Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T04:42:01.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of formic acid, sulphuric acid and a bacterial inoculant on silage fermentation and the food intake and milk production of lactating dairy cows

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 first and second regrowths of perennial ryegrass based swards was directly ensiled following treatment with formic acid (850 g/kg) at 2·53 and 2·58 l/t, sulphuric acid (45% w/w) at 3·09 and 3·04 l/t, an inoculant of Lactobacillus plantarum (Kickstart, United Distillers Ltd) at 2/24 and 2/14 l/t, or no additive (control). First regrowth herbage had mean dry matter (DM) and water-soluble carbohydrate concentrations of 168 and 27·0 g/kg fresh weight with comparable values for second regrowth herbage of 164 and 16·9 g/kg respectively. All silages preserved well, although both the rate and extent of fermentation, as indicated by pH and lactic acid levels, were greater in control and inoculant-treated silages. Additive treatment had little effect on nutrient recovery following ensilage with the exception of a slightly greater recovery of both DM and energy with inoculant treated, second regrowth material. The silages were evaluated in two experiments, with 9 and 4 week periods for first and second regrowths respectively, using 48 British Friesian dairy cows. Animals were housed in individual stalls and, in addition to the treatment silages, received 5 kg/day fresh weight of a supplement containing 197 g crude protein per kg DM. Treatment of first regrowth material with formic acid significantly increased silage DM intake (P < 0·02) with a smaller, though positive effect being obtained with inoculant treatment. Treatment with either formic acid or inoculant had no significant effect on DM intake with second regrowth material. In contrast sulphuric acid tended to depress intake of first regrowth material whereas a marginal increase in intake was obtained with second regrowth material. Inoculant treatment had no significant effect on milk yield with either first or second regrowth material, although there was a tendency for small, though consistent, increases in milk fat and protein concentrations. Formic acid treatment resulted in marginal increases in fat plus protein yield whereas effects of sulphuric acid were less consistent with animal performance being decreased with first regrowth material and little effect observed with second regrowth material.

Keywords

dairy cowsfood intakemilk productionsilage fermentation

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 1993 , pp. 29 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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
Corbett, J. L., Langlands, J. P., McDonald, I. and Pullar, J. D. 1966. Comparison by direct animal calorimetry of the net energy values of an early and a late season growth of herbage. Animal Production 8: 13–27.Google Scholar
Davis, G. K. and Metz, W. 1987. Copper. In Trace elements in human and animal nutrition, volume 1. 5th ed. (ed. Metz, W.), pp. 301–364. Academic Press, London.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Gordon, F. J. 1989c. Effect of silage additives and wilting on animal performance. Proceedings of the twenty-third feed manufacturers' conference, University of Nottingham (ed. Haresign, W.), pp. 159–173.Google Scholar
Hooper, P. G. and Armstrong, D. G. 1987. The chemical composition of silages made with and without an inoculant: their digestibility and voluntary food intake by sheep. Proceedings of the eighteenth silage conference, Institute for Grassland and Animal Production, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
Kennedy, S. J. 1990. Comparison of the fermentation quality and nutritive value of sulphuric and formic acidtreated silages fed to beef cattle. Grass and Forage Science 45: 17–28.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Leaver, D. 1991. The effect of a biological silage additive on the performance of dairy cows. In Management issues for the grassland farmer in the 1990's (ed. Mayne, C. S.), Occasional symposium, British Grassland Society, no. 25, pp. 140.Google Scholar
Lindgren, S., Pettersson, K., Jonsson, A., Lingvall, P. and Kaspersson, A. 1985. Silage inoculation. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 15: 9–18.Google Scholar
McMurray, C. H., Logan, E. F., McParland, P. J., McRory, F. J. and O'Neill, D. G. 1978. Sequential changes in some blood components in the normal neonatal calf. British Veterinary journal 134: 590–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayne, C. S. 1990. An evaluation of an inoculant of Lactobacillus plantarum as an additive for grass silage for dairy cattle. Animal Production 51: 1–13.Google 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
Mayne, C. S. and Steen, R. W. J. 1990. Recent research on silage additives for milk and beef production. Sixty-third annual report of the Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland, pp. 31–42.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
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 1981. The analysis of agricultural materials. 2nd ed., p. 64. Bulletin 427. Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Moran, J., O'Kiely, P., Wilson, R. K. and Crombie Quilty, M. B. 1988. The relative effects of a silage inoculant compared to other additives under low sugar conditions. Paper to Irish Branch Meeting of Society for General Microbiology, University College Galway, September 1988.Google Scholar
Norgaard-Pedersen, E. J., Moller, E. and Skovberg, E. G. 1968. [Experiments with addition of formic acid in the ensiling of fresh and prewilted pasture crops.] Tidsskrift for Planteavl 72: 356–366.Google Scholar
O'Kiely, P. 1989. Deterioration of silage at feeding time. Farm and Food Research, April 1989, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
O'Kiely, P., Flynn, A. V. and Poole, D. B. R. 1989a. Sulphuric acid as a silage preservative. 1. Silage preservation, animal performance and copper status. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 28: 1–9.Google Scholar
OKiely, P., Flynn, A. V. and Poole, D. B. R. 1989b. Sulphuric acid as a silage preservative. 2. Effect of increasing application rate on silage preservation, animal performance and copper status. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 28: 10–24.Google Scholar
O'Kiely, P., Flynn, A. V., Poole, D. B. R. and Rogers, P. A. M. 1989c. Sulphuric acid as a silage preservative. 3. Added copper, silage composition, animal performance and copper status. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 28: 25–331.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
Rauramaa, A., Setala, J., Moisio, T., Sivela, S., Heikkila, T. and Lampila, M. 1987. The effect of inoculants and cellulase on the fermentation and microbiological composition of grass silage. II. Microbiological changes in the silages. Journal of Agricultural Science in Finland 59: 371–377.Google 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.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.Google Scholar
Waldo, D. R. 1978. In Fermentation of silage — a review, pp. 120–180. National Feed Ingredients Association, Iowa.Google Scholar
Weddell, J. R. and Yackiminie, D. S. 1988. A comparison of sulphuric acid and formic acid as silage additives for beef cattle. In Efficient beef production from grass (ed. Frame, J.), Occasional symposium, British Grassland Society, no. 22, pp. 251–253.Google Scholar
Woolford, M. K. 1975. Microbiological screening of food preservatives, cold sterilants and specific antimicrobial agents as potential silage additives. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 26: 229–237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed