This document discusses methods for preserving forage through silage and hay making. It explains that forage preservation is important to address seasonal fluctuations in forage availability and quality. The main methods covered are silage, which involves fermenting green forage in an airtight environment, and hay, which involves drying forage to a low moisture level. Both methods aim to store forage for long periods while maintaining nutritional quality. Key factors that influence success include moisture level at preservation and exclusion of air during storage.

1. Forage Preservation: Silage and
Hay making
A.B.M. Khaleduzzaman, PhD
Animal Nutrition Section, DLS
Animal Nutrition Development and Technology Transfer
Project (2nd phase), DLS

2. Forage preservation
 Why preserve forages?
 Forage preservation methods
 Is it worth it for you to do it on your farm?
 COST
 METHODS

3. WHY??
 Seasonal fluctuation
 Natural foraging behavior
 Size of most animal operations today
 Quality of feed that is transportable
 Animal health
 Permits long-term storage

4. Seasonal fluctuation
 Two major feed
shortage periods in
Bangladesh:
 July-October: Most of the
fields are under rice
cultivation and all low lying
areas are flooded
 March-April: The winter
forages are finished and
summer species are just
sprouting
Source: Akbar and Khaleduzzaman, 2009

5. Seasonal fluctuation
Summer
Monsoon
Monsoon

6. Background
 The total DM intake (kg/d)
was almost similar in three
main seasons (summer,
monsoon and winter) of the
year but the DM intake
(kg/d) from green forage
was significantly higher in
winter (7.91) than that in
summer (2.32) and
monsoon (0.41).
Nutrient intake (kg/d) and milk yield (l/d)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Winter Summer Monsoon
Total DM intake Forage DM intake Milk yield
Source: Ahmed, T. (2006)
Inconsistent nutrient supply

7. Natural foraging behavior
 High forage diets lead to digestive tract health
 Healthier microbial populations in ruminant
digestive systems
 Provides a more filling diet than diets high in
concentrate

8. Animal production in the 21st Century
 Most operations are small or have more
animals than land available for grazing
 Requires use of preserved forage to meet
nutrient requirements of the animals

9. Feed Quality
 Forage, when preserved correctly can be a
very high quality feed for animals at all stages
of production

10. Animal Health
 High quality forage is healthy for the animals

11. Long-term storage
 Quality does decrease over time
 Microbial respiration
 Nonenzymatic chemical reactions
 Plant enzymatic activity
 If air and moisture can be controlled, silage
quality will remain higher
 Moisture above 30% and air
Enter into silage
Leads to fungal growth
and decreased quality!

12. Overall Objectives in Forage
Preservation
 Year round fodder supply could minimize feed cost
 Want a stable product to minimize seasonal scarcity
 System to minimize losses associated with
harvesting and processing
 Must meet transportation and storage
needs/capacities

13. Methods of Forage Preservation
 Silage
 Hay
 Others

14. What is Silage?
 Forage which has been grown while still green and
nutritious can be conserved through a natural
‘pickling’ process.
 Lactic acid is produced when the sugars in the forage
plants are fermented by bacteria in a sealed container
(‘silo’) with no air.
 Forage conserved this way is known as ‘ensiled
forage’ or ‘silage’ and will keep for up to three years
without deteriorating.

15. Ensiling process
 Selection of fodder: maize, napier Jumbo, sorghum
fodder
 Wilting fodder
 Filling silo with chopped
fodder
 Compacting i.e. remove
air from the silo
 Sealing the silo
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 2 4 6 8 10
Wilting hour
DM
(%)
Y = 1.5833x + 13.125

16. Ensiling process
 Silage: the product of fermentation of plant
tissue
 Produced by microbial activity under anaerobic
conditions
Plant Sugars
fermentation Organic Acids
“pickled” plant material
low pH

17. Ensiling conditions
 Factors affecting success:
 Anaerobic conditions
 Plant water content (70-72%)
 Plant DM content (28-30%)
 Fodder particle size (chopping 2-3 inches)
 Packing/sealing
 Storage
 Presence of readily fermentable carbohydrates

18. Silage phases
Phase 1:
Aerobic (pH 6.5-6.0)
Phase 4:
Continued lactic fermentation (pH 5.0-3.8)
Phase 5:
Stable
Phase 2:
Acetic acid
Phase 3:
Lactic Acid
69º F
90º F 85º F
Temperature Change
6.0 4.2
4.0 3.8
pH change
0 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

19. Ensiling methods
 Earthen pit
 Bag silo
 Plastic drum
 Bamboo-made Fenced Chamber
 Wooden box
 Trench or Bunker silo

20. Ensiling method: Earthen pit

21. Ensiling methods: Plastic drum

22. Ensiling methods: Bag silo

23. Barriers to proper ensiling
 Aerobic Conditions by
 Internally trapped air
 External air in feed out phase
 Forage water content
 Undesirable fermentation
 Causes:
 Activity of clostridium species bacteria
 Favored by high moisture, high pH plus low levels of
fermentable carbohydrates

