Acknowledgements, Publications and Tables
 from the paper:

 Maximising Output of Beef Within Cost Efficient, Environmentally Compatible Forage Conservation Systems

Padraig O’Kiely, Aidan Moloney, Thomas Keating and Patrick Shiels
Teagasc, Grange Research Centre, Dunsany, Co. Meath

Main Paper | Teagasc [Irish Agriculture & Food Development Authority] Homepage

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the considerable contribution of many colleagues to this project, in particular the technical, farm and clerical staff at Grange Research Centre. John Marron, James Hamill and Vincent McHugh, together with the staff of Grange Laboratories and other technical staff at Grange provided a vital, skilled technical contribution. Similarly, Grange farm and service staff willingly undertook considerable work in making and feeding silages, and other allied activities. Mary Smith and Ann Gilsenan always provided clerical support to a very high standard.

Many parts of the work in this report involved fruitful collaboration with other Teagasc research scientists, as well as with colleagues from University College Dublin (Prof. P. Caffrey, Dept. Animal Science and Production; Dr. E. Doyle, Dept. Industrial Microbiology) and Dublin City University (Dr. M. O’Connell, Biological Services; Dr. L. Killen, Computer Applications).

 

7. PUBLICATIONS

Corcoran, B., Shiels, P., O'Kiely, O'Connell, M. (1996). A study of bacterial population dynamics in inoculated farm-scale grass silos. Proceedings of Eleventh International Silage Conference, Aberystwyth, p 244-245.

Keating, T. and O’Kiely, P. (1998). Replacing old permanent grassland with ryegrass swards. Impact on silage-based beef production. Farm and Food, 8 (4): 28-32.

Keating, T. and O’Kiely, P. (1999). Comparison of old permanent grassland, Lolium perenne and Lolium multiflorum swards grown for silage. 1. Effects on beef production per hectare. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research (submitted).

Keating, T. and O’Kiely, P. (1999). Comparison of old permanent grassland, Lolium perenne and Lolium multiflorum swards grown for silage. 2. Effects on conservation characteristics in laboratory silos. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research (submitted).

Keating, T. and O’Kiely, P. (1999). Comparison of old permanent grassland, Lolium perenne and Lolium multiflorum swards grown for silage. 3. Effects of varying fertiliser nitrogen application rates. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research (submitted).

Keating, T. and O’Kiely, P. (1999). Comparison of old permanent grassland, Lolium perenne and Lolium multiflorum swards grown for silage. 4. Effects of varying the harvesting dates. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research (submitted).

O'Kiely, P. (1996). Aerobic stability of unwilted silages treated with additives at feed-out. Proceedings of Eleventh International Silage Conference, Aberystwyth, p 246-247.

O'Kiely, P. (1996). Performance of beef cattle offered grass silages made using bacterial inoculants. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 35: 1-15.

O’Kiely, P. (1997). Application of sulphites to grasses differing in pH and their effects on aerobic stability. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 36: 105 [also in Proceedings of 23rd Annual Research Meeting of IGAPA, p 115-116].

O’Kiely, P. (1997). Conservation characteristics of grass ensiled in laboratory silos following the application of a bacterial inoculant at ensiling. Proceedings of Fifth British Grassland Society Research Conference, p 145-146.

O’Kiely, P., Bracken, C. and Doyle, E. (1997). Aerobic stability of silages made from forages treated with sulphites at ensiling. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 36: 104 [also in Proceedings of 23rd Annual Research Meeting of IGAPA, p 111-112].

O’Kiely, P., Bracken, C. and Doyle, E. (1997). Chemical composition of silages made with the application of sulphites at ensiling. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 36: 104-105 [also in Proceedings of 23rd Annual Research Meeting of IGAPA, p 113-114].

O’Kiely, P. and Moloney, A.P. (1997). Ruminal digestion of silage in the presence of sulphites: dose response pattern. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 36: 104 [also in Proceedings of 23rd Annual Research Meeting of IGAPA, p 109-110].

O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., Killen, L., and Shannon, A. (1997). A computer program to calculate the cost of providing ruminants with home-produced feedstuffs. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 19: 23-36.

O'Riordan, E.G. and O'Kiely, P. (1996). Potential of beef production systems based on grass. Proceedings of IGAPA beef conference, Portlaoise, p 1-34.

Shiels, P., Moloney, A.P., O’Kiely, P. and Porter, M.G. (1999). A note on the estimation of the dry matter concentration of ruminal particulate digesta. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 38 (in press).

Shiels, P., O'Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P. and Caffrey, P.J. (1996). The effects of a bacterial inoculant or formic acid on the fermentation and nutritive value of grass silage and the interaction between silage and the quality of supplementary concentrates. Proceedings of Eleventh International Silage Conference, Aberystwyth, 56-57.

Shiels, P., O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P. and Caffrey, P. (1998). Digestion and nitrogen retention in steers offered grass silages made with no additive, formic acid or a bacterial inoculant, and supplemented with two levels of concentrates. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, Scarborough, England, 23-25 March, p 73.

Shiels, P., O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P. and Caffrey, P. (1998). Rumen digestion in steers offered three grass silages supplemented with two levels of concentrates. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 37: in press [also in Proceedings of Agricultural Research Forum, UCD Belfield, 19 and 20 March, 1998, p 91-92].

Shiels, P., O'Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., Corcoran, B., O'Connell, and Caffrey, P.J. (1996). The potential of different species and strains of bacteria to influence silage fermentation and nutritive value (experiment 1). Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 35 (1): 74. [also Proceedings of 22nd Annual Research Meeting of IGAPA, p 5-6].

Shiels, P., O'Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., Corcoran, B., O'Connell, and Caffrey, P.J. (1996). The potential of different species and strains of bacteria to influence silage fermentation and nutritive value (experiment 2). Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 35 (1): 64. [also Proceedings of 22nd Annual Research Meeting of IGAPA, p 69-70].

Shiels, P., O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., Corcoran, B., O’Connell, M. and Caffrey, P.J. (1998). The potential of silage inoculants with different species and strains of lactic acid bacteria to influence rumen metabolism in steers. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 37: p 114 [also in Proceedings of Agricultural Research Forum, UCD Belfield, 19 and 20 March, 1998, p 93-94].

Shiels, P., O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., O’Connell, M., Corcoran, B. and Caffrey, P.J. (1999). Conservation characteristics of grass ensiled in laboratory silos following treatment with different strains and species of lactic acid bacteria. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 38: in press [also in Proceedings of Agricultural Research Forum, UCD, Belfield, March 25 and 26, p 67-68].

Shiels, P., O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., and Caffrey, P.J. (1999). Combining sodium formate with a lactobacillus plantarum inoculant applied to herbage at ensiling. Abstract in Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 38: in press [also in Proceedings of Agricultural Research Forum, UCD, Belfield, March 25 and 26, p 65-66].

Shiels, P., O’Kiely, P., Moloney, A.P., O’Connell, M., Corcoran, B. and Caffrey, P.J. (1999). Digestibility and nitrogen retention in cattle offered silages made with different strains and species of lactic acid bacteria. Proceedings of 12th International Silage Conference, Uppsala, Sweden (in press).


