inoculant handbook - dfa farm supplies > programs€¦ · · 2011-07-27what you need to know...

What you need to know about the role microbial inoculants play in excellent silage quality.

Inoculant Handbook

Chr. Hansen Animal Health & Nutrition • 9015 W. Maple St., Milwaukee, WI 53214 USA • 888-828-6600

Why use microbial inoculants?

Chr. Hansen Animal Health & Nutrition9015 W. Maple St.Milwaukee, WI 53214 USAToll free: 888-828-6600

1) Reduce forage heating quickly Respiration of microorganisms (bacteria, fungi, and yeasts) causes

heating which can lead to DM and nutrient loss during storage. At

excessive moisture levels this heating can also create a dangerous

storage environment.

2) Rapidly reduce pH Microbial inoculants promote a rapid and efficient conversion of

fermentable carbohydrates to lactic acid reducing the pH level fast,

“shutting off” organisms that rob nutrients and dry matter.

3) Improve dry matter recovery Bacteria and yeast can grow in a bunker and negatively affect dry matter

recovery until the bunk reaches an anaerobic state. Inoculants help create

this anaerobic state fast thereby improving dry matter recovery by 5-8%.

4) Increased protein retention The value of your forage to a dairy animal is anchored by it’s nutritional

value. Microbial inoculants can help retain up to 7% more protein value.

5) Increase bunk life Research has proven that inoculant treated forage lasts longer in the bunk.

6) Maximize forage nutrient value Higher preservation of nutrients in the silage is due to a better fermen-

tation and lower losses.

7) Improve NDF digestibility Silages treated with inoculants

have a distinctive sweeter, more

aromatic and more palatable

smell than untreated silages.

If a dairy cow eats more high

digestibility / high

8) Improve milk production Silages treated with inoculants

have a distinctive sweeter, more

aromatic and more palatable

smell than untreated silages.

If a dairy cow eats more high

digestibility / high energy con-

tent silage it will ingest more

energy and can produce 3-5 pounds more milk per day.

9) Safe and easy to use High quality microbial inoculants are easy to use and when packaged in

a heat-sealed foil lining, have long stable shelf lives.

2

K. S. Bolsen - Kansas State University

Affect of Biomax® 5 onNDF Digestibility (+ 5.3%)

pH

5

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

Control Biomax 5

% D

ry M

atte

r

Lactic Acid

Acetic Acid

Lactate:Acetate(ideal >3:1)

Choosing an inoculant — a check list


Silage inoculants, along with good forage management, consistently improve the nutritive quality of silage and provide a substantial return on investment. The most effective bacterial species in silage inoculants are Lactobacillus Plantarum, Pediococcus Pentosaceus and Enterococcus Faecium. These bacterial species are efficient at utilizing plant sugars to produce lactic acid,

which is required to rapidly lower forage pH and enhance fermentation and preservation efficiencies. However, not all bacterial strains share the same ability to effectively and efficiently preserve forages. Before making a decision about which microbial inoculant to use be sure to ask the following questions to ensure you get the best return on your investment.

√ Is the product thoroughly researched?Biomax® silage inoculant strains are backed by university research and field trials, supporting the efficacy on a variety of forages, harvest and storage conditions.

√ How many bacteria, and which species, does the inoculant contain? A silage inoculant should contain live, homofermentative lactic acid bacteria and should provide at least 100,000 Colony Forming Units/g (CFU/g) of wet forage.

√ Is there an expiration date of manufacture listed?All Biomax inoculants contain a “best used by” date as well as a lot number for product traceability.

√ Are the bacteria guaranteed alive?Biomax inoculants are guaranteed to meet or exceed stated levels of viable bacteria for 18 months for dry-applied inoculants and 24 months for water-soluble inoculants.

√ Can the inoculant be applied easily?Uniformly distributing bacterial silage inoculants is important for maximum product effectiveness. Biomax inoculants are available in a water-soluble form — the most preferred application method.

√ Is the manufacturer basic in microbiology?Biomax inoculants are manufactured by Chr. Hansen, Inc. which was

established in 1874 and is recognized as the World’s Microbial Experts.

√ Does the product remain viable if mixed with a chlorinated water source? Due to special additives Biomax’s bacteria remain stable and viable in chlorinated water.

√ What is the proper way to store Biomax microbial inoculants?Biomax inoculants do not require refrigeration, however, it’s recommended to always store unopened product in a cool, dry area for maximum stability.

