**3. Implications**

**Item1 Number of treatments Mean Difference, % Total Positive responses, % Untreated Inoculated**

DM 3 33.3 4.44 4.98 +12.3 OM 3 33.3 4.64 4.83 +4.0

DM 4 75.0 64.85 68.71 +6.0 OM 3 66.7 68.17 71.09 +4.3

DM 11 27.3 7.69 8.74 +13.7

NDF 4 25.0 1.96 2.09 +6.4

NDF 4 25.0 52.70 55.20 +4.7

Feed efficiency 5 80.0 9.39 8.46 −9.9 ADG, kg/day 5 80.0 0.88 1.06 +21.1

**Table 16.** Summary of positive responses of silage inoculants on the performance of cattle fed corn and sugarcane

The results of the current survey are encouraging regarding the impact of bacterial inoculants on animal performance in tropical conditions. However, although the mean and median values for most variables measuring animal performance were very similar (which may indicate normal distribution of the data), this occurred because of the lack and/or low number of studies evaluated. Therefore, some caution should be taken when interpreting this data, as well as the great frequency of positive responses found, which is likely attributed to the low number of

Regarding the factors responsible for enhancing animal performance, certainly improvements in DM digestion are closely linked to greater growth performance. In a review of the literature from 1985 to 1992, animal performance improved in 9 of 16 trials when inoculation improved DM digestion, but only 2 of 15 trials when digestion was not significantly affected [50].

In our survey, we did not observe a relationship between DM digestibility and growth performance, because the number of studies evaluated was quite low. However, there are other hypotheses related to the improvement of animal performance. The first suggests that improvements in silage quality could lead to increased animal performance. The second suggests that silage inoculants may provide a probiotic effect by inhibiting detrimental microorganisms in the silage and rumen, or by producing beneficial substances that may enhance the functioning of specific microbial populations in the rumen, leading to an increase

DM, dry matter; OM, organic matter; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; ADG, average daily gain.

Corn

Digestibility, %

Sugarcane Intake, kg/day

Digestibility, %

Performance

1

Intake of digestible nutrients, kg/day

30 Advances in Silage Production and Utilization

Intake of digestible nutrients, kg/day

silages in experiments carried out in Brazil.

studies evaluated.

in animal performance [47].

The data summarized from Brazilian studies displays a recent increase in interest from researchers addressing bacterial inoculants as an alternative to improve silage quality. But although the number of studies remains quite low compared with the international literature, data of this survey revealed some trends for improved fermentation and nutritive value regarding the group of bacterial inoculant used at ensiling and crop.

Considering an overall mean, homolactic inoculation unaffected DM losses in corn, grass, HMC, and sorghum silages, but reduced DM loss in alfalfa silages. However, an unexpected increase in aerobic stability of grass silage was reported due to homolactic inoculation. The greater frequency of positive response was also observed for grass silages when treated with hoLAB. Conversely, heterolactic inoculation revealed to be more interesting than homolactic inoculants to reduce fermentation losses in sugarcane silage, and positive responses were found most often. In addition, enhanced aerobic stability was reported for corn and HMC silages when they were treated with heLAB. Overall, the results of the current survey regarding fermentation patterns of inoculated silages are encouraging, mainly for grass and sugarcane silages. Otherwise, the impact of bacterial inoculant on silage quality (i.e., fermentation patterns, chemical composition, and nutritive value) appeared to diminish as the quality of ensiled crop increased.

**Author details**

Gerais, Brazil

**References**

Carlos H.S. Rabelo1\*, Lucas J. Mari2

\*Address all correspondence to: carlos.zoo@hotmail.com

Journal of Dairy Science. 2013;96:307–317.

Publications, Abersytwyth; 1991. 340 p.

Technology. 2014;197:64-75.

2009;38:170-189.

WI; 2003. p. 95–140.

2 Lallemand Animal Nutrition, Aparecida de Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil

and Ricardo A. Reis1,3

Survey About the Use of Bacterial Inoculants in Brazil: Effects on Silage Quality and Animal Performance

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/64472

33

1 Department of Animal Science, São Paulo State University, Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil

3 Department of Animal Science, INCT/CA, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas

[1] Bolsen KK, Ashbell G, Weinberg, ZG. Silage fermentation and silage additives – review.

[2] Costa JHC, Hotzel MJ, Longo C, Balcao LF. A survey of management practices that influence production and welfare of dairy cattle on family farms in southern Brazil.

[3] Oliveira CA, Millen DD. Survey of the nutritional recommendations and management practices adopted by feedlot cattle nutritionists in Brazil. Animal Feed Science and

[4] Bernardes TF, Rêgo AC. Study on the practices of silage production and utilization on

[5] Zopollatto M, Daniel JLP, Nussio LG. Microbial silage additives in Brazil: review of aspects of ensilage and animal performance. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science.

[6] McDonald P, Henderson AR, Heron SJE. The Biochemistry of Silage. 2nd ed. Chalcombe

[7] Rooke JA, Hatfield RD. Biochemistry of ensiling. In: Buxton DR, Muck RE, Harrison JH, editors. Silage Science and Technology. American Society of Agronomy, Madison,

[8] Pahlow G, Muck RE, Driehuis F, Oude-Elferink SJWH, Spoelstra SF. Microbiology of ensiling. In: Buxton DR, Muck RE, Harrison JH, editors. Silage Science and Technology.

Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 1996;9:483–494.

Brazilian dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science. 2014;97:1852-1861.

American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI; 2003. p. 31–93.

Despite of animal performance and considering the overall means, inoculation consistently depressed DM intake in cattle fed corn, grass, and sugarcane silages, but DM intake increased in sheep due to inoculation. There were not a consistent effect of bacterial inoculants on silage digestibility, which largely varied depending the animal and crop evaluated. Conversely, cattle fed inoculated sugarcane silage had a greater frequency of positive response on ADG. The performance of animals consuming inoculated silages has been investigated in Brazil only a few times, but the data suggest a greater impact of bacterial inoculants on DM intake and weight gain in cattle and sheep than that indicated under temperate conditions. However, the number of studies evaluating animal performance still remains quite low, especially for dairy cows fed inoculated silage, and this survey did not provide a definitive conclusion about the effect of bacterial inoculants on animal performance (cattle and sheep).

Finally, we need caution to interpret the data of the current survey because the potential of bacterial inoculants measured by studies containing positive responses were highly variable and deeply associated with number of studies. Hence, a greater frequency of positive responses was often observed when there were a low number of studies evaluated. Additionally, positive responses were clearly impacted by the group of microorganisms (homo and heterofermentative LAB) and it determined the success of bacterial inoculant applications in silage. In this way, the compatibility between the plants and microorganisms used at ensiling should be taken into account in further studies, as well as its applicability on farm. In addition, further studies may consider assessing animal performance and sanitary aspects related to the use of bacterial inoculants since there is a lack of data about it.
