Inoculant effects on alfalfa silage: Fermentation products and nutritive value

135Citations
Citations of this article
100Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

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 × 106 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 (∼22°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 × 107 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. © American Dairy Science Association, 2007.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fllya, I., Muck, R. E., & Contreras-Govea, F. E. (2007). Inoculant effects on alfalfa silage: Fermentation products and nutritive value. Journal of Dairy Science, 90(11), 5108–5114. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2006-877

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free