3

The Biomax® product line


Good forage management is critical to producing nutri-ent rich high-quality forage. Not all forage has the same nutrient properties so it’s equally critical to use an inocu-lant with properties specifically suited to your crop type.

Biomax® 5Specifically designed for corn silage

Biomax® MPMulti Purpose inoculant for a variety of forages

Biomax® HMCDeveloped for high moisture corn

Biomax® LBFor increased aerobic stability and fungal suppression

Biomax® OOrganic inoculant that’s OMRI Listed

4


Benefits• Over 1 day longer

aerobic stability (bunk life)

• Faster fermentation (less heating)

• Rapidly drop pH

• Improve dry matter recovery by 5%

• Increased nutrient availability

• Better palatability and intake for improved production efficiency

• Use with chlorinated or dechlorinated water

Features• Specially selected strains that work to inhibit major spoilage yeasts

• Controls fermentation: produces high levels of lactic acid and quickly lowers pH

• Proven by university and field research conducted on a variety of corn hybrids, harvest and storage conditions

• Concentrated and stabilized bacteria that are faster acting than competitive products

• Safe and easy to use

Microbial Inoculant for Corn silage

Aerobic stability

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Trial 5

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Control Biomax 5

Hou

rs t

o ris

e 2º

C a

bove

am

bien

t te

mp.

For more details see the Biomax® 5 product sheet on page 21.

5

University of Reading, UK


Benefits• Less heating

• Rapid drop pH for faster preservation

• Efficient on low sugar forages

• Better silage quality for higher production

• Increased protein retention

• Greater dry matter recovery

• Longer bunk life


Features• 3 specially selected strains

for rapid fermentation under varying conditions

• Manufactured under patented processes

• Concentrated and stabilized bacteria

• Guaranteed level of superior bacteria

• Faster acting than competitive products

• Proven by university and field research

• Safe and easy to use

Multipurpose Microbial Silage Inoculant

Reduce heating for higher nutritional value

Days after ensiling

120

110

100

90

80

70

601 3 6.5 11.5 19.5 31 44

Tem

pera

ture

, Deg

rees

F

Biomax Control

For more details see the Biomax® MP product sheet on page 22.

6

Michigan State University


Microbial Inoculant for High Moisture Corn

For more details see the Biomax® HMC product sheet on page 23.

7

Effect of Biomax® HMC inoculation of HMECon in situ DM digestibility of HMEC

%Biomax HMC

Control

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

A F

ract

ion

B Fr

actio

n

C F

ract

ion

K d

B (%

h)

ERA

DM

ERADM (Estimated Rumen Available Dry Matter) Spruce Haven Research Center, NY

Features• Water soluble

• Packaged in 50g and 500g sealed plastic canisters for guaranteed viability

Benefits• Improves starch digestibility

• Less heating

• Improves aerobic stability

• Increases nutrient availability

• Increases bunk life

• Reduces loss due to shrink

• Increases dry matter recovery

• Use on high moisture ear or shelled corn

• Easy to use and store



Benefits• Reduces fungal growth

• Reduces growth of yeast through robust acetic acid production


• Reduces amount of butyric acid produced by Clostridium

• Better quality silage

• Less heating

• Reduced spoilage

• Improves starch digestibility





• Packaged in 50g and 500g sealed plastic canisters for guaranteed viability

Increased Aerobic Stability and Fungal Suppression

For more details see the Biomax® LB product sheet on page 24.

8

Acetic acid levels in dry matter in L. buchneri treated corn (5 trials)

L. Buchneri Control

2.2

2.1

2.0

1.9

1.8

Ace

tic a

cid

as%

of

dry

mat

ter

Steidlova & Kalac, 2003


Benefits• Can be used on crops in the production

of food processing and handling

• Reduces heating for better quality


• Increases bunk life

• Reduces loss due to shrink





• Packaged in 500g sealed plastic canisters for guaranteed viability

Organic Inoculant That’s OMRI Listed

For more details see the Biomax® O product sheet on page 25.

9

Microbial inoculants vs. propionic acid


Why Biomax® inoculants are superior to propionicacid on forage crops:

• Lower forage temperature more rapidly

• 7% higher dry matter recovery

• 3-5 lbs more milk from higher nutrient feed

• Aerobic stability for 36 - 72 hours

• More cost effective

Lower Temperature vs. Control & Propionic AcidUniversity of Reading, UK

Days

28

26

24

22

20

181 2 3 4 5 6 7

Tem

pera

ture

, Deg

rees

C

Control Bacterial Inoculant Propionic Acid5 liters/ton

Mic

robi

al In

ocul

ant

Prop

ioni

c A

cid

Forage fermentation at lower temp.

