Originally published in the 2000-2001 Direct -fed Microbial, Enzyme & Forage Additive Compendium, Miller Publishing Co.

,
Minnetonka, MN.

SILAGE FERMENTATION & ADDITIVES

Limin Kung, Jr., Ph.D.

Professor
Department of Animal and Food Sciences
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19717-1303
[email protected]

Introduction

The primary goal of making silage is to maximize the preservation of original nutrients in the
forage crop for feeding at a later date. Unfortunately, fermentation in the silo is a very uncontrolled
process usually leading to less than optimal preservation of nutrients. In order to assist in the
fermentation process, various silage additives have been used to improve the nutrient and energy
recovery in silage, often with subsequent improvements in animal performance. This review will focus
on some practical aspects of the fermentation process and the uses of some common silage additives
that includes microbial inoculants, enzymes, and buffered propionic acid. Several in-depth reviews
have been written that are excellent supplements to this review (Bolsen, 1995; Muck and Kung, 1997;
Kung and Muck, 1997).

The Ensiling Process

From a practical view, the three most important things that must occur in order to make good
silage are 1) the rapid removal of air, 2) the rapid production of lactic acid that results in a rapid drop in
pH, and 3) continued exclusion of air from the silage mass during storage and feedout.

After chopping, plant respiration continues for several hours (and perhaps days if silage is
poorly packed) and plant enzymes (e.g., proteases) are active until air is used up. Rapid removal of air
is important because it prevents the growth of unwanted aerobic bacteria, yeasts, and molds that
compete with beneficial bacteria for substrate. If air is not removed quickly, high temperatures and
prolonged heating are commonly observed. Air can be eliminated by wilting plant material to
recommended dry matters (DM) for the specific crop and storage structure, chopping forage to a
correct length, quick packing, good compacting, even distribution of forage in the storage structure, and
immediately sealing the silo. Air must be removed before optimal fermentation can take place.

Once air is removed, fermentation can begin. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) utilize water-soluble
carbohydrates to produce lactic acid, the primary acid, responsible for decreasing the pH in silage. The
acidity of silage can be determined by measuring its pH. A pH above 7 is considered basic whereas a
pH below 7 is acidic. A pH of 7 is neutral and means that a product is neither acidic or basic.
Depending on the crop, plant material in the field can range from a pH of about 5 to 6 and decrease to
a pH of 3.6 to 4.5 after acid is produced. A quick reduction in silage pH will help to limit the
breakdown of protein in the silo by inactivating plant proteases. In addition, a rapid decrease in pH will
inhibit the growth of undesirable anaerobic microorganisms such as enterobacteria and clostridia.
Eventually, continued production of lactic acid and a decrease in pH inhibits growth of all bacteria.

In general, good silage will remain stable, not change in composition or heat once air is
eliminated and it has achieved a low pH. This is why filling silos quickly and sealing of silos
immediately after filling is so important.

Silage can spoil rapidly if exposed to air during storage and feed out. A common
misconception is that molds are responsible for spoilage of silage when it is exposed to air. However,
yeasts (not molds) are the primary microorganisms that cause aerobic spoilage and heating. When
exposed to air, yeast metabolize lactic acid that causes the pH of the silage to increase, thus allowing
bacteria that where inhibited by low pH to grow and further spoil the mass. Airtight silos and removal
of sufficient silage during feed-out can help to prevent aerobic spoilage.

Although the ensiling process appears quite simple, many factors can affect what type of
fermentation takes place in a silo (Figure 1). For example, the buffering content of the forage mass
can have an effect on silage fermentation. Alfalfa has a high buffering capacity in comparison to corn.
Thus, it takes more acid production to lower the pH in alfalfa than in corn silage, resulting in the former
being more difficult to make. The dry matter content of the forage can also have major effects on the
ensiling process via a number of different mechanisms. First, drier silages do not pack well and thus it
is difficult to exclude all of the air from the forage mass. Second, as the dry matter content increases,
growth of lactic acid bacteria is curtailed and the rate and extent of fermentation is reduced. (For
example, acidification occurs at a slower rate and the amount of total acid produced is less). Thirdly,
undesirable bacteria called clostridia tend to thrive in very wet silages and can result in excessive
protein degradation, DM loss, and production of toxins. Where weather permits, wilting forage above
30-35% DM prior to ensiling can reduce the incidence of clostridia because these organisms are not
very osmotolerant (they do not like dry conditions). Delayed filling that results in excessive amounts of
air trapped in the forage mass can have detrimental effects on the ensiling process. Another factor
that can affect the ensiling process is the amount of water-soluble carbohydrates present for good
fermentation to take place. Hirsch and Kung (unpublished data, University of Delaware) showed that
WSC dramatically decreased and DM losses increased when corn forage was not immediately packed
into silos after chopping (Figure 2). Losses increased with prolonged times of delay. The types and
numbers of bacteria on the plant also have profound effects on silage fermentation. Natural
populations of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) on plant material are often low in number and
heterofermentative (produce end products other than lactic acid). In addition, if air is not removed
from the silage mass, other types of fermentation can occur. Some important management practices
that will help in making high quality silage are listed in Table 1.

