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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of animal science 2018-03, Vol.96, p.33-33 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 < 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 < 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 & Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & 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 & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & 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 < 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 |