1. A review on additives for grain silages
17th International Conference in Forage Conservation
Stary Smokovec - Slovakia
A review on additives for grain silages
Prof. Luiz Gustavo Nussio
Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture
University of São Paulo - Brazil

2. A review on additives for grain silages
Department of Animal Science
“Luiz de Queiroz’’ College of Agriculture
University of São Paulo
A review on additives for grain silages
Morais, G.; DanieL, J.L.P.; Siqueira, G.R.; Silva, N.C; Schonell, E.P.; Nussio, L.G.
September. 2016
Slovak Republic

3. Effectiveness of additives on ensiling of HMGS
Animal
Sealed Silo
Opened
Silo
Meta-analysis

4. High moisture corn silages
35 publications:
24 journal articles, 1 technical note and 10 abstracts
Total means: 258
Year set

5. Data set and statistical analysis
The additives were sorted in classes:
Chemical
Homolactic bacteria
Heterofermentative bacteria
“Combo” (homo- and hetero-fermentative bacteria); and the effectiveness was evaluated for each of these classes.

6. Data set and statistical analysis
A minimal of four treatment means from at least two articles was the prerequisite for keep the dependent variable into data set.
Trial effect was considered randomized and additive effect was fixed.
Data were analyzed using mixed model procedure of SAS (St-Pierre, 2001)

7. Chemical additives used in meta-analysis
*Calcium formate, hexamethylene tetramine, 1,2-propanodiol, ammonium hydroxide, ammonium isobutyrate, diammonium fosfate, formic ammonia, methylparaben, natrium nitrogen, propylparaben and sodium hydroxide. Frequency for all chemical compounds: ≤ 5%

8. Chemical additives Chemical composition of treated HMCS** ** **
***
DM: g/kg; Soluble Crude Protein (SCP): g/kg CP; Other chemical parameters: g/kg DM.
** Differ (P<0.05); *** Differ (P<0.01)

9. Chemical additives Fermentative characteristics of treated HMCS
Organic acids: g/kg DM; DM losses: g/kg; LAB and Yeasts: log cfu/g
* Differ (P<0.10); ** Differ (P<0.05); *** Differ (P<0.01)

10. Chemical additives Aerobic stability of treated HMCS
***
*** Differ (P<0.01)

12. Microbial additives
There is enough knowledge indicating divergent responses for homolactic and heterolactic microbial inoculants.
(Kung et al., 2003)
Homofermentative bacteria are recognized by their efficiency for producing lactic acid.
Heterofermentative bacteria are skilled to ferment sugars into other products besides lactic acid such as acetic acid and 1.2-propanediol.

13. Microbial additives used in meta-analysis
*Propionibacterium acidipropionici, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus brevis, Lactobacillus bulgaricus . Frequency for all microrganisms : ≤ 5%.

14. Homolactic bacteria Chemical composition of treated HMCS
DM: g/kg; Soluble Crude Protein (SCP): g/kg CP; Other chemical parameters: g/kg DM.
* Differ (P<0.10); ** Differ (P<0.05)

15. Homolactic bacteria Fermentative characteristics of treated HMCS*
Organic acids: g/kg DM; DM losses: g/kg; Yeasts: log cfu/g
* Differ (P<0.10); ** Differ (P<0.05)

16. Homolactic bacteria Aerobic stability of treated HMCS
(P=0.27)

17. Source: Rafael Andrade (Agrop. Vista Alegre)

18. Heterofermentative bacteria Chemical composition of treated HMCS
DM: g/kg; Other chemical parameters: g/kg DM.
** Differ (P<0.05); *** Differ (P<0.01)

19. * Differ (P<0.10); ** Differ (P<0.05); *** Differ (P<0.01)
Heterofermentative bacteria Fermentative characteristics of treated HMCS
Organic acids: g/kg DM; DM losses: g/kg; LAB, Yeasts and Molds: log cfu/g
* Differ (P<0.10); ** Differ (P<0.05); *** Differ (P<0.01)