The end products of silage fermentation are often monitored to assess silage quality and the
composition of normal silages is presented in Table 2. High concentrations of ammonia-N, acetic
acid, butyric acids, and ethanol are undesirable (Table 3). Some commercial laboratories now offer
analytical services for silage end products and such analyses can help to when evaluating silage quality.

Silage Inoculants
 As shown in Table 3 many end products are commonly produced during the fermentation
process but many of these end products are associated with less than desirable fermentations. Of the
several types of acids produced during, lactic acid is the strongest acid (10 times more strong than the
other acids) and preferred end product of silage fermentation. In fact, homolactic acid fermentation
that produces only lactic acid would be the desirable fermentation because of the high energy and dry
matter recoveries (Table 4). Note that in the undesirable fermentations, large amounts of carbon
dioxide (CO2) are produced. Because CO2 is a gas, the carbon (or dry matter) is lost to the
environment. This explains why these fermentations have low DM recoveries.

Organisms. Because forage often naturally contains many detrimental types of bacteria, the
concept of adding a microbial inoculant to silage was to add fast growing homofermentative lactic acid
bacteria (hoLAB) in order to dominate the fermentation resulting in a higher quality silage. Some of the
more common homolactic acid bacteria (hoLAB) used in silage inoculants include Lactobacillus
plantarum, L. acidophilus, Pediococcus acidilactici, P. pentacaceus, and Enterococcus faecium.
Microbial inoculants contain one or more of these bacteria which have been selected for their ability to
dominate the fermentation. The rationale for multiple organisms comes from potential synergistic
actions. For example, growth rate is faster in Enterococcus > Pediococcus > Lactobacillus. Some
Pediococcus strains are more tolerant of high DM conditions than are Lactobacillus and have a wider
range of optimal temperature and pH for growth (they grow better in cool conditions found in late Fall
and early Spring). Table 5 list several common and one experimental microbe that have been studied
as silage inoculants.

Fermentation and animal responses. Alfalfa, grass, and small cereal grain crops have
responded well to microbial inoculation with hoLAB. The fermentation of high moisture corn has also
been improved with hoLAB. However, hoLAB microbial inoculation of corn silage has resulted in less
consistent results. For example, I found 14 published (peer reviewed) studies in North America where
corn silage was treated with a hoLAB microbial inoculant. Improvements in animal performance
where found in only 3 instances and changes in fermentation end products were small. However,
Bolsen et al. (1992) reported that in 19 studies conducted at Kansas State University, with corn silage,
silages inoculated with hoLAB had 1.3 percentage unit higher DM recovery, supported 1.8% more
efficient gains, and produced 3.6 lb more gain per ton of crop ensiled with beef cattle. Similar results
were found with treated sorghum silages. In certain instances, significant animal responses have been
observed with inoculation although there was little effect on traditional end products of fermentation
(Gordon, 1989; Kung et al., 1993). These data suggest that lack of detectable changes in classically
measured fermentation end products is not a good indicator of the effectiveness of an inoculant.