24. Losses Involved in Ensiling Process
 Dry matter losses
 Fermentation Losses
 Minimal loss unless clostridial fermentation
 Protein breakdown
 Effluents losses
 Caused by excessive moisture
 Leaching of soluble nutrients out of silo
 Losses in digestible nutrients
 ODOR, CORROSIVE
 Surface Spoilage
 Exposed areas susceptible
 Horizontal silos more susceptible (cover with plastic)

25. Silage Additives
 Fermentation stimulants
 Molasses
 Makes up for lack of fermentable carbohydrates
 Microbial bacteria
 Silage innoculators – refined bacterial cultures
 About 1-2% better feed efficiency and fermentation in corn
silage
 Fermentation inhibitors
 Direct acidification – mineral acids
 Bacterial inhibitors

26. Silage Additives…
 Nonprotein Nitrogen
 Add Nitrogen to the silage
 Used with cereal silages such as corn
 Corn silage  energy:protein balance is off (more energy than
protein)
 Addition of urea or anhydrous ammonia can bring N level up
 Ruminants are able to use NPN, but horses can’t
 Rumen microbes are able to produce protein from NPN that can
then be absorbed in the small intestine by the animal
 In horses, protein is absorbed in the small intestine and microbes
don’t come along until the large intestine

27. Silage evaluation
Physical Appearance and
Texture
Silage Characteristics and Interpretation
Leafy, soft texture
Stemmy, fibrous; seed heads
present
Presence of mould or rotten
silage
Very wet; effluent seeping
from stack
Very dry, even brittle
Likely to have high ME. Crude protein is probably
high.
If high proportion of stems/or seed heads are
present, ME and crude protein are likely to be low.
Crop cut too late.
Air has entered the silage. DM has been lost and
silage quality (ME content) will have declined
during storage.
Moisture easily squeezed out of he silage. Forage
was ensiled at too low a DM content. There is a
high risk of poor fermentation and significant
losses (quality and quantity).
Silage was ensiled at too high a DM content.

28. Silage evaluation
Color Silage Characteristics and Interpretation
Very dark olive green
Light green to
green/brown
Pale green/straw yellow
Light amber brown
Brown
Dark brown
Weather damaged, and/or very wet silage with a poor
fermentation. Sour or putrid aroma.
Normal color range for grass, cereal and maize silages.
Normal color range for wilted grass silages. Heavily
wilted silages with restricted fermentation tend to be
greener.
Typical of late-cut grass and cereal silages. Can occur
with low DM silages,
Some heating has occurred during storage or due to
aerobic spoilage during feedout. Some loss in
digestibility and heat damage of protein. More common
with wilted silages.
More extensive heating.

29. Low-cost silo (Bangladesh experiences)
Bamboo-mat Fenced Chamber
(BFC) silo
Polythene silo

30. Maize stover preparation
 Maize stover after
harvesting maize
were chopped into
2-3 cm particle size
by using grass
chopper
 2% molasses
(weight basis) was
added to maize
stover
Maize stover silage preparation

31. Sampling silage samples
Sampling silage sample in airtight polythene pack for fermentation
and chemical analysis

32. Cost (BDT) of maize stover silage preparation in BFC and
Polythene bag
Parameters BFC
(n=17)
Polythene bag
(n=7)
Maize stover 17175.0 2475.0
Bamboo-mat 13540.0 00.0
Bamboo 7160.0 00.0
Polythene sheet 5667.0 1350.0
Brick and sand 10156.0 00.0
Molasses 8087.0 860.0
Silo preparation/Labor 12900.0 1050.0
Total cost 74685.0 5735.0
Cost/Silo 3382.9 191.8
Cost/kg silage 4.61 3.48

33. Maize stover silage from BFC and Polythene bag
Silage from BFC Silage from Polythene bag

34. Chemical composition of maize stover silage from BFC,
Polythene bag and Earthen pit
Parameters Maize
stover
(fresh)
Low-cost silo P-
value
BFC
(mean ±SD)
Polythene bag
(mean ±SD)
Earthen pit
(mean ±SD)
DM, % 31.00±1.37 30.20±1.04 29.40±1.29 30.30±1.15 0.267
CP, % 5.18±0.61 4.77±0.48 4.96±0.42 5.10±0.65 0.360
ADF, % 56.60±1.08a 50.40±1.64b 51.00±1.58b 51.60±2.30b 0.001
NDF, % 73.60±1.71 72.04±0.73 72.86±0.95 73.08±0.91 0.223
NEL(Mcal/ kg
DM)
0.81±0.02a 0.98±0.03b 0.97±0.02b 0.95±0.02b 0.050
a,b,c Means of different superscript differ significantly.

35. Feed and nutrient intake (kg/cow/d) before and after
silage feeding
Parameters Before silage
feeding
(n=15)
After silage
feeding
(n=15)
P-value
Feed intake, kg fresh
Straw intake 13.12 12.12 0.200
Silage intake - 7.50 -
Concentrate intake 3.70 2.70 0.011
Total DM intake, kg 15.13 14.83 0.189
DM intake/100 kg BW 4.32 4.23 0.210

36. Effect of silage feeding on milk production and income
generation
*Milk price was calculated at a rate of BDT 28.00 per liter.
**Silage feeding increased a net income of BDT 15.7 per cow per day
Parameters Before silage
feeding
(n=15)
After silage
feeding
(n=15)
P-value
Feed cost, BDT/cow/d
Straw cost 13.12 13.12 0.190
Silage cost - 34.50 -
Concentrate cost 85.10 63.10 0.011
Total feed cost, BDT/cow/d 98.22 109.72 0.051
Total milk yield, L/cow/d 6.25 7.22 0.000
Milk fat, % 4.18 4.30 0.003
Total milk price, BDT/cow/d* 175.00 202.16 0.000
Income from milk, BDT/cow/d** 76.78 92.44 0.000

37. Hay making: Main phases
1. Curing
2. Packaging/bailing
3. Storage

38. Conditions for hay making
 Preferable fodder: legume (cowpea, matikalai,
khesari, sunhemp etc.)
 Moisture condition: 15-18%
 DM condition: 82-85%

39. Curing Step One: Cutting

40. Curing Step 2: Tedding

41. Curing Step 3: Raking

42. Hay baling

43. Automatic Bale Accumulators

44. Bale Wrapper

45. Hay Making: Bangladesh experiences

46. Hay Making: Bangladesh experiences

47. Hay Making: Bangladesh experiences

48. Losses during hay baling
 Nature of losses
 Shatter – straw leaves are most susceptible
directly associated with water content!
 Several factors may affect the magnitude of
losses during baling

49. Preservatives
 Mode of Action
 Applied either at or immediately after baling
 Designed to kill or retard microbial activity
 Some produce a favorable type of microbial
activity
 Allows for baling at higher moisture levels

50. Types of Preservatives
 Organic Acid Based
 Contain propionic or acetic acid
 Kills microbes
 Microbial Based
 Carried over from silage fermentation agents
 Promote “favorable” microbial activity
 Produces compounds that later prevent mold
 NO PROVEN EFFECTIVENESS
 Older types
 Include agents such as salt (wet areas, mountain meadows)
 Urea
 Anhydrous ammonia (used on round bales)

51. Anhydrous Ammonia
 Kills microbes
  Protein
  Digestibility
NH3OH
Plastic Cover
Open container

52. Storage Phase
 Moisture
content
 Weather

53. Moisture during storage
 Water content must be below a critical level
 Based on Size and Density of package
 Small rectangular bales
 ≤ 20% (upper limit is 20%)
 Large Bales
 One-ton rectangular: ≤ 18%
 High density rectangular bales: ≤ 15%
 Cubes ≤ 12%

54. Consequences of excessive moisture
 Major Hazard = MOLD
 Produces toxins
 Heat loss:
 Fire
 Chemical heat damage (non-enzymatic browning)

55. Factors Affecting Loss
 Bale density:
 Denser  less spoilage
 Affected by type of baler being used (some large
round balers produce 2x the density)
 Fine-stemmed hays will produce denser bales
 Other field operations/techniques:
 Hay row formation  uniform, proper size
 Operate rakes, balers in same direction hay was
cut

56. Factors Affecting Loss
 Other field operations/techniques: (con’t)
 Moisture content at baling
 Bale wrapping
 Twine closer together decreases loss but increases cost
 Net wrap
 Use of preservatives
 Climate:
 Higher rainfall
 Rainfall distribution
 High humidity
 Temperature

57. Factors Affecting Loss
 Site selection:
 Close to feeding area
 Well-drained, upland site
 Hay/soil contact should be avoided
 Bale orientation/placement
 Large round bales – without sides touching, flat
ends butted together
 Rows should run north/south

58. Factors Affecting Loss
 Protecting the tops of the bales:
 Cover bales – plastic sheeting, “caps”, fabric
 Secure cover firmly
 Protecting the bottoms of the bales:
 Held off the ground by something that doesn’t
trap/hold water
 Wooden pallets, telephone posts, scrap pipe, cross ties
 Rock pads
 Prevent hay/soil contact

59. Things NOT to do
 Allow sides of
round bales to touch
 No bales in standing
water
 No storage under
trees

60.  Thank you all for patient hearing?