Tables
1.1| 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.9 | 2.10 | 2.11 | 2.12 | 2.13 | 2.14| 2.15 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.4 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.6 | 4.7 | 4.8

Table 1.1. Botanical composition of old permanent grassland sward (% of tillers).
Grass species
%
Meadow grasses (Poa sp.)
43
Bent grasses (Agrostis sp.)
26
Perennial ryegrass
10
Scutch grass
7
Meadow foxtail
5
Yorkshire fog
3
Cocksfoot
2
Red fescue
2
Other
2
 
Table 1.2. Grass dry matter (DM) yield, digestibility (DMD) and ensilability, averaged over 3 seasons.
.
 
Growth
1
2
3
4
5
Total (mean)
Yield (t DM/ha)
OPG3
PR4
IR5
 
 
 
6.16
5.81
5.21
3.30
3.38
3.08
2.71
2.80
2.68
1.27
1.78
1.90
--
-
2.05
13.44
13.77
14.92
 
DMD (g/kg)
OPG3
PR4
IR5
 
 
 
739
768
786
741
753
769
730
764
726
726
759
753
-
-
761
(734)
(761)
(759)
 
WSC1 (g/L)
OPG3
PR4
IR5
 
 
 
20
25
32
19
25
31
12
22
29
16
22
17
-
-
21
(17)
(24)
(26)
 
Buffer. Capacity2
OPG3
PR4
IR5
 
 
 
36
36
33
37
38
37
42
43
35
52
52
34
-
-
47
(42)
(42)
(37)
1water soluble carbohydrates; 2buffering capacity (mg lactic acid/g DM); 3old permanent grassland; 4perennial ryegrass, and 5Italian ryegrass
 
Table 1.3. Estimated output (relative to the old permanent grassland sward) of harvested grass, silage, liveweight and estimated carcass gain per hectare.
 
Old permanent grassland
Perennial ryegrass
Italian ryegrass
Year 1
 
 
 
Grass DM harvested (t/ha)
14.02 (1.00)
14.31 (1.02)
16.97 (1.21)
Edible silage DM recovered (t/ha)
11.97 (1.00)
11.85 (0.99)
13.32 (1.11)
LWG (kg/ha
1531 (1.00)
1567 (1.02)
1722 (1.12)
Estimated carcass gain (kg/ha
874 (1.00)
945 (1.08)
1054 (1.21)
Year 2
 
 
 
Grass DM harvested (t/ha)
14.90 (1.00)
15.31 (1.03)
15.25 (1.02)
Edible silage DM recovered (t/ha)
10.55 (1.00)
11.20 (1.06)
10.91 (1.03)
LWG (kg/ha
1042 (1.00)
1272 (1.22)
1319 (1.27)
Estimated carcass gain (kg/ha
610 (1.00)
754 (1.24)
775 (1.27)
 
Table 1.4. Silage conservation characteristics in year 3.
 
Old permanent grassland
Perennial ryegrass
Italian ryegrass
pH
4.3
4.0
3.8
Fermentation efficiency1
2.8
3.8
4.0
Recovery of ensiled DM (g/kg)
947
955
913
 Effluent DM loss (g/kg DM ensiled)
21
26
36
Aerobic deterioration2
40
64
66
1lactic acid/ (acetic acid + ethanol); 2silage heating when exposed to air (accumulated temperature rise over 5 days exposure to air; oC).
 
Table 2.1. Conservation characteristics of unwilted silages made under difficult ensiling conditions - mean of 88 experiments.
 
No additive
Formic acid
Inoculant
SEM
Sig.
DM (g/kg)
156
164
157
0.7
***
Crude protein (g/kg DM)
222
231
224
1.3
***
in vitro DMD (g/kg)
660
671
652
1.9
***
Lactic acid (g/kg DM)
61
42
59
3.3
***
Acetic acid (g/kg DM)
40
26
39
0.8
***
Propionic acid (g/kg DM)
9
4
10
0.4
***
Butryic acid (g/kg DM)
15
8
14
0.9
***
Ethanol (g/kg DM)
18
31
17
1.2
***
WSC (g/kg DM)
11
17
11
0.5
***
Ammonia-N (g/kg N)
199
117
201
5.9
***
pH
4.77
4.55
4.77
0.032
***
Silage DM recovery (g/kg)
835
857
837
4.8
**
Accumulated oC rise to day 5
64
51
63
1.9
***
 
Table 2.2 Untreated grass composition at ensiling - mean (s.d.)
 
Experiment 2.89
Experiment 2.90
DM (g/kg)
---
151 (9.9)
Crude protein (g/kg DM)
201 (21.8)
203 (18.0)
IVDMD (g/kg)
723 (16.8)
781 (37.0)
WSC (g/L)
17 (7.1)
20 (4.7)
Buffering capacity (mEq/kg DM)
605 (51.5)
598 (56.6)
 Ash (g/kg DM)
101 (6.3)
100 (9.7)
 
Table 2.3 Mean (s.d.) silage composition 'as fed' in the growth study (day 256 to 354 post ensiling) (g/kg DM unless otherwise stated) - Experiment 2.89
 
Untreated
Formic acid
Inoculant
DM (g/kg)
166 (4.5)
191 (6.7)
165 (8.4)
in-vitro DMD (g/kg)
623 (9.0)
680 (10.5)
629 (15.9)
DOMD
536 (8.1)
604 (12.1)
530 (16.7)
Ash
111 (5.3)
99 (5.6)
130 (11.9)
Crude protein
154 (8.1)
197 (5.3)
161 (8.6)
NDF
572 (14.3)
496 (9.9)
538 (6.4)
ADF
337 (10.2)
321 (7.7)
351 (13.5)
pH
5.24 (0.126)
4.08 (0.124)
5.19 (0.180)
Lactic acid
12 (8.8)
85 (11.1)
15 (18.7)
Acetic acid
51 (3.6)
21 (5.4)
49 (6.6)
Propionic acid
16 (2.3)
2 (1.5)
16 (2.4)
Butytric acid
35 (5.9)
2 (4.7)
33 (6.6)
Total VFA
102 (7.6)
25 (8.5)
97 (10.8)
Ethanol
10 (6.8)
10 (4.3)
13 (6.7)
NH3-N (g/kg total N)
265 (32.0)
84 (21.1)
270 (36.0)
WSC (g/L)
2 (0.9)
5 (0.9)
2 (0.5)
WSC (g/kg DM)
11 (4.7)
21 (3.0)
10 (2.4)
 
Table 2.4 Mean (s.d.) chemical composition of the silages 'as fed' in the animal growth study (days 90 to 174 post ensiling) (g/kg DM unless otherwise stated) - Experiment 2.90
 
