12/3/2014
CCP STORAGE: THE
FERMENTATION PROCESS FROM
ONSET TO FEED OUT—
EFFICIENCY AND OPPORTUNITIES
2014 Penn State Dairy Nutrition Conference
Dr. John Goeser, PAS
Animal Nutrition and R&I Director
Rock River Lab, Inc.
Adjunct Asst. Professor
University of WI – Madison, Dairy Science
Agenda: 45 Min.
• What is the Aim?
• Understanding the preservation process
• Fermentation stages
• What is dry matter loss?
• Where does it occur?
• Efficiency? Opportunities?
• Estimating and managing DM losses
1
12/3/2014
Today’s Aim?
• Preserve food, avoid sickness
Preserving feed
2
12/3/2014
Ensiled forage aim?
• Harvest 100 tons? Want to feed out 100
tons
• Manage as close to that as possible
• Forage preservation process likely dates
back several thousand years (Wilkinson et
al., 2003)
Preservation process
Four stages
(Weinberg and Muck, 1996)
1. Aerobic
2. Fermentation
3. Stable
4. Feed-out
3
12/3/2014
Aerobic stage (Pack and seal)
• Exclude oxygen and phase is short-lived (Pahlow
et al., 2003)
• Several hours
• Oxygen is the enemy
• Less oxygen = efficient fermentation and preservation
Silage
Air (oxygen)
Water
Aerobic Stage Opportunities
• Limit oxygen exposure
during fill
• Ideally cover/seal finished
areas
• Avoid extended fill periods
• < 7 d to fill silo if not oxygen
limiting silo (e.g. bunker, pile,
pit)
• Cover bunker, pile and pit
silos nightly
4
12/3/2014
Fermentation Stage
• Tremendously complex and partially understood (Kung,
personal communication)
• After sealing, fermentation lasts for several days to 1
month (Pahlow et al., 2003)
• Field born (epiphytic) anaerobic bacteria, yeast and
microorganisms grow
• Microbes consume carbohydrates and produce acids and
other compounds
“Silos”
5
12/3/2014
Primary and secondary fermentations;
Pahlow et al., 2003
Primary – Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB) ferment
• Homofermentative LAB – efficient, minimal DM loss
• Facultative heterofermentative LAB – can be efficient, minimal DM
loss
• Heterofermentative LAB – less efficient, some DM loss
Secondary – undesirable, substantial DM loss
1. Entobacterial ferment, gram negative
• Coliform bacteria, many also reside in human/animal intestinal tract
2. Clostridia spp. ferment, gram positive
• Can be reduced by inoculating with LAB
Winning Fermentation
• How do we preserve all 100 tons?
• Grow the right bacteria, quickly
• Convert only optimal amount of carbs into acid
• Produce effective acid amount in fastest
possible time
• Avoid secondary fermentation
• At all costs…
6
12/3/2014
Theoretical Fermentation Process:
Desirable
Theoretical Fermentation Process:
Opportunities abound!
7
12/3/2014
Fermentation Analysis Goals
Corn Silage
pH
Lactic
Acetic
Propionic
EtOH
Published Means*
3.72
5.41
2.29
0.12
1.40
Typical*** Guideline % RRL Met Goal?
3.7 to 4.2
< 4.0
4 to 7
> 3.5
82.5%
1 to 3
< 2.0
47.5%
< 0.1
< 0.25
1 to 3
< 1.0
Legumes\Grasses
pH
Lactic
Acetic
Propionic
Butyric
Published Means**
4.63
6.84
2.01
0.04
0.07
Typical*** Guideline % RRL Met Goal?
4.3 to 4.7
< 4.5
2 to 10
> 3.0
70.0%
0.5 to 3
< 1.5
61.5%
< 0.5
< 0.25
< 0.5
< 0.25
*, ** Published means were weighted by treatment number within a study and summarized from references cited. The
numbers of treatments summarized from cited references were as follows: Corn Silage n = 159 and Legumes n = 36.
***Typical values adapted from those published by Kung and Shaver (2001).
Guidelines developed from research averages, typical values, Rock River Laboratory means and from published references
cited below.
Fermentation Analysis Goals
High Moisture Corn Grain
pH
Lactic
Acetic
Propionic
EtOH
Published Means*
4.22
1.07
0.51
0.05
0.84
Typical** Guideline % RRL Met Goal?
4 to 4.5
0.5 to 2.0
< 0.5
< 0.1
0.2 to 2.0
< 4.5
> 1.75
< 0.5
< 0.25
< 0.25
40.0%
61.0%
* Published means were weighted by treatment number within a study and summarized from references cited. The numbers of
experimental treatments summarized from cited references were 32 for High Moisture Corn Grains
**Typical values adapted from those published by Kung and Shaver (2001).
Guidelines developed from research averages, typical values, Rock River Laboratory means and from published references
cited below.