20. Heterofermentative bacteria Aerobic stability of treated HMCS
***
94% L. buchneri
*** Differ (P<0.01)

21. Lactobacillus buchneri: time of storage and application rates
Aerobic stability (h)
Application rate (cfu/g)
Taylor and Kung (2002)

23. Combo microbial additive Chemical composition of treated HMCS**
DM: g/kg; Other chemical parameters: g/kg DM
* Differ (P<0.10); ** Differ (P<0.05)

24. Combo microbial additive Fermentative characteristics of treated HMCS**
***
Organic acids: g/kg DM; DM losses: g/kg; Yeasts and Molds: log cfu/g
** Differ (P<0.05); *** Differ (P<0.01)

25. Combo microbial additive Aerobic stability of treated HMCS
59% L. buchneri
P=0.22

26. Sites
Animal
Sealed Silo
Opened
Silo

27. Source: Robert Lake (Hitch Enterprises)

29. Aerobic stability: Optimal dose of heterofermentative bacteria
4.67 × 105
Figure 1. Aerobic stability of HMCS according to inoculation rate of heterofermentative bacteria. If Dose ≤ 4.67 × 105 ufc/g, aerobic stability = × Dose (g/kg); otherwise, aerobic stability = 235 h. P < 0.01, R2 = 0.50, RMSE = 47.9

30. Aerobic stability: Optimal dose of chemical additives
Figure 2. Aerobic stability of HMGS according to chemical additive dosage. Aerobic stability = × Dose (g/kg). P < 0.01, R2 = 0.81, RMSE = 20.1

31. High moisture winter cereals grain silages
6 publications:
3 journal articles and 3 abstracts
Total means: 70
Winter cereal grain silages:
wheat,
barley,
and triticale
Substantial content of soluble carbohydrates

32. Classes of additives Heterofermentative bacteria: 77% of L. buchneri
Chemical additives
*Ammonia, sulfur dioxide, sodium benzoate and sodium propionate. Frequency for all chemical compounds: ≤ 8%

33. Heterofermentative bacteria Chemical composition of treated HMWCS**
DM: g/kg; Other chemical parameters: g/kg DM
* Differ (P<0.10); ** Differ (P<0.05)

34. * Differ (P<0.10); ** Differ (P<0.05)
Heterofermentative bacteria Fermentative characteristics of treated HMWCS *
Organic acids: g/kg DM
* Differ (P<0.10); ** Differ (P<0.05)

35. Chemical additives Chemical composition of treated HMWCS**
DM: g/kg; Other chemical parameters: g/kg DM.
* Differ (P<0.10); ** Differ (P<0.05)

36. Chemical additives Fermentative characteristics of treated HMWCS*
***
Organic acids: g/kg DM; DM losses: g/kg; Yeasts and Molds: log cfu/g
* Differ (P<0.10); ** Differ (P<0.05); *** Differ (P<0.01)

37. Chemical additives Aerobic stability of treated HMWCS*
* Differ (P=0.10)

38. Animal
Evidenciar animal

39. Dairy cows fed dry ground sorghum or rehydrated sorghum grain silages with or without additives
Schonell (2016)

40. Dairy cows fed dry ground corn or rehydrated corn grain silages with or without sodium benzoate
Morais (2016)

41. Feedlot Nellore fed dry ground corn, high moisture corn silage treated or not with L. buchneri and rehydrated corn grain silage, treated or not with L. buchneri
a,bMeans within a row with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05)
Silva et al. (2016)

42. Final remarks
Control of fermentative losses is not a concern in properly made HMGS. Therefore, use of additives is justified if aerobic stability is improved.
Additives based on chemical or heterofermentative bacteria proven to be effective in prevent aerobic deterioration in a same magnitude.
Treatment effectiveness was achieved when chemical additives were applied at least 0.3% and heterolactic bacteria up to 5 ×105 cfu/g.
Experiments with cattle fed corn and sorghum grains showed that L. buchneri and sodium benzoate did not change animal performance.

43. Acknowledgements Luiz de Queiroz College of Agriculture Department of
Luiz de Queiroz
College of Agriculture
Department of
Animal Sciences
Forage Quality and Conservation Team