Untreated
Formic acid
Inoculant
DM (g/kg)
169 (4.4)
188 (9.6)
172 (6.6)
Crude protein
206 (21.2)
198 (8.1)
196 (9.2)
In-vitro DMD (g/kg)
749 (19.7)
780 (13.4)
767 (32.8)
DOMD
662 (20.6)
705 (14.3)
683 (37.4)
Ash
97 (4.7)
83 (3.8)
94 (4.7)
pH
4.40 (0.098)
3.97 (0.076)
4.24 (0.276)
Lactic acid
64 (14.3)
83 (11.2)
93 (32.9)
Acetic acid
60 (7.5)
17 (3.0)
39 (14.8)
Propionic acid
3 (1.0)
1 (0.3)
2 (1.0)
Butyric acid
3 (3.5)
0 (0.5)
2 (2.3)
NH3-N (g/kg total N)
80 (13.4)
48 (16.6)
79 (16.1)
Ethanol
30 (12.7)
26 (5.8)
24 (10.2)
WSC (g/kg aqueous phase)
2 (0.4)
3 (1.3)
7 (2.1)
WSC (g/kg DM)
9 (1.9)
14 (6.0)
34 (10.2)
 
Table 2.5. Effect of silage additive and concentrate supplementation on intake and animal performance (individual diets) - Experiment 2.89
Silage (S)
Untreated
Untreated
Formic
Formic
Inoculant
Inoculant
 
Sig
Concentrate (C) (kg/d)
0
3
0
3
0
3
s.e.m
SxC
Silage DMI (kg/d)
6.1a
5.1b
7.4c
5.8d
6.1a
5.1b
0.09 
**
Conc. DMI (kg/d)
0.0
2.5
0.0
2.5
0.0
2.5
0.00
-
Total DMI (kg/d)
6.1a
7.6b
7.4b
8.3c
6.1a
7.6b
0.11 
***
Starting LW (kg)
353
353
353
353
352
351
0.7
NS
Final LW (kg)
428a
475bd
450c
467b
428a
482d
4.6 
***
LWG (g/d)
772a
1241bd
989c
1162b
768a
1336d
46.7 
***
Cold carcase  (kg)
207a
237bd
215c
235b
208a
242d
2.3 
**
Carcase gain (g/d)
314a
618b
391c
599b
323ac
673d
23.0 
**
Kill-out rate (g/kg)
484
500
477
504
486
501
3.2
NS
Conformation
2.1
2.8
2.3
2.7
2.1
2.7
0.12
NS
Fatness score
3.5
4.1
3.3
4.0
3.5
3.8
0.10
NS
Kidney and channel fat  (kg)
5.8
7.1
6.1
7.6
5.8
6.8
0.38
NS
FCE (kg TDMI/kg LWG)
8.2a
6.2bc
7.6ac
7.5ac
9.0a
5.8b
0.53 
*
FCE (kg TDMI/kg cg)
21.4a
12.6b
19.4a
14.3b
21.2a
11.5b
1.02 
**
a,b,c,d - Means within the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P< 0.05); LWG - Liveweight gain; cg - Carcase gain
Table 2.6. Effect of silage additive and concentrate supplementation on feed intake and animal performance (individual diets) - Experiment 2.90.
Silage (S)
Untreated
Untreated
Formic acid
Formic acid
Inoculant
Inoculant
s.e.m.
Sig
Concentrate (C) (kg/d)
0
3
0
3
0
3
SxC
SxC
Silage DMI (kg/d)
7.06
6.17
7.94
6.71
7.35
6.30
0.104
NS
Concentrate DMI (kg/d)
0
2.5
0
2.5
0
2.5
-
-
Total DMI (kg/d)
7.06
8.67
7.94
9.21
7.35
8.80
0.104
NS
Starting LW (kg)
424
424
423
424
425
425
1.0
NS
Final LW (kg)
494
526
505
529
497
524
3.7
NS
LWG (g/d)
829
1208
985
1255
868
1187
40.8
NS
Cold carcase  (kg)
247
269
252
272
246
270
2.1
NS
Carcase gain (g/d)
416
675
487
715
407
683
24.3
NS
Conformation
2.6
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.7
3.0
0.09
NS
Fatness score
3.7
4.2
4.0
4.1
3.8
4.1
0.12
NS
Kill-out rate (g/kg)
501
511
499
513
495
515
2.9
NS
FCE (kg TDMI/kg LWG)
8.94
7.34
8.23
7.45
8.95
7.52
0.337
NS
FCE (kg total DMI/kg cg)
15.57
11.90
14.49
12.08
16.32
11.90
0.603
NS
 
Table 2.7. Untreated grass composition at ensiling - mean (s.d.)
 
Experiment 2.91
Experiment 2.92
DM (g/kg)
144 (9.9)
131 (18.3)
Crude protein (g/kg DM)
150 (16.1)
194 (25.1)
IVDMD (g/kg)
754 (13.7)
729 (27.8)
WSC (g/L)
14 (0.7)
8 (3.3)
Buffering capacity (mEq/kg DM)
501 (43.2)
489 (40.9)
Ash (g/kg DM)
94 (5.6)
118 (20.7)
 
Table 2.8 Conservation efficiency and effluent production - Experiment 2.91
 
Untreated (Control)
L. plantarum (DCU101)
L. plantarum (G24)
Ped. Spp
L. plant. (DCU101+G24) + Ped. spp.
Grass DM ensiled (t)
26.128
25.464
24.650
24.753
24.730
Edible silage DM recovered (t)
17.612
18.645
18.022
16.801
15.915
Proportion of DM recovered as edible silage
0.67
0.73
0.73
0.68
0.64
Inedible silage DM recovered (t)
0.622
0.555
0.560
0.638
0.702
Proportion of DM recovered as inedible silage
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
Total DM recovered as edible plus inedible silage (t)
18.274
18.700
18.582
17.409
16.617
Proportion of DM recovered as edible plus inedible silage
0.70
0.75
0.75
0.71
0.67
Effluent volume (l/tonne)
266
367
371
389
374
Effluent DM (g/kg)
41
49
44
55
49
Total DM output in effluent (t)
2.099
3.431
2.625
4.157
3.295
Proportion of DM lost as effluent
0.08
0.13
0.11
0.17
0.13
Proportion of DM lost during ensilage as invisible losses
0.22
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.20
  
Table 2.9 Conservation efficiency and effluent production - Experiment 2.92
 
Untreated (Control)
L. plantarum (DCU101)
L. plantarum (G24)
Ped. Spp
L. plant. (DCU101+G24) + Ped. spp.
Grass DM ensiled (t)
24.628
26.132
26.496
26.680
25.020
Edible silage DM recovered (t)
15.977
18.261
18.797
19.101
19.008
Proportion recovered as edible silage
0.65
0.70
0.71
0.72
0.76
Inedible silage DM recovered (t)
0.481
0.371
0.571
0.583
0.503
Proportion recovered as inedible silage
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
Total DM recovered as edible and inedible silage (t)
16.458
18.632
19.568
19.684
19.511
Proportion recovered as edible and inedible silage
0.67
0.72
0.73
0.74
0.78
Effluent volume (l/tonne)
318
317
338
317
275
Effluent DM (g/kg)
45
43
46
50
42
Total DM output in effluent (t)
2.690
2.562
2.985
2.916
2.079
Proportion of DM lost as effluent
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.08
Proportion of DM lost as invisible losses
0.22
0.18
0.16
0.15
0.14
 
Table 2.10. Mean (s.d.) chemical composition of the silages ‘as fed’ to the animals in the growth study (Day 290 to 402 post ensiling) (g/kg DM unless otherwise stated) - Experiment 2.91
 
Untreated (Control)
L. plantarum (DCU101)
L. plantarum (G24)
Ped. Spp
L. plant. (DCU101+G24) + Ped. spp.
DM (g/kg)
174 (6.4)
176 (5.3)
176 (6.9)
169 (7.0)
171 (8.2)
Crude protein
142 (8.2)
140 (6.1)
142 (4.0)
144 (6.1)
142 (6.3)
in-vitro DMD (g/kg)
714 (6.9)
709 (10.6)
721 (7.5)
713 (8.0)
711 (9.0)
Ash
91 (5.7)
91 (8.6)
91 (7.3)
94 (6.4)
89 (3.5)
DOMD
643 (5.8)
638 (11.0)
650 (4.5)
641 (5.8)
635 (17.0)
pH
3.95 (0.186)
3.93 (0.129)
3.90 (0.161)
4.03 (0.161)
3.99 (0.130)
Lactic acid
116 (28.2)
129 (22.2)
130 (21.6)
109 (17.3)
115 (19.4)
Acetic acid
34 (18.8)
32 (15.0)
28 (15.4)
39 (13.7)
38 (15.3)
Propionic acid
2 (1.2)
1 (0.6)
1 (0.7)
2 (0.7)
2 (0.5)
Butyric acid
1 (0.1)
1 (0.1)
1 (0.1)
1 (0.1)
1 (0.1)
Total VFA
37 (20.0)
34 (16.0)
30 (16.1)
42 (14.4)
41 (15.9)
Ethanol
11 (1.5)
13 (5.1)
9 (1.2)
12 (2.4)
12 (1.2)
NH3-N (g/kg total N)
87 (7.4)
85 (7.6)
75 (8.0)
85 (9.7)
86 (6.8)
WSC (g/L)
3 (0.7)
4 (0.6)
4 (0.5)
3 (0.0)
4 (0.8)
WSC (g/kg DM)
16 (3.0)
18 (2.5)
17 (3.0)
15 (0.7)
17 (3.9)
 
Table 2.11. Mean (s.d.) chemical composition of the silages as fed in the animal growth study (g/kg DM unless otherwise stated) - Experiment 2.92
 
Untreated (Control)
L. plantarum (DCU101)
L. plantarum (G24)
Ped. Spp
L. plant. (DCU101+G24) + Ped. spp.
DM (g/kg)
161 (6.3)
162 (5.8)
161 (6.1)
166 (7.0)
167 (8.9)
Crude protein
162 (5.3)
177 (14.3)
172 (5.7)
169 (7.3)
168 (6.8)
In-vitro DMD (g/kg)
672 (22.9)
694 (19.1)
668 (27.9)
694 (24.0)
683 (12.0)
Ash
92 (10.0)
95 (4.2)
97 (5.1)
94 (4.0)
97 (5.7)
DOMD
594 (23.3)
613 (17.7)
596 (19.2)
617 (20.9)
603 (11.0)
pH
4.17 (0.399)
4.11 (0.135)
4.14 (0.228)
4.14 (0.230)
4.11 (0.227)
Lactic acid
85 (34.8)
87 (21.1)
73 (25.8)
106 (14.5)
73 (23.9)
Acetic acid
37 (15.6)
40 (5.2)
41 (10.6)
36 (14.1)
31 (13.7)
Propionic acid
4 (4.1)
4 (1.1)
4 (2.9)
4 (3.0)
4 (2.9)
Butyric acid
3 (6.0)
4 (5.0)
4 (6.4)
3 (3.3)
5 (4.6)
NH3-N (g/kg total N)
113 (71.3)
111 (14.8)
107 (47.9)
97 (30.7)
112 (38.4)
Ethanol
7 (1.4)
9 (5.6)
8 (0.7)
8 (2.1)
6 (1.7)
WSC (g/L)
3 (0.7)
3 (0.6)
2 (0.7)
2 (0.8)
2 (1.1)
WSC (g/kg DM)
16 (3.1)
15 (3.0)
10 (3.7)
11 (3.6)
9 (5.5)
 
Table 2.12. Silage additive effects on feed intake and animal performance - Experiment 2.91
 
Untreated (Control)
L. plantarum (DCU101)
L. plantarum (G24)
Ped. Spp
L. plant. (DCU101+G24) + Ped. spp.
Sem
Sig
Silage DMI (kg/d)
5.82
5.77
5.95
5.60
5.83
0.149
NS
Concentrate DMI (kg/d)
1.70
1.70
1.70
1.70
1.70
-
-
Total DMI (kg/d)
7.52
7.48
7.65
7.30
7.53
0.149
NS
Starting LW (kg)
426
426
425
427
429
0.7
NS
Final LW (kg)
535
523
526
536
536
4.8
NS
LWG (g/d)
977
867
899
966
960
47.5
NS
Carcase weight (g/d)
266
263
265
270
264
2.6
NS
Estimated carcase gain (g/d)
476
443
469
501
444
23.3
NS
Kill-out rate (g/kg)
498
502
505
504
493
3.8
NS
Carcase conformation
2.8
2.8
2.9
2.8
2.6
0.12
NS
Fat score
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.4
3.8
0.1
*
Kidney and channel fat wt. (kg)
8.9
8.8
8.6
9.5
9.8
0.64
NS
Feed conversion efficiency (FCE)
kg total DMI/kg LWG1
7.60
8.72
8.70
7.76
8.03
0.386
NS
kg total DMI/kg cg2
15.82
17.42
16.90
14.95
17.59
0.912
NS
1 Liveweight gain, 2Carcass weight gain
Table 2.13. Silage additive treatment effects on feed intake and animal performance - Experiment 2.92
 
Untreated (Control)
L. plantarum (DCU101)
L. plantarum (G24)
Ped. Spp
L. plant. (DCU101+G24) + Ped. spp.
Sem
Sig
Silage DMI (kg/d)
5.97
5.91
5.60
5.85
5.87
0.135
NS
Concentrate DMI (kg/d)
1.70
1.70
1.70
1.70
1.70
-
-
Total DMI (kg/d)
7.67
7.61
7.30
7.55
7.57
0.135
NS
Starting LW (kg)
418
417
417
417
418
1.7
NS
Final LW (kg)
522
518
515
517
522
4.1
NS
LWG (g/d)
927
904
873
889
935
32.6
NS
Cold carcase weight (kg)
263
261
263
263
266
2.4
NS
Estimated carcase gain (g/d)
478
473
485
483
506
18.6
NS
Kill-out rate (g/kg)
504
505
510
508
509
4.3
NS
Carcase conformation score
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.5
0.14
NS
Fatness score
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.1
4.1
0.09
NS
Feed conversion efficiency (FCE)
kg total DMI/kg LWG1
8.4
8.7
8.5
8.6
8.2
0.33
NS
kg total DMI/kg cg2
16.5
16.3
15.4
16.0
15.2
0.69
NS
1 Liveweight gain, 2Carcass weight gain
Table 2.14. Chemical and microbiological composition of silage after 32 days ensilage.
 
