Optimizing silage conservation and fermented ingredients

Transcription

1 Optimizing silage conservation and fermented ingredients Dannylo Sousa, Gustavo Salvati, Pedro Salvo, Willian Silva, Luiz Gustavo Nussio Departamento de Zootecnia USP/ESALQ

2 Concentrate Roughage grain kernel HMG or rehydrated Earlage Snaplage Toplage Whole plant Stalklage

3 Storage time influencing silage quality and animal performance

4 Milk yield Fall slump in milk yield Last year silage New silage Fall season

5 DM degradability (%) Dynamics of maize silage degradability across the storage Broken line fitting model ~ x 0.01 DEG 48H Break-point ~ 1 month DEG 24H x ~ Storage period (d)

6 Starch Digestibility (%) Meta-analysis 90 Break-point ~ 28 days x ~ 0,03 60 ~ 0,31 50 P<0,01 R 2 = 0, Storage period (d)

7 Aerobic Stability (h) Meta-analysis ~ 0,4 days Break-point ~ 110 days P<0,01 R 2 = 0, Storage period (d)

8 Ammonia, %N Effect of storage length on N-NH 3 concentration in maize silages 6 5 SEM = Storage period (d) Time effect P = <0.001

9 Prolamin (% DM) Prolamin 5,5 5,0 4,5 Flint kernel Dent kernel 4,0 3,5 3,0 2, Storage period (d) GU IAC8390 GSR IAC8390 GU AG1051 GSR AG1051 Source: Fernandes (2014)

10 Starch disappearance in situ-12h (%) Endosperm without prolamin = starch 98% digestible y = -1.29x x R² = 0.85 P< Prolamin (% DM) Source: Fernandes (2014)

11 Grain fermentation - proteolysis Fungi; 5% Fermentation end-products; 5% Kernel Enzymes; 30% Bacteria; 60% Source:Junges et al., 2017 JDS

12 16.298% Kernel microbial communities PCoA Exclusive communities Communities sharing WM and HMC (moisture level) Reconstitution of dry corn grain did not ensure similar fermentation patterns between HMC and R-HMC silage samples (changing microbial cells viability) HMC % Plant maturity was the most impactant variable on bacterial community definition WM R-HMC

13 Kernel microbial communities Clostridium (37.7%) and Enterococcus (20.5%) Presence of Clostridium spores attributed to soil contamination Presence of heterofermentative strains Enterococcus R-HMC 120 days 20,5 6,8 37,7 7 days 24,0 11,2 12,9 0 day 13,8 9,1 19,5 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

14 Dry Grain vs Rehydrated Grain 22,0 21,5 21,0 20,5 20,0 19,5 21,3 Dry Matter Intake (kg/d) - 5.4% 20,2 21,4 21,0 19,0 Schonell, 2016 (Sorghum, 60 days) Morais, 2016 (Corn, 180 days) Dry Ensiled

15 Dry Grain vs Rehydrated Grain 33,0 32,0 31,0 30,0 29,0 28,0 27,0 32,0 3.5 Fat-corrected Milk (kg/d) 31, % 29,5 28,0 26,0 Schonell, 2016 (Sorghum, 60 days) Morais, 2016 (Corn, 180 days) Dry Ensiled

16 Dry Grain vs Rehydrated Grain 19,0 18,0 17,0 16,0 15,0 14,0 13,0 12,0 11,0 10,0 17,7-6.6% MUN (mg/dl) 16,6-9.2% 13,0 11,9 Schonell, 2016 (Sorghum, 60 days) Morais, 2016 (Corn, 180 days) Dry Ensiled

17 Dry Grain vs Rehydrated Grain 100,0 95,0 90,0 85,0 80,0 75,0 70,0 65,0 60,0 55,0 50,0 + 10% Starch Digestiblity (%) 92,9 87, % 94,6 79,1 Schonell, 2016 (Sorghum, 60 days) Morais, 2016 (Corn, 180 days) Dry Ensiled

18 Dry Grain vs Rehydrated Grain 1,7 1,5 1, % 1,5 Feed Efficiency 1, % 1,3 1,4 1,1 0,9 0,7 0,5 Schonell, 2016 (Sorghum, 60 days) Morais, 2016 (Corn, 180 days) Dry Ensiled

19 30 days vs 90 days 35,0 30,0 Santos, ,0 + 4% 31,2 25,0 23,5 23,4 20,0 15,0 10,0 DMI (kg/d) 30 days 90 days Milk (kg/d)

20 Gas production rate, h 5,0 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 0,0 Santos, % 3,7 3,8 4,7 0 Day 30 days 90 days

21 Chemical and microbial additives influencing silage quality and animal performance

22 Frequency (%) Chemical additives tested in meta-analysis *Calcium formate, hexamethylene tetramine, 1,2-propanodiol, ammonium hydroxide, ammonium isobutyrate, diammonium fosfate, formic ammonia, methylparaben, natrium nitrogen, propylparaben and sodium hydroxide. Frequency for all chemical compounds: 5%

23 Aerobic Stability (h) Chemical additives trend in meta-analysis Aerobic stability of treated HMCS 200 *** Control *** Differ (P<0.01) Chemical

24 Aerobic stability (h) Aerobic stability: Optimal dose of chemical additives Application rate (g/kg FM) Figure 2. Aerobic stability of HMGS according to chemical additive dosage. Aerobic stability = Dose (g/kg). P < 0.01, R 2 = 0.81, RMSE = 20.1

25 Frequency (%) Microbial additives tested in meta-analysis *Propionibacterium acidipropionici, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus brevis, Lactobacillus bulgaricus. Frequency for all microrganisms : 5%.