When compared to untreated silages, silages treated with adequate numbers of a viable hoLAB
should be lower in pH, acetic acid, butyric acid and ammonia -N but higher in lactic acid content (Table
6). In a review of the literature between 1990-95, Muck and Kung (1997) reported that microbial
inoculation lowered pH, improved the lactic: acetic ratio, and lowered ammonia nitrogen content in
more than 60% of studies. Dry matter recovery was improved in 35% of the studies. Dry matter
digestibility was also improved in about one third of the cases. Microbial inoculation usually has little or
no effect on the fiber content of silages because most lactic acid bacteria contain little or no ability to
degrade plant cell walls. Decreases in fiber content may be due to partial acid hydrolysis of
hemicellulose. Some data suggests that certain microbial inoculants can increase fiber digestion (Rice
et al., 1990). Bunk life or aerobic stability was improved in only 33% of the studies and in fact
inoculation with hoLAB has, in many instances, made aerobic stability worse. This is probably due to a
lower content of acetic acid and other potential antifungal end products. This finding is extremely
ironic because, many producers buy microbial inoculants because they perceive an improvement in
aerobic stability. Silage treated with hoLAB can be extremely stable if feeding and silo management is
good.

Relative to animal responses, Kung and Muck (1997) reported positive responses to microbial
inoculants on intake, gain, and milk production (Table 7). The average response in milk production was
a +3.1 lb per day in studies where milk production was statistically improved. Although literature
summaries are encouraging, caution should be used when interpreting such data because all inoculants
are not equal and the conditions (e.g. rate of application, inoculant viability, species of bacteria, crop,
moisture levels) varied markedly among the studies. As many have pointed out in the past, products
with organisms with the same name are not necessarily the same organism and may not have the same
effectiveness (Dennis, 1992). For example, Rooke and Kafilzadeh (1994) reported that various strains
of hoLAB improved silage fermentation but animal performance was improved by only 1 strain of
organism. Probably the most impressive data set for a single inoculant is that of animal experiments
conducted using Lactobacillus plantarum MTD1. A summary of 14 lactation studies conducted in
University and government research institutes in North America and Europe using resulted in an
average increase of 4.6% (Moran and Owen, 1994). Improvements in milk yield were obtained with a
variety of crops (grass, corn, and alfalfa) across a wide spectrum of DM contents (15 to 46% DM).
Similarly, 19 comparisons among untreated silages and Moran and Owen (1995) summarized silages
treated with MTD1 for beef cattle. Across all studies and types of forage, cattle fed inoculated silage
inoculated with MTD1 ate 7.5% more DM and gained 11.1% more weight.

Unfortunately, there is no good way to predict the effectiveness of microbial inoculants. A

model developed by Pitt (1990) suggested that inoculants would be most effective on alfalfa during cool
conditions of first, third and fourth cuttings. However, there are numerous products that have little or
no research to support claims of improved fermentation or animal performance. Another factor which
complicates the evaluating process is that the majority of bacterial inoculants are repackaged for
distribution under private label and numbers of bacteria may be low and/or other additives (e.g.,
enzymes, fermentation extracts, minerals) are included in the formulations.

Inoculation rate, use, and storage. The organism(s) from microbial inoculants must be
present in sufficient numbers to effectively dominate the fermentation. The most commonly
recommended inoculation rate for L. plantarum based-inoculant results in a final concentration of
100,000 (or 1 x 105) colony forming units of this organism per gm of wet forage. There is limited
evidence to support the suggestion of some that doubling or tripling this amount (e.g. 200,000-300,000
cfu) is more beneficial. Additions of 1,000,000 (1 x 106) cfu per gm of wet forage are probably not
cost effective in North America.

Most microbial inoculants are available in powder or granular form. Inoculants applied in the
dry form are often mixed with calcium carbonate (limestone), dried skim milk, sucrose or other
carriers. These products can be applied by hand or by solid metering devices as per manufacturer's
recommendations. Inoculants to be applied in the liquid form come as dried powders and are mixed
with water just prior to use. (Use of chlorinated water may be detrimental to the inoculant if levels
exceed more than 1.5 to 2 PPM.) Application can be with a simple watering can by weighing the
incoming forage load and adjusting application based on the average unloading time. A better method
is to use a metered liquid sprayer to evenly disperse the inoculant on the forage. Unused liquids should
be discarded after a period of 24 to 48 h because bacterial numbers begin to decline.

Microbial inoculants can be applied to the forage at a variety of locations (Table 8). However,
application to forage at the chopper is highly recommended in order to maximize the time that
microorganisms have in contact with fermentable substrates. Application at the chopper is more
important if silage is being stored in a bunk or pile because it is difficult to achieve good distribution onto
silage from a forage wagon. Distribution of the inoculant is less of a problem if it is applied at the
blower of an upright silo or at the bagger. Throwing a can of dry inoculant onto a load of forage and
hoping for even distribution is not an acceptable practice! Inoculants can be applied in a liquid or solid
form. Data from our lab (Whiter et al., 1999) suggests that on higher DM silages (greater than about
45% DM), using a liquid based inoculant is preferable because the low moisture in these silages limits
fermentation (Table 9). Inoculants applied in a liquid form may be more advantageous because the
bacteria are added with their own moisture to help speed up fermentation.

