Time of Wrapping and the Use of Fermentation Enhancers on Forage Preservation Characteristics of Annual Ryegrass Baleage

Annual ryegrass baleage represents a high-quality stored forage resource for Southeastern beef producers. The objective of this project was to evaluate two baleage inoculants (Forage-Mate VS-3TM or Promote® HayDefenderTM, Cargill Animal Nutrition) and time of wrapping after baling on forage preserva...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of animal science 2018-03, Vol.96, p.33-33
Hauptverfasser: Griffin, M E, Mullenix, K, Roth, L, Elmore, J B, Mason, K M, Burdette, L C
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 33
container_issue
container_start_page 33
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 96
creator Griffin, M E
Mullenix, K
Roth, L
Elmore, J B
Mason, K M
Burdette, L C
description Annual ryegrass baleage represents a high-quality stored forage resource for Southeastern beef producers. The objective of this project was to evaluate two baleage inoculants (Forage-Mate VS-3TM or Promote® HayDefenderTM, Cargill Animal Nutrition) and time of wrapping after baling on forage preservation characteristics of annual ryegrass baleage following a 90-d storage period. Thirty-five acres of annual ryegrass were harvested in mid-April 2017 at the EV Smith Research Center in Shorter, AL, and allowed to wilt for 24 hr prior to baling. Treatments were: 1) time of wrapping after baling [same day (S) or a two-day delay (D)], and 2) inoculant additives [control, HayDefender (H), or Forage-Mate VS-3 (VS); n = 5 bales per time × inoculant combination]. Baleage was weighed and cored for determination of nutritive value characteristics at 0-, 30- and 90-d post baling (mean 56.5% DM per bale). Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED (SAS 9.4) for a completely randomized design. Time of wrapping influenced forage DM losses, and final weight was less (P ≤ 0.05) for D than S bales (466 vs. 519 kg DM/bale, respectively). No differences were observed among inoculants in final bale weight (P = 0.4046). There was a trend (P = 0.1059) for less change in percentage DM loss for H and VS-treatments compared with the untreated control (3.7 and 3.6 vs. 5.3%, respectively). Forage DM concentrations of CP, NDF, ADF, and ADICP did not differ (P = 0.1915) among forage inoculants or time of wrapping. However, IVTD of VS-inoculated bales had less IVDMD (81.7) than C (83.9) and H (82.4) treatments (P = 0.0560). No differences were observed in bale pH among wrap time or inoculants (mean pH 4.1). There were no effects of time of wrapping or fermentation enhancers on lactic acid % (P = 0.7282), but acetic acid % was greater (P = 0.0003) for same day wrapped bales rather than two days later (1.04 and 0.87%, respectively). With increased storage time, L/A ratio increased (P < 0.0001) from 7.0 at 30-d to 13.6 at 90-d. Butryic acid % was increased (P = 0.0169) in VS-treatment (0.14%) compared with C- and H-treatments (0.04 and 0.05%, respectively). A trend for less total acid production was observed (P = 0.1031) for delayed wrapping (7.5%) compared with same day wrapping (8.0%). Results indicate that use of baleage fermentation enhancers may influence DM preservation characteristics, and changes may be more pronounced with longer storage periods.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2046696703</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2046696703</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_20466967033</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjF9Lw0AQxI9SwVT9Dgs-B-4uJraPtTT4KFLxsSxxm1xJ9-LuRfTbG_98gD4NM_ObmZnMlb7MC1cVc5NZ612-XDp_aRaqR2udL1dlZj534UQQD_AqOAyBW0B-g9QRvOhvXpOciBOmEBm23CE3JAqTqaNgS_AkpCQff8CmQ8EmkQRNodGfgzXziD08f1ErqAoP2NO0uzYXB-yVbv71ytzW293mMR8kvo-kaX-Mo_BU7b29q6pVdW-L4jzqG0h5TqI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2046696703</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Time of Wrapping and the Use of Fermentation Enhancers on Forage Preservation Characteristics of Annual Ryegrass Baleage</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Griffin, M E ; Mullenix, K ; Roth, L ; Elmore, J B ; Mason, K M ; Burdette, L C</creator><creatorcontrib>Griffin, M E ; Mullenix, K ; Roth, L ; Elmore, J B ; Mason, K M ; Burdette, L C</creatorcontrib><description>Annual ryegrass baleage represents a high-quality stored forage resource for Southeastern beef producers. The objective of this project was to evaluate two baleage inoculants (Forage-Mate VS-3TM or Promote® HayDefenderTM, Cargill Animal Nutrition) and time of wrapping after baling on forage preservation characteristics of annual ryegrass baleage following a 90-d storage period. Thirty-five acres of annual ryegrass were harvested in mid-April 2017 at the EV Smith Research Center in Shorter, AL, and allowed to wilt for 24 hr prior to baling. Treatments were: 1) time of wrapping after baling [same day (S) or a two-day delay (D)], and 2) inoculant additives [control, HayDefender (H), or Forage-Mate VS-3 (VS); n = 5 bales per time × inoculant combination]. Baleage was weighed and cored for determination of nutritive value characteristics at 0-, 30- and 90-d post baling (mean 56.5% DM per bale). Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED (SAS 9.4) for a completely randomized design. Time of wrapping influenced forage DM losses, and final weight was less (P ≤ 0.05) for D than S bales (466 vs. 519 kg DM/bale, respectively). No differences were observed among inoculants in final bale weight (P = 0.4046). There was a trend (P = 0.1059) for less change in percentage DM loss for H and VS-treatments compared with the untreated control (3.7 and 3.6 vs. 5.3%, respectively). Forage DM concentrations of CP, NDF, ADF, and ADICP did not differ (P = 0.1915) among forage inoculants or time of wrapping. However, IVTD of VS-inoculated bales had less IVDMD (81.7) than C (83.9) and H (82.4) treatments (P = 0.0560). No differences were observed in bale pH among wrap time or inoculants (mean pH 4.1). There were no effects of time of wrapping or fermentation enhancers on lactic acid % (P = 0.7282), but acetic acid % was greater (P = 0.0003) for same day wrapped bales rather than two days later (1.04 and 0.87%, respectively). With increased storage time, L/A ratio increased (P &lt; 0.0001) from 7.0 at 30-d to 13.6 at 90-d. Butryic acid % was increased (P = 0.0169) in VS-treatment (0.14%) compared with C- and H-treatments (0.04 and 0.05%, respectively). A trend for less total acid production was observed (P = 0.1031) for delayed wrapping (7.5%) compared with same day wrapping (8.0%). Results indicate that use of baleage fermentation enhancers may influence DM preservation characteristics, and changes may be more pronounced with longer storage periods.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Champaign: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Acetic acid ; Acid production ; Additives ; Animal nutrition ; Baling ; Beef ; Data processing ; Feeds ; Fermentation ; Grasses ; Lactic acid ; Nutrition ; Nutritive value ; pH effects ; Preservation ; Storage ; Wilt</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2018-03, Vol.96, p.33-33</ispartof><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press, UK Mar 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Griffin, M E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mullenix, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roth, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elmore, J B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mason, K M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burdette, L C</creatorcontrib><title>Time of Wrapping and the Use of Fermentation Enhancers on Forage Preservation Characteristics of Annual Ryegrass Baleage</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description>Annual ryegrass baleage represents a high-quality stored forage resource for Southeastern beef producers. The objective of this project was to evaluate two baleage inoculants (Forage-Mate VS-3TM or Promote® HayDefenderTM, Cargill Animal Nutrition) and time of wrapping after baling on forage preservation characteristics of annual ryegrass baleage following a 90-d storage period. Thirty-five acres of annual ryegrass were harvested in mid-April 2017 at the EV Smith Research Center in Shorter, AL, and allowed to wilt for 24 hr prior to baling. Treatments were: 1) time of wrapping after baling [same day (S) or a two-day delay (D)], and 2) inoculant additives [control, HayDefender (H), or Forage-Mate VS-3 (VS); n = 5 bales per time × inoculant combination]. Baleage was weighed and cored for determination of nutritive value characteristics at 0-, 30- and 90-d post baling (mean 56.5% DM per bale). Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED (SAS 9.4) for a completely randomized design. Time of wrapping influenced forage DM losses, and final weight was less (P ≤ 0.05) for D than S bales (466 vs. 519 kg DM/bale, respectively). No differences were observed among inoculants in final bale weight (P = 0.4046). There was a trend (P = 0.1059) for less change in percentage DM loss for H and VS-treatments compared with the untreated control (3.7 and 3.6 vs. 5.3%, respectively). Forage DM concentrations of CP, NDF, ADF, and ADICP did not differ (P = 0.1915) among forage inoculants or time of wrapping. However, IVTD of VS-inoculated bales had less IVDMD (81.7) than C (83.9) and H (82.4) treatments (P = 0.0560). No differences were observed in bale pH among wrap time or inoculants (mean pH 4.1). There were no effects of time of wrapping or fermentation enhancers on lactic acid % (P = 0.7282), but acetic acid % was greater (P = 0.0003) for same day wrapped bales rather than two days later (1.04 and 0.87%, respectively). With increased storage time, L/A ratio increased (P &lt; 0.0001) from 7.0 at 30-d to 13.6 at 90-d. Butryic acid % was increased (P = 0.0169) in VS-treatment (0.14%) compared with C- and H-treatments (0.04 and 0.05%, respectively). A trend for less total acid production was observed (P = 0.1031) for delayed wrapping (7.5%) compared with same day wrapping (8.0%). Results indicate that use of baleage fermentation enhancers may influence DM preservation characteristics, and changes may be more pronounced with longer storage periods.</description><subject>Acetic acid</subject><subject>Acid production</subject><subject>Additives</subject><subject>Animal nutrition</subject><subject>Baling</subject><subject>Beef</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Feeds</subject><subject>Fermentation</subject><subject>Grasses</subject><subject>Lactic acid</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>Nutritive value</subject><subject>pH effects</subject><subject>Preservation</subject><subject>Storage</subject><subject>Wilt</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNjF9Lw0AQxI9SwVT9Dgs-B-4uJraPtTT4KFLxsSxxm1xJ9-LuRfTbG_98gD4NM_ObmZnMlb7MC1cVc5NZ612-XDp_aRaqR2udL1dlZj534UQQD_AqOAyBW0B-g9QRvOhvXpOciBOmEBm23CE3JAqTqaNgS_AkpCQff8CmQ8EmkQRNodGfgzXziD08f1ErqAoP2NO0uzYXB-yVbv71ytzW293mMR8kvo-kaX-Mo_BU7b29q6pVdW-L4jzqG0h5TqI</recordid><startdate>20180301</startdate><enddate>20180301</enddate><creator>Griffin, M E</creator><creator>Mullenix, K</creator><creator>Roth, L</creator><creator>Elmore, J B</creator><creator>Mason, K M</creator><creator>Burdette, L C</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180301</creationdate><title>Time of Wrapping and the Use of Fermentation Enhancers on Forage Preservation Characteristics of Annual Ryegrass Baleage</title><author>Griffin, M E ; Mullenix, K ; Roth, L ; Elmore, J B ; Mason, K M ; Burdette, L C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_20466967033</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Acetic acid</topic><topic>Acid production</topic><topic>Additives</topic><topic>Animal nutrition</topic><topic>Baling</topic><topic>Beef</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Feeds</topic><topic>Fermentation</topic><topic>Grasses</topic><topic>Lactic acid</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>Nutritive value</topic><topic>pH effects</topic><topic>Preservation</topic><topic>Storage</topic><topic>Wilt</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Griffin, M E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mullenix, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roth, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elmore, J B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mason, K M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Burdette, L C</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career &amp; Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Griffin, M E</au><au>Mullenix, K</au><au>Roth, L</au><au>Elmore, J B</au><au>Mason, K M</au><au>Burdette, L C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Time of Wrapping and the Use of Fermentation Enhancers on Forage Preservation Characteristics of Annual Ryegrass Baleage</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2018-03-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>96</volume><spage>33</spage><epage>33</epage><pages>33-33</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>Annual ryegrass baleage represents a high-quality stored forage resource for Southeastern beef producers. The objective of this project was to evaluate two baleage inoculants (Forage-Mate VS-3TM or Promote® HayDefenderTM, Cargill Animal Nutrition) and time of wrapping after baling on forage preservation characteristics of annual ryegrass baleage following a 90-d storage period. Thirty-five acres of annual ryegrass were harvested in mid-April 2017 at the EV Smith Research Center in Shorter, AL, and allowed to wilt for 24 hr prior to baling. Treatments were: 1) time of wrapping after baling [same day (S) or a two-day delay (D)], and 2) inoculant additives [control, HayDefender (H), or Forage-Mate VS-3 (VS); n = 5 bales per time × inoculant combination]. Baleage was weighed and cored for determination of nutritive value characteristics at 0-, 30- and 90-d post baling (mean 56.5% DM per bale). Data were analyzed using PROC MIXED (SAS 9.4) for a completely randomized design. Time of wrapping influenced forage DM losses, and final weight was less (P ≤ 0.05) for D than S bales (466 vs. 519 kg DM/bale, respectively). No differences were observed among inoculants in final bale weight (P = 0.4046). There was a trend (P = 0.1059) for less change in percentage DM loss for H and VS-treatments compared with the untreated control (3.7 and 3.6 vs. 5.3%, respectively). Forage DM concentrations of CP, NDF, ADF, and ADICP did not differ (P = 0.1915) among forage inoculants or time of wrapping. However, IVTD of VS-inoculated bales had less IVDMD (81.7) than C (83.9) and H (82.4) treatments (P = 0.0560). No differences were observed in bale pH among wrap time or inoculants (mean pH 4.1). There were no effects of time of wrapping or fermentation enhancers on lactic acid % (P = 0.7282), but acetic acid % was greater (P = 0.0003) for same day wrapped bales rather than two days later (1.04 and 0.87%, respectively). With increased storage time, L/A ratio increased (P &lt; 0.0001) from 7.0 at 30-d to 13.6 at 90-d. Butryic acid % was increased (P = 0.0169) in VS-treatment (0.14%) compared with C- and H-treatments (0.04 and 0.05%, respectively). A trend for less total acid production was observed (P = 0.1031) for delayed wrapping (7.5%) compared with same day wrapping (8.0%). Results indicate that use of baleage fermentation enhancers may influence DM preservation characteristics, and changes may be more pronounced with longer storage periods.</abstract><cop>Champaign</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2018-03, Vol.96, p.33-33
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2046696703
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Acetic acid
Acid production
Additives
Animal nutrition
Baling
Beef
Data processing
Feeds
Fermentation
Grasses
Lactic acid
Nutrition
Nutritive value
pH effects
Preservation
Storage
Wilt
title Time of Wrapping and the Use of Fermentation Enhancers on Forage Preservation Characteristics of Annual Ryegrass Baleage
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T04%3A19%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Time%20of%20Wrapping%20and%20the%20Use%20of%20Fermentation%20Enhancers%20on%20Forage%20Preservation%20Characteristics%20of%20Annual%20Ryegrass%20Baleage&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Griffin,%20M%20E&rft.date=2018-03-01&rft.volume=96&rft.spage=33&rft.epage=33&rft.pages=33-33&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2046696703%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2046696703&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true