Question:
“I made alfalfa silage with inoculant and now we note it’s clearly less brown than the silage without inoculant treatment. Could you explain this color difference?”
-Hector
Answer:
Dear Hector,
The brown color is caused by non-enzymatic browning (the Maillard reaction) due to a reaction between sugars and proteins in the crop. As a chemical reaction, the rate of the reaction is increased by heating (for example, the browning on the top surface of a loaf of bread when it is baked), so the untreated silage has more brown color because it has heated significantly during the initial ensiling fermentation. Using a good, proven inoculant will give a faster, more efficient fermentation, with less heat generated and the ensiled alfalfa will be green, as it should be.
Best regards,
The Silage Doctor
Question:
"We have a customer, who for a number of reasons has just started chopping corn for silage. The silage is being bagged, is processed well, has good chop length, however it is 45 – 48% dry matter. Because of the economic situation he refuses to use an inoculant. He will not need to start feeding this until about mid-November. What fermentation problems might we expect?"
Answer:
At that DM level there are a number of issues:
- The material will not compact readily, there will be more air entrained in the material at ensiling and so increased aerobic challenge. I don't think you can achieve a high enough packing density with a bag for me to be comfortable about putting this stuff in one. The fermentation will be slow, because of the amount of air entrained, so there will be DM losses and chances for not so nice bugs to grow.
- That will also become an issue at feedout: air will suck back into the face more readily.
- At that high DM, the fermentation will of course be restricted, so there will be a lot less fermentation acids formed. This in itself will lower the overall preservation status of the material.
- This must be overly mature and/ or stressed material, so we can expect there will be higher levels of yeasts and molds, increasing the aerobic challenge further still. He will be feeding from November on, which will help, but there will be heat generated from within and I would be surprised if he does not see some stability issues and spoilage.
- Also need to beware of potential for mycotoxins. If he starts to feed this stuff and production is not where expected based on the true (analyzed) quality of the finished silage, try putting a good binder (a bentonite plus a MOS: both should have data showing they work, my definition of "good") and see if there is a response (need to give the binder 30 days).
- Even though the stuff has been processed, the starch digestibility could be an issue. This will increase during storage, so starch digestibility should be checked at least once a month and the ration adjusted accordingly. NDFD will also increase during storage, so check that out too.
Best regards,
The Silage Doctor
Question:
“Some of our Australian contractors have asked if there is any data on applying inoculants into the back of the spout on the new series Claas forage harvesters compared to the Dohrmann that they are used to using.
Claas have the option of their low volume system, (similar pump to Dohrmann) that is applied into the back of the spout just above the pivot point.
Observations from the contractors so far:
- Tank not insulated
- Vee bottom tank with outlet at the bottom, blocks easily even when inoculant is pre mixed,
- no strainer in tank
- Difficult to calibrate
- Inoculant drips out the bottom of the chute below where it is injected
Solutions so far have been to fit the Dohrmann tank and flow meter from their old machines to give a better result, but they are still concerned if they are applying inoculant to all the silage. Is inoculant being blown out the spout before being mixed? As moisture often appears to be separated from forage as it leaves the spout.”
Answer:
The main question that I would raise would be does Claas have data to prove that the system gives reliable application? This should be using some sort of marker, not just, “Well, we applied an inoculant and the silage came out good, so the applicator must have worked.”.
When the DE 1000 first came on the market, both Dr Limin Kung and I doubted its efficacy. This feeling was enhanced when we asked Dohrmann for data proving that it worked and they had none. So, I set up a study with Limin to show that it did not work (though I told him the study was to validate the system, as I did not want to skew his view going into the study). The process we used was to add a salt, dysprosium sulphate, to the solution in the tank. This is a naturally occurring salt, that has the ability to absorb radiation at a very specific rate, i.e. one 1 g absorbs 10 x as much as 0.1 g, etc. So, we could do all the study in the field without any concerns of using isotopes, etc. then get sample to the lab, bombard them with radiation, subtract the background level in the untreated samples, and get a precise measurement of the amount of the salt in a sample, and so the distribution achieved by the applicator. The results we achieved with the DE 1000 were stunning and Limin and I became overnight converts and the biggest advocates of the system!
So, Claas should be able to produce similar data, not necessarily the same technique, but using a marker of some sort, otherwise we would have to assume, until proven otherwise, that their system does not work. By the way, they key with the Dohrmann is the point of application, either at the knives or at the accelerator on the blower, where the flow is turbulent. Along the chute/ spout the flow is more laminar and so it would be less likely that thorough mixing would occur. Do you have a photo showing where the product is applied?
Best regards,
The Silage Doctor
