2002
DOI: 10.13031/2013.9937
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of Moisture Content, Chopping, and Processing on Silage Effluent

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
8
0
2

Year Published

2005
2005
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
8
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The increase in the EE content in the silage compared to that of the original chopped grass corroborates the results of Arvidsson et al (2009) and Bochicchio et al (2015) and can be explained by the loss of watersoluble nutrients in the silo effluents or the fermentative products, thus concentrating the EE in the DM silage (Baumont, Arrigo, & Niderkorn, 2011;Bochicchio et al, 2015). The effluent losses can reach 28.5% of the original wet mass of a chopped grass with 13% DM ensiled manually in experimental silos made of PVC (Savoie, Amyot, & Thériault, 2002). According to these authors, the average effluent chemical composition was 125, 290, 3.1, and 126 g kg -1 DM of MM, CP, ammonia N, and soluble sugars, respectively.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 67%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The increase in the EE content in the silage compared to that of the original chopped grass corroborates the results of Arvidsson et al (2009) and Bochicchio et al (2015) and can be explained by the loss of watersoluble nutrients in the silo effluents or the fermentative products, thus concentrating the EE in the DM silage (Baumont, Arrigo, & Niderkorn, 2011;Bochicchio et al, 2015). The effluent losses can reach 28.5% of the original wet mass of a chopped grass with 13% DM ensiled manually in experimental silos made of PVC (Savoie, Amyot, & Thériault, 2002). According to these authors, the average effluent chemical composition was 125, 290, 3.1, and 126 g kg -1 DM of MM, CP, ammonia N, and soluble sugars, respectively.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 67%
“…For each increment of 1 g kg -1 in silage DM content, there were increases of 0.08 g kg -1 DM (P=0.0070; r 2 = 0.44) and 0.70 g kg -1 DM (P<0.0001; r 2 = 0.82), respectively, in the silage EE and NDF contents. On the other hand, as a function of the age of regrowth, it is expected that the nutrients most likely to leach, i.e., MM, CP, ammonia N, and soluble sugars (Savoie et al, 2002) and most sensitive to anaerobic fermentative activity, e.g., watersoluble carbohydrates and proteins (Alves et al, 2011) had their levels reduced in the silages. Compared to the ensiled forages, the silage CP contents were reduced by 26%, 17%, 14% and 9% at regrowth ages of 50, 70, 90 and 110 days, respectively.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An undesirable physical characteristic observed, but not measured, was the high quantity of effluent produced by Agave silages. Effluent production is negatively correlated with DM content (Frasen & Strubi, 1998) and positively correlated with nutrients loss or solubility as non-structural carbohydrates (Savoie et al, 2002;Yahaya et al, 2002). A reduction of moisture in fresh Agave could be an option to reduce effluent, as has been done with other forages (McDonald, 1981).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Effluents usually contain sugars, soluble nitrogenous compounds, fermentation acids, and minerals (McDonald and Whittenbury, 1973;Randby, 1997;Haigh, 1999). Ash content can reach up to 16% of effluent DM (Savoie et al, 2002), whereas FA are not described to occur in effluents.…”
Section: Effect Of Ensiling On Fa Composition Of Silagesmentioning
confidence: 99%