Organic Acid Preservation of High Moisture Corn and Other Grains and the Nutritional Value: A Review

Jones, G. M.; Elliot, J. I.; Mowat, D. N.; Moran, E. T.

doi:10.4141/cjas74-063

Cited by 28 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Treatment of grain with propionic acid prevents the growth of bacteria in the feed, and propionic acid acts also as a mold inhibitor (Jones et al 1974). Furthermore, moist grain is free from dust.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Propionic acid treated grain (oats) in the diet of horses

Saastamoinen¹

1994

AFSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use of oats treated with propionic acid in horse feeding was investigated in a 48-day feeding trial. Twenty horses were divided into a control and an experimental group. Horses in the control and experimental groups were fed with hay and dry or propionic acid treated oats, respectively, according to their energy requirements. The influence of the diet on health, faecal microflora, haemoglobin and haematocrit values, blood serum glucose concentrations, and weight change was investigated. The state of the health of all the horses was good throughout the trial. The functioning of the digestive tract of the horses was normal, since no symptoms of a declined health status of the digestive tract or harmfull effects on microflora due to propionic acid treated oats were observed. Also the haematology of the horses was unaffected by the diet. These data indicated that propionic acid treated grain can succesfully be included in rations for horses.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Propionic acid treated grain (oats) in the diet of horses

Saastamoinen¹

1994

AFSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The nutritional value for ruminants and swine appears to be equal to that of dried grain (Jones et al 1974). The preservative effect of propionic and other volatile fatty acids is based on their fungicidal properties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Urea treatment of barley grain. Effect on storage properties and fungal growth

Hannukkala

Huhtanen

1986

AFSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Barley harvested at three different moisture contents (22, 25 and 32 %) was treated with varying levels of urea (1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 % on fresh weight basis) and stored aerobically in experimental silos of 400 liters. The chemical composition of barley was analysed before treatment and after 12 months of storage. Fungal contamination of grain samples was analysed.Application of 1.5 % or more urea effectively preserved the grain for 12 months. At the highest moisture content, 1.0 %of urea did not prevent deterioration during storage. The average recovery of dry matter was 97.1 %, of nitrogen 93.9 Vo. Ammonia was released from hydrolysis of urea. The degree of hydrolysis increased with increasing moisture content of barley. Raising the levels of urea from 1.0 to 2.5 % significantly increased the quantity but tended to decrease the proportion of urea hydrolysed.Representatives of 33 genera of fungi and unidentified actinomycetes were present in the grain lots examined. Most fungi were found only occasionally and their incidence declined towards the end of storage. The grain stored at the highest moisture level (32 %) contained more fungi and less actinomycetes than other seed lots. All urea treatments reduced the number of fungi on seeds. Urea concentration of 2 % or more eliminated Fusarium-and Aspergillusspecies on all moisture levels. Scopulariopsis brevicaulis (Sacc.) Bain, and other species of Scopulariopsis were the most commonly encountered fungi after urea treatment. The total number of Scopulariopsis ssp. exceeded 100 % and the amount remained high for 40 weeks of storage until a rapid decline towards the end of storage. Urea treatment also favoured the occurrence of actinomycetes.

show abstract

“…This conclusion is based on the fact that the distinguishing feature of this trial from those of Mathison et al (1985), in which feeding SO2-treated HMB to feedlot cattle had no adverse effects, was the feeding of spoiled (Mertens 1979). While steers were not fed spoiled SO2-treated HMB with visible mould growth, mycotoxins can be present before mould is visibly apparent (Jones et al 1974). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%