Low inclusion rate

Lower dry matter loss

More milk per ton of treated silage

Aerobic stability

Silage Application

Product Comparison

*

*

*

*

**

• Non corrosive

• Safe to use

• Easy to handle and apply

• Lower transportation costs

• Convenient and simple storage

10

Forage Management

Checklist of good silage management


1. Select appropriate crop hybrid and variety • suitable to local conditions • matches overall objectives

2. Follow good agronomic practices • fields and equipment • timing of fertilizer application

3. Make sure the silo structure is in good condition

4. Cut and wilt forage during favorable weather

5. Harvest crops at recommended moisture and maturity • optimum stage of growth & moisture level

6. Chop forage at the optimum length • optimum TLC (Theoretical Length of Cut) • processing (corn silage <30% DM)

7. Apply bacterial inoculant at recommended rate • fermentation enhancement/aerobic stability • applicator calibration

8. Ensile forage as quickly as possible

9. Distribute forage evenly in the silo • maximum 6” layers • progressive wedge (bunkers and piles) • run:rise 4:1 (drive over piles)

10. Achieve a high packing density • packing weight vs. forage delivery rate • packing time adequate • packing density at least 15 lb DM/ft3

11. Cover and seal silo structure quickly & effectively

12. During feed out, remove recommended amount

of silage from the unloading face • rate adequate to prevent heating • discard spoiled silage • balance ration properly based on silage quality

12

How to calculate average silage

density in bunker silo(online reference: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/uwforage/storage.htm)


Spreadsheet to Calculate Average

Silage Density in a Bunker Silo(English Units)Brian Holmes(1) and Richard Muck(2)

(1) Biological Systems Engineering Dept. and

(2) US Dairy Forage Research Center

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Bunker Silo Wall Height (feet) = 10 28-Feb-06

Bunker Silo Maximum Silage Height (feet) = 16 Values in yellow cells are user changeable

Silage Delivery Rate to Bunker (T AF/Hr) = 100 Typical values 15-200 T AF/hr

16Silage Dry Matter Content (decimal ie 0.35) = 0.32 Recommended range of DM content = 0.3-0.4

10Silage Packing Layer Thickness (inches) = 8 Recommended value is 6 inches or less

Packing Tractor - Each Tractor Tractor Weight (lbs) Tractor Packing Time (% of Filling Time)

=====================================================================================

Tractor # 1 Typical tractor weight is 10,000-60,000 lbs 45000 75 75




Proportioned Total Tractor Weight (lbs) = 61750

Average Silage Height (feet) = 13.0 Green cells are intermediate calculated values

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Packing Factor = 350.7 Values in pink cells are results of calculations

Est. Average Dry Matter Density (lbs DM/cu ft) = 13.9 Density greater than 14 lbs DM/cu ft is recommended

Density greater than 28 lbs DM/cu ft is unrealistic

19 20 21 22

Maximum Achievable DM Density (lbs DM/cu ft)= 23.2 19 275.6 350.7 350.7 350.7

13.9 20 221.4 221.4 221.4

21 275.6 0.0 0.0

22 275.6 221.4 275.6 0.0

Maximum

Height (ft)Wall

Height (ft) Horizontal Silo

Spreadsheet to Calculate Average

Silage Density in a Bunker Silo(English Units)Brian Holmes(1) and Richard Muck(2)

(1) Biological Systems Engineering Dept. and

(2) US Dairy Forage Research Center


Bunker Silo Wall Height (feet) = 10 28-Feb-06

Bunker Silo Maximum Silage Height (feet) = 16 Values in yellow cells are user changeable

Silage Delivery Rate to Bunker (T AF/Hr) = 100 Typical values 15-200 T AF/hr

16Silage Dry Matter Content (decimal ie 0.35) = 0.32 Recommended range of DM content = 0.3-0.4

10Silage Packing Layer Thickness (inches) = 8 Recommended value is 6 inches or less


=====================================================================================







-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Est. Average Dry Matter Density (lbs DM/cu ft) = 13.9 Density greater than 14 lbs DM/cu ft is recommended

Density greater than 28 lbs DM/cu ft is unrealistic

19 20 21 22

Maximum Achievable DM Density (lbs DM/cu ft)= 23.2 19 275.6 350.7 350.7 350.7

13.9 20 221.4 221.4 221.4

21 275.6 0.0 0.0

22 275.6 221.4 275.6 0.0

Maximum

Height (ft)Wall

Height (ft) Horizontal Silo

13

How to calculate average silage

density in pile(online reference: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/uwforage/storage.htm)


