutral-detergent fibre (P < 0·05) and hemicellulose (P < 0·01) were decreased due to HF treatment. For the production of a constant milk fat plus protein yield it was estimated that an extra 0·63 kg per head per day and 1·04 and 1·77 kg per head per day less concentrate would be required for the I, LF and HF treatments, respectively. It is concluded that relative to the UT treatment, I treatment had no beneficial effects on silage fermentation, total diet apparent digestibility (other than N apparent digestibility) or animal performance. The LF treatment improve lage fermentation and intake, and tended to increase the yield of fat plus protein (P > 0·05) whereas HF treatment restricted silage preservation and increased silage intake and the yields of protein and fat plus protein.

Three silages were prepared from the primary growth of a predominantly perennial ryegrass sward (dry matter (DM) 175 g/kg; crude protein 142 g/kg DM; water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC) 243 g/kg DM). Herbage was wilted for 24 h and then treated with either an inoculant/enzyme preparation (Lactobacillus plantarum, Streptococcus faecium and Pediococcus acidilactici), formic acid applied at 4·2 lit (Add F, BP Chemicals) or no additive. Time series analysis of laboratory silages revealed that different patterns of fermentation had been achieved: formic acid treatment resulted in high levels of residual WSC and low levels of lactic acid, indicative of an inhibited fermentation, whilst treatment with the inoculant/enzyme preparation resulted in high levels of lactic acid with a low level of residual sugars, as expected with an enhanced fermentation. Analysis of the material ‘as fed’ showed that losses in the WSC content of the formic acid-treated silage had occurred in the clamp. Secondary fermentation of lactic to acetic acid was apparent in the untreated silage, but not in the inoculant/enzyme-treated silage. Digestibility, as determined using Greyface wether lambs, was marginally higher for both additive treatments when compared with the untreated silage. An evaluation of the silages for milk production was carried out at three levels of concentrate supplementation using 18 Ayrshire × British Friesian cows in a replicated 3×3 Latin-square design experiment. Treatment with formic acid resulted in significantly higher DM intakes, but this was not reflected in milk energy output. Cows offered the inoculant/enzyme-treated silage partitioned energy away from milk production toward body tissue deposition (average milk yields 19·9, 19·9 and 15·2 kg/day, and weight gain 0·26, 0·38 and 0·81 kg/day for the untreated, formic acid and inoculant/enzyme-treated silages respectively). The reason for this is not clear, but it is postulated that microbial capture of degraded nitrogen may have been impaired with the inoculant/enzyme-treated silage, resulting in an imbalance in metabolizable protein: metabolizable energy.

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.