No additive
Formic acid
Sodium formate
(3 ml)
Sodium formate
(6 ml)
L.plant
L.plant + sod. formate
s.e.d.
Sig.
DM (g/kg)
149
160
166
167
167
163
1.48
***
pH
5.4
4.6
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.3
.058
***
NH3-N (g/kg N)
148
67
145
148
165
149
5.37
***
Lactic acid (g/kg DM)
29
43
55
56
39
44
2.94
***
Ethanol (g/kg DM)
13
15
15
13
13
16
4.21
NS
Acetic acid (g/kg DM)
44
24
47
47
47
46
2.52
***
Propionic acid (g/kg DM)
5
1
2
2
6
3
.624
*
Butyric acid (g/kg DM)
17
0
1
1
6
7
1.14
*
Lactic acid bacteria1
7.91
7.81
7.83
7.95
7.55
7.85
0.12
NS
Enterobacteria1
2.83
2.75
2.85
2.85
2.89
2.83
.209
NS
Clostridia1
3.80
4.40
3.74
4.09
5.53
3.71
.697
**
1Log10 CFU/g crop
Table 2.15. Conservation characteristics in Experiments 2.95 and 2.96.
EXPERIMENT 1: [DO=day of opening; DMR=DM recovered; CP=crude protein; IVDMD-In-vitro DMD; Lact=lactic acid; Acet=acetic acid; Prop=propionic acid; Butyr=butyric acid]
 
Silage (S) 
DO
DM1
DMR1
CP2
IVDMD1
pH
Lact2
NH3-N3
WSC2
Acet2
Prop2
Butyr2
Ethanol2
No additive
 
7
28
60
100
142
158
147
147
940
923
884
853
236
242
230
226
624
609
633
616
4.95
4.68
4.63
4.85
62
90
104
79
70
100
110
140
12
11
6
6
12
18
21
32
1
3
2
4
1
2
1
3
14
15
13
14
Na formate
 
7
28
60
100
148
150
147
151
999
931
865
863
234
249
239
226
649
628
620
625
5.00
4.75
4.85
4.60
67
92
87
90
70
190
140
130
18
18
6
11
13
20
23
31
1
5
6
5
1
3
4
6
12
15
13
12
L. plantarum
 
7
28
60
100
147
154
151
156
987
939
909
879
240
241
228
228
644
622
618
589
4.93
4.58
4.58
4.48
59
92
91
81
70
90
110
120
6
12
11
11
12
16
21
29
1
2
3
3
1
1
1
2
12
14
11
12
Na formate
+ L. plant.
7
28
60
100
139
147
139
142
962
925
822
825
237
238
209
220
624
616
621
625
5.68
5.30
5.63
5.00
46
62
56
63
90
140
210
190
6
12
6
6
16
23
30
42
1
10
17
8
3
1
14
15
16
17
15
13
Formic acid
 
7
28
60
100
135
151
150
152
1010
894
863
884
232
254
243
256
655
658
648
655
4.58
4.60
4.53
4.33
10
14
27
36
30
40
50
70
70
40
19
11
3
4
8
16
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
8
39
49
53
Significance
 
s.e.m.
S
D
SXD
2.7
***
NS
*
33.8
**
***
NS
4.1
***
***
*
12.3
***
NS
NS
0.134
***
***
NS
8.1
***
***
NS
12.4
***
***
NS
1.4
***
***
***
1.9
***
***
NS
1.3
***
***
NS
1.9
***
**
NS
1.4
***
***
***
EXPERIMENT 2: [DO=day of opening; CP=crude protein; IVDMD-In-vitro DMD; Lact=lactic acid; Acet=acetic acid; Prop=propionic acid; Butyr=butyric acid]
 
Silage (S) 
DO
DM1
CP2
IVDMD1
pH
Lact2
NH3-N3
WSC2
Acet2
Prop2
Butyr2
Ethanol2
No additive
 
7
28
60
164
167
163
186
184
195
818
820
818
4.58
4.28
4.08
55
90
121
41
59
84
30
15
10
17
17
25
1
0
0
7
0
0
24
26
32
Na formate
 
7
28
60
169
167
170
181
185
190
820
831
830
4.5
4.33
4.13
64
93
116
42
56
71
40
15
9
19
14
22
0
0
0
6
0
0
17
26
33
L. plantarum
 
7
28
60
161
164
169
197
189
192
816
814
814
4.33
4.08
3.9
76
128
144
41
43
66
26
15
15
15
14
12
0
0
0
7
0
0
22
23
21
Na formate
+ L. plant.
7
28
60
166
169
171
189
190
192
829
833
831
4.33
4.08
3.93
84
135
145
37
42
46
30
15
19
14
13
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
16
14
Formic acid
 
7
28
60
183
166
163
185
211
225
814
818
816
4.6
4.5
4.28
8
12
46
7
9
23
120
40
15
2
3
8
0
1
0
0
1
0
12
63
97
Significance
 
s.e.m.
S
D
SXD
2.1
*
NS
***
2.8
***
***
***
4.1
**
NS
NS
0.081
***
***
***
3.2
***
***
***
3.2
**
***
*
6.3
***
***
***
1.1
***
***
***
0.2
NS
NS
NS
0.3
***
***
***
3.7
***
***
***
1=g/kg; 2=g/kg DM; 3=g/kg N
 
Table 3.1. Aerobic stability of silages in Experiment 3.1.
Additive applied
None
Sulphites (ml/kg)
Sodium chloride (g/kg)
SEM
Rate applied
 
0.2
0.4
0.6
2
4
 
Days to pH rise
3.0
6.0
10.7
12.7
4.0
5.3
0.33***
Days to pH max.
9.7
11.7
12.0
12.7
10.0
10.3
0.43**
Max pH rise
5.1
4.8
2.3
0.4
4.9
4.7
0.49***
Days to oC rise
1.3
3.0
7.7
11.7
2.0
2.0
1.08***
Days to oC max
6.3
9.3
10.3
12.0
6.0
7.0
0.58***
Max. oC rise
25
26
19
5
27
24
4.2*
Accumulated oC rise to day 5
85
32
9
7
80
56
9.1***
Table 3.2. Aerobic stability of silages (Experiments 3.2 to 3.6).
Experiment 3.2
Experiment 3.3
Additive applied
 
Sulphites (ml/kg)
 
 
Sulphites (ml/kg)
 
Rate applied
None
0.4
0.8
1.2
SEM
None
0.4
0.8
1.2
SEM
Days to pH rise
4.0
7.5
9.0
9.0
0.49
4.0
7.5
9.0
9.0
0.49
Days to pH max.
6.5
8.0
9.0
9.0
0.11***
8.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
0.11***
Max. pH rise
4..9
1.5
0
0
0.17***
4.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.17***
Days to oC rise
2.0
3.5
9.0
9.0
1.43
3.5
4.5
5.0
2.0
1.43
Days to oC max.
6.0
7.5
9.0
9.0
0.39***
7.5
8.0
8.0
9.0
0.39***
Max. oC rise
3.4
28
4
4
3.5
32
21
12
3
3.5
Accumulated oC rise to day 5
76
12
11
9
2.3***
22
10
10
9
2.3***
Experiment 3.4
Experiment 3.5
Additive applied
 
