quality silage – minimal losses

Quality silage – minimal lossesBioferm Silage SeminarKurdejov, Czech Republic, 6 February 2014

Prof. Marketta Rinne and M.Sc. Arja SeppäläMTT Agrifood Research Finland

tt fiwww.mtt.fi

Objectives of ensiling d th fgrass and other forages:

• Balanced feeding year around in spiteBalanced feeding year around in spite of fluctuating annual feed supply

• High quality of feedChemical and microbiological parameters• Chemical and microbiological parameters

• Health of animals, farmers and consumers• Minimal ensiling losses

• Mechanical losses• Spoilage in silo• At feedingg

• Utilization in feeding• High voluntary intake

Concentrations of nutrients• Concentrations of nutrients• Digestibility• Economy

Photos: Marketta Rinne

Finland has strong traditions in silagemaking based on acid additives• A I Virtanen patented the use of acids in silage preservation in• A.I.Virtanen patented the use of acids in silage preservation in

1920’s• Virtanen was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1945y

• http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1945/virtanen-bio.html

• The use of formic acid as a silage additive started in a large• The use of formic acid as a silage additive started in a large scale in 1960’s

3

Forage in Shedding, leachingForage in

the field

g g

Respiration

Poor fermentation

Forage Effluent production

Poor fermentation

Aerobic deteriorationin silo

F i

Aerobic deterioration

Low intake

Aerobic deteriorationForage in

feeding

F i Rumen fermentation

Aerobic deterioration

Forage in

the rumen

Rumen fermentationand digestibility

Milk qualityProduc-

tion

Milk quality, animal health

Pay-

ment

Process Classifi- Losses, Causativecation % factor

Residual respiration Unavoidable 1 - 2 Plant enzymes

Fermentation Unavoidable 2 - 4 Microorganisms

Effluent ORField losses by

Mutuallyunavoidable

5 → 7 DM contentWeather techniqueField losses by

wiltingunavoidable or

2 → 5Weather, technique,management, crop

Secondary Avoidable 0→ 5 Crop suitability environmentSecondaryfermentation

Avoidable 0→ 5 Crop suitability, environmentin silo, DM content

Aerobic deteriorationd i t

Avoidable 0 → 10 Filling time, density, silo, li it bilitduring storage sealing, crop suitability

Aerobic deteriorationduring storage

Avoidable 0 → 15 As above, DM content, unloading technique seasonduring storage unloading technique, season

Total 7 → 40

5

McDonald, Henderson & Heron. 1991. The Biochemistryof Silage. 2nd ed. Chalcombe Publications, UK.

Process Classifi- Losses, CausativeMost losses are never ”seen” and can thus easily be neglectedcation % factor

Residual respiration Unavoidable 1 - 2 Plant enzymes

and can thus easily be neglected

Fermentation Unavoidable 2 - 4 Microorganisms

Effluent ORField losses by

Mutuallyunavoidable

5 → 7 DM contentWeather technique10 % i iField losses by

wiltingunavoidable or

2 → 5Weather, technique,management, crop

Secondary Avoidable 0→ 5 Crop suitability environment

10 % increase in losses on a 100

h t f In worst casesSecondaryfermentation

Avoidable 0→ 5 Crop suitability, environmentin silo, DM content

Aerobic deteriorationd i t

Avoidable 0 → 10 Filling time, density, silo, li it bilit

hectare farmmeans a need of 10 h t

whole silo mustbe discarded.

during storage sealing, crop suitability

Aerobic deteriorationduring storage

Avoidable 0 → 15 As above, DM content, unloading technique season

10 hectares moresilage fields Losses = 100 %

during storage unloading technique, season

Total 7 → 40

6

McDonald, Henderson & Heron. 1991. The Biochemistryof Silage. 2nd ed. Chalcombe Publications, UK.