8
12/3/2014
Stability Stage
• Silage “stable” until pH or anaerobic nature is
compromised
• Hydrolytic and enzymatic activity continue during
long-term storage (Rooke and Hatfield, 2003)
• Protein hydrolysis
• Some cell wall degradation
• If Clostridium spp. able to continue growing,
metabolize lactic acid and break down protein
Stability, 1988
9
12/3/2014
Feed-out Stage
Feed-out Opportunities
• Limit aerobic exposure
• At the feed-out face
• Maintain density
• Consider tools to improve forage
stability or yield clean feed
• L. buchneri inoculants (Kung et al.,
2003)
• Preservative treatments
• Anti-microbials
• Variety of approaches
10
12/3/2014
Forage Losses, Shrink
Feed Losses at the Silo
Up-front
• WSC losses due to biochemistry
• Heterolactic ferment
Secondary
• Clostridium spp. growth
• Substantial challenge
Seepage
• Soluble carbohydrates, fermentation acids and other nutrients
washing away
• Can represent as much as 10% shrink! (Savoie and Jofriet, 2003)
Feed-out
• Second aerobic deterioration
11
12/3/2014
Mitigating shrink losses: Aerobic
Silo DM Losses Silage Losses (% of Total Feed)
25.0
(Equation adapted from Ruppel et al., 1995 JDS)
22.5
20.0
17.5
$ 54 /
Ton
15.0
$46 / 12.5
10.0
7.5
5.0
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
Silage Density, lb/cu. ft
22.5
25
Key Shrink Loss Factors: Up-Front
• Insufficient fuel to drive fermentation
• Water soluble carbs
• Rained on forage, poor quality forage
• Excessive moisture
• > 65%
• Oxygen infiltration (Pitt, 1986)
• Density and packing & extended filling
• Silage buffering capacity (Weissbach et al., 1974 as cited by
Pahlow et al., 2003)
• Amount of acid needed to < pH to 4.0
• Variable LAB and other microbial populations?
• Unknown or poorly trained “fermentation army”?
12
12/3/2014
Mitigating shrink losses: Up-front
• Up-front and secondary can account for 3 to 25% of
harvested tons (Pitt, 1986)
• Forage inoculants often quoted to save 3% more feed, is
this real?
• Many bacterial and other inoculants available, all very different…
• Muck and Kung (1997) found inoculants improved
fermentation in less than 50% of studies they summarized
• However, when inoculant worked (significantly
different), conserved additional 6% of feed
• Demand research and validation…
Clostridial fermentations in detail
• Major factors in anaerobic silage quality losses
(Muck, 1988)
• Affect intake and performance
• Clostridia spp. can ferment amino acids – protein
breakdown (Pahlow et al., 2003)
• Butyric acid, NH3-N, other acids, alcohols and gasses
(losses)
• Clostridium tyrobutyricum – well studied, affects
cheese (Pahlow et al., 2003)
• Turns 2 lactic acid -> 1 butyric acid + 2H2 + 2 CO2
• Results in increased silage pH, substantial energy
losses
13
12/3/2014
Estimating and valuing DM losses?
Substantial economic impact
• What value does 5% feed recovery have?
• At $3.50 corn, corn silage ton = approx. $32 and 5 % = $1.50
• At $6.00 corn, corn silage ton = approx. $56 and 5 % = $2.80
• Note: this feed loss is high value – sugar and readily digestible
carbs
Estimating losses?
• Subjective silage quality assessment
• Temperature assessment (Borreani and Tobacco, 2010)
• Density:Loss relationship (Ruppel et al., 1995)
• Predictive equations
• Buckmaster et al. (1989) equations based on forage DM
• Goeser et al. (submitted) equation based on DM, pH, VFAs and forage
parameters
Practically Managing Shrink
• Harvest a high quality crop & avoid rain
• Ensure adequate sugar available to microbes
• Chop at the correct moisture
• Moisture also excludes oxygen; don’t go dry
• Put your decision maker on the pack tractor, silo or
bagger
• Watch the crop coming in and make key decisions
• Use a research proven inoculant at the chopper
• Insulate the tank, mix at correct ratios, and keep fresh supply
• Manage oxygen
• Avoid extended time fill silos (e.g. 1+ week)
• Cover/seal quickly and well (tire to tire)
• Get O2 out!
14
12/3/2014
In Summary: Manage the 4 Stages
1. Aerobic
• Seal! Fast!
2. Fermentation
• Ferment! Fast!
3. Stable
• Stable! Long time!
4. Feed-out
• Manage! Aggressively!
Contact – John Goeser, PhD PAS
• johngoeser@rockriverlab.com
• Office: 920-261-0446
• @johngoeser on Twitter
15
12/3/2014
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Borreani, G. and E. Tabacco. 2010. The relationship of silage temperature with the microbiological status of the face of
corn silage bunkers. J Dairy Sci. 93:2620-2629.
Buckmaster, D.R., C.A. Rotz, and R.E. Muck. 1989. A comprehensive model of forage changes in the silo. Trans. AsAE
32:1143-1152.
Kung, Jr., L.K., M.R. Stokes, and C.J. Lin. 2003. Silage additives. Ch. 7 Pages 305 – 360. In Silage Science and
Technology. D.R. Buxton, R.E. Muck and J.H. Harrison, eds. ASA – CSSA – SSSA Publishers, Madison, WI.
Muck, R.E. 1988. Factors influencing silage quality and their implications for management. J Dairy Sci. 71:2992-3002.
Muck, R.E. and L. Kung, Jr. 1997. Effects of silage additives on ensiling. pg. 187-199. in Silage: Field to feedbunk.
NRAES-99, Proc. North American Conference. Hershey, PA.
Pahlow, G., R.E. Muck, F. Driehuis, S.J. W.H. Oude elferink, and S.F. Spoelstra. 2003. Microbiology of Ensiling. Ch. 2
Pages 31 – 93. In Silage Science and Technology. D.R. Buxton, R.E. Muck and J.H. Harrison, eds. ASA – CSSA – SSSA
Publishers, Madison, WI.
Pitt, R.E. 1986. Dry matter losses due to oxygen infiltration in silos. J. Agric. Engineer. Res. 35:193-205.
Rooke, J.A., and R.D. Hatfield. 2003. Biochemistry of ensiling. Ch. 3 Pages 95 – 139. In Silage Science and Technology.
D.R. Buxton, R.E. Muck and J.H. Harrison, eds. ASA – CSSA – SSSA Publishers, Madison, WI.
Ruppel, K.A., R.E. Pitt, L.E. Chase, and D.M. Galton. 1995. Bunker silo management and its relationship to forage
preservation on dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 78:141-153
Savoie, P and J.C. Jofriet. 2003. Silage Storage. Ch. 9 Pages 405 – 467. In Silage Science and Technology. D.R.
Buxton, R.E. Muck and J.H. Harrison, eds. ASA – CSSA – SSSA Publishers, Madison, WI.
Weinberg, Z.G., and R.E. Muck. 1996. New trends and opportunities in the development and use of inoculants for silage.
FEMS Microbio. Rev. 19:53-68.
Weissbach, F., L. Schmidt, and E. Hein. 1974. Method of anticipation of the run of fermentation in silage making based
on the chemical composition of the green fodder. pg. 663-673. In Proc. Int. Grassl. Congr. 12th. Vol. 3, Part 2. V.G.
Iglovikov and A.P. Movsisyants ed. Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Lugovaya.
Wilkinson, J.M., K.K. Bolsen, and C.J. Lin. 2003. History of Silage. Ch. 1 Pages 1 – 30 In Silage Science and Technology.
D.R. Buxton, R.E. Muck and J.H. Harrison, eds. ASA – CSSA – SSSA Publishers, Madison, WI.
References cited for Fermentation Compound Published Means
Adesogan, A., 2008. FL Ruminant Nutr. Symp.
Arriola et al., 2012. J Dairy Sci. 95:964-974.
Bai et al., 2011. African J. of Biotech. 10:9958- 9968.
Branislav et al., 2008. J Central European Agric. 9:439-444.
Filya et al., 2007. J Dairy Sci. 90:5108-5114
Kleinschmit and Kung, 2006. J Dairy Sci. 89:4005-4013.
Kung, L. and R. Shaver, 2001. Focus on Forage Vol. 3:1-5.
Kung et al., 1993. J Dairy Sci. 76:3763-3770
Kung et al., 2004. J Dairy Sci. 87:1310-1316.
Kung et al., 2007. J Dairy Sci. 90:2309-2314.
Muck, R.E. 1988. J Dairy Sci. 71:2992-3002.
Reigh and Kung, 2010. Anim Feed Sci Tech 159:105-109
Schaefer et al., 1989. Anim Feed Sci Tech 25:23- 28.
Taylor and Kung, 2002. J Dairy Sci. 85:1526-1532.
Teller et al., 2012. J Dairy Sci. 95:1428-1436.
Tabacco et al., 2011. J Dairy Sci. 94:5589-5598
Weinberg et al., 2007. J Dairy Sci. 90:4754-4762
Young et al., 2012. J Dairy Sci. 95:6687-6694.
Zhang et al., 2009. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 25:965-971.
16