Sulphites (ml/kg)
 
 
Sulphites (ml/kg)
 
Rate applied
None
0.4
0.8
1.2
SEM
None
0.4
0.8
1.2
SEM
Days to pH rise
5.0
7.0
9.0
9.0
0.49
7.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
0.49
Days to pH max.
8.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
0.11***
8.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
0.11
Max. pH rise
4.4
2.2
0
0.2
0.17***
2.1
0
0
0
0.17***
Days to oC rise
2.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
1.43
4.5
6.5
9.0
9.0
1.43
Days to oC max.
8.0
8.0
8.0
3.5
0.39***
8.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
0.39***
Max. oC rise
36
27
6
4
3.5
25
10
3
3
3.5
Accumulated oC rise to day 5
40
12
11
12
2.3***
11
8
10
9
2.3***
Experiment 3.6
Additive applied
None
Sulphites (ml/kg)
SEM
Rate applied
 
0.4
0.8
1.2
 
Days to pH rise
6.5
8.5
9.0
9.0
0.49
Days to pH max.
8.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
0.11***
Max. pH rise
3.1
0.2
0
0.1
0.17***
Days to oC rise
5.0
5.0
6.5
6.5
1.43
Days to oC max.
6.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
0.39***
Max. oC rise
22
20
13
7
3.5
Accumulated oC rise to day 5
15
9
9
9
2.3***
 
Table 3.3. In vitro rumen DM digestibility (IVDMD) and supernatant pH.
Rumen liquor source
Sheep
Steer offered silage
Steer offered silage plus conc
Sulphites (g/kg fresh silage)
DMD1
pH2
DMD1
pH2
DMD1
pH2
0
630
7.03
668
7.22
619
7.27
0.4
639
7.08
672
7.25
618
7.26
0.8
642
7.16
654
7.25
636
7.26
1.2
625
7.25
639
7.2
626
7.30
2.0
623
7.20
611
7.29
622
7.26
4.0
608
7.26
574
7.24
592
7.27
SEM (DMD) : Main effect of rumen liquor = 3.5 (P<0.01); main effect of dose rate = 4.9 (P<0.001); interaction = 8.5 (P<0.001); SEM (pH) : Main effect of rumen liquor = 0.007 (P<0.001); main effect of dose rate = 0.011 (P<0.001); interaction = 0.019 (P<0.001)
1Phase I of Tilley and Terry (1963) g/kg; 2supernatant following centrifugation after 48 h incubation
 
Table 3.4. Aerobic stability of silages in Experiment 3.8.
Crop
 
Grass
 
 
 
Maize
 
 
Additive at ensiling
None
Sulphites
SEM
None
 
Sulphites
 
SEM
Rate applied
 
Low
Med.
High
 
 
Low
Med.
High
 
Days to pH rise
4.3
2.5
2.5
2.3
0.27**
6.3
5.8
4.5
4.5
0.44*
Days to pH max.
6.0
6.0
6.0
5.5
0.14
8.0
8.0
7.8
8.0
0.13
Max. pH rise
3.9
4.2
4.3
4.4
0.09*
3.8
4.8
4.6
4.9
0.23*
Days to oC rise
2.0
1.8
2.0
2.0
0.24
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.8
0.24
Days to oC max.
4.0
4.8
3.0
3.3
0.27**
6.5
6.3
7.5
4.8
0.60**
Max. oC rise
22
19
17
19
1.9
23
23
18
20
1.6
Accumulated oC rise to day 5
44
55
48
55
3.0
21
29
46
48
5.4*
 
Table 3.5. Microbiological enumeration (log10 cfu/g forage) and forage temperature (mean + sd) at selected times in Experiment 3.9.
Forage wilting (h)
0
0
0
24
24
24
48
48
48
Rate of sulphites (ml/kg)
0
0.2
0.4
0
0.2
0.4
0
0.2
0.4
Lactic acid bacteria
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Grass at harvest
4.30
 
 
7.54
 
 
8.21
 
 
24 h later
7.51
8.32
8.03
8.21
8.09
8.20
8.38
8.34
8.34
Silage (28d)
ensiled at 0 h
8.24
8.22
8.19
8.49
8.56
8.53
>9
>9
>9
Ensiled at 24h
8.51
>9
8.50
>9
>9
>9
>9
>9
>9
Yeast
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Grass at harvest
5.42
 
 
7.44
 
 
>9
 
 
24 h later
6.98
5.37
5.36
8.87
8.63
8.05
8.08
8.23
8.08
Silage (28d)
ensiled at 0 h
7.33
7.58
8.31
8.50
8.62
8.43
9.02
9.30
9.19
Ensiled at 24h
9.21
8.92
8.72
8.86
8.93
>9
9.37
>9
>9
Forage temperature (oC) At ensiling
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
0 h delay
19(0.6)
21(0.6)
19(0.6)
17(0.6)
18(2.1)
20(0.0)
21(0.6)
21(0.6)
22(0.6)
24 h delay
31(2.3)
28(2.0)
27(1.0)
31(1.7)
29(3.8)
29(0.6)
26(1.0)
31(1.2)
26(4.9)
 
Table 3.6. Chemical analysis of silages after 10 days in the aerobic stability unit.
Wilting (h)
Delay (h)
Sulphite rate
Day to pH rise
Day to pH max
Max pH rise
Days to temp. rise
Days to temp. max
Max temp. rise
Accum. OC to day 5
0
0
None
2.0 (0.00)
5.7 (0.58)
4.7 (0.06)
2.0 (0.00)
5.0 (0.00)
28 (3.5)
77 (.9.3)
 
 
Med
2.3 (0.58)
5.7 (0.58)
4.4 (0.42)
2.0 (0.00)
4.0 (1.00)
21 (2.0)
68 (7.4)
 
 
High
2.0 (0.00)
6.0 (0.00)
4.5 (0.72)
2.0 (0.00)
5.3 (0.58)
27 (5.7)
74 (11.0)
0
24
None
3.7 (0.58)
6.0 (1.00)
4.3 (0.25)
3.0 (0.00)
5.0 (0.00)
22 (4.4)
54 (15.0)
 
 
Med
5.0 (0.00)
7.0 (0.00)
4.4 (0.15)
2.7 (1.15)
6.3 (0.58)
26 (2.1)
33 (7.9)
 
 
High
4.3 (0.58)
6.7 (0.58)
4.7 (0.12)
2.0 (0.0)
5.7 (0.58)
26 (3.6)
45 (17.9)
24
0
None
3.0 (1.00)
6.7 (0.58)
4.7 (0.12)
2.0 (0.00)
5.0 (1.00)
32 (4.4)
66 (22.2)
 
 
Med
3.7 (0.58)
6.7 (0.58)
4.6 (0.10)
2.3 (0.58)
6.3 (0.58)
31 (4.0)
57 (17.4)
 
 
High
4.0 (0.00)
6.7 ( 0.58)
4.5 (0.56)
2.0 (0.00)
5.3 (0.58)
36 (2.6)
69 (14.6)
24
24
None
4.7(1.15)
7.0 (0.00)
4.2 (0.15)
1.0 (0.00)
7.0 (0.00)
31 (1.7)
32 (9.2)
 
 
Med
4.7 (0.58
7.0 (0.00
4.0 (0.20)
1.3 (0.58)
7.0 (0.00)
31 (4.4)
29 (6.5)
 
 
High
3.3 (1.15)
7.0 (0.00)
4.1 (0.21)
1.3 (0.58)
6.3 (1.15)
29 (1.5)
39 (17.8)
48
0
None
2.0 (0.00)
9.0 (0.00)
3.9 (0.25)
2.7 (2.90)
9.0 (0.00)
27 (2.9)
15 (4.7)
 
 
Med
2.3 (0.58)
9.0 (0.00)
4.0 (0.69)
1.3 (0.58)
8.3 (0.58)
23 (3.2)
19 (4.4)
 
 
High
1.7 (0.58)
9.0 (0.0)
4.4 (0.12)
2.0 (1.00)
8.0 (1.00)
28 (2.6)
17 (3.8)
48
24
None
1.0 (0)
9.0 (0)
3.5 (0.61)
1.3 (0.58)
9.0 (0)
25 (3.2)
17 (3.8)
 
 
Med
1.0 (0)
9.0 (0)
4.1 (0.17)
1.3 (0.58)
8l.3 (0.58)
24 (6.5)
25 (8.1)
 
 
High
1.0 (0)
9.0 (0)
3.1 (1.01)
1.7 (0.58)
8.7 (0.58)
20 (4.2)
17 (7.0)
SEM – wilting
 
0.14***
0.10***
0.08***
0.20
0.15***
0.9***
2.8***
 
- delay
 
0.11***
0.08***
0.07***
0.16
0.12***
0.7
2.3***
- sulphites
 
0.14*
0.10
0.08
0.20
0.15
0.9
2.8
 
 Table 3.7. Chemical composition and conservation characteristics of silages in Experiment 3.10.
Crop
 
 
 
Grass
 
 
 
Maize
 
 
Additive
None
Sulphites
SEM
None
Sulphites
SEM
Rate applied
 
Low
Med.
High
 
 
Low
Med.
High
 
DM1
146
145
145
150
1.7
171
176
173
176
2.9
DMD1
610
610
624
620
11.0
712
716
722
722
3.8
C. protein2
171
172
174
172
1.4
141
139
139
137
2.5
NH3-N3
103
109
112
111
2.4
69
64
67
71
1.4*
PH
4.58
4.53
4.45
4.33
0.039**
3.70
3.73
3.70
3.70
0.013
Lactic acid2
35
27
56
71
5.6**
126
126
136
126
3.7
Ethanol2
18
18
19
19
0.6
26
25
29
29
3.5
Acetic acid2
69
65
54
42
2.3***
54
43
40
35
3.7*
Propionic acid2
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.1
0.17
2.8
2.1
1.2
0.7
0.43*
Butyric acid2
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.16
0.2
0
0.1-
0
0.08
WSC2
-
-
-
-
-
17
16
17
14
1.2
Effluent production4
115
116
118
110
4.6
162
155
159
151
4.9
Silage DM recovery1
857
851
857
895
11.8
792
821
806
828
16.0
1g/kg, 2g/kg DM, 3g/kg N, 4g/kg grass
Table 3.8. Chemical composition of silages in Experiment 3.11.

Wilting

Delay

Sulphite

DM

pH

Lactic acid

Ethanol

Acetic

WSC

NH3-N

(h)

(h)

Rate

(g/kg)

  

(g/kg DM)

(g/kg DM)

(g/kg DM)

(g/kg DM)

(g/kg N)

0

0

None

167

3.93

133

9

17

18

74
   

Med

165

3.93

138

8

19

19

76
 

 

High

162

3.93

135

11

16

21

79
0 24

None

158

4.20

106

12

23

11

94
   

Med

153

4.13

125

14

23

15

82

 

  

High

157

4.20

122

13

22

11

101
24

0

None

193

4.13

127

6

23

13

99
   

Med

192

4.13

136

6

19

17

114
 

 

High

191

4.23

129

6

18

12

115
24 24

None

184

4.57

104

12

30

10

136

 

 

Med

184

4.57

104

12

35

7

154
   

High

185

4.60

106

11

29

8

145
48 0

None

311

4.57

89

3

22

15

124
   

Med

307

4.57

89

3

28

15

118
   

High

301

4.57

94

3

30

17

126
48 24

None

300

4.63

83

4

34

13

144
   

Med

297

4.67

74

4

41

11

153
   

High

306

4.63

81

3

36

13

154

SEM – Wilting

  

0.9***

0.019***

1.7***

0.3***

0.9***

0.5***

2.8***

- delay

    

0.7***

0.016***

1.4***

0.2***

0.7***

0.4***

2.3***

- sulphites

  

0.9

0.019

1.7

0.3

0.9

0.5

2.8
 
 Table 3.9. Silage chemical composition.

Aerobiosis Pre-ensiling (h)

Application rate of sulphites

Lactic acid (g/kg DM)

Acetic Acid (g/kg DM)

Ethanol (g/kg DM)

IVDMD (g/kg)

NH3 (g/kg DM)

DM (g/kg)

0

0

88

26

7

713

14

262
 

Low

91

26

8

709

16

259
 

Med

79

19

9

723

18

258
 

High

54

22

11

731

19

263

24

0

62

32

9

684

12

248
 

Low

60

33

10

700

15

244
 

Med

58

28

11

706

16

251
 

High

54

27

10

701

18

249

SEM1

  

2.5

1.7

0.7

7.5

0.7

3.8

Signif. 1

  

***

NS

*

NS

NS

NS
1Interaction
 
Table 4.1. Default values in predicting feed output.
 

Grazed1

Hay2

Grass silage2

Maize1

Cereal1,3 grain

Fodder1,3 Beet roots
     

Conventional4

Big bale

      
     

Unwilted

Wilted

Unwilted

Wilted

      

Crop yield5 (t DM/ha)

11.1

4.5

Tab 4.2

Tab 4.2

Tab 4.2

Tab 4.2

11.5

Tab 4.3

13.1 (15.4)

Crop dry matter (DM; g/kg)

170

200

200

200

200

200

250

860 (500)

160 (147)

Crop DMD (g/kg)

780

620

Tab 4.2

Tab 4.2

Tab 4.2

Tab 4.2

730

Tab 4.3 (660)

800 (740)

Efficiency of grazing (DM; g/kg)

740

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Field losses (DM; g/kg)

-

200

0

100

0

70

-

-

-

Storage losses (DM; g.kg)

-

50

200

100

170

80

160

30 (120)

160 (200)

Units digestibility loss (g/kg)

-

50

20

30

20

30

20

-(20)

20 (20)

Feed ME (MJ/kg DM)

11.1

8.8

-6

-6

-6

-6

10.6

Tab 4.3 (10.0)

12.1 (10.9)

Feed output to consume

                  

-DM (t/ha)

8.2

3.4

---

---

---

---

9.7

(10.0)

11.0 (13.1)

-digestible DM (t/ha)

6.4

1.9

---

---

---

---

6.9

  

8.6 (9.4)

-ME (GJ/ha)

91

30

---

---

---

---

102

---

133 (143)
1annual output; 2single harvest output; 3whole crop silage values in parentheses; 4single, double or precision-chop; 5harvestable; 6Table 2 + ME prediction equation
 
Table 4.2. Equations used for predicting grass dry matter (DM) yield and digestibility of perennial ryegrass plus white clover and old permanent swards grown for silage.

