Effects of chemical additives on fermentation characteristics of high-moisture alfalfa silage

Alfalfa is sometimes harvested with a high moisture content that increases the chances for undesirable fermentations. The objective of these experiments were to determine the effectiveness of Safesil (SF; active ingredients: 10% potassium sorbate, 20% sodium benzoate, and 5% sodium nitrite) and Safe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of animal science 2016-10, Vol.94, p.327-327
Hauptverfasser: da Silva, E Benjamim, Savage, R M, Smith, M L, Polukis, S A, Laubach, A E, Pacer, K M, Kung, L
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 327
container_issue
container_start_page 327
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 94
creator da Silva, E Benjamim
Savage, R M
Smith, M L
Polukis, S A
Laubach, A E
Pacer, K M
Kung, L
description Alfalfa is sometimes harvested with a high moisture content that increases the chances for undesirable fermentations. The objective of these experiments were to determine the effectiveness of Safesil (SF; active ingredients: 10% potassium sorbate, 20% sodium benzoate, and 5% sodium nitrite) and Safesil Challenge (SC; active ingredients: 7.5% potassium sorbate, 15% sodium benzoate, and 10% sodium nitrite) from Salinity, Sweden, on improving the fermentation of high-moisture alfalfa silage. Alfalfa was directly chopped at 23% DM and used in two experiments. In Experiment 1, we evaluated the effect of SF on the characteristics of early fermentation. Four individual 1-kg replicates of untreated alfalfa or alfalfa treated with 4 L/t of SF were ensiled in vacuumed and heat-sealed, nylon-polyethylene bags for 1, 2, 4, and 7 d. Data were analyzed as a 2 x 4 factorial arrangement of treatments, with main factors of treatment, days of ensiling, and their interaction. In Experiment 2, the long term effects of SF or SC with and without air stress during storage were determined. Replicated silos (7.5 L) were packed (density of 224 kg of DM/m3) with the same forage described above and were untreated or treated with SF (3 and 4 L/t) or SC (2 and 3 L/t). Half of the silos were submitted to a 2-h weekly air stress. Data were analyzed by ANOVA as a 2 x 5 factorial arrangement of treatments with main factors of air stress, treatment, and their interaction. In Experiment 1, pH decreased and acids and ethanol similarly increased for untreated and treated silages as ensiling progressed. Compared with untreated silage, treated silages had fewer yeasts (P < 0.01) at 4 d of ensiling (4.52 vs. 2.96 log cfu/g) and less enterobacteria after 1 d (6.79 vs. 5.81 log cfu/g). Ethanol concentration was numerically lower for treated silages at all time points. In Experiment 2, for silos submitted to air stress, the DM recovery after 100 d was higher (P = 0.04) for SF- and SC-treated silage than for untreated silage. After 100 d, numbers of yeasts and molds were less than 2.00 log cfu/g for all treatments. These experiments showed that Safesil can quickly reduce harmful microorganisms, such as yeasts and enterobacteria, in high-moisture alfalfa and that Safesil and Safesil Challenge can improve DM recovery in silage submitted to air stress.
doi_str_mv 10.2527/jam2016-0685
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2046728496</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2046728496</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_20467284963</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNi0sKwjAYhIMoWB87DxBwHU3-mljXongAtyIh_rEpfWiSen6jeABhYJhvZghZCL4CCdt1pRvgQjGuCjkgmZAgWS5UPiQZ5yBYUQgYk0kIFecC5E5m5HKwFk0MtLPUlNg4o2uqbzcX3QsTbalF32AbdXQpmFJ7bSJ6F6Iz31fp7iVrugR6j1TX9iMaXK3vOCOjFAPOfz4ly-PhvD-xh--ePYZ4rbret6m6At-oLRSbncr_W70BtDVKXg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2046728496</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effects of chemical additives on fermentation characteristics of high-moisture alfalfa silage</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><creator>da Silva, E Benjamim ; Savage, R M ; Smith, M L ; Polukis, S A ; Laubach, A E ; Pacer, K M ; Kung, L</creator><creatorcontrib>da Silva, E Benjamim ; Savage, R M ; Smith, M L ; Polukis, S A ; Laubach, A E ; Pacer, K M ; Kung, L</creatorcontrib><description>Alfalfa is sometimes harvested with a high moisture content that increases the chances for undesirable fermentations. The objective of these experiments were to determine the effectiveness of Safesil (SF; active ingredients: 10% potassium sorbate, 20% sodium benzoate, and 5% sodium nitrite) and Safesil Challenge (SC; active ingredients: 7.5% potassium sorbate, 15% sodium benzoate, and 10% sodium nitrite) from Salinity, Sweden, on improving the fermentation of high-moisture alfalfa silage. Alfalfa was directly chopped at 23% DM and used in two experiments. In Experiment 1, we evaluated the effect of SF on the characteristics of early fermentation. Four individual 1-kg replicates of untreated alfalfa or alfalfa treated with 4 L/t of SF were ensiled in vacuumed and heat-sealed, nylon-polyethylene bags for 1, 2, 4, and 7 d. Data were analyzed as a 2 x 4 factorial arrangement of treatments, with main factors of treatment, days of ensiling, and their interaction. In Experiment 2, the long term effects of SF or SC with and without air stress during storage were determined. Replicated silos (7.5 L) were packed (density of 224 kg of DM/m3) with the same forage described above and were untreated or treated with SF (3 and 4 L/t) or SC (2 and 3 L/t). Half of the silos were submitted to a 2-h weekly air stress. Data were analyzed by ANOVA as a 2 x 5 factorial arrangement of treatments with main factors of air stress, treatment, and their interaction. In Experiment 1, pH decreased and acids and ethanol similarly increased for untreated and treated silages as ensiling progressed. Compared with untreated silage, treated silages had fewer yeasts (P &lt; 0.01) at 4 d of ensiling (4.52 vs. 2.96 log cfu/g) and less enterobacteria after 1 d (6.79 vs. 5.81 log cfu/g). Ethanol concentration was numerically lower for treated silages at all time points. In Experiment 2, for silos submitted to air stress, the DM recovery after 100 d was higher (P = 0.04) for SF- and SC-treated silage than for untreated silage. After 100 d, numbers of yeasts and molds were less than 2.00 log cfu/g for all treatments. These experiments showed that Safesil can quickly reduce harmful microorganisms, such as yeasts and enterobacteria, in high-moisture alfalfa and that Safesil and Safesil Challenge can improve DM recovery in silage submitted to air stress.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2527/jam2016-0685</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Champaign: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Additives ; Alfalfa ; Alfalfa silage ; Data analysis ; Data processing ; Ethanol ; Feeds ; Fermentation ; Grain silos ; Ingredients ; Long term effects ; Microorganisms ; Moisture content ; Polyethylene ; Polyethylenes ; Potassium ; Potassium sorbate ; Recovery ; Silage ; Sodium ; Sodium benzoate ; Sodium nitrite ; Stress ; Stresses ; Variance analysis ; Water content ; Yeasts</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2016-10, Vol.94, p.327-327</ispartof><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press, UK Oct 2016</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>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>da Silva, E Benjamim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savage, R M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, M L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Polukis, S A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laubach, A E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pacer, K M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kung, L</creatorcontrib><title>Effects of chemical additives on fermentation characteristics of high-moisture alfalfa silage</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description>Alfalfa is sometimes harvested with a high moisture content that increases the chances for undesirable fermentations. The objective of these experiments were to determine the effectiveness of Safesil (SF; active ingredients: 10% potassium sorbate, 20% sodium benzoate, and 5% sodium nitrite) and Safesil Challenge (SC; active ingredients: 7.5% potassium sorbate, 15% sodium benzoate, and 10% sodium nitrite) from Salinity, Sweden, on improving the fermentation of high-moisture alfalfa silage. Alfalfa was directly chopped at 23% DM and used in two experiments. In Experiment 1, we evaluated the effect of SF on the characteristics of early fermentation. Four individual 1-kg replicates of untreated alfalfa or alfalfa treated with 4 L/t of SF were ensiled in vacuumed and heat-sealed, nylon-polyethylene bags for 1, 2, 4, and 7 d. Data were analyzed as a 2 x 4 factorial arrangement of treatments, with main factors of treatment, days of ensiling, and their interaction. In Experiment 2, the long term effects of SF or SC with and without air stress during storage were determined. Replicated silos (7.5 L) were packed (density of 224 kg of DM/m3) with the same forage described above and were untreated or treated with SF (3 and 4 L/t) or SC (2 and 3 L/t). Half of the silos were submitted to a 2-h weekly air stress. Data were analyzed by ANOVA as a 2 x 5 factorial arrangement of treatments with main factors of air stress, treatment, and their interaction. In Experiment 1, pH decreased and acids and ethanol similarly increased for untreated and treated silages as ensiling progressed. Compared with untreated silage, treated silages had fewer yeasts (P &lt; 0.01) at 4 d of ensiling (4.52 vs. 2.96 log cfu/g) and less enterobacteria after 1 d (6.79 vs. 5.81 log cfu/g). Ethanol concentration was numerically lower for treated silages at all time points. In Experiment 2, for silos submitted to air stress, the DM recovery after 100 d was higher (P = 0.04) for SF- and SC-treated silage than for untreated silage. After 100 d, numbers of yeasts and molds were less than 2.00 log cfu/g for all treatments. These experiments showed that Safesil can quickly reduce harmful microorganisms, such as yeasts and enterobacteria, in high-moisture alfalfa and that Safesil and Safesil Challenge can improve DM recovery in silage submitted to air stress.</description><subject>Additives</subject><subject>Alfalfa</subject><subject>Alfalfa silage</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Ethanol</subject><subject>Feeds</subject><subject>Fermentation</subject><subject>Grain silos</subject><subject>Ingredients</subject><subject>Long term effects</subject><subject>Microorganisms</subject><subject>Moisture content</subject><subject>Polyethylene</subject><subject>Polyethylenes</subject><subject>Potassium</subject><subject>Potassium sorbate</subject><subject>Recovery</subject><subject>Silage</subject><subject>Sodium</subject><subject>Sodium benzoate</subject><subject>Sodium nitrite</subject><subject>Stress</subject><subject>Stresses</subject><subject>Variance analysis</subject><subject>Water content</subject><subject>Yeasts</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</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>eNqNi0sKwjAYhIMoWB87DxBwHU3-mljXongAtyIh_rEpfWiSen6jeABhYJhvZghZCL4CCdt1pRvgQjGuCjkgmZAgWS5UPiQZ5yBYUQgYk0kIFecC5E5m5HKwFk0MtLPUlNg4o2uqbzcX3QsTbalF32AbdXQpmFJ7bSJ6F6Iz31fp7iVrugR6j1TX9iMaXK3vOCOjFAPOfz4ly-PhvD-xh--ePYZ4rbret6m6At-oLRSbncr_W70BtDVKXg</recordid><startdate>20161001</startdate><enddate>20161001</enddate><creator>da Silva, E Benjamim</creator><creator>Savage, R M</creator><creator>Smith, M L</creator><creator>Polukis, S A</creator><creator>Laubach, A E</creator><creator>Pacer, K M</creator><creator>Kung, L</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>20161001</creationdate><title>Effects of chemical additives on fermentation characteristics of high-moisture alfalfa silage</title><author>da Silva, E Benjamim ; Savage, R M ; Smith, M L ; Polukis, S A ; Laubach, A E ; Pacer, K M ; Kung, L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_20467284963</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Additives</topic><topic>Alfalfa</topic><topic>Alfalfa silage</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Ethanol</topic><topic>Feeds</topic><topic>Fermentation</topic><topic>Grain silos</topic><topic>Ingredients</topic><topic>Long term effects</topic><topic>Microorganisms</topic><topic>Moisture content</topic><topic>Polyethylene</topic><topic>Polyethylenes</topic><topic>Potassium</topic><topic>Potassium sorbate</topic><topic>Recovery</topic><topic>Silage</topic><topic>Sodium</topic><topic>Sodium benzoate</topic><topic>Sodium nitrite</topic><topic>Stress</topic><topic>Stresses</topic><topic>Variance analysis</topic><topic>Water content</topic><topic>Yeasts</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>da Silva, E Benjamim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savage, R M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, M L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Polukis, S A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laubach, A E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pacer, K M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kung, L</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>da Silva, E Benjamim</au><au>Savage, R M</au><au>Smith, M L</au><au>Polukis, S A</au><au>Laubach, A E</au><au>Pacer, K M</au><au>Kung, L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effects of chemical additives on fermentation characteristics of high-moisture alfalfa silage</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2016-10-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>94</volume><spage>327</spage><epage>327</epage><pages>327-327</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>Alfalfa is sometimes harvested with a high moisture content that increases the chances for undesirable fermentations. The objective of these experiments were to determine the effectiveness of Safesil (SF; active ingredients: 10% potassium sorbate, 20% sodium benzoate, and 5% sodium nitrite) and Safesil Challenge (SC; active ingredients: 7.5% potassium sorbate, 15% sodium benzoate, and 10% sodium nitrite) from Salinity, Sweden, on improving the fermentation of high-moisture alfalfa silage. Alfalfa was directly chopped at 23% DM and used in two experiments. In Experiment 1, we evaluated the effect of SF on the characteristics of early fermentation. Four individual 1-kg replicates of untreated alfalfa or alfalfa treated with 4 L/t of SF were ensiled in vacuumed and heat-sealed, nylon-polyethylene bags for 1, 2, 4, and 7 d. Data were analyzed as a 2 x 4 factorial arrangement of treatments, with main factors of treatment, days of ensiling, and their interaction. In Experiment 2, the long term effects of SF or SC with and without air stress during storage were determined. Replicated silos (7.5 L) were packed (density of 224 kg of DM/m3) with the same forage described above and were untreated or treated with SF (3 and 4 L/t) or SC (2 and 3 L/t). Half of the silos were submitted to a 2-h weekly air stress. Data were analyzed by ANOVA as a 2 x 5 factorial arrangement of treatments with main factors of air stress, treatment, and their interaction. In Experiment 1, pH decreased and acids and ethanol similarly increased for untreated and treated silages as ensiling progressed. Compared with untreated silage, treated silages had fewer yeasts (P &lt; 0.01) at 4 d of ensiling (4.52 vs. 2.96 log cfu/g) and less enterobacteria after 1 d (6.79 vs. 5.81 log cfu/g). Ethanol concentration was numerically lower for treated silages at all time points. In Experiment 2, for silos submitted to air stress, the DM recovery after 100 d was higher (P = 0.04) for SF- and SC-treated silage than for untreated silage. After 100 d, numbers of yeasts and molds were less than 2.00 log cfu/g for all treatments. These experiments showed that Safesil can quickly reduce harmful microorganisms, such as yeasts and enterobacteria, in high-moisture alfalfa and that Safesil and Safesil Challenge can improve DM recovery in silage submitted to air stress.</abstract><cop>Champaign</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.2527/jam2016-0685</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2016-10, Vol.94, p.327-327
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2046728496
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)
subjects Additives
Alfalfa
Alfalfa silage
Data analysis
Data processing
Ethanol
Feeds
Fermentation
Grain silos
Ingredients
Long term effects
Microorganisms
Moisture content
Polyethylene
Polyethylenes
Potassium
Potassium sorbate
Recovery
Silage
Sodium
Sodium benzoate
Sodium nitrite
Stress
Stresses
Variance analysis
Water content
Yeasts
title Effects of chemical additives on fermentation characteristics of high-moisture alfalfa silage
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T14%3A21%3A02IST&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=Effects%20of%20chemical%20additives%20on%20fermentation%20characteristics%20of%20high-moisture%20alfalfa%20silage&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=da%20Silva,%20E%20Benjamim&rft.date=2016-10-01&rft.volume=94&rft.spage=327&rft.epage=327&rft.pages=327-327&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/10.2527/jam2016-0685&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2046728496%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2046728496&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true