Productivity, milk composition and milk quality of cows fed maize silage covered with oxobiodegradable film

Authors

  • Piotr SZTERK Biological-chemical Laboratory, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, UTP University of Science and Technology, Bydgoszcz, Poland
  • Piotr DORSZEWSKI Division of Animal Nutrition, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, UTP University of Science and Technology, Bydgoszcz, Poland
  • Małgorzata GRABOWICZ Division of Animal Nutrition, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, UTP University of Science and Technology, Bydgoszcz, Poland
  • Lucyna PODKÓWKA Division of Animal Nutrition, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, UTP University of Science and Technology, Bydgoszcz, Poland
  • Iwona ZAREMBA Division of Animal Nutrition, Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Animal Breeding and Biology, UTP University of Science and Technology, Bydgoszcz, Poland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5513/jcea.v18i4.5907

Keywords:

aerobic stability, biodegradable film, milk quality, milk yield, silage

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine if oxobiodegradable film can be used as an alternative to standard film for silage making in agricultural practice. Whole-crop maize silage covered with oxobiodegradable film was fed as a component of partly mixed ration (PMR) for dairy cows. The oxobiodegradable coating used to cover the silage heap ensured that the fermentation process was normal, as evidenced by the quality parameters (pH 3.8, 72 hours of aerobic stability) and chemical composition of the silages. Fodder covered with biodegradable material contained less ammonium nitrogen than silage with standard foil (55.3 vs. 66.63 g·kg-1 N total, respectively). The concentration of lactic acid was also lower (77.75 vs. 89.65 g·kg-1 dry matter). Feeding whole-crop maize silage covered with oxobiodegradable film had no adverse effect on productivity (daily 30.65 vs. 31.17 kg fat corrected milk – FCM respectively), composition (protein – 3.33 in the experimental group vs. 3.3% in the control group, fat – 3.89 vs. 3.79%) and some technological suitability of milk.

Downloads

Published

2017-12-01

Issue

Section

Articles