Cover title.Includes bibliographical references

Peet, H. S. (Horace Starr), 1919-1991

Ragsdale, A. C. (Arthur Chester), 1890-1969

University of Missouri: MOspace

Cane vs. Wood MOLASSES ABSTRACT Results based on two years of trial indicate the following: (1) Wood sugar molasses has a preservative value equal to that of cane molasses when used in alfalfa and alfalfa-brome silage at a rate of 60 pounds per ton. (2) Silage preserved with wood molasses was as palatable and readily consumed as silage preserved with cane molasses. (3) Milk and fat production on the basis of aver-age daily production was almost identical for the two types of silage. (4) Only normal decline of production with ad-vancing lactation was experienced when the cows re-versed from one type of silage to the other. This bulletin is a report on Department of Dairy Husbandry research project 64 and 139 entitled, "Nutritional Studies on Growth and Milk Produc-tion," the investigation being conducted at the Hatch Dairy Experiment Station Farm, Hannibal, Mo., State Project No. 64. Cane vs. Wood Sugar Molasses Used as Preservatives For Grass Silage H. s. Peet and A. C. Ragsdale REVIEW OF LITERATURE Wood sugar molasses is made by hydrolyzing wood waste with dilute acid. Hydrolyzing is done under pressure at high temperature. The resulting product is neutralized and concentrated to approxi-mately 50 percent sugar content. Composition varies some with the type of wood used but is comparable to cane blackstrap molasses, though lower in protein and higher in energy. Average composition, as reported by Harris,* is given in Table 1. From 150 to 190 gallons of molasses may be obtained from a cord of wood, or a ton of molasses irom a ton of dry wood substance. Molasses made from wood was fed to farm ani-mals as early as World War I. The U. S. Forest Pro-ducts Laboratory, Madison, Wis., initiated studies in 1913, supplying the University of Wisconsin, the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, and the Bureau of Animal Industry, U. S. D. A., with small amounts of a product containing wood sugar for animal feeding. Workers in Germany found wood sugar suitable for stock feed between 1926 and 1936. Further tests on its value as a feed were made in Germany and Scandinavian countries during World War II. Inten-sive studies were undertaken by the U. S. Forest Pro-ducts Laboratory early in the World War II period which resulted in improvement of the process. Most of these studies are covered in reports by E. E. Harris, Wood-sugar Molasses from Wood Waste (1947), Animal Feeds from Wood Residue (1948), Wood Molasses For Stock Feed (1948), and rr Hydrolysis of Wood for Stock Feed" (1950). The principal stations participating in prelimi-nary studies following the 1913-26 work have been the University of Wisconsin, Michigan State College, University of New Hampshire, Southern Forest Ex-periment Station, and the agricultural experiment stations of Oregon, Idaho, Washington, Wyoming, and Montana. Variations in composition of wood molasses, especially acid and foreign matter content, are factors investigators have had to contend with. Extensive commercial manufacture and use of wood molasses may be expected when it is possible to obtain a uni-form or standard quality and composition at a cost comparable to that of cane or beet sugar molasses. The product has been made in two pilot plants thus far, one at the U. S. Forest Products Laboratory, the other at the T. V. A. plant at Wilson Dam in Ala-bama, and in a commercial plant at Springfield, 'Ore. The molasses used in Missouri investigations came from the Alabama plant. It was produced from hard-wood grown in the Tracy City, Tenn., area. Table l. Average CompoSition of Wood Sugar Molasses Total solid matter RedUCing sugar (as glucose) Carbohydrate converted to simple sugar by inversion Nonsugar organiC matter Ash Nitrogen Volatile organiC aCids Insoluble fiber Percent 60-62 4B-50 0.5-l.5 6.0-B.0 2.0-3.0 0.065 l.0-2.0 None METHODS AND MATERIALS Cane and beet molasses have been used exten-sively as livestock feed and grass