Evaluation of Cool Season Grass Haylage Fermented with Small Grains (Vermont Mini-Silo Experiment) MATERIALS AND METHODS

Transcription

1 Evaluation of Cool Season Grass Haylage Fermente with Small Grains (Vermont Mini-Silo Experiment) Dairy farmers are always looking for strategies to reuce input costs. Grain purchase is an area of significant input cost for most airy farms. Many farmers are intereste in growing some of their own grain, but on t have the require grain infrastructure, such as a ryer or storage bins. Most farmers store fee in bag silo, tower silo, low-oxygen tower silo, bunker silos. Small grains such as oats an barley are well aapte to the Vermont climate an are also common feestuffs. The goal of this experiment was to test the potential to store/hanle a grain crop by mixing it with perennial forages an storing the combine fee in a common storage structure. This experiment evaluate the impact of fermentation on processe grains whole, rolle, or hammere. Forage quality was assesse an compare with stanar practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS The mini-silos were constructe on July 15, 2011 by using a 4 by 24 PVC pipe, an two rubber caps, one on the bottom, an one on top. Each mini-silo was esigne to be air-tight an impervious to light to represent a tower silo. Each minisilo was fille with a 5 to 1 ratio of haylage to grain, ry matter basis. Silos were fille with 3.6 pouns of haylage with 48% moisture an 0.48 pouns of grain such as oats, barley, an shell corn at 14% moisture. Grains were either hammer mille, rolle, or whole kernel. The corn coul not be rolle because the see or kernel was too har to place in the roller evice each treatment was replicate four times. Silos with alfalfa/tall fescue serve as a control treatment. The silo contents were mixe with a small tumbler mixer to evenly mix the recipe. Once mixe properly, the recipe was place in the PVC tube an place uner a SP 56(silage packer) to be packe like a farmer s silo. Once mixe an packe, the minisilo receive a rubber cap with a 4-inch hose clamp, an place in a rack to being its fermentation process. A month after the mini-silos ha been fermenting, they were opene, subsample an place in a 10 by 13 Mil poly nylon bag an vacuume seale using a Uline 20 moel H-175 an shippe to Cumberlan Valley Forage Laboratory in Hagerstown, Marylan for quality analysis. Table 1. Forage an grain treatments incubate in mini-silos. Forage Grain an process methos Treatment Alfalfa/tall fescue Hammer mille barley HHMB Alfalfa/tall fescue Hammer mille corn HHMC Alfalfa/tall fescue Hammer mille oats HHMO Alfalfa/tall fescue No grain ae controlle treatment H Alfalfa/tall fescue Rolle barley HRB Alfalfa/tall fescue Rolle oats HRO Alfalfa/tall fescue Whole kernel barley HB Alfalfa/tall fescue Whole kernel corn HC Alfalfa/tall fescue Whole kernel oats HO

2 Table 2. Agronomic information for alfalfa/tall fescue forage. Trial information Borerview Farm Alburgh, VT Soil type Benson rocky silt loam Previous crop Alfalfa/tall fescue Harvest ate 7/14/2011 Fertilizer 50lb N ac Silage quality was analyze using wet chemistry techniques at the Cumberlan Valley Forage Laboratory in Hagerstown, MD. sub samples were rie, groun an analyze for crue protein (CP), aci etergent fiber (ADF), neutral etergent fiber (NDF), an 30h igestible NDF (NDF). Mixtures of true proteins, compose of amino acis, an non-protein nitrogen make up the CP content of forages. The CP content of forages is etermine by measuring the amount of N an multiplying by The bulky characteristics of forage come from fiber. Forage feeing values are negatively associate with fiber since the less igestible portions of plants are containe in the fiber fraction. The etergent fiber analysis system separates forages into two parts: cell contents, which inclue sugars, starches, proteins, non-protein nitrogen, fats an other highly igestible compouns; an the less igestible components foun in the fiber fraction. The total fiber content of forage is containe in the neutral etergent fiber (NDF). Chemically, this fraction inclues cellulose, hemicellulose, an lignin. Because of these chemical components an their association with the bulkiness of fees, NDF is closely relate to fee intake an rumen fill in cows. Recently, forage testing laboratories have begun to evaluate forages for NDF igestibility. Evaluation of forages an other feestuffs for NDF igestibility is being conucte to ai preiction of fee energy content an animal performance. Research has emonstrate that lactating airy cows will eat more ry matter an prouce more milk when fe forages with optimum NDF igestibility. Forages with increase NDF igestibility will result in higher energy values, an perhaps more importantly, increase forage intakes. Forage NDF igestibility can range from 20 80%. The silage performance inices of milk per acre an milk per ton were calculate using a moel erive from the spreasheet entitle, MILK2007 evelope by researchers at the University of Wisconsin. Milk per ton measures the pouns of milk that coul be prouce from a ton of silage. This value is generate by approximating a balance ration meeting animal energy, protein, an fiber nees base on silage quality. The value is base on a stanar cow weight an level of milk prouction. Milk per acre is calculate by multiplying the milk per ton value by silage ry matter yiel. Therefore milk per ton is an overall inicator of forage quality an milk per acre an inicator of forage yiel an quality. Milk per ton an milk per acre calculations provie relative rankings of forage samples, but shoul not be consiere as preictive of actual milk responses in specific situations. Variations in yiel an quality can occur because of variations in genetics, soil, weather, an other growing conitions. Statistical analysis makes it possible to etermine, whether a ifference among varieties is real or whether it might have occurre ue to other variations in the fiel. At the bottom of each table a LSD value is presente for each variable (i.e. yiel). Least Significant ifferences (LSD s) at the 10% level of probability are shown. Where the ifference between two varieties within a column is equal to or greater than the LSD value at the bottom of the column, you can be sure in 9 out of 10 chances that there is a real ifference between the two varieties. Varieties that were not significantly lower in performance than the highest hybri in a particular column are inicate with an asterisk. In the example below A is significantly ifferent from C but not from B. The ifference between A an B is equal to 1.5 which is less than the LSD value of 2.0. This means that these varieties i not iffer in yiel. The ifference between A an C is equal to 3.0 which is greater than the LSD value of 2.0. This means that the yiels of these varieties were significantly ifferent from one another. The asterisk inicates that B was not significantly lower than the top yieling variety. Variety Yiel A 6.0 B 7.5* C 9.0* LSD 2.0