Harvest

Default date

Yield (t DM/ha)

Digestibility (g/kg)
 

Regrowing

Constant

Coefficient1

Constant

Coefficient1

Perennial ryegrass + white clover

1

Apr 1

-0.87

0.13

917

-2.97

2

May 25

-0.88

0.13

802

-1.34

3

Jul 6

-0.74

0.10

729

0.91

4

Aug 15

-0.07

0.07

744

0.19

Old permanent sward

  

1

Apr 1

-0.96

0.13

896

-2.94

2

May 25

-0.86

0.12

789

-1.51

3

Jul 6

-0.59

0.09

723

0.89

4

Aug 15

-0.10

0.06

704

1.47

1multiply by number of days regrowing
Table 4.3. Defaults for cereal outputs
 
Wheat
Barley
Oats
 
Winter
Spring
Winter
Spring
Winter
Spring
Yield of harvested grain (t DM/ha)
7.4
6.4
6.4
5.3
6.4
5.3
Grain DMD (g/kg)
860
860
860
850
790
790
Grain ME (MJ/kg DM)
13.4
13.2
13.0
12.8
11.7
11.6
Table 4.4. Unit cost (£/GJ ME consumed) of providing cattle with a range of home produced feeds.
 

Good management and favourable growth conditions

Variable conditions

Grazed Grass

3.2

3.2-4.9

1st-cut silage (30 May)

7.0

5.6-9.6

2nd-cut silage (20 July)

7.7

7.7- 11.8

Maize silage

7.7

6.3-12.2

Fodder beet roots

10.9

10.9-14.2

Rolled barley (spring)

11.8

-

Rolled barley + EU area aid1

8.4

-

Rolled wheat (winter)

10.5

-

Rolled wheat + EU area aid1

8.1

-

Whole crop wheat silage2

7.8

-

Whole crop wheat silage2 + EU area aid

6.0

-

Commercial beef ration3

13.3

-
1European Union area aid; 2based on grain to straw DM ratio of 1:0.9, 500 g DM/kg, DMD of 660 g/kg, ME of 10.0 MJ/kg DM and conservation efficiency of 880 g/kg DM; 3ME = 11.3 MJ/kg, cost = £150/tonne; Note: A land rental charge is not included
Table 4.5. Effect of including a land rental charge on the unit cost of various feeds.
 
No land charge
Land charge
(Land rental charged)5
Grazed grass1
 
 
(£183/ha/year)
£/t DDM
48.1
76.6
 
£/GJ ME
3.4
5.4
 
First-cut silage2
 
 
(£96/ha for first cut)
£/t DDM
103.6
130.9
 
£/GJ ME
7.0
8.9
 
Rolled barley3
 
 
(£259/ha/year)
£/tDDM
177.0
240.3
 
£/GJ ME
11.8
16.0
 
Fodder beet roots4
 
 
(£366/ha/year)
£/t DDM
167.3
209.9
 
£/GJ ME
10.8
13.5
 
111.1 t DM/ha at 170 g DM/kg, utilisation of 740 g/kg, DMD of 780 g/kg and 11.1 MJ ME/kg DM; 25.9 t grass DM/ha at 200 g DM/kg, conservation efficiency of 800 g/kg, DMD of 740 g/kg and 10.9 MJ/kg DM; 35.0 t grain DM/ha at 800 g DM/kg, storage efficiency of 970 g/kg, DMD of 850 g/kg and 12.8 MJ ME/kg DM - no EU area aid included; 413.1 t root DM/ha at 160 g DM/kg, harvest and storage efficiency of 840 g/kg, DMD of 800 g/kg and 12.1 MJ ME/kg DM; 5based on con-acre prices obtained from local auctioneers.
 
Table 4.6. Effect of variation in yield and quality of grass at harvesting on the unit cost of silage consumed.
 Unit cost (£/t digestible DM consumed)
Grass yield (t DM/ha)1
3
4
5
6
7
172
141
120
109
99
Unit cost (£/t digestible DM consumed)
Grass quality (g digestible DM/kg DM)2
620
670
720
770
132
122
113
106
1at constant grass DMD of 740 g/kg, 2at constant grass DM yield of 5.87 t/ha
Table 4.7. Average unit cost of providing rolled cereal grains to ruminants.
 
Wheat Winter
Wheat Spring
Barley Winter
Barley Spring
Grain1 yield (t/ha)
8.4
6.8
7.4
6.2
Input (£/ha)
 
 
 
 
Production2
703
641
656
564
Storage
98
79
86
72
Feeding3
119
96
104
88
Total Output
919
816
846
724
Grain DM consumed4 (t/ha)
6.5
5.3
5.8
4.8
Grain DDM consumed5 (t/ha)
5.6
4.5
5.0
4.1
Grain ME consumed6 (GJ/ha)
87.3
69.7
74.7
61.6
Cost/unit
 
 
 
 
Grain DM consumed (£/t DM)
141
154
148
150
Grain DDM consumed (£/t DDM)
164
180
172
177
Grain ME consumed (£/GJ ME)
10.5
11.7
11.3
11.8
Cost unit (incl. EU Area Aid)7
 
 
 
 
Grain DM consumed (£/t DM)
109
115
111
107
Grain DDM consumed (£/t DDM)
127
134
129
126
Grain ME consumed (£/GJ ME)
8.1
8.7
8.6
8.4
1grain of 200 g moisture/kg; 2costs associated with fertiliser, liming, sowing, sprays, harvesting, other operations and ancillary items. A land rental charge is not included; 3rolling grain and transporting to animals; 4storage loss of 30 g/kg; 5DMD values of 860, 860, 860, 850, 790 and 790 g/kg, respectively; 6ME values of 13.4, 13.2, 13.0, 12.8, 11.7 and 11.6 MJ/kg DM, respectively, and 7£208/ha
 
Table 4.8. Effects of variation in yield of fodder beet on unit costs.
 
Yield (t DM/ha at harvesting)1
 
9
12
15
18
Inputs (£/ha)
1005
1011
1017
1023
Production2
70
94
117
141
Storage
220
293
367
440
 Feeding
1295
1396
1501
1603
Total Cost/unit
 
 
 
 
DDM consumed (£/t DDM)
219.6
177.8
152.7
136.0
ME consumed (£/GJ ME)
14.2
11.5
9.8
8.8
1160 g DM/kg, efficiency of harvest and storage of 840 g/kg, DMD of 800 g/kg and 12.1 MJ ME/kg DM; 2costs associated with fertiliser, liming, sowing, sprays, harvesting, other operations and ancillary items. A land rental charge is not included.