Aerobic deterioration has become a big issue – silage heats at feedout

• In efficiently wilted silages, air penetration into the silagemass is easier than in wet herbage mass

• Restrictively fermented silages contain water soluble• Restrictively fermented silages contain water solublecarbohydrates which are good substrates for yeasts• Substances such as benzoic, sorbic or propionic acid may be included

in the additives to improve aerobic stability

• Pure lactic acid containing silages are more susceptible as acetic acid restricts heatingacetic acid restricts heating• Heterofermentative LAB such as L. Buchneri may be used

7

Spoilage may occur, when:

•Not acidic enoughNot acidic enough

•Suitable humidity, temperature

•Oxygen availableyg

•Nutrients easily available

Temperature risesCarbohydrates

Nutrient losses

yand organic acidsare oxidized

MycotoxinsFeed intake

Listeria etc.decreases

Seppälä, A., Tsitko, I., Ervasti, S., Miettinen, H., Salakka, A., & Rinne, M. 2013. The role of additives when ensiling red clover-grass mixture for biogasproduction. Proc.17th Symposium of the European Grassland Federation,

Akureyri, Iceland, 23-26 June 2013. Grassland Science in Europe 18: 563-565.

9

How to evaluate silage quality?

• pH – depends on DM concentration• Proportion of ammonium N from total Np

• If the additive contains ammonium, the results may be corrected for the added amount

• Butyric acid risk particularly to cheese quality• Butyric acid – risk particularly to cheese quality• Amount of lactic acid, VFA, VFA to lactic acid ratio• Total amount of fermentation acids• Residual water soluble carbohydrates (WSC), ”sugars”• Smell, colour, visual signs of mould, yeasts and spoiled feed

A bi t bilit i i t t ft i th il• Aerobic stability – raise in temperature after opening the silo• Silage DM intake index• Transfer of energy and nutrients from the field into animalTransfer of energy and nutrients from the field into animal

products• Amount and quality of animal products

10

Acceptable silage pH depends on silageDM t ti l k f t tlDM concentration – lack of water partlyrestricts the detrimental microbial activity

R id l WSCResidual WSC content at least 0.7 % FM when DM<27 5% andDM<27.5%, and 3 % DM when

DM>27.5 %

Proportion of poor quality silages classified bysilage DM concentration in Finnish farm samplessilage DM concentration in Finnish farm samples

analysed by Valio Ltd. during autumn 2013

No additive

Acids

Biological

© Valio / Virva Hallivuori 12

Meta-analysis of formic acid as silage additive

• Masters thesis by L. Blomqvist (2010) at University of Helsinki, Finland supervised by Seija Jaakkola, p y j

• Includes scientific reports where same forage material wasensiled using formic acid and without an additive (control)• Comparison of different additives (also biological additives included)• Effect of application rate of formic acid

• Material:• Material:• 62 research reports (29 from Finland)• 111 experiments, total number of observations 451• 385 grasses, 34 lucerne and 32 wholecrop-pea bi-crops

• The grass material was classified according to water solublecarbohydrate (WSC) concentration in the grass:carbohydrate (WSC) concentration in the grass:• <15 g/kg fresh matter (FM) – difficult to ensile (DM 207 g/kg)• 15-30 g/kg FM – intermediate to ensile (DM 212 g/kg)• >30 g/kg FM – easy to ensile (DM 297 g/kg)

13

Formic acid was particularly effectivein preservering the low WSC herbage

• Blomqvist 2010

pH Ammonia N

14

Increasing the application rate of formic acidlinearly improved silage quality the effect beinglinearly improved silage quality the effect beingstrongest for low WSC herbage• Blomqvist 2010

Ammonia NpH Ammonia NpH

15

Increasing the application rate of formic acidrestricts lactic and acetic acid production andrestricts lactic and acetic acid production and

saves sugars• Blomqvist 2010

Acetic acidLactic acid Acetic acidLactic acid…which is reflectedin high acetic acidin high acetic acid

concentration.

Loss of lactic acid in untreated silages

indicates secondaryfermentation…

16

Good quality silage could be produced froml l b i f i id dditilucerne only by using formic acid an an additive

• Tuori, M., Syrjälä-Qvist, L., Seppälä, A., Jaakkola, S., Pahlow, G. , , y j Q , , pp , , , , ,2012. Ensiling of forage legumes in Finland. Proc. XVI International Silage Conference. Hämeenlinna, Finland, 2-4 July 2012. p. 412-413.

