Abstract #M159
Section: Forages and Pastures
Session: Forages and Pastures I
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Monday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Exhibit Hall B
Session: Forages and Pastures I
Format: Poster
Day/Time: Monday 7:30 AM–9:30 AM
Location: Exhibit Hall B
# M159
Effect of type of processor and storage length on corn silage processing score in whole-plant corn silage samples.
L. F. Ferraretto*1, J. P. Goeser2,3, K. A. Bryan4, 1University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2Rock River Laboratory Inc, Watertown, WI, 3University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 4Chr. Hansen, Milwaukee, WI.
Key Words: corn silage processing score, shredlage, fermentation
Effect of type of processor and storage length on corn silage processing score in whole-plant corn silage samples.
L. F. Ferraretto*1, J. P. Goeser2,3, K. A. Bryan4, 1University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 2Rock River Laboratory Inc, Watertown, WI, 3University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, 4Chr. Hansen, Milwaukee, WI.
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of: 1) processor type on fermentation profile, corn silage processing score (CSPS) and physically effective NDF (peNDF) of whole-plant corn silage (WPCS) samples, and 2) storage length on WPCS CSPS. A data set comprised of 3,900 WPCS samples was obtained from Rock River Labs (Watertown, WI). All samples were collected from 2013 to 2016 by the Chr. Hansen team under specific protocols to label samples as shredlage (SHRD) only if confirmed by farmers and/or custom harvesters. A total of 309 and 3591 samples were labeled as SHRD and non-shredlage (CONV), respectively. Month of submittal was assumed to be associated with time in storage, with Sep. and Aug. being 1 and 12 mo of storage, respectively. Samples had been previously analyzed for CSPS, peNDF and ruminal in vitro NDF digestibility at 30 h (ivNDFD; using NIRS). In addition, 2394 samples (272 SHRD and 2394 CONV) had previously been analyzed via wet chemistry for fermentation profile. Loss of DM during fermentation was calculated with a predictive equation (Goeser et al., 2015; PAS 31:137–145). Data were analyzed using Proc Glimmix in SAS with either type of processor (SHRD vs. CONV) or month of sample submittal as fixed effect. Statistical significance and trends were declared at P < 0.05 and P > 0.05 to P < 0.10, respectively. Measurements of pH were lower (P = 0.01; 3.90 vs. 3.97) for SHRD than CONV, which was related to higher (P = 0.001; 4.89% vs. 4.34% of DM) lactic acid concentrations. Concentrations of acetate, propionate, butyrate and ethanol did not differ (P > 0.10) and averaged 2.27%, 0.35%, 0.36% and 0.57%, respectively. Loss of DM was minor but lower (P = 0.05; 2.42% vs. 2.73%) for SHRD. A 4.6%-units greater CSPS was observed (P = 0.001; 68.1% vs. 63.53% starch passing through 4.75 mm sieve) for SHRD than for CONV samples. In contrast, peNDF and ivNDFD were (P = 0.001) 1.8%- and 1.6%-units greater for CONV. A gradual increase in CSPS from Sep to Dec was observed (P = 0.001), followed by a decreased in Jan/Feb and a subsequent increase from Mar to Aug. Our results suggest that harvesting WPCS as SHRD improve kernel breakage while maintaining adequate fermentation patterns.
Key Words: corn silage processing score, shredlage, fermentation