silage preservatives. Increasing use is being made of grass silage in Mis-souri. Purpose of this study was to compare value of wood sugar molasses and cane blacks trap molasses as preservatives for alfalfa and alfalfa-brome silage. The studies cover the years 1951 and 1952. Two silos, 12 feet in diameter and 30 feet high, were filled with alfalfa and alfalfa-brome silage during June, 1950, using 60 pounds of wood molasses per ton in one silo and 60 pounds of cane molasses per ton in the other. The silage was fed during the 1950-51 winter to the milking herd. The herd was divideq into two groups, almost identical in average produc-4 MISSOURI AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 2 Grouping of Cows GrouD I Age at Production Days in Weight Herd Start Av. Daily Milk At start No. yrs-mos. At start At start Ibs Ibs/dav HI:>1 167 8-:> 22.9 164 1039 202 6-4 33.8 69 1000 248 3-11 24.7 84 773 255 3-4 19.6 75 826 263 2-11 23.8 128 767 271 2-4 23.4 81 74U 272 2-3 27.0 33 720 273 2-3 21.3 77 747 Avg. '3-fl 24.6 89 824.5 19:>2 284 2-3 20.7 110 678 287 2-2 28.8 28 773 189 8-4 23.8 146 1002 269 3-7 26.8 65 962 240 5-2 26.2 91 917 234 5-4 17.7 199 892 275 3-2 25.0 28 823 274 3-2 21.9 93 880 277 3-1 22.7 221 828 Avg. 4-0 ~ m 86T:"6 tion, stage of lactation, age, and body weight. This was a reversal type experiment with Group I receiving wOQd sugar molasses silage during the first four-week period. Group II received the same feeds in opposite order. Trials started the third week in January and continued for nine weeks, the fifth week being the reversal preliminary period. The same silo filling procedure was followed in June, 1950, and June, 1951. Feeding trials were con-ducted the same for both winter periods. Records Accurate records were kept on: Daily milk pro-duction; body weight at two-week intervals, using the average body weight on three successive days; grain fed and grain refused; silage fed and silage re-fused; and hay consumed. Ensiling Procedure A 22-acre rolling, terraced field of alfalfa-brome mixture was divided so that equal representation of growth was put in each of the two silos. The alfalfa-brome mixture was cut with a mower equipped with windrowing attachment and allowed to wilt in wind-rows for 2 to 4 hours the first year. The second year little or no wilting was allowed. A field chopper picked ensilage up from the windrow. Each load of silage was weighed and 60 pounds of molasses mixed with water and added to each ton of silage at the blower. Observations on Preservation Wood sugar molasses appeared equal to cane molasses as a preservative for alfalfa-brome silage when used at the 60 pounds pet ton rate. Grounll Age at Production Days in Weight Herd Start Av.Daily Milk At start No. yrs-mos. At start At start lbs. lbs/day 189 7-4 33.3 138 987 239 4-3 29.7 40 823 240 ' 4-'2 25.8 81 956 256 3-4 21.7 101 775 253 3-7 16.2 148 798 269 2-7 26.5 64 877 275 2-2 24.4 32 698 260 3-1 24.2 78 890 Avg. 3-Io 25:'"5 85 850.5 28:> 2-3 17.0 53 ~~~ 286 2-2 25.1 32 167 9-5 20.6 170 1017 263 3-11 31.2 78 850 256 4-4 19.2 97 900 268 3-7 19.9 125 898 273 3-3 23.3 69 857 271 3-4 22.5 84 845 279 2-9 15.2 241 803 Avg. 3-IO ITS m m::5' Both silos were opened early in November of each year. Approximately 6 inches of silage had mold-ed at the top of each silo. During the first year small spots of mold were encountered throughout the two silos. These mold spots did not occur the second year when little to no wilting was allowed before ensiling. Results indicate alfalfa or alfalfa-brome mixture may ensile best without wilting, when cut from rolling fields with good drainage like the one used in the test. Grouping of Cows All cows in the Station herd of registered Jerseys that had been in milk for 30 days or more prior to the beginning of trials and would remain in production until their completion were used in the experiment. They were divided into two groups for comparison. Table 2 shows groupings, production, stage of lacta-tion, individual weights and ages, and averages by groups. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS Silage Consumption During the first four weeks of 1951 trials the cows received 10 pounds of silage twice daily. For the re-mainder of 1951 and throughout 1952 trials the cows received 8 pounds per feeding. Amounts fed and a~ mounts refused were weighed and recorded. In 1951, Group I refused an average of 4.0 pounds of wood sugar molasses silage daily at the 20 pounds per day feeding rate. Group II refused 3.2 pounds of cane molasses silage fed at the same rate. When the feeds were switched for the second period, Group I refused 3.7 pounds of cane molasses silage and Group STATION BULLETIN 605 5 II refused an average of2.8 pounds of the wood sugar sugar molasses silage in 1952. Table 4 gives the com-preserved silage. position of the two silages. Similar results were obtained in 1952 trials. A- Apparently wood sugar molasses silage was as mounts of silage refused were smaller but comparison palatable as cane molasses silage. Individual cow vari-of the two preservatives remained essentially the same. ation accounted for differing amounts consumed and Group I refused 1.0 pound of wood sugar molasses refused. silage daily and .4 pound of the product preserved Grain Consumption with cane sugar. Group II refused 1.2 pounds of wood The cows were fed grain according to Morrison's and 2.2 pounds of cane molasses silage. feeding standards based on production and butterfat Consumption figures for individual cows are test. Average daily grain mixture consumed by each given in Table 3. Average daily consumption, includ- animal is given in Table 3. ing both groups, was 14.6 pounds of cane and 14.6 Hay Feeding pounds of wood molasses silage in 1951 and 14.7 Cows on test were given second and third cutting pounds of cane compared with 14.9 pounds of wood alfalfa hay free choice along with the rest of the herd. Table 3. Average Daily Production and Feed Consumption (Pounds per day) Cane Molasses Silage Wood Sugar Molasses Silage Grain SiIage Milk Fat Silage Milk Fat Herd Consumed Consumed Produced Produced Consumed Produced Produced Number (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 16Jbs rgSI Trials 20lbs Group I 167 8.6 12.9 21.8 1.33 17.7 21.9 1.25 202 13.0 14.5 30.5 1.53 17.8 31.9 1.76 248 9.0 10.6 19.8 1.19 12.3 22.6 1.24 255 7.5 12.5 15.0 .94 15.0 17.5 1.14 263 8.8 13.6 20.4 1.33 19.0 20.8 1.25 271 8.0 11.6 18.2 1.17 16.6 21.1 1.16 272 11.1 11.9 24.2 1.43 14.9 26.9 1.59 273 8.0 10.4 17.8 1.12 14.4 20.2 1.24 Av.4-Wk. 9.3 12.3 21.0 1.25 16.0 22.9 1.33 Group n 189 12.7 19.0 31.4 1.70 15.2 30.3 1.77 239 11.1 13.8 27.1 1.52 11.3 24.4 1.49 240 10.8 15.5 23.8 1.33 12.5 22.2 1.22 260 8.4 18.8 22.5 1.33 14.8 20.0 1.10 256 7.6 16.1 20.3 1.22 12.4 19.4 1.28 253 5.3 16.2 16.4 1.06 12.1 13.4 ,8,8 275 8.6 14.8 23.0 1.22 13.2 21.6 1.29 269 10.7 19.7 25.1 1.50 14.1 23.5 1.29 Av.4-Wk. 9.4 16.8 23.5 1.35 13.2 21.8 1.28 Av.8,...Wk. 9.4 14.6 22.3 1.30 14.6 22.4 1.31 IgS2 friaIs Group I 284 7.5 15.0 18.3 1.10 15.9 21.2 1.24 287 11.4 15.6 24.1 1.35 13.6 28.6 1.58 _~89 8.0 .15.9 21.9. 1.25 15.9 23.1 1.16 269 10.0 16.0 22.7 1.29 16.0 26.1 1.52 240 10.0 15.8 24.9 1.39 15.9 26.3 1.45 234 6.0 15.1 1~.8 1.08 10.9 17.3 .96 . 2'75 9.5 14.9 22.4 1.30 14.7 25.4 1.55 274 7.4 15.8 18.6 1.13 15.8 21.3 1.19 277 6.0 16,.0 13.1 .82 16.0 14.1 .99 Av.4-Wk. 8.4 15.6 20.1 1.19 15.0 22.6 1.29 Group n 285 4.4 11.2 17.4 .89 14.2 15.3 .86 286 9.4 8.0 24.2 1.21 14.4 22.8 1.23 167 7.0 15.9 20.9 1.09 15.9 19.7 1.08 263 12.5 15.1 30.1 1.87 15.4 26.0 1.61 256 6.9 14.3 18.7 1.18 13.4 17.7 1.15 268 6.5 16.0 19.3 1.12 16.0 16.9 1.03 273 9.5 15.6 23.2 1.42 15.6 19.9 1.32 271 7.9 15.4 22.2 1.27 15.6 19.1 1.19 279 6.0 12.4 17.2 .83 12.9 13.7 .88 Av.4-wk. 7.8 13.8 21.5 1.21 14.8 19.0 1.14 Av. a-Wk. 8.1 14.7 20.8 1.20 14.9 20.8 1.22 6 MISSOURI AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Average daily consumption for the entire herd was approximately 23 pounds per cow or 2.5 pounds per 100 pounds body weight. Table 4. Composition of Silages Tested. Preservatives No. 1 No.2 Blackstrap VVood Molasses Molasses 51-7-2 51-7-3 % H20, Fresh basis 57.31 52.74 % H20, Dry