CONSERVED FORAGE ( SILAGE AND HAY ) : PROGRESS AND PRIORITIES

Forage conservation permits a better supply of quality feed when forage production is low. While haymaking and ensiling have been practiced for generations, research is still needed to 1) understand the processes affecting quality during harvesting and storage and 2) develop practical means to minimize losses and enhance quality. Several trends in harvesting forages for silage are notable. Kernel processing of maize, once confined to Europe, has become popular in North America. Self-propelled forage harvesters have a larger share of the market due to more contract harvesting and larger farms. Larger harvesters, rakes and mergers help improve productivity and forage quality. Finally, farmers are increasing cutting length to meet the fiber needs of high-producing dairy cattle. These latter two trends make good silo management more critical. The number of silo types has continued to increase. Pressed bag and wrapped bale silages are important recent developments. These newer types have made it easier to segregate silages by quality and allow small farms to make high quality silage. However, disposal of the larger quantities of plastic is a growing issue. Alternatives such as edible or biodegradable films would be welcome for all silo types, reducing labor and environmental concerns. With wrapped bales, spoilage and listeria contamination are more common because of the large surface to volume ratio. Enhanced methods to control spoilage and pathogen development are needed. With most crops considerable breakdown of true protein occurs during ensiling, subsequently decreasing nitrogen utilization efficiency in ruminants. The polyphenol oxidases in red clover and the tannins in some legumes reduce protein loss during ensiling. These mechanisms may be useful in developing new silage additives or plant varieties. Additives can enhance silage quality. Inoculants are the most common. Improved inoculants aimed at increasing aerobic stability are beginning to be marketed, but their overall success is uncertain. Enzymes to degrade plant cell walls, providing sugar for fermentation and making the silage more digestible, have not fulfilled their promise but do have potential. Acids and sugars have been declining in use but still are important in certain ensiling situations. Three types of balers are used to package dry hay: small square (SSB), large round (LRB) and large square balers (LSB). The SSB is declining importance in developed countries because of labor constraints but remains viable in developing countries where farm labor is still plentiful. The LRB is the dominant baler worldwide because of its productivity and low ownership and operating costs. High productivity and a package ideally suited for shipping has promoted the continuing growth of the LSB. Hay producers struggle with getting crops dry enough (< 20% moisture) to prevent excess storage losses due to biological activity. This is especially important as bale density increases. Typical bale densities are about 130, 190 and 240 kg/m for SSB, LRB and LSB, respectively. In humid climates, forage researchers and producers are investigating intensive conditioning systems to improve field drying rates, utilizing preservatives like propionic acid, and developing bale ventilation and drying systems all in the attempt to improve dry hay quality. In arid regions, producers only bale after dew accumulation has softened brittle plant tissue to reduce leaf loss. Systems are under development that will soften plant tissue at the baler by applying a fine water mist. Larger livestock farms and increased development of markets for commercial hay will push demand for greater productivity and better bale quality.

[1]  Kevin J. Shinners,et al.  EVALUATION OF METHODS TO IMPROVE STORAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF LARGE SQUARE BALES IN A HUMID CLIMATE , 2000 .

[2]  P. Savoie,et al.  Evaluation of five sensors to estimate grass throughput in a forage harvester. , 2000 .

[3]  Hugh C. Wood,et al.  Survey of equipment and facilties for processing of high density bales. , 2000 .

[4]  Richard E. Muck,et al.  FACTORS AFFECTING BUNKER SILO DENSITIES , 2000 .

[5]  S. O. Elferink,et al.  Lactobacillus buchneri improves aerobic stability of laboratory and farm scale whole crop maize silage but does not affect feed intake and milk production of dairy cows , 1999 .

[6]  T. Wistuba,et al.  Effects of processing whole-plant corn silage on growth performance and nutrient digestibility in feedlot cattle , 1998 .

[7]  R. J. Straub,et al.  Harvest and Storage Losses Associated with Mid-size Rectangular Bales , 1996 .

[8]  Y. Cormier,et al.  Effects of a Bacterial Hay Preservative (Pediococcus pentosaceus) on Hay under Experimental Storage Conditions , 1995, Applied and environmental microbiology.

[9]  S. Lindgren,et al.  Inhibition of enterobacteria and Listeria growth by lactic, acetic and formic acids. , 1993, The Journal of applied bacteriology.

[10]  R. E. Pitt,et al.  A Diffusion Model of Aerobic Deterioration at the Exposed Face of Bunker Silos , 1993 .

[11]  C. A. Rotz,et al.  Economic Potential of Preserving High-Moisture Hay , 1992 .

[12]  S. F. Spoelstra,et al.  Effects of carbon dioxide on fermentation and aerobic stability of maize silage , 1992 .

[13]  R. Muck,et al.  Proteolysis in Ensiled Forage Legumes That Vary in Tannin Concentration , 1991 .

[14]  R. G. Koegel,et al.  Leaf Loss and Drying Rate of Alfalfa as Affected by Conditioning Roll Type , 1991 .

[15]  S. Spoelstra,et al.  A simulation model of the microbiological and chemical changes accompanying the initial stage of aerobic deterioration of silage. , 1990 .

[16]  M. B. McGechan,et al.  A review of losses arising during conservation of grass forage: part 2, storage losses , 1989 .

[17]  C. A. Rotz,et al.  DAFOSYM: A Model of the Dairy Forage System , 1989 .

[18]  R. Muck Effect of Inoculation Level on Alfalfa Silage Quality , 1989 .

[19]  P. H. Robinson,et al.  INFLUENCE OF TYPE OF SILAGE BAG ON CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF ALFALFA SILAGE , 1988 .

[20]  R. Pitt,et al.  A model of clostridial dominance in ensilage , 1987 .

[21]  R. E. Pitt,et al.  Effluent Production from Silage with Application to Tower Silos , 1987 .

[22]  R. J. Straub,et al.  Ammonia Treatment of Large and Small Hay Packages , 1985 .

[23]  C. E. Harris,et al.  Pathways of water loss from legumes and grasses cut for conservation , 1980 .

[24]  R. Marsh A review of the effects of mechanical treatment of forages on fermentation in the silo and on the feeding value of the silages , 1978 .