Ammonia NpH

17

The XVI International Silage Conference washeld in Finland at 2-4 July 2012: www.mtt.fi/isc

Proceedings and presentations still

availablea a ab e

4.3.2014 18

Formic acid reduced fermentation losses the diff b i t t f i t ldifference being greatest for immature lucerne

• Tuori et al., 2012. ,

100

120

)

80

100

(g/kg DM

)

Bud 25 DM

60

aion

losses Bud 25 DM

Bud 40 DM

Flower 25 DM

20

40

Ferm

entt Flower 40 DM

0No additive Formic acid LAB1 LAB2

19

Formic acid works also in UK Formic acid works also in UK • Adesogan, A.T. & Salawu, M.B. 2004. Effect of applying formic acid,

heterolactic bactreia or homolactic and heterolactic bactreia on theheterolactic bactreia or homolactic and heterolactic bactreia on the fermentation of bi-crops of peas and wheat. J. Sci. Food Agric. 84: 983-992.

pH Ammonia N

20

Which additive to choose?

• Acid based additives are a good choice for challengingherbage materials – type of risk management, ”insurance”g yp g ,• DM concentration <250 g/kg• Legumes (little sugars, high bufferring capacity)

LAB i l t i il lit d t• LAB inoculants improve silage quality compared to no additive, and can be recommended to succesfully prewiltedgrass materialgrass material

• Wilted silages are prone to aerobic deterioration• Modern additives contain substances that restrict it (benzoate, sorbate,

propionic acid, acetic acid, heterofermentative LAB)

• Consider total losses in the chain and how much of the feedcan be converted to salable animal products!can be converted to salable animal products!

• Is the additive of choice succesfully and evenlydistributed into the harvested herbage?

21

The ”easiest” way to improve milkproduction is to increase feed intake!production is to increase feed intake!

Variation in milkproduction of dairycows is mainly

Faecescows is mainlyaffected by variationof voluntary feedintakeintake

MilkFeed

Silage dry matter intake indexSDMI index

• Based on a large meta-analysis of systematically conducteddairy cow feeding trials

• Effects of silage quality on relative silage intake potential• Effects of silage quality on relative silage intake potential• Digestibility (D-value)• Extent of silage fermentation• Silage DM and fibre concentration• Plant species, season

• Publication:• Huhtanen, P., Rinne, M. & Nousiainen, J. 2007. Evaluation of the

factors affecting silage intake of dairy cows: a revision of the relative silage dry-matter intake index. Animal 1: 758-770.

23

●When the concentration of fermentation acids increases by 10 g/kg DM silage intake decreases by 128 g DM/dayby 10 g/kg DM, silage intake decreases by 128 g DM/day●Compensation is no longer done, when the concentration reaches 40 g/kg DM

10

concentration reaches 40 g/kg DM

5

nts

020 40 60 80 100 120 140D

MI p

oin

-5

SD

-10S f ( / )Silage fermentation acid concentration (g/kg DM)

Jaakkola, S., Rinne, M., Heikkilä, T., Toivonen, V. & Huhtanen, P. 2006 Effects of restriction of silage fermentation with2006. Effects of restriction of silage fermentation with

formic acid on milk production. Agric. Food Sci. 15: 200-218.

120

80

100

FA0

60

FA0

FA2

FA4

20

40 FA6

0Amm. N. g/kg N SDMI Index

25

g/ g

Restriction of silage fermentation was reflectedas animal responses (Jaakkola et al. 2006)

Milk production (kg/day)Silage intake (kg /day)

3413

Milk production (kg/day)Silage intake (kg /day)

30

32

ake (kg/day)

12

12.5

ake (kg/day)

26

28

Silage

DM in

ta

11

11.5

Silage

DM in

ta

24

26

FA0 FA2 FA4 FA610

10.5

FA0 FA2 FA4 FA6

26

Crimped grain

• More flexibility in harverst time and conditions

• No drying costs• Fits well with TMR feeding

27

Different additives for crimped grain• A pilot scale experiment

• No additive• KemiSile:

• Formic acid 425, ammonium formate• KemiSile Crimp 3 l/t• KemiSile Crimp 4 l/t

,303, propionic acid 100, benzoic acid22 and water 150 g/kg

• Biotal Biocrimp• Biotal• Seppälä et al. Unpublished.

• Biotal Biocrimp• Pediococcus pentosaceus,

Lactobacillus buchneri

28

• Annabell (Bor) barleyE il d J ki i• Ensiled at Jokioinen, Finland on 17 August 20102010

• Ripened at yellow stage, partly dough stage

Grain compositionprior to crimpingprior to crimpingDM, g/kg 605In DM, g/kg, g gAsh 32Crude protein 118Crude fibre 50Starch 567

4.3.2014

Water soluble carbohydrates

Treatments differ statistically significantly

Treatments differ statistically significantly

Sum of all fermentation acidsLactic acid

Treatments differ statistically significantlyTreatments differ statistically significantly

Sum of all VFAAcetic acid

Biotal differ sstatistically significantlyTreatments differ statistically significantly except KemiSile rates.

Aerobic stability, hours (2 C°difference to ambient temperature)difference to ambient temperature)No additive 162Biotal >300KemiSile3 >300KemiSile4 273

Different additivesfor crimped grainfor crimped grain

• A farm scale experiment• Propcorn NC

• 72.6% propionic acid, 21.4% ammonium propionate and 6% waterammonium propionate and 6% water

• AIV Ässä• 59% formic acid, 20% propionic acid,

4% ammonium formate 2 5% benzoic4% ammonium formate, 2.5% benzoic acid/sorbate and 14% water

• At rates 0, 3, 6 ja 9 l/t

• Seppälä, A., Nysand, M., Mäki, M., Miettinen, H., Rinne, M. 2012. Ensiling crimped barleygrain at farm scale in plastic tube bag withgrain at farm scale in plastic tube bag withformic and propionic acid based additives. Proc. XVI International Silage ConferenceHämeenlinna, Finland, 2-4 July 2012. p. 436-

34

y p437.

Barley compositionprior to crimpingprior to crimpingDM, g/kg 792In DM, g/kg, g gAsh 26Crude protein 113Crude fibre 47Starch 582

Murska crimping mill

4.3.2014

Additiveapplication

4.3.2014

6

pH9

etanoliEthanol

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2

3pH

2

3

4

5

etanoli

0nolla P3 P6 P9 Ä3 Ä6 Ä9 0

1

nolla P3 P6 P9 Ä3 Ä6 Ä9

30

35

sokeri

2

2.5

maitohappoLactic acidWater soluble carbohydrates

15

20

25

sokeri1

1.5

2

maitohappo

0

5

10

0

0.5

1

4.3.2014

nolla P3 P6 P9 Ä3 Ä6 Ä9 nolla P3 P6 P9 Ä3 Ä6 Ä9

vfa_yht14

kaym_tuot_yhtTotal fermentation productsTotal VFA

8

10

12

10

12

14

4

6vfa_yht

4

6

8

kaym_tuot_yht

0

2


etikkahappo propionihappo

0

2


A ti id

2

2.5

etikkahappo

10

12

propionihappoPropionic acidAcetic acid

1

1.5

etikkahappo

4

6

8

propionihappo

0

0.5


2

4


4.3.2014

nolla P3 P6 P9 Ä3 Ä6 Ä9 nolla P3 P6 P9 Ä3 Ä6 Ä9

Aerobic stability of crimped barley wasimproved by the use of additives

Additive already atAIV Ässä

Additive already at crimping works also as

stabilizer in the TMR giving double benefit

Propcorn

42

Propcorn

Succesful silage making

• High yield (kg/ha)• Take care of agronomic factors –

important economically• Ensure possibilities to produce good

Affects the price of silage

p p gquality raw material for silage

• Minimize losses in the silage chain

• High nutritional value• Digestibility / energy value

Results in highmilk output

g y gy• Fermentation quality• Intake potential

E th h lth• High hygienic quality

Ensures the healthand safety of

animals, barn staffand consumers

quality silage – minimal losses

Documents