26 Aerobic stability (h) Heterofermentatives tested in meta-analysis Aerobic stability of treated HMCS 210 *** % L. buchneri 0 Control *** Differ (P<0.01) Heterofermentative

27 Aerobic stability (h) Homolactics tested in meta-analysis Aerobic stability of treated HMCS Control Homolactic (P=0.27)

28 Aerobic stability: Optimal dose of heterofermentatives bacteria Aerobic stability (h) h Application rate ( 10 5 cfu/g) Figure 1. Aerobic stability of HMCS according to inoculation rate of heterofermentative bacteria. If Dose ufc/g, aerobic stability = Dose (g/kg); otherwise, aerobic stability = 235 h. P < 0.01, R 2 = 0.50, RMSE = 47.9

29 GC-MS

30 g/kg DM Fermentation profile of maize silages Inoculated with L. buchneri Additive P< ,6 5,3 5,8 4,2 Control LB1 LB5 LB10 Propionic acid, g/kg DM Ethanol, g/kg DM Propanol, g/kg DM Acetic acid, g/kg DM

31 Top vs bottom Top Bottom

32 Top vs bottom 23,5 23,0 22,5 22,9 DMI (kg/d) - 5.5% 22,0 21,5 21,7 21,0 20,5 20,0 Top Bottom

33 Top vs bottom 31,5 31,0 31,3 Milk (kg/d) - 3.6% 30,5 30,2 30,0 29,5 Top Bottom

34 Daniel et al (JDS) Control 5% Ethanol 5% Acetic acid Hay based diet (33% bermuda hay + corn, citrus pulp, soybean meal, mineral)

35 Dry matter intake (kg/d) Effect of ethanol and acetic acid on voluntary feed intake CV Experimental weeks Control Ethanol Acetic acid 5% DM 5% DM Treatment P = 0.02 Week P < 0.01 T W P = 0.02

36 Milk yield (kg/d) Effect of ethanol and acetic acid on milk yield CV Experimental weeks Control Ethanol Acetic acid 5% DM 5% DM Treatment P = 0.04 Week P < 0.01 T W P = 0.13

37 Current research

38 Experimental EXPERIMENTAL Diets DIETS - Salvati, SALVO, Item PT 6 mm SP 6 mm SP 12 mm SP 18 mm Diet ingredient, % of DM Corn silage Soybean meal Soybean meal nonenz. brown Urea Finely ground corn Citrus pulp Calcium soaps of fatty acids Mineral and Vitamins Smartamine-M Procreatin DM, % as fed % Ca; 15.6 % P; 3.5 % S; 3.0 % Mg; 150 mg/kg Co; 2,000 mg/kg Cu; 200 mg/kg I; 5,000 mg/kg Mn; 11,900 mg/kg Zn; 82 mg/kg Se; 100,000 UI/kg Vitamin A; 220,000 UI/kg Vitamin D3; 6,200 UI/kg Vitamin E. 2 Smartamine-M (Adisseo, Alpharetta, GA). 3 Procreatin-7 (Saccharomyces cerevisiae, strain NCYC 996,Lesaffre Feed Additives, Toluca, Mexico).

39 Salvati, ,0 56,3 KPS 50,0 40,0 30,0 33,2 46,7 43,0 20,0 10,0 0,0 PT - 6mm SP - 6mm SP - 12mm SP - 18mm

40 Salvati, DMI (kg/d) 19,9 19,3 19,4 19, PT - 6mm SP - 6mm SP - 12mm SP - 18mm

41 Salvati, , % Milk (kg/d) 29,4 29,4 28, PT - 6mm SP - 6mm SP - 12mm SP - 18mm

42 Salvati, ,0 6,0 5,8 Fecal Starch (%) % 5,7 5,0 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0 4,4 4,7 0,0 PT - 6mm SP - 6mm SP - 12mm SP - 18mm

43 Salvati, ,6 1,4 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 1,42 + 7% Feed Efficiency 1,52 1,49 1,47 0 PT - 6mm SP - 6mm SP - 12mm SP - 18mm

44 Experimental EXPERIMENTAL Diets DIETS - SALVO, Salvo, Composition of experimental diets (%DM) Item Snap + HMC WPCS + HMC Control Enzyme Control Enzyme Whole Plant Corn Silage % 25% Snaplage 27.7% 27.7% - - High Moisture Corn 51.1% 51.1% 53.2% 53.2% Soybean Hulls 12% 12% 12% 12% Soybean Meal 5.4% 5.4% 6.0% 6.0% Total Puraphós AEB (25% Urea)* 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% 3.8% *Monensin 800 mg/kg

45 EXPERIMENTAL Salvo, DIETS 2017 SALVO, DMI (kg/d) 9,7-4.3% 9,5 9,2 9,2 9,3 9 8,5 8 7,5 7 Control Enzyme Control Enzyme Snap + HMC WPCS + HMC

46 EXPERIMENTAL Salvo, DIETS 2017 SALVO, ,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 ADG (kg/d) 1,46 1,5 1,54 1,51 Control Enzyme Control Enzyme Snap + HMC WPCS + HMC

47 EXPERIMENTAL Salvo, DIETS 2017 SALVO, ,18 0,17 0,16 0,155 Feed Efficiency + 3.9% % 0,161 0,159 0,161 0,15 0,14 0,13 0,12 Control Enzyme Control Enzyme Snap + HMC WPCS + HMC

48 EXPERIMENTAL Salvo, DIETS 2017 SALVO, ,0 121,5 121,0 120,5 120,0 119,5 119,0 118,5 118,0 117,5 Biological Efficiency 121,7 Control - 2.2% 119,1 Enzyme

49 Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture Luiz Gustavo Nussio Dean