Storage is an important aspect of a high quality inoculant that contains live microorganisms.
Some inoculants require refrigeration or freezing for optimum storage. Those that do not require cold
temperatures for storage should still be kept in cool, dry areas away from direct sunlight. Moisture,
oxygen and sunlight can decrease the stability of inoculants resulting in lower viable counts and a
product that does not meet label guarantees. Opened bags of inoculants should be used as soon as
possible and, if not completely used, probably not carried over into the next season.

Miscellaneous organisms. Several microorganisms that are not hoLAB have been used as
silage inoculants specifically for the purpose of improving aerobic stability. For example, the
Propionibacteria are able to convert lactic acid and glucose to acetic and propionic acids that are
more antifungal than lactic acid. Florez-Galaraza et al. (1985) reported that addition of P. shermanii
prevented the growth of molds and markedly reduced the initial population of yeast in high moisture
corn where the final pH was greater than 4.5. Dawson (1994) reported similar findings in high
moisture corn. Weinberg et al. (1995) saw little benefit from adding Propionibacteria to pearl millet
and corn silage (final pH < 4.0) but reported improvements in the aerobic stability of wheat silage when
the decline in pH was slow. Similarly, in 3 studies using laboratory silos, we (Kung et al., unpublished
data) did not observed beneficial effects of Propionibacteria in corn silage (final pH 3.6 to 3.8).
However, Bolsen et al. (1996) reported more propionic acid, lower yeasts and molds, and greater
aerobic stability in corn silage (pH of 3.6) treated with Propionibacteria. Some concerns relative to
the use of Propionibacteria that have not been adequately addressed are the loss of DM (from CO2
production) and the fact that Propionibacteria have proteolytic activity. The primary reasons for the
ineffectiveness of these organisms include the facts that they are strict anaerobes, they are slow
growing, and they are relatively acid intolerant.

Heterolactic lactobacilli may also be useful as silage inoculants. For example, two new isolated
heterolactic strains of L. plantarum (PA-28 and K-270) have been shown to improve the aerobic
stability of corn silage by an average of 28 hours in five studies (Allman and Stern, 1999). These
organisms where selected for fast growth, production of lactic and acetic acids, and the ability to
suppress the growth of 5 major strains of yeasts that cause spoilage in corn silage. Another
heterolactic acid bacteria having potential to improve the aerobic stability of silages is Lactobacillus
buchneri. Driehuis et al. (1996) reported that corn silage treated with L. buchneri was more stable
than untreated silage. They suggest that improved aerobic stability was due to the ability of L.
buchneri to ferment lactic acid to acetic acid and 1,2 propanediol (Oude-Elferink et al., 1999). Our
lab, (Ranjit et al., 1998) added L. buchneri to corn silage at a rate of 1 106 cfu/g of silage and found
decreased numbers of yeasts in silage and increased acetic acid in silage (from 1.8 to 3.6%, DMB).
Aerobic stability was markedly improved by inoculation (control silage heated after 26 hours while
treated silages remained cool for more than 400 h in silage). Increases in acetic and propionic acids in
silages treated with L. buchneri accompanied improvements in the aerobic stability of barley silage
(Kung et al., 1999). We also have observed improved aerobic stability in high moisture corn treated
with L. buchneri (Taylor and Kung, unpublished data, University of Delaware). These data are
exciting but some have criticized the use of heterolactic organisms because their metabolism could lead
to excessive DM loss in the silo. In addition, high levels of acetic acid may depress animal intakes. To
date, in research studies, losses of DM have been small and no negative effects on animal performance
have been observed when feeding silages treated with L. buchneri.

