strategies to enhance the nutritive value of whole-plant

Strategies to enhance the nutritive value of whole-plant and

fractionated corn silage

Luiz F. Ferraretto, Ph.D., PAS

Department of Animal Sciences

University of Florida

Introduce indicators of corn silage nutritive value

Highlight the use and application of these indices

Define and discuss the fractions of corn plant based feedstuffs

Discuss practical strategies to enhance these quality indices

Objective

Intake limitation through rumen fill

Impact milk yield and the establishment of high-forage diets

Corn Silage Quality Indicators

Indicator

NDF (% DM)

Lignin (% DM)

uNDF240 (% DM)

NDFD30 (% NDF)

TTNDFD (% NDF)

Practical Implication

Methods vary across laboratories and may include calculation of pools and rates of digestion.

• +0.18 kg/d DMI

• +0.25 kg/d 4%FCM (Oba and Allen, 1999)

For every 1 percentage-unit increase in NDF

digestibility

• +0.12 kg/d DMI

• +0.14 kg/d 3.5%FCM (Jung et al., 2010)

>40% corn silage in diet

Forage NDF digestibility and cow performance

Fiber digestibility and chewing behavior

Study Intake Eating time

Grant et al., 1994 88.3 120.7

Aydin et al., 1999 Exp. 1 85.0 117.9

Aydin et al., 1999 Exp. 2 95.6 105.6

Oliver et al., 2004 95.5 114.9

Grant and Ferraretto, 2018; JDS

Data presented as percentage of control treatment

Alter energy density

Impact milk yield or feed efficiency

Corn Silage Quality Indicators

Indicator

Starch (% DM)

StarchD (% starch)

Prolamin (% DM)

Practical Implication

Methods vary across laboratories and may include calculation of rates of digestion.

Corn Silage Quality Indicators

Indicator

Milk per ton

Used as an index for ranking corn hybrids – commonly used by University Hybrid Performance Trials

3200

3400

3600

3800

7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0lb

of

milk p

er

ton

of

silag

e D

M

Yield of DM, Tons per acre

Whole-plant corn silage

High-cut corn silage

Toplage / Stalklage

Earlage / Snaplage

HMC / Rehydrated corn / DGC

Feedstuffs commonly obtained from a corn plant

Whole-plant material

Whole-plant CS High-cut CS Toplage

Stalklage

20 cm

40 to 60 cm

115 cm

Cutting height, cm 25 100 115 130

DM, % 37.7c 40.6b 42.2b 53.3a

CP, % of DM 8.2b 8.9a 8.9a 8.8a

NDF, % of DM 40.3a 34.5b 32.1b 19.5c

Lignin, % of DM 4.0a 3.4bc 3.1c 2.2d

Starch, % of DM 33.9d 38.8c 43.0b 58.6a

Ash, % of DM 3.7a 3.4ab 3.1b 1.7c

Yield, t of DM/ha 23.0a 20.5b 17.6c 12.5d

Nigon et al., 2016

Whole-plant material

Whole-plant CS High-cut CS Toplage Snaplage

80 to 98% StarchD•Kernel particle size•Duration of silage fermentation•Kernel maturity •Endosperm properties•Additives

40 to 70% IVNDFD•Lignin/NDF•Hybrid Type•Maturity •Additives

Grain ~40-45% of WPDMStover= ~55-60% of WPDM

•Avg. 42% NDF•Variable stover:grain

Whole-Plant Corn Silage

•Avg. 30% starch in WPDM•Variable grain:stover

Variable peNDF as per chop lengthAdapted from Joe Lauer, UW Madison Agronomy Dept.

Kernel particles

2P 4P 8P 16P 32P 64P

P = pieces

Dias Junior et al., 2016; JDS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

3 6 12 24

(% o

f Nut

rient

)

Time points (h)

WH 2P 4P 8P 16P 32P 64P

Ruminal in situ DM digestibility of unfermented kernels

Dias Junior et al., 2016; JDS

How can I obtaine excellent KPS?

• It not easy but…

• The key: adequate and constant monitoring

www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/uwforage/KernelProcessing-

FOF.pdf

The PSPS procedure is conducted manuallyusing 3 sieves (19-mm, 8-mm, and 1.18-mm) and a pan (Kononoff et al. (2003)

Particle Size

Sieve Why does it matter?

19 mm Sortable particles, may affect silage density and eating time

8 mm Physically effective fiber

1.18 or 4 mm May provide physical effective fiber / intact kernels

Pan Broken kernels / small fiber fraction

Particle Size

If using specific theoretical length of cut – why do we need to measure particle size?

