๐”– Bobbio Scriptorium
โœฆ   LIBER   โœฆ

Effect of Forage Harvester on Grass Silage Fermentation, Digestibility and Animal Performance

โœ Scribed by P.M. Haigh


Publisher
Elsevier Science
Year
1998
Tongue
English
Weight
207 KB
Volume
71
Category
Article
ISSN
0021-8634

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

โœฆ Synopsis


Data from 21 experiments, conducted at ADAS Research Centres during 1971-1991, were used to compare grass silage harvested with either a flail-harvester, foragewagon, double-chop or precision-chop harvester. In 15 of the experiments, formic acid was applied at 2)7, 3)1, 2)1 and 2)1 l/t, respectively. The silages were made from herbage with an average dry matter of 210 g/kg and water-soluble carbohydrate of 25 g/kg.

Criteria have previously been established for seven chemical analyses that can be used to indicate whether or not silages are well fermented. Only two of these (pH and lactic acid) out of the seven were actually met with the precision-chop harvester and only one (acetic acid) was met by the flail-harvester and forage-wagon. None was satisfied by the double-chop machine, despite the fact that more formic acid was applied to the flail-harvester and particularly forage-wagon-made silages. The foragewagon-made silage also suffered from soil contamination.

When given to young cattle, precision-chop harvested silage resulted in the highest silage DM intake, liveweight gain and best feed conversion efficiency. Silage, made with a forage-wagon had a very low silage DM intake and liveweight gain, despite the fact that the amount of barley fed was twice as high as in the other treatments. With flail and double-chop harvested silage, both silage and total DM intake were similar. Nevertheless, liveweight gain was higher with the latter treatment. With dairy cows, the type of harvester used to make silage had no significant effect upon milk production, except that silage DM intake tended to be higher with the precisionchop harvested silage, whereas liveweight loss was significantly less with the flail harvested silage.


๐Ÿ“œ SIMILAR VOLUMES


Effect of Formic Acid with Formalin or B
โœ P.M. Haigh; O.D. Davies ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 1998 ๐Ÿ› Elsevier Science ๐ŸŒ English โš– 175 KB

Perennial ryegrass was ensiled in three different ways: (1) with a formic acid with formalin silage additive at 4)0 l/t; (2) with an addition of 50 kg/t ground barley; and (3) no-additive. Formic acid with formalin produced well-fermented silage, which, when subsequently given to lactating dairy c

Effect of Additives on Grass Silage Ferm
โœ Haigh, P. M. (author) ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 1998 ๐Ÿ› Academic Press ๐ŸŒ English โš– 204 KB

Data from 11 experiments, conducted mainly at ADAS Liscombe Research Centre during 1989-1992, were used to compare silages made with additives which included formic acid, an acid-salt-type additive, sulphuric acid, liquid inoculant and a cultured inoculant with a nonadditive-treated control. The sil

Effect of long-term application of anima
โœ Anderson, Roy; Christie, Peter ๐Ÿ“‚ Article ๐Ÿ“… 1998 ๐Ÿ› John Wiley and Sons ๐ŸŒ English โš– 174 KB ๐Ÿ‘ 2 views

The e โ€ ect of slurry type (pig or cow) and use of a bacterial silage inoculant, was assessed on herbage from long-term slurry plots ensiled in pilotscale (0ร‰7 tonne) silos. Silage was fed to sheep to assess digestibility and metabolisable energy content. The latter was measured by direct calorimetry