basis 8.92 7.16 % Fat 1.96 2.16 % Crude Fiber 30.70 30.52 % Ash 8.93 8.03 % NFE 34.99 37.82 % Lactic Acid 2.20 2.50 PH 4.42 4.35 % Ca 1.51 1.53 % P 0.31 0.28 % N. 2.32 2.29 % Protein 14.50 14.31 All results expressed on air dry basis. All values are averages of at least two determinations. Milk and Fat Production Cows were milked twice daily and accurate re-cords kept of individual production. Butterfat tests were run at least once during each period and results used to compute fat production for the period. Table 3 lists individual production figures. In 1951, Group I averaged 22.9 pounds of milk and 1.33 pounds fat daily per cow while on wood su-gar treated silage. Group II, on cane sugar treated silage, averaged 23.5 pounds of milk and 1.35 pounds of fat. After reversing the feed for the second period, production was as follows: Group I, on cane molasses treated silage, 21 pounds of milk and 1.25 pounds of fat daily; Group II, on wood sugar molasses preserved silage, 21.8 pounds of milk containing 1.28 pounds of fat. Average of the 8-week production for the two silage groups figures 22.4 pounds of milk with 1.31 pounds butterfat daily for wood sugar molasses, com-pared with 22.3 pounds of milk and 1.30 pounds of fat for the cane sugar molasses. Similar results, with slightly lower production throughout, were obtained from 1952 trials. Group I, on wood sugar molasses silage, averaged 22.6 pounds of milk with 1.29 pounds of fat per cow; Group II, on the other silage, produced 21.5 pounds of milk containing 1.21 pounds of fat. When the silages were reversed, Group I produced 20.1 pounds of milk and 1.19 pounds oHat daily and Group II averaged 19.0 pounds of milk and 1.14 pounds of fat per cow. Combining 1952 results, cows averaged 20.8 pounds of milk and 1.22 pounds of fat daily on wood sugar molasses silage. While on cane sugar molasses silage, they averaged 20.8 pounds of milk containing 1.20 pounds oHat. In each instance a slight drop in production oc-curred with advancing lactation. Group I declined 8.3 percent in 1951 during the second period while receiving the wood sugar molasses silage. Group II, which had been switched to cane molasses silage, de-clined 7.2 percent. Trials in 1952 resulted in the fol-lowing declines in production for the second period; Group I, switched from cane to wood molasses silage, 11.2 percent; Group II, switched from wood to cane molasses, 11.4 percent. Weight Changes Individual weights were obtained by weighing cows the first three days ; the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth days; and for three days following each four-week period. No significant changes in body weight were noted. Table 5. Comparison of Results From Feeding VVood Sugar and Cane Molasses Silage (Average per cow for 4-week periods) Wood Sugar Molasses Silage Cane Molasses Silage Silage Milk Fat Weight Silage Milk Fat VVeight !consumed Produced Produced Gain or Consumed Produced Produced, Gain or lbs/day lbs/day Ibs/day Loss.lbs lbs/day lbs/ day lbs/day Loss, lbs 1951 (8 cows) Group I 16.0 22.9 1.33 3.5 12.3 21.0 1.25 -2.0 Group n 13.2 21.8 1.28 6.1 16.8 23.5 1.35 4.1 Average I4.6 ~ Dr 4.8 I4.6 ~ DO IT 1952 (9 cows) Group I 15.0 22 .6 1.29 8.3 15.6 20.1 1.19 6.0 Group n 14.8 19.0 1.14 -3.3 13.8 21.5 1.21 6.7 Average IU"" "2Q.S"" 1:2"2"" 2.r I4.'f "2Q.S"" I:W" IT 1951-62 Average 14.8 21.6 1.27 3.7 14.7 21.6 1.25 3.8 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Archibald, J. G., and C. H. Parsons, "Grass from Silage" Mass. Exp. Sta. Bul. No. 425, p. 11 (1945). 2. Dalrymple. W. H.. "Food for Work Animals," Breeder's Gazette, 48 :276 (1905). 3. Harris, E. r., Animal Feeds from Wood Residue, Forest Pro-ducts Laboratory, U. S. D. A. , Madison 5, Wisconsin (19-48). 4. Harris, E. T, Wood Molasses for Stock Feed, Forest Products Laboratory, U. S. D. A., Madison 5, Wisconsin (1947). 5. Harris, E. T., Hydrolysis of Wood for Stock Feed, Forest Pro-ducts Laboratory. U. S. D. A., Madison 5, Wisconsin (19-50) . 6. Kutish, John, Production and Marketing of Feed Molasses, Production and Marketing Administration, U. