Czech J. Anim. Sci., 2011, 56(10):427-432 | DOI: 10.17221/3235-CJAS

The effects of wilting and biological and chemical additives on the fermentation process in field pea silage

Y. Tyrolová, A. Výborná
Institute of Animal Science, Prague-Uhříněves, Czech Republic

The objectives of the study were to evaluate the effects of wilting and additives on the fermentation quality of field pea silage, and to determine the rumen degradability of organic matter of pea silage. The following additives were used: commercial bacterial inoculant (1 g/t) containing homofermentative lactic acid bacteria - Lactobacillus rhamnosus (NCIMB 30121) and Enterococcus faecium (NCIMB 30122) and chemical additive containing formic acid, propionic acid, ammonium formate and benzoic acid (4 l/t). Compared to the control and chemical additive, the addition of the inoculant to wilted silage increased the lactic acid content (P < 0.05) and lactic:acetic ratio (P < 0.001). Both bacterial and chemical additives decreased (P < 0.001) the pH value of wilted silage. Differences between the control and chemically treated unwilted silage were also significant (P < 0.01). The pH value of silage with chemical additive was lower compared to the control. Proteolysis determined in wilted silage was lower compared to unwilted silage. Rumen degradability of organic matter in wilted silage treated with the chemical additive was found to be higher (P < 0.05) than in control and inoculant treated silages.

Keywords: field pea; fermentation quality; inoculants; chemical additive

Published: October 31, 2011  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Tyrolová Y, Výborná A. The effects of wilting and biological and chemical additives on the fermentation process in field pea silage. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2011;56(10):427-432. doi: 10.17221/3235-CJAS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. AOAC (2005): Official Methods of Analysis. 18 th Ed. AOAC International, Maryland, USA.
    2. Borreani G., Cavallarin L., Antoniazzi S., Tabacco E. (2005): Effects of stage of growth and inoculation on fermentation quality of field pea silage. In: Satellite workshop of the 20th Int. Grassland Congr. Silage Production and Utilisation. Belfast, UK, 205. Go to original source...
    3. Borreani G., Chion A.R., Colombini S., Odoardi M., Paoletti R., Tabacco E. (2009): Fermentative profiles of field pea (Pisum sativum), faba bean (Vicia faba) and white lupin (Lupinus albus) silages as affected by wilting and inoculation. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 151, 316-323. Go to original source...
    4. Cavallarin L., Antoniazzi S., Borreani G., Tabacco E. (2005): Effects of wilting and mechanical conditioning on proteolysis in sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia Scop) wilted herbage and silage. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 85, 831-838. Go to original source...
    5. Czech Statistical Office (2008): Available from www.czso. cz (accessed July 14, 2010).
    6. Doležal P., Pyrochta V., Doležal J. (2005): Effects of chemical preservative and pressing of ensiled sugar-beet pulp on the quality of fermentation process. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 50, 553-560. Go to original source...
    7. Fraser M.D., Frychan R., Jones R. (2001): The effect of harvest date and inoculation on the yield, fermentation characteristics and feeding value of forage pea and field bean silages. Grass and Forage Science, 56, 218-230. Go to original source...
    8. Gálik B., Bíro D., Juráček M., Šimko M. (2008): Influence of silage additives on fermentation of high moisture crimped corn. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 9, 439-444.
    9. Haigh P.M., Parker J.W.G. (1985): Effect of silage additives and wilting on silage fermentation, digestibility and intake, and on liveweight change of young cattle. Grass and Forage Science, 40, 429-436. Go to original source...
    10. Jalč D., Lauková A., Simonová M., Váradyová Z., Homolka P. (2009): The use of bacterial inoculants for grass silage: their effects on nutrient composition and fermentation parameters in grass silages. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 54, 84-91. Go to original source...
    11. Jančík F., Koukolová V., Kubelková P., Čermák B. (2009): Effects of grass species on ruminal degradability of silages and prediction of dry matter effective degradability. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 54, 315-323. Go to original source...
    12. Jonsson A., Lindberg H., Sundas S., Lingvall P., Lindgren S. (1990). Effect of additives on quality of big-bale silage. Animal Feed Science of Technology, 31, 139-155. Go to original source...
    13. Kung L. Jr. (2009): Potential factors that may limit the effectiveness of silage additives. In: Proc. 15th Int. Silage Conf., July 27-29, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 37-45.
    14. Kvasnička F. (2000): Application of isotachophoresis in food analysis. Electrophoresis, 21, 2780-2787. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    15. Lättemäe P., Lingvall P. (1996): Effect of hexamine and sodium nitrite in combination with sodium benzoate and sodium propionate on fermentation and storage stability of wilted and long cut grass silage. Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research, 26, 135-146.
    16. Mårtensson O. (2002): Lactic acid bacteria fermentations oat-based suspensions. Doctoral Thesis. Department of Biotechnology, Lund University, Finland, 94 pp.
    17. McDonald P., Henderson A.R., Heron S.R.E. (1991): The Biochemistry of Silage. 2 nd Ed. Chalcombe Publications, Marlow Bucks, UK, 340 pp.
    18. Mustafa A.F., Seguin P. (2004): Chemical composition and in vitro digestibility of whole-crop pea and pea-cereal mixture silages grown in south-western Quebec. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 190, 416-421. Go to original source...
    19. Pursiainen P., Tuori M. (2008): Effect of ensiling field and common vetch in different proportion with wholecrop wheat using formic acid or an inoculant on fermentation characteristics. Grass and Forage Science, 63, 60-78. Go to original source...
    20. Salawu M.B., Adesogan A.T., Fraser M.D., Frychan R., Jones R. (2002): Assessment of the value of whole crop peas and intercropped pea-wheat bi-crop forages harvested at different stages for ruminants. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 96, 43-53. Go to original source...
    21. SAS Institute (2006): User's Guide Version 9.1: Statistics. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
    22. Succu E., Filya I. (2006): The effects of bacterial inoculants on the fermentation, aerobic stability and rumen degradability characteristics of wheat silages. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 30, 187-193.
    23. Třináctý J., Šimek M., Komprda T. (1996): The influence of a nylon bag carrier on alfalfa crude protein degradability. Animal Feed Science of Technology, 57, 129-137. Go to original source...
    24. Uzun A., Bilgili U., Sincik M., Filya I., Acikgoz E. (2005): Yield and quality of forage type pea lines of contrasting leaf types. European Journal of Agronomy, 22, 85-94. Go to original source...
    25. Váradyová Z., Kišidayová S., Lauková A., Jalč D. (2010): Influence of inoculated maize silage and sunflower oil on the in vitro fermentation, ciliate population and fatty acid outputs in the rumen fluid collected from sheep. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 55, 105-115. Go to original source...
    26. Weissbach F. (2003): Theory and practice of ensuring good quality of silages from grass and legumes. In: Proc. 11th Int. Sci. Symp. Forage Conservation, Nitra, Slovakia, 31-36.
    27. Whittenbury R. (1968): Microbiology of grass silage. Process Biochemistry, 3, 27-31.
    28. Wright D.A., Gordon F.J., Steen R.W.J., Patterson D.C. (2000): Factors influencing the response in intake of silage and animal performance after wilting of grass before ensiling: A review. Grass Forage Science, 55, 1-13. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content