Do You Know Horizontal Portion of Side Slope (ie 3 for 3:1) [Yes or No] No Spreadsheet to Calculate Average

Silage Density in a Silage Pile(English Units)

Bottom Width (ft)= 100 Brian Holmes(1) and Richard Muck(2)

7.4 (1) Biological Systems Engineering Dept. and 10(2) US Dairy Forage Research Center


Silage Pile Height to Top of Slope (feet) = 15 August 23, 2007 3.0Horizontal Portion of Side Slope (ie 3 for 3:1) = 3.0

Top Width (feet) [ can be zero]= 10 Values in yellow cells are user changeable

Silage Delivery Rate to Bunker (T AF/Hr) = 125 Typical values 15-200 T AF/hr 15.0

Silage Dry Matter Content (decimal ie 0.35) = 0.35 Recommended range of DM content = 0.3-0.4

Silage Packing Layer Thickness (inches) = 5 Recommended value is 6 inches or less


=====================================================================================

Tractor # 1 Typical tractor weight is 10,000-60,000 lbs 50000 80 80 100Tractor # 2 Typical tractor weight is 10,000-60,000 lbs 40000 90 90 3





----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Est. Average Wet Density = Bulk Density (lbs AF/cu ft) = 48.0 Wet Density greater than 44 lbs AF/cu ft is recommended

Maximum Achievable Bulk Density (lbs AF/cu ft)= 73.3 Wet Density greater than Max. Wet Density is unrealistic 1 Tractor 2 Tractors 3 Tractors 4 Tractors

Column F 19 20 21 22

Gas Filled Porosity = 0.35 Gas Filled Porosity less than 0.40 is recommended 19 473.3 616.9 616.9 616.9

20 401.6 401.6 401.6

21 473.3 0.0 0.0

Est. Average Dry Matter Density (lbs DM/cu ft) = 16.8 Density greater than 15 lbs DM/cu ft is recommended 22 473.3 401.6 473.3 0.0

Maximum Achievable DM Density (lbs DM/cu ft)= 25.7 DM Density greater than Max. Achievable is unrealistic

16.8

Top Width (ft)

1Height (ft)

Slope (>3:1)

Bottom Width (ft)

Do You Know Horizontal Portion of Side Slope (ie 3 for 3:1) [Yes or No] No Spreadsheet to Calculate Average

Silage Density in a Silage Pile(English Units)

Bottom Width (ft)= 100 Brian Holmes(1) and Richard Muck(2)

7.4 (1) Biological Systems Engineering Dept. and 10(2) US Dairy Forage Research Center


Silage Pile Height to Top of Slope (feet) = 15 August 23, 2007 3.0Horizontal Portion of Side Slope (ie 3 for 3:1) = 3.0

Top Width (feet) [ can be zero]= 10 Values in yellow cells are user changeable

Silage Delivery Rate to Bunker (T AF/Hr) = 125 Typical values 15-200 T AF/hr 15.0

Silage Dry Matter Content (decimal ie 0.35) = 0.35 Recommended range of DM content = 0.3-0.4

Silage Packing Layer Thickness (inches) = 5 Recommended value is 6 inches or less


=====================================================================================

Tractor # 1 Typical tractor weight is 10,000-60,000 lbs 50000 80 80 100Tractor # 2 Typical tractor weight is 10,000-60,000 lbs 40000 90 90 3





----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Est. Average Wet Density = Bulk Density (lbs AF/cu ft) = 48.0 Wet Density greater than 44 lbs AF/cu ft is recommended

Maximum Achievable Bulk Density (lbs AF/cu ft)= 73.3 Wet Density greater than Max. Wet Density is unrealistic 1 Tractor 2 Tractors 3 Tractors 4 Tractors

Column F 19 20 21 22

Gas Filled Porosity = 0.35 Gas Filled Porosity less than 0.40 is recommended 19 473.3 616.9 616.9 616.9

20 401.6 401.6 401.6

21 473.3 0.0 0.0

Est. Average Dry Matter Density (lbs DM/cu ft) = 16.8 Density greater than 15 lbs DM/cu ft is recommended 22 473.3 401.6 473.3 0.0

Maximum Achievable DM Density (lbs DM/cu ft)= 25.7 DM Density greater than Max. Achievable is unrealistic

16.8

Top Width (ft)

1Height (ft)

Slope (>3:1)

Bottom Width (ft)

14

Troubleshooting common silage

management issues


Effluent (i.e., seepage/run-off)Effluent has a very high biochemical oxygen demand. It should always be

contained near the silo of origin and never allowed to enter a nearby pond

or watercourse.

Causes.• Forage was ensiled too wet (low DM content) for the type and size of silo.

• Forage was not conditioned when it was cut.

• Forage was placed in a windrow that was too bulky for the time allowed

for field-wilting.

• Weather did not allow the forage to be field-wilted properly before chopping.

• The person(s) responsible for determining the DM content of the forage

made a mistake.

• Whole-plant corn, sorghum, or cereals was harvested at an immature

stage of growth.

√ The silage contractor arrived earlier than expected.

√ Because of a large number of acres to harvest, chopping began too soon.

Solutions.• Use weather forecasts to make forage management decisions.

• Take advantage of new mowing, cutting, and conditioning equipment

technologies.

• Coordinate the merging of windrows with the time of chopping.

• Monitor the dry-down rate and whole-plant moisture content of each

field of corn or sorghum so the harvest can begin at the proper time.

• Select a range of corn or sorghum hybrids with differing maturities to

widen the effective harvest window.

15

Causes.• Warm, dry weather can speed the maturing and dry-down of the grain

and forage parts of the plant.

• Wet weather can keep harvesting equipment out of the field.

• Sometimes it is difficult to schedule the silage contractor.

The forage is ensiled too wet and undergoes a clostridial fermentation.

Legumes, especially alfalfa, that are rained on after mowing are at higher

risk because rain leaches soluble sugars from the forage.

Solutions.• Chop and ensile all forages at the correct DM content for the type and

size of silo.

The crop is too wet at harvest and undergoes a heterolactic fermentation.

The silage has a strong ‘vinegar’ smell, and there will usually be a 1 to 3

foot layer of bright yellow, sour smelling silage near the floor of a

bunker or pile.

Solutions.• Plant multiple corn or sorghum hybrids with different season lengths.

• Improve the communication between the beef or dairy producer, crop

grower, and silage contractor.

• Change harvest strategy, which might include kernel processing, shorter

theoretical length of cut (TLC), or adding a packing tractor(s).

• Proper packing to achieve a minimum density of 15 lbs of DM per ft3 ex-

cludes oxygen and limits the loss of plant sugars during the aerobic phase.

• Apply a homolactic bacterial inoculant to all forages to ensure an efficient

conversion of plant sugars to lactic acid.

• Avoid soil contamination in harvest and silo-filling operations.

• If it is not possible to control the DM content by wilting, the addition of

soluble sugars can reduce the chance of clostridial fermentation and the

problems associated with butyric acid silages.

Solutions.• Ensile all forages at the correct DM content, and especially not too wet.

• Use a homolactic inoculant (Biomax® 5) to ensure an efficient conversion

of plant sugar to lactic acid.


management issues (cont.)

Missed Harvest Window - The Optimum Time to Put Up Corn or Sorghum Silage.

High Levels of Butyric Acid and Ammonia-nitrogen, Particularly in ‘Hay-crop’ Silage.

High Levels of Acetic Acid, Particularly in Wet Corn or Sorghum Silage.

16



Heat-damaged Silage.

Aerobic Deterioration of Corn Silage.

17

Solutions.• Harvest at the correct stage of kernel maturity and especially not too mature.• Ensile at the correct DM content, and especially not too dry.• In normal conditions, do not chop longer than ¾-inch TLC if processed or

½-inch if not processed.• Apply Biomax® 5 to ensure an additional 24 to 48 hrs longer bunk life dur-

ing feedout.• Achieve a minimum packing density of 15 lbs of DM per ft3.• Maintain a uniform and rapid progression through the silage during the entire feedout period

√ A minimum of 6 to 12 inches in cold weather months. √ A minimum of 12 to 18 inches in warm weather months.

• Minimize the amount of time corn silage stays in the commodity area before it is added to the ration. It might be necessary to remove silage from a bunker or drive-over pile and move it the commodity area twice daily.• Do not leave corn silage rations in the feed bunk too long, especially in

warm, humid weather (not to exceed 24 hours).• Add about 2 to 4 lbs of a buffered propionic acid product per ton of TMR

if heating does occur.• Consider re-sizing a silo and subsequent feedout face for the time of year

a silage will be feedout. √ Feed from ‘larger’ silos in cold weather months. √ Feed from ‘smaller’ silos in warm weather months.