3 RESULTS Table 3. Quality analysis of haylage mixe with small grains. Treatment DM Moist Forage quality characteristics CP SCP RDP ADF NDF Starch TDN NEL RFV NFC NSC Mcal % % % %CP %CP % % %DM %NFC % % % lb H * 18.0* 45.8* 72.9* HB * 44.4* 13.4* 46.4* 64.6* * 28.8* 13.4* HC * 44.4* 12.9* 44.4* 65.6* 0.68* 142.7* 28.6* 12.9* HHMB 63.7* * 43.8* 12.5* 43.4* 65.0* 0.67* 143.3* 28.9* 12.5* HHMC * 44.2* 12.9* 45.4* 65.4* 0.68* 140.7* 28.5* 12.9* HHMO HO * 42.1* 65.2* 0.68* * 11.4* HRB * 11.3* 40.9* * 136.3* 27.4* 11.3* HRO * * 11 LSD (0.10) Trial Mean Table 4. Mini-silo mineral analysis. Treatment Ash Ca P Mg K Na Fe Mn Zn Cu % % % % % % ppm ppm ppm ppm H * 2.68* 0.06* * HB * 0.38* * 10.7 HC 8.14* * HHMB HHMC 8.23* * HHMO 8.27* 0.88* * 12.0* HO 7.95* 0.88* 0.39* * * HRB * * HRO 8.25* 0.88* * * 12.0* LSD (0.10) NS Trial mean

4 Total Digestable Nutrience (% DM) The levels of Net Energy Lactation (Mcal/lb) varie significantly between treatments. The treatment with the highest Nel was haylage with whole oats (HO) with 0.68 Mcal/lb. The treatment with the lowest Nel was haylage (H) with 0.64 Mcal/lb. Net Energey Lactation (mcal/lb) a ab ab ab ab 0.67 b c 0.63 Figure 1. NEL of haylage an haylage mixe with processe grains fermente in a mini-silo.. Quality analysis of the forages also reveale a significant ifference between treatments with respect to Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN). The 0.62 treatment with the highest TDN was HC with 65.6 %. The treatment with the lowest TDN was H with 61.6%. Although this was the lowest TDN the other treatments were not significantly higher than HC. HB, HHMB, HHMC, HO, HRB, an HRO i not iffer significantly from HC (figure 1) H HHMO HB HHMB HRB HRO HHMC 66.0 ab ab 65.0 a c Figure 2. TDN of haylage an haylage mixe with processe grains fermente in a mini-silo The mini-silo treatments showe significant ifference in starch. The treatment with the highest percent starch was HB with 13.4%. The treatment with the lowest percent starch was H with a total of 2.0%. H HHMO HRO HRB HB HHMB HO

5 Non-Structural Carbohyrates (% DM) Strach (% DM) a ab 12.0 c a a Figure 3. Starch of haylage an haylage mixe with processe grains fermente in a mini-silo. 2.0 HB was the highest in Non-Structural Carbohyrates (NSC) which yiele at 13.4%. The treatment with the lowest NSC was H with 2.0%. 0.0 Two treatments H an HB were the only two that where either higher or lower than the other treatments. H HHMO HRO HRB HO HHMB HC c a a a ab Figure 4. NSC of haylage an haylage mixe with processe grains fermente in a mini-silo The mini-silo trial ha a controlle treatment of just haylage which in this case ha the highest Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF), which came out at 50.2%. The treatment with the lowest NDF was HHMB with 43.8%. The treatments that were statistically similar to HHMB were HB(44.4%), HC(44.4%), HHMC(44.2%), an HRB(45.2%). H HHMO HRO HRB HO HHMB HC

6 Neutral Detergent Fiber (% DM) c c c Figure 5. NDF of haylage an haylage mixe with processe grains fermente in a mini-silo. DISCUSSION The ifferent treatments in the mini-silo trial were haylage (which serve as a control treatment), haylage with hammer mille corn, haylage with hammer 40.0 mille barley, haylage with hammer mille oats, haylage with rolle oats, haylage with rolle barley (the corn coul not be rolle because it was too har to put through the machine), haylage with whole kernel corn, haylage with whole kernel barley, an haylage with whole kernel oats. In this trial there was significant ifference between the ifferent treatments. Haylage was high in CP, Soluble Crue Protein (SCP), Rumen Detergent Protein (RDP), NDF, Magnesium (Mg),Soium (NA), Potassium (K), an Manganese (Mn). Some treatments ha higher values in some areas but lower in others. There was a fee test one with the mini-silo trial contents after they were opene. There were two fee samples fe to replacement heifers, comparing commercial fee an mini-silo fee. The cows tene to hea straight towars the mini-silo fee instea of the commercial fee. Overall aing grains to console haylage can improve the fee quality of the forage. HHMB HHMC HC HB HRB HRO HO ACKNOWLEDGMENT UVM Extension woul like to thank Roger Rainville an the staff at Borerview Farm for their generous help with this research trial. We woul also like to acknowlege Crop an Soil Team members Amana Gervais, Amber Domina, Laura Maen, Susan Monahan, Katie Blair, an Savanna Kittell-Mitchell.