Enzymes as Silage Additives

Enzymes are proteins that catalyze various reactions. Enzymes were originally added to silage
to partially degrade fiber to fermentable water-soluble carbohydrates for use by lactic acid bacteria
because these organisms cannot use fiber as an energy source to make lactic acid. Thus, they were not
designed to result in excessive degradation of fiber in the silo. Cellulase (degrades cellulose) and
hemicellulase (degrades hemicellulose) enzyme complexes are commonly mixed with microbial
inoculants to form silage additives. Very few, if any, silage additives exist that are comprised only of
enzymes. Thus, it has been difficult to assess the effect of enzymes on silage fermentation and animal
performance. In general, there have been fewer studies on silages treated with enzymes than with
silages treated with microbial inoculants. Effects on subsequent animal performance have also been
less than found with inoculants. In a review of the literature between 1990-1995, Kung and Muck
(1997) reported that enzyme treatment resulted in positive effects on intake 21% (n = 29), gain 40% (n
= 10), milk production 33% (n = 12), and feed efficiency 27% (n = 11) of the time. The average
increase in milk production was 2.00 lb./d in studies where milk production was enhanced in this
summary. Improvements in DM digestion were only positive 9% of the time (n = 78) which leaves
much speculation as to how enzyme treatment results in improved animal performance.

Buffered Propionic Acid-Based Additives

Of the short-chain fatty acids, propionic acid has the greatest antimycotic activity. It is
effective in reducing yeast and molds which are responsible for aerobic deterioration in silages. The
antimycotic effect of propionic acid is enhanced as pH declines, making it an ideal candidate for
improving the aerobic stability of corn silage where pH is low. In the past, aerobic stability was
improved when large amounts of propionic acid (1 to 2% of the DM) were added to silage, but the high
percentage of acid restricted fermentation in these cases. Propionic acid is also difficult to handle
because it is corrosive. Thus, the acid salts, e.g., calcium, sodium and ammonium propionate, have
become more widely used in commercial products. The efficacy of propionic acid and its salts is
closely related to their solubility in water. The stronger the bond is between the acid and base, the less
soluble the product is and thereby less effective in inhibiting fungi. Among these salts, ammonium
propionate is most soluble in water (90%), followed by sodium propionate (25%) and calcium
propionate (5%). Most current additives containing buffered propionic acid and other antifungal
components (e.g., citric acid, benzoic acid, and sorbic acid) have low suggested rates of application (2 -
4 lb./ton of fresh forage weight). These low application rates usually do not affect silage fermentation
but reduce the numbers of yeasts that cause aerobic spoilage and improve aerobic stability (Table 10).
Several additives containing buffered propionic acid are available that were designed for use in the
TMR just prior to feeding to prevent heating and spoiling in the feed bunk. However, research from
our lab suggests that controlling yeasts at the time of ensiling is more efficient than trying to control
their numbers and metabolism in the feed bunk.

Conclusions

Silage additives can be useful tools to improve silage quality and animal performance; however,
they are not replacements for good management practices. The question of which additive to use can
sometimes be a difficult one. Table 11 shows some suggestions for use of silage additives. Cost of the
product should not be the most important factor when choosing an additive! Proof of efficacy and cost
should be considered together. Why buy a cheap additive that is ineffective? In contrast, the most
expensive additive might not be the best either. How should one evaluate a silage additive? In my
opinion, the three major issues that are relevant in North America for choosing an additive include a
broad and extensive data base (proving efficacy under a broad range of conditions, crops, moistures,
etc.) that 1) supports improvements in animal production, 2) supports improvements in DM or nutrient
recovery, or 3) supports improved aerobic stability. Finally, choose an additive from a reputable
company that stands behinds their products and offers excellent technical service support.

References

Allman, J. G., and L. A. Stern. 1999. Biomax5 microbial inoculant for corn silage.
http://www.chbiosystems.com/new_products/biomax/biomax.html

Bolsen, K. K. Silage additives. In: Biotechnology in Animal Feeds and Animal Feeding. R. J. Wallace
and A Chesson, Eds. VCH, New York. Pages 33-54.

Bolsen, K. K., D. R. Bonilla, G. L. Huck, M. A. Young, R. A. Hart-Thakur, and A Joyeaux. 1996. Effect
of a propionic acid bacterial inoculant on fermentation and aerobic stability of whole -plant corn silage. J.
Anim. Sci. 74(Suppl. 1):274.

Bolsen, K. K., R. N. Sonon, B. Dalke, R. Pope, J. G. Riley, and A. Laytimi. 1992. Evaluation of inoculant
and NPN silage additives. A summary of 26 trials and 65 farm-scale silages. Rept. of Prog. Kansas State
Univ.

