Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Ensiling phases. E. coli Toxins!. Clostridia ! anaerob! ..but pH sensitive!. L. monocytogenes gram-positive facultative anaerobic IN SPOILED SILAGES!. Yeast Aerobic insta-bility!. Moulds Myco-toxins!. additives. Silage additives Stimulants inhibitors substrate suppliers anaerobic - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Ensiling phases
Clostridia!anaerob!
..but pH sensitive!
L. monocytogenes gram-positive
facultative anaerobic
IN SPOILED SILAGES!
E. coliToxins!
YeastAerobic insta-bility!
MouldsMyco-toxins!
additivesSilage additives
Stimulants inhibitors
substrate suppliers anaerobic
Inoculant enzymes sugars aerobic acids others
Lactic acid cellulase molasses propionic acid formic Sulphur dioxydeBacteria amylasesucroses sulfates mineral formaldehyde
hemicellulases glucoses caproic acid lactic Sodium bisph proteases sorbic acid acetic
pectinases ammonia benzoic acetic acid acrylic propionatescytric
sorbic
Biomin® BioStabil
blend of different homofermentative and heterofermentative bacteria for optimal anaerobic and aerobic stability of silages
homofermentative heterofermentative
lactic acid acetic acid
anaerobic stability aerobic stability
Bacteria
Homofermentative heterofermentative
Lactobacillus acidophilus L. BrevisL.Casei L. BuchneriiL Coryniformis L. cellobiosiosL Planterum L fermentumL salivarius L viridescensPediococcus acidilaticticP damnosusEnterococcus Faeciume. Faeciumlactobacillus
Isolation and characterization of bacteria out of silages
Evaluation and selection of most effective strainsProduction of lactic acid (high amount / very fast)Production of acetic acid Ratio lactic/acetic acid (differentiation homo- and
heterofermentative)Good growth in a broad pH range Good efficacy in a broad range of forages and grains
SafetyRisk assessment
Stability Fermentation performance
Highest product quality
1. Selection of the best silage strains for the product
strain identityVirulence
activity
„GRAS“ status
Antibiotic resistance Risk
analysis
1. Evaluation and strain selection
Range of metabolic end products
Production of lactic acid (high amount / very fast)
Production of acetic acid
Ratio lactic/acetic acid
(differentiation homo- and heterofermentative)
Good growth in a broad pH range
Good efficacy in a broad range of forages and grains
Selected strains:
High production of lactic acid (LA)
High production of acetic acid (AA)Optimal ratio between LA and AA
Appropriate for the registration(GRAS status)
Enterococcus faecium
Lactobacilus plantarum
Lactobacillus brevis Criteria for selection
Multistrain• for different substrates• for different energy sources• more stable
Biomin® BioStabil
Enterococcus faecium
Lactobacillus plantarum
Lactobacillus brevis
Biomin® BioStabil
Energy lossesCause Evaluation Losses (%)
Respiration Unavoidable 1- 2
Fermentation Unavoidable 4- 10
Fluids Depending on technique
0- 7
Field losses Depending on technique
1- 5
Inadequate fermentation Avoidable 0- 10
Anaerobic changes (storage) Avoidable 0- 10
Aerobic changes (feed out) Avoidable 0- 40
Total losses 6- 84
Naturally ahead
Forage production
DM LOSSES
moisture% filling seepage gas Top-spoil Feedout Total
Based on Forages: The Science of Grassland Agriculture, 4th ed. See Bickert et al (1997
SilageAverage Dairy Farm: 500 cows + young stock.
Corn silage : 8300 t ( 2900 t DM) @ R500/tonHay : 700 t ( 570 t DM) @ R700/ton
Total costs/value:(8300 ton*R500/t)+(700 ton*R700/t)=4,6 mln R
Dry matter losses
Losses are; Best case: 17 %
4,6 mln R *17% = 782.000 R
or
Worst case: 30%4,6mln R* 30% = 1,38 mln R
Energy lossesCause Evaluation Losses (%)
Respiration Unavoidable 1- 2
Fermentation Unavoidable 4- 10
Fluids Depending on technique
0- 7
Field losses Depending on technique
1- 5
Inadequate fermentation Avoidable 0- 10
Anaerobic changes (storage) Avoidable 0- 10
Aerobic changes (feed out) Avoidable 0- 40
Total losses 6- 84
BioStabil effect on Energy and DM
Values that can be expected provided good management practises:
BioStabil Plus
BioStabil Mays
Expected Dry Matter recovery (%)
1,80% 2%
Expected Energy recovery (NEL/kg DM)
0,23 MJ(0,055 Mcal)
0,18 MJ(0,043 Mcal)
1 Mcal = 4,184 MJEnergy (NEL, Mcal)/kg milk: 0,72511
Energy lossesCorn silage 2900 t DM= 18.4 mMj recovery
Max Losses 30% = 5520000 MJ
Min Losses 5 % = 920000 MJ OR 540 T extra dry corn!
economicsCornsilage 2900 t DM:
Energy recovery: 0,18 Mj/kg dm
1500000 kg*0,18 Mj= 270.000 Mj.
Corn= 8,5 Mj = 61 t Corn=150.000 R
Without taking the protein quality in consideration