This silage has a dark brown color and a strong, burnt caramel/tobacco smell. The concerns with heat-damaged silage are reduced digestibility of the protein and energy components.

Causes.• In a well-managed silage, the temperature of the ensiled forage should

not increase more than 8° to 15° F above the ambient temperature at harvest, and when the temperature of the ensiled forage exceeds 115° to 120° F during the first 1 to 2 weeks in the silo, heat-damage can occur.

• Most of the heat is from plant and microbial respiration, which continues as long as oxygen is present in the ensiled mass.

• The chemical reaction, commonly known as Maillard or ‘browning’, bind plant sugars and hemicellulose with proteins and amino acids.

Solutions.• Harvest at the correct stage of maturity, and especially not too mature.• Ensile all forages at the correct DM content, and especially not too dry.• Do not chop forages too long, which would typically be not longer than

1-inch theoretical length of cut for field-wilted forages and ½-inch to ¾-inch TLC for whole-plant corn or sorghum.

• Achieve anaerobic conditions as quickly as possible in the ensiled forage mass.• Fill silos in a timely manner and distribute the forage evenly in the silo.• Achieve a minimum packing density of 15 lbs of DM per ft3.



Solutions.• Achieve an optimum packing density (minimum of 15 lbs of DM per ft3)

within the top 3 feet of the silage surface.

• Shape all surfaces so water drains off the bunker or pile, and the back,

front, and side slopes should not exceed a 3 to 1 slope.

• Seal the forage surface immediately after filling.

• Two sheets of polyethylene or a single sheet of oxygen barrier film.

• Overlap the sheets that cover the forage surface by a minimum of 3 to 4 feet.

• Sheets should reach 4 to 6 feet off the forage surface around the

perimeter of a pile.

• Put uniform weight on the sheets over the entire surface of a bunker or

pile, and double the weight placed on the overlapping sheets.

√ Bias-ply truck sidewall disks, with or without a lacework of holes,

are the most common alternative to full-casing tires.

√ Sandbags, filled with pea gravel, are an effective way to anchor the

overlapping sheets, and sandbags provide a heavy, uniform weight

at the interface of the sheets and bunker wall.

√ Sidewall disks and sandbags can be stacked, and if placed on

pallets, they can be moved easily and lifted to the top of a bunker

wall when the silo is being sealed and lifted to the top of the feed

out face when the cover is being removed.

√ A 6-to 12-inch layer of sand, soil or sandbags is an effective way to

anchor sheets around the perimeter of drive-over piles.

• Prevent damage to the sheet or film during the entire storage period.

√ Mow the area surrounding a bunker or pile and put up temporary

fencing as safeguards.

√ Regular inspection and repair is recommended because extensive

spoilage can develop quickly if air and water penetrate the silage mass.

• Discard all surface-spoiled silage because it has a significant negative

effect on DM intake and nutrient digestibility (Whitlock et al., 2000).

• Full-casing discarded tires were the standard for many years to anchor

polyethylene sheets on bunker silos. The waste tires are cumbersome to

handle, messy, and standing water in full-casing tires can help spread the

West Nile virus, which is another reason to avoid using full-casing tires on

beef and dairy operations (Jones et al., 2004).

Excessive Surface-spoilage in Sealed Bunker Silos and Drive-over Piles.

18



Causes.• Ensiling multiple cuttings or multiple forages in the same silo.

• Delays in harvest activities because of a breakdown or shortage of

machinery and equipment.

• Seasonal and daily weather affect crop maturity and field-wilting rates.• Differences among corn hybrids. Hybrids with the stay-green trait tend to be

wetter at a given kernel maturity than non stay-green hybrids.

Solutions.• Select the right forage hybrid or variety.

• Harvest at the optimum stage of maturity and

whole-plant DM content.

• Use the correct size of bunker or pile, and do not over-fill bunkers or piles.

• Employ well-trained, experienced people, especially those who operate

the forage harvester, packing tractor, or bagging machine.

Solutions.• Use multiple silos and smaller silos that improve forage inventory control.

• Ensile only one cutting and/or variety of ‘hay-crop’, field-wilted forage per

silo.

• Minimize the number of corn and/or sorghum hybrids per silo.

• Shorten the filling time, but do not compromise packing density.

Large Variation in the DM Content and Nutritional Quality of the Ensiled Forage.

High Silage Shrink Losses in Bunker Silos, Drive-over Piles, and Bags.

19

Product Specifications

°

•

•

•

22

inoculant handbook - dfa farm supplies > programs€¦ · · 2011-07-27what you need to know...

Documents