Dawson, T. E. 1994. Propionic acid-producing bacteria as bioinoculants for the preservation of ensiled
high-moisture corn. Ph.D. Diss. Michigan State Univ., East Lansing.
Dennis, S. M. 1992. Influence of strain composition of silage inoculants on silage quality. Proc. Calif.
Anim. Nutr. Conf. Tech. Symp. Fresno, CA.

Dreihuis, F., S. F. Spoelstra, S. C. J. Cole, and R. Morgan. 1996. Improving aerobic stability by
inoculation with Lactobacillus buchneri. Proc. of the XI Intl. Silage Conf., IGER, Aberystwyth.
Pages 106-107.

Flores-Galaraza, R. O., B. A. Glatz, C. J. Bern, and L. D. Van Fossen. 1985. Preservation of high-
moisture corn by microbial fermentation. J. Food Protection. 48:407-411.

Gordon, F. J. 1989. A further study on the evaluation through lactating cattle of a bacterial inoculant
as an additive for grass silage. Grass and Forage Sci. 44:353.

Kung, L., Jr., A. C. Sheperd, A. M. Smagala, K. M. Endres, C. A. Bessett, N. K. Ranjit, and J. L.

Glancey. 1998. The effect of propionic acid-based preservatives on the fermentation and aerobic
stability of corn silage and a total mixed ration. J. Dairy Sci. 81:1322-1330.

Kung, L., Jr., and R. E. Muck. 1997. Animal Response to silage additives. Proc. from the Silage: Field
to Feedbunk North American Conference. NRAES -99. Pages 200-210.

Kung, L., Jr., J. H. Chen, E. M. Kreck, and K. Knutsen. 1993. Effect of microbial inoculants on the
nutritive value of corn silage for lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 76:3763.

Kung, L., Jr., N. K. Ranjit, J. R. Robinson, and R. C. Charley. 1999. The effect of Lactobacillus
buchneri on the fermentation and aerobic stability of barley silage. The XIIth International Silage
Conference. Uppsala, Sweden. Pages 272-273.

Moran, J. P., and T. R. Owen. 1994. The effects of Ecosyl treated silage on milk production by
lactating cows. Proceedings from the National Conference on Forage Quality, Evaluation and
Utilization. Univ. of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Moran, J. P., and T. R. Owen. 1995. The effects of feeding silage treated with an inoculum of
Lactobacillus plantarum on beef production from growing and finishing cattle. Ann. Zootech.
44(Suppl.):383.

Muck, R. E., and L. Kung, Jr. 1997. Effects of silage additives on ensiling. Proc. from the Silage:
Field to Feedbunk North American Conference. NRAES -99. Pages 187-199.

Oude Elferink, S. J. W. H., F. Diehuis, J. Krooneman, J. Gottschal, and S. F. Spoelstra. 1999.

Lactobacillus buchneri can improve the aerobic stability of silage via a novel fermentation pathway:
the anaerobic degradation of lactic acid to acetic acid and 1,2 propanediol. Proc. XII Intl. Silage Conf.,
Uppsala, Sweden. Swedish Univ. Agric. Sci. Pages 266-267.

Pitt, R. E., 1990. The probability of inoculant effectiveness in alfalfa silages. Transactions of the
ASAE. 33:1771.
Ranjit, N.K., M. A. Cohen, R. C. Smoot, J. Y. Tavares, and L. Kung, Jr. 1998. The effects of
Lactobacillus plantarum (LP), L. buchneri (LB) and a propionic acid-based preservative on the
fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage and the aerobic stability of a TMR. J. Dairy Sci.
81(Suppl. 1):196.

Rice, D. W., S. D. Soderlund, I. E. Phillip, and J. H. Harrison. 1990. Effect of microbial inoculation on
digestibility of legume silages. J. Dairy Sci. 73(Suppl. 1):195.

Rooke, J. A., and F. Kafilzadeh. 1994. The effect upon fermentation and nutritive value of silages
produced after treatment by three different inoculants of lactic acid bacteria applied alone or in
combination. Grass and Forage Sci. 49:42-53.

Whiter, A. G., L. Kung, Jr., N. K. Ranjit, J. Y. Tavares, and J. R. Robinson. 1999. The interactions
between silage dry matters and forms of bacterial inoculants. J. Dairy Sci. 82(Suppl. 1):125.

