Corn Silage Inoculants Review

8/12/2019 Corn Silage Inoculants Review

1/37

Corn Silage InoculantsReviewGbola Adesogan

Department of Animal SciencesIFAS, University of Florida
http://www.pioneer.com/usa/crop_management/corn/images/pioneer_studies.jpg


2/37

OutlineSilage fermentation process

Chemical additives

Organic acid additives

Ammonia (urea)

Inoculants

Definition

Roles Types

Effectiveness

Take home messages


3/37


4/37

Sugars

Chemical changes duringfermentation

Days21

CPLactate

AmmoniaAcetic acidButyric acid

20

15

10

5

Scale (%)

1

pH

CROP SILAGE


5/37

Fermentation pathwaysProduct Nutrient

Losses

Substrate

(Microbe)

Fermentation

2 x Lactic acid(Low pH)

Low Glucose( L. plantarum)

Homo-fermentative

1 x Lactic & aceticacids, ethanol &CO2 (Moderate pH)

Moderate Glucose( L. buchneri)

Hetero-fermentative

V. highEthanol, CO 2 Glucose, lacticacid (Yeasts &

molds)

Aerobic spoilage

Butyric acid + CO 2(High pH)

High Lactic acid(Clostridia)

Secondaryfermentation


6/37

Organic acids

Role Rapidly reduce pH; hence inhibit undesirable microbes Antifungal hence enhance aerobic stability

Types Pure acids e.g. formic, propionic , acetic & benzoic acids.

Effective but caustic & hazardous

Buffered organic acids Ca & Na salts of pure acids Less caustic & safer to handle


7/37

Ammonia (urea)Role Alkaline and antifungal in nature Improves aerobic stability Contributes CP

Concerns Narrow harvest window

If < 60% moisture volatilization If >70% moisture N loss in effluent

May hinder fermentation & increase DM losses V. caustic, protective clothing required Ammonia poisoning


8/37

InoculantsDefinitionAdditives containing bacteria selected to grow quickly anddominate the bacterial population in the silage

Types1. Traditional (homofermentative) inoculants

e.g. Lactobacillus plantarum lactic acid & pH, acetic & butyric acids losses of DM (1-3%), sugar and protein May increase fiber digestion & animal

performance (3-5%)

2. Newer inoculants (heterofermentative) Aerobic stability enhancers

e.g. L. buchneri


9/37

Effectiveness of inoculants

0

20

40

60

(Muck & Kung, 1997)

n = 221 233 148

34 39 8235


10/37

Effectiveness of inoculants indifferent silages

Fermentation 60%

Intake 28%

Gain 53%

Milk production

47%

(Muck, 2002)


11/37

Effectiveness of inoculants indifferent silages

% t r i a l s w

i t h l o w e r p H

0

20

40

60

Alfalfa Grass Corn Sm. Grain

(Muck and Kung, 1997)


12/37

Epiphytic bacteria on Standing Crops

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

44.5

C o r n P . R y e g r a

s s

R y e g r a s s

H . R y e g r a s s

A l f a l f a

Homoferm. Heteroferm. Entero

(Andrieu & Gouet, 1990)


13/37

Contrasting views on inoculants

Results from over 200 laboratory -scale silo studies,indicated bacterial inoculants were beneficial in over90% of the trials. A good-quality, effective inoculant

should be applied to every load of forage ensiled! (Bolsen, 1997)

Reviewed corn silage inoculants articles for 5 years

We dont see enough benefits to recommendinoculants for corn silage (Muck, 2001)


14/37

Forage factors affecting inoculantaction

Forage epiphytic microbial population

Forage sugar content

Forage buffering capacity

Forage maturity stage

Forage hybrid / variety


15/37

Inoculant factors affectinginoculant action

Bacteria strain and composition

Bacteria viability

Inoculant application rate

> 100,000 live bacteria (cfu)/g or > 90 billion bacteria /

ton

Inoculant form Liquid inoculants act faster & more evenly distributed

Must use within 24h & inactivated by chlorinated water

All inoculants are not created equal


16/37

Fermentation enhancement when epiphytic bacteria arecompromised - Immediately after frost Dry crop

Immature cropUse traditional homofermentative inoculants

Aerobic stability enhancement

Homofermentative inoculants reduce acetate and propionate, hence are less effectiveUse L. buchneri (heterofermentative)

Inoculants are most effective forcorn silage for:


17/37

QUESTION:Does anyone know if I can re-bag corn silage? We need more

pavement and the bag is in the way. Would it work better to put itin a bunker silo?

ANSWERS 1. No problemo re -bagging. Would very much

recommend it.

1. We rebagged some corn silage two years agoand were left with a horrible pile of garbage. Theexcellent corn silage had become inedible. Rightnow we're using it as part of our compostprogram.


18/37

Bunk /Aerobic spoilageMore prevalent in corn & small grain silages

Can cause < 50% of losses in silage DMSpoilage of the top 1m = $500 to $2500 (Bolsen, 1997)

Causes

Air entry into good silage Air pockets in poor silage Untidy silo faces Slow feedout

Effects Reduce intake Reduce nutritive value

Produce mycotoxins


19/37

Effect of inoculants on aerobic stability of cornsilage (Ranjit & Kung, 2000)

Inoculant Application rate(cfu/g) Acronym

Control 0 Control

Lactobacillus buchneri 100,000 LB Mod

Lactobacillus buchneri 1,000,000 LB High

Lactobacillus plantarum 1 1,000,000 LP 1

Lactobacillus plantarum 2 1,000,000 LP 2

Storage-mate NA Store-mate

ff f l


20/37

Effect of inoculants oncomposition

0

2.5

5

7.5

10

Acetate

Lactate WSC (sugars)

% D

M

C o n

t r o l

L B x

M o d

L B x

H i g h

L P - 1

L P - 2

S t o r e - m a t e

Yeasts (log 10cfu)

ff f l b


21/37

Effect of inoculants on aerobicstability

A e r o b

i c s t a b

i l i t y

( h o u r s

)

27 36

>900

32.8 33 38

C o n

t r o l

L B x

M o d

L B x

H i g h

L P - 1

L P - 2

S t o r e - m a t e

(Ranjit & Kung, 2000)


22/37

L. Buchneri Summary

Benefits Enhanced aerobic stability No adverse effects on intake (observed so far)

Limitations More nutrient losses than homofermentative inoculants

Future work Combining front (homofermentative) & back end

(heterofermentative) inoculants


23/37

Silage Additive Regulators

Countries with pre-market screening of additivesUK UKASTA Canada Ag. Canada USA None
http://pages.sssnet.com/suzy9354/CHOPPERHAY.JPG


24/37

Take Home Messages

Only use inoculants with Independent research-attested track record >90 billion live bacteria / ton L. plantarum for fermentation enhancement L. buchneri for bunk life enhancement Dont choose by cost (35 cents to $1 per ton) Use only corn silage inoculants for corn silage

Apply at chopper, not into wagon or at bunker Store in a cool, dry place Once diluted, use within 24 h.


25/37

Silage producers have long recognized the positive effects of using an inoculant to insure the

proper transformation of forage into a palatableand digestible feedstuff

Recent quote:

Beware, inoculants are useful but they are neither:

A substitute for bad management

magic potions


26/37

Take Home Messages

Harvest promptly (35%DM or 1/3-2/3 milk line)

Sharp knives, chop lengthUnprocessed (1/4 3/8 inch)Processed (3/4 inch)
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.pioneer.com/media/photos/forage.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pioneer.com/pioneer_news/press_releases/sampling.htm&h=320&w=305&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcorn%2Bsilage%2B%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF8%26oe%3DUTF8%26sa%3DNhttp://pages.sssnet.com/suzy9354/CHOPPERHAY.JPG


27/37

Take Home Messages

Fill bunker promptlyPack, pack and pack againSeal immediately & properly + tires


28/37

Take Home Messages

Manage the silo face Feedout quickly (6 inches/day) The narrower the bunker, the better

Minimal disturbance Heat loss = production volatilized
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~ansci332/images/cornsilbrewersl.jpg


29/37

Questions

Eff t f d l d li


30/37

Effect of delayed sealing onfermentation (Uriate et al., 2001)

Day Control Additive-treated

Control Immediateseal

Delayed(48h) seal

0h seal Delayed(48h) seal

pH at opening 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.6

pH 4 days later 3.6 8.0 3.7 8.2

Lactic acid atopening (% DM)

4.5 4.9 4.1 4.5

Lactic acid 4days later

4.4 0.3 3.9 1.5

Eff t f d l d li g


31/37

Effect of delayed sealing onstability & yeasts (Uriate et al., 2001)

Day Control Additive-treated

Control Immediateseal

Delayed(48h) seal

0h seal Delayed(48h) seal

Lactate utilizingYeasts at opening

4.9 5.7 5.0 5.5

Lactate utilizingYeasts 4 days later

8.2 9.4 9.0 8.7

Aerobic stability(hours)

113 65 137 89


32/37

Ensiling losses-Source % Net Energy lost

Respiration 1-2

Wilting 2-5

Heterofermentative bacteria 4

Secondary Fermentation 0-5

Effluent 5-7Aerobic spoilage in the silo 0-10

Aerobic spoilage at feedout 0-15

(McDonalds et al., 1991)


33/37

How does buchneri work

Uses heterolactic fermentation More acetate produced Acetate is an anti-fungal agent Inhibits-spoilage causing yeasts & moulds

Disadvantages of heterolactic fermentation Depressed lactate production & higher nutrient losses

Depression in intake if excess acetate is produced

Effect of temperature on corn


34/37

Effect of temperature on cornsilage pH

37O

C

28OCTarget

pH

(Weinberg et al., 2001)

Effect of temperature on corn


35/37

Effect of temperature on cornsilage pH

Inoc, 24 OC

Control 24O

C

Inoc, 41 OC

(Weinberg et al., 2001)


36/37

Inoculated silages may spoil more than respectivecontrol silages at high temperatures which inhibit thegrowth of inoculant bacteria.

Special care should be taken during silage making andunloading in warm climates

Florida corn silage producers must do better thanaverage.

Temperature matters!


37/37

Fermentation vs. stabilityTraditional view Conventional inoculants (homofermentative) enhance

fermentation but often reduce bunk life Cause = Reduced acetic & propionic acid

Emerging view

L. buchneri (heterofermentative) inoculants can improve bunk life

Corn Silage Inoculants Review

Documents

Transcript of Corn Silage Inoculants Review