4.7 Article

Inoculant effects on alfalfa silage: Fermentation products and nutritive value

Journal

JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE
Volume 90, Issue 11, Pages 5108-5114

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.3168/jds.2006-877

Keywords

alfalfa; lactic acid bacteria; nutritive value; silage

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effect of 14 microbial inoculants on the fermentation and nutritive value of alfalfa silages was studied under laboratory conditions. The first cut (477 g of dry matter/kg) and second cut (393 g of dry matter/kg) of a second-year alfalfa stand were ensiled in 2 trials. In both trials alfalfa was harvested with standard field equipment. All inoculants were applied at 1.0 x 10(6) cfu/g of crop. Uninoculated silages served as controls. After inoculants were added, the chopped forages were ensiled in 1.0-and 0.5-L anaerobic glass jars, respectively, at a density of 500 g/L. Each trial had 15 treatments (uninoculated control and 14 inoculants), with 4 silos per treatment. Silos were stored for a minimum of 30 d at room temperature (similar to 22 degrees C). In first-cut silage, all inoculants but one reduced pH relative to the uninoculated control, and all but 2 of the homofermentative strains shifted fermentation toward lactic acid. In second-cut silage, the epiphytic lactic acid bacterial population was 2.7 x 10(7) cfu/g, and only commercial inoculants produced significant shifts in fermentation. Overall, microbial inoculants generally had a positive effect on alfalfa silage characteristics in terms of lower pH and shifting fermentation toward lactic acid with homofermentative lactic acid bacteria or toward acetic acid with heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria, Lactobacillus buchneri. These effects were stronger in the commercial products tested. In spite of the positive effects on silage fermentation, 48-h in vitro true DM digestibility was not improved by inoculation with lactic acid bacteria.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available