Weinberg, Z. G., G. Ashbell, K. K. Bolsen, G. Pahlow, Y. Hen, and A. Azrieli. 1995. The effect of a
propionic acid bacterial inoculant applied at ensiling, with or without lactic acid bacteria, on the aerobic
stability of pearl-millet and maize silages. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 78: 430-436.
Figure 1. The three major events that make good silage and factors that can affect the silage
fermentation process.

Moisture
content
Length of cut
Good packing

Fermentation with a
Rapid Removal of Air homolactic acid inoculant

Normal Poor
Fermentation Fermentation
6.0

Silage
pH

4.5
Moisture content
4.0 Length of cut
Sealing
Removal of air Rapid Rate and Prevention of Air Penetration Rate of feedout
Type of bacteria Extent into the Silo Mass and Inhibition Face management
Number of bacteria of pH Drop of Yeast Propionic acid
Buffering capacity Ammonia
Fermentable sugars Microbial inoculant?
Microbial inoculant
Enzymes 2 to 3 Days Storage Time
of Fermentation

Figure 2. Effect of delayed filling on (A) water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) and (B) dry
matter (DM) loss in corn silage. Hirsch and Kung, Univ. of Delaware, unpublished data.

4 B 5
A
WSC, % DM loss, %
DM 4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0 0
0 6 12 24 0 6 12 24
Hours of Delay Hours of Delay
Before Filling Before Filling
Table 1. Some good silage management practices.

Silage Practice Reasoning

Harvest crop at correct maturity and DM Optimizes nutritive value (protein, fiber, energy,
Corn silage: 1/2 to 2/3 milk line; 35% DM etc.)
Alfalfa: < 1/10 bloom; bunk or bag silo - 35 to
45% DM, conventional upright 35 to 50% DM, In some cases optimizes DM content
oxygen limiting silo - 45 to 60% DM Ensures good packing, elimination of excess
Grasses: boot; bunk or bag silo - 35 to 45% DM oxygen
Small grains: boot to dough; 30 to 40% DM
Minimizes seepage losses
Prevents clostridial (butyric acid) fermentation
Check that all equipment is in good working order Sharpen knives
Be sure that silos are free from leaks
In upright silos, a good distributor helps to
distribute and pack silage
Chop material to correct length: about 3/8 to inch Promotes good packing and elimination of
oxygen
Promotes cud chewing by cow

Wilt and chop during dry weather Prevents extensive DM losses from rained on
forage
Promotes rapid drying

Harvest, fill, and seal quickly Quick elimination of oxygen reduces DM losses
from respiration and prevents growth of
undesirable aerobic organisms
Sealing minimizes exposure to air (tarps and
sheeting)
Pack to proper density to eliminate air

Allow silage to ferment for at least 21 28 days Properly ensiled silage will minimize production
losses during silage changeover
Table 2. Amounts of common fermentation end products in various silages.

Item Alfalfa Silage, Alfalfa Silage, Grass Silage, Corn Silage, High Moisture Corn,
30 - 35% DM 45 - 55% DM 25 - 35% DM 35 - 40% DM 70 - 73% DM

pH 4.3 - 4.5 4.7 - 5.0 4.3 - 4.7 3.7 - 4.2 4.0 - 4.5

Lactic acid, % 7-8 2-4 6 - 10 4-7 0.5 - 2.0

Acetic acid, % 2-3 0.5 - 2.0 1-3 1-3 < 0.5

Propionic acid, % < 0.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Butyric acid, % < 0.5 0 <0.5 0 0

Ethanol, % 0.5 - 1.0 0.5 0.5 - 1.0 1-3 0.2 - 2.0

Ammonia-N, 10 15 < 12 8 - 12 57 < 10

% of CP

Table 3. Common end products of silage fermentation.

Item Positive or Negative Action(s)

PH + Low pH inhibits bacterial activity.

Lactic acid + Inhibits bacterial activity by lowering pH.

Acetic acid - Associated with undesirable fermentations.

+ Inhibits yeasts responsible for aerobic spoilage.

Butyric acid - Associated with protein degradation, toxin

formation, and large losses of DM and energy.

Ethanol - Indicator of undesirable yeast fermentation and high

DM losses.

Ammonia - High levels indicate excessive protein breakdown

Acid detergent insoluble - High levels indicate heat-damaged protein and low
nitrogen (ADIN) energy content.
Table 4. Predominant fermentation pathways in silage.

Theoretical DM Theoretical Energy

Type of fermentation End-products recovery, Recovery,
% %

Homolactic (glucose) lactic acid 100 99

Heterolactic (glucose) lactic acid, ethanol, CO2 76 98

Heterolactic (fructose) lactic acid, acetate, mannitol, CO2 95 99

Yeast (glucose) ethanol, CO2 51 99

Clostridia (glucose and butyric acid, CO2 49 82

lactate)

Table 5. Some of the more common bacteria used as silage inoculants and some reasons for their use.

Primary End
Organism Type of Organism General Reasons for Addition Products
Lactobacillus plantarum Lactic acid bacteria, -rapid production of lactic acid Lactic acid
homolactic -relatively acid tolerant

Pediococcus Lactic acid bacteria, -rapid production of lactic acid Lactic acid
acidilactici, cerevisiae homolactic -faster growing than Lactobacillus
-some strains show good growth at
cooler temperatures
-some strains have good osmotolerance

Enterococcus faecium Lactic acid bacteria, -rapid production of lactic acid Lactic acid
homolactic -faster growing than Lactobacillus

Propionibacterium Propionibacteria -production of antifungal compounds Propionic and

shermanii, jensenii acetic acids,
CO2
Lactobacillus buchneri Lactic acid bacteria, -production of antifungal compounds Lactic and
heterolactic acetic acids,
propanediol,
CO2
Table 6. Theoretical effect of adding a microbial inoculant containing homolactic lactic acid bacteria on the end
products of silage fermentation.

Item Theoretical Effect

DM recovery Greater recovery

Rate of pH decline and final pH Faster decline and lower

final pH

Ammonia nitrogen Lower content

Lactic acid Greater content

Acetic acid Lower content

Butyric acid Lower Content

Ethanol Lower content

Fiber (NDF/ADF) No change

Digestibility Increased

Animal performance Increased

Table 7. A summary of animal responses to microbial inoculants between 1990 and 1995.

Type of Study Intake Gain Milk Production

Number of Studies 67 15 36

Studies with Positive Responses 28% 53% 47%

(Kung and Muck, 1997)

Table 8. Preferred site of application of for a microbial inoculant.

Site of Application

Type of Silo First Choice Second Choice

Bunk Chopper Silo

Pile
Pit

Upright -------------Chopper or Silo*---------------

Bag

*First Choice at chopper if time between chopping and filling is more than 2 to 3 hours.

Table 9. Preferred mode of application for a microbial inoculant.

Mode of Application

DM Content of Forage First Choice Second Choice

< 35 to 40% ------------------Dry or Liquid-----------------

> 40 to 45% Liquid Dry

Table 10. Effect of a propionic acid-based additive on the number of yeasts and hours of aerobic stability of corn
silage.

Yeast in silage, Aerobic stability, **

Treatment*, application rate Number per gram hours

Untreated 257,000 65
Product A, 2 lb/ton of wet silage 27,000 120
Product A, 4 lb/ton of wet silage 2,800 >160

*Product A contained buffered propionic acid (primary active ingredient) and other active ingredients.
**Hours before the temperature of the silage rose more than 20C.
Kung et al., 1998.
Table 11. Some suggestions for use of silage additives.

Major observation Additive of choice

1) Consistently make good quality silage. 1) Homolactic acid based inoculant.

2) No significant heating problems.

1) Consistently make good quality silage. 1) Homolactic acid based inoculant and
2) Some heating problems during warm weather.
2) Buffered propionic acid preservative added
to TMR at feeding.

1) Usually make good quality silage. 1) Homolactic acid based inoculant and
2) Spoiled or hot silage usually only at silo opening and when
feeding out the last silage from silo. 2) Buffered propionic acid preservative or
new microbial inoculants designed to
improve aerobic stability on several first
and last loads into silo.

1) Consistently have problems with heating silage. 1) Buffered propionic acid preservative at
2) Inadequate daily removal of silage leading to hot feed. ensiling or
2) New microbial inoculants designed to
improve aerobic stability.

1) For bunk, pit, or drive-over silos, significant spoilage on top 1) Buffered propionic acid preservative or
layer even after covering. 2) New microbial inoculants designed to
improve aerobic stability only on last loads
into silo.

1) Extremely dry forage or forage chopped too long 1) Buffered propionic acid preservative or
2) New microbial inoculants designed to
improve aerobic stability.