Premium
A further study on the evaluation through lactating cattle of a bacterial inoculant as an additive for grass silage
Author(s) -
GORDON F. J.
Publication year - 1989
Publication title -
grass and forage science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.716
H-Index - 56
eISSN - 1365-2494
pISSN - 0142-5242
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2494.1989.tb02174.x
Subject(s) - silage , microbial inoculant , formic acid , zoology , dry matter , rumen , randomized block design , lactic acid , chemistry , food science , biology , agronomy , fermentation , inoculation , bacteria , biochemistry , horticulture , genetics
An experiment is described in which three silages were prepared from herbage treated with either a bacterial inoculant (Ecosyl, Imperial Chemical Industries plc) at 2‐71 t −1 , formic acid (850 g kg −1 , Add‐F, BP Chemicals International Ltd.) at 2‐21 t −1 , or no additive (control). The herbage (second regrowth from perennial ryegrass swards), was ensiled unwilted, and had mean dry matter (DM) and water‐soluble carbohydrate concentrations at ensiling of 186 and 34‐1 g kg −1 respectively. The resulting silages were all well preserved and had only minor chemical differences. Thirty lactating British Friesian cows were subjected to a 21 d standardization period and were then offered the three silages for 21 d in a randomized‐block design experiment. The animals were stalled individually, offered the silages ad libitum and in addition received 5 kg d −1 of a supplement containing 198 g crude protein kg DM −1 . The mean silage DM intake, milk yields and milk fat concentrations during the final 7 d on treatment were 8‐44, 8‐62 and 887 kg d −1 ; 238, 230 and 25‐1 kg d −1 ; and 368, 400 and 366 g kg −1 for the control, formic acid‐ and inoculant‐treated silages respectively. Following the feeding trial, six cows per treatment were subdivided to provide three animals which were offered silage alone, and three offered silage plus 5 kg d‐’supplement. Rumen samples taken after 21 d on these treatments indicated no effect of the inoculant on ruman volatile fatty acid proportions, whereas the use of formic acid resulted in increases in both acetate and butyrate concentrations. The results from this study support that of the earlier work that this particular inoculant, when used at ensiling, can considerably improve animal performance over that achieved with both untreated and formic acid‐treated silages.