Relationship between particle size and TLOC

• 64 corn silage samples obtained on farm

• Particle size measured via PSPS

• MPL calculated

• TLOC data obtained from farmer or custom harvester

• Relationships determined via Proc Reg

Salvati et al., 2017; PAS

Relationship between particle size and TLOC

(P = 0.23)

Salvati et al., 2017; PAS

Relationship between particle size and TLOC

(P = 0.01; R² = 0.10)

Same scenario when using 19 mm sieve

Salvati et al., 2017; PAS

Relationship between particle size and TLOC

Salvati et al., 2017; PAS

(P = 0.17)

• Should we keep plants longer in the field to harvest greater yields of DM and starch?

Maturity at harvest

• Poor packing

• More porosity

• More yeast and molds

• Increase shrinkage and heating

• Increase mycotoxins

• Shorten bunk life

• Lower starch and fiber digestibility

Maturity at harvest (>40% DM)

Kernel vitreousness

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Kern

el Vitre

ousn

ess

(%)

Kernel DM concentration (% of as fed)

Johnson et al. (2002) - exp. 1

Johnson et al. (2002) - exp. 2a

Johnson et al. (2002) - exp. 2b

Philippeau and Michalet-Doreau

(1997) - dent

Philippeau and Michalet-Doreau

(1997) - flint

Correa et al. (2002)

Ferraretto et al. (2015) - bm3

Ferraretto et al. (2015) - leafy-

floury

Ferraretto et al. (2015) - dual-

purpose

Ferraretto et al., 2018; JDS

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

< 28.1 28.1 to 32.0 32.1 to 36.0 36.1 to 40.0 > 40.0

Tot

al Tra

ct S

tarc

h D

igest

ibility (%)

Dry matter content of whole plant corn silage

Processed

Unprocessed

* ** * P < 0.0001** P < 0.01

Ferraretto and Shaver, 2012; PAS

Kernel Processing * maturity

Dry-down rates (Post-dent)

Depends on: Hybrid (stay-green characteristics)

Weather (faster when warmer and drier)

Maturity (faster as plant matures)

Adapted from slide courtesy of Dr. Bill Weiss, The Ohio State University

Average dry down = 0.5% per day(range: ~0.3 to 1.0% per day)

On average: Harvest window = 12 days

• Maturity plays a major role on corn silage quality and digestibility

• Modern hybrids are susceptible to these effects

• DM content varies within and among fields, target for 35% DM to avoid exceeding 40% DM

Take home message

Corn Silage Fermentation Increases Starch Digestibility!

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360

In

Vitro

Sta

rch D

igest

ibility (%)

Fermentation Time (days)

Der Bedrosian Windle Young Ferraretto-1 Ferraretto-2 Ferraretto-3 Ferraretto-4

Figure 1. Effect of days of ensiling on ruminal in vitro starch digestibility. Data from Der Bedrosian et al., 2012; Windle et al., 2014; Young et al., 2012; Ferraretto-1, Ferraretto et al., 2015a; Ferraretto-2, Ferraretto et al., 2015b; Ferraretto-3,4, Ferrarettoet al., 2016.

Response across multiple trials

Kung et al., 2018; JDS

• Research supports the use of inventory planning so a newly harvest crop would be fed only after 90-120 days in storage

• Ensiling time does not attenuate differences in starch digestibility caused by hybrids or maturity

• It requires proper management during filling, packing and covering

Take home message

Average of 7 studies

Cutting height, cm 17 52

NDF, % 40 37

ivNDFD, % of NDF 52 56

Starch, % 32 35

Yield, t of DM/ha 17.3 15.3

Milk, kg/t 1642 1707

Milk, kg/ha 23926 22261

Normal vs. high cutting height

Ferraretto et al., 2018; JDS

Item 64K 79K 94K 109K SEM P-value

CP, % of DM 8.0a 7.5b 7.7b 7.5b 0.2 0.001

NDF, % of DM 35.7 35.6 35.5 36.1 0.7 0.89

Lignin, % of DM 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.5 0.1 0.38

ivNDFD, % of NDF 50.5 51.4 51.7 50.9 0.4 0.09

Starch, % of DM 38.6 40.1 40.2 39.5 1.0 0.46

ivSD, % of starch 54.2 55.7 55.9 55.7 0.8 0.14

Yield of DM, t/ha 17.9c 18.8b 19.7a 19.9a 0.2 0.001

Milk, kg/t 1404 1409 1408 1391 10 0.55

Milk, kg/ha 24969b 26436a 27688a 27519a 511 0.001

Plant population effects

Ferraretto et al., 2017; ADSA Abstract

• Cutting height improves quality but at the expense of reduced yield

• Cutting height may be a feasible option to improve forage quality when area is not a limiting factor

• Perhaps the combination of greater plant population and cutting height could lead to improved quality without compromising yields

Take-home message

Ear-based materialDry ground corn

High-moisture corn

Rehydrated corn

Question?

• Does particle size affects fermentation of HMC?

MPS effect

Item Coarse Fine P-value

pH 3.97 4.16 0.001

Lactate, % DM 1.55 1.84 0.001

Acetate, % DM 0.12 0.23 0.001

Aerobic Stability, h 37 59 0.15

MPS, µm 3544 906 0.001

ivSD, % starch 36.6 70.3 0.001

Saylor et al., unpublished

HMC fermented for 28 d

UF WBG Trial 5 mixture of WBG and DGC treatments

100% WBG

Mixture targeting for 60% DM

Mixture targeting for 65% DM

Mixture targeting for 70% DM

Rehydrated DGC with 70% DM (with distilled water)

6 time-points 0, 1, 3, 7, 14 and 28 days

Ferraretto et al., 2018; JDS

b c

cc

bc

b

a

a

b

b

abab

a

a

a

a

b

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

0 1 3 7 14 28WA

TE

R S

OLU

BLE

CA

RB

OH

YD

RA

TE

% O

F

DM

ENSILING TIME, D

CON 60DM 65DM 70DM REH

WBG - dry ground corn mixture

Ferraretto et al., 2018; JDS

a

ab

d e d e

b

a

a

aa

a

b

b

b b

c

c

c

b

cd

c d

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

0 1 3 7 14 28

Lac

tate

, %

of

DM

Ensiling time, d

CON 60DM 65DM 70DM REH

WBG - dry ground corn mixture

Ferraretto et al., 2018; JDS

Ferraretto et al., 2018; JDS

WBG - dry ground corn mixture

40.96 39.99

34.2237.25

44.83 46.0149.71 51.22

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

60DM 65DM 70DM REH

Rum

inal in v

itro

sta

rch d

igest

ibility,

% o

f st

arc

h0d 28d

NS ** *

Treatment P = 0.66; Time P = 0.0001; Interaction P = 0.01

• Generally contains kernels, cob, husks and shanks, plus some leaves that are snapped during the harvesting process.

• It is harvested using a self-propelled forage harvester equipped with a snapper head.

Ear-based material

Snaplage

• It contains kernels, cob, husks and shanks (and maybe some leaves), or only kernels and cob.

• It is harvested using a self-propelled forage harvester or a corn picker and grinder.

Ear-based material

Earlage

DM, % 67.1 62.5 71.8 88.1

CP, % of DM 8.4 7.7 9.2 9.4

NDF, % of DM 18.0 22.2 10.3 9.5

Starch, % of DM 63.5 61.0 69.2 72.0

TDN, % of DM 87.0 81.8 90.4 87.5

Sources: Daniel Hudson (UVM Extension); Akins and Shaver, (2014); Ferraretto et al. (2014).

Ear-based material

Earlage Snaplage HMC DGC

Item Practices

Hybrid 4 hybrids

Planting date May, 2014

Location UW - Arlington, WI

Seeds per hectare

64,000 / 79,000 / 94,000 / 109,000

Harvest date September, 2014

Maturine ½ Kernel milk line (1/2ML) or black layer (BL)

Storage 30, 60, 120 and 240 d

Inoculation Buchneri 500; Lallemand Animal Nutrition (Milkwaukee, WI)

Ear (kernels, cob, husks and shanks) were manually collected and ground using a Bear Cat SC3305SE with a 38 mm screen

Earlage production, harvest, storage

Ferraretto et al., 2016; ADSA Abstract

Nutrients

Maturity

½ ML BL

DM, % as fed 51.9 60.5

CP, %DM 7.1 6.9

Soluble CP, %CP 25.9 23.5

NDF, %DM 14.9 16.6

ADF, %DM 5.8 6.0

Starch, %DM 61.7 63.6

ivSD, % starch 52.5 42.8

Sugars, %DM 2.8 3.3

Fresh samples nutrient composition

Ferraretto et al., 2016; ADSA Abstract

* *

**

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

30 60 120 240

ivSD (% s

tarc

h)

Ensiling time (d)

1/2M

BL

Time effect (P = 0.001)Maturity effect (P = 0.01)Maturity×Time (P = 0.02)

Maturity by ensiling time

Ferraretto et al., 2016; ADSA Abstract

Implications

• Minor effects of plant population were observed.

• Starch digestibility increased with extended ensiling time, however, the negative effect of greater harvest maturity on starch digestibility was not diminished at the extended ensiling times.

Conclusions

• Many factors alter nutrient digestibility of whole-plant and fractionated corn silage

• Regardless of the feedstuff, particle size and maturity at harvest remains the most important factors to improve digestibility

• Storing feedstuffs for longer or increasing cut height may be viable options but inventory planning is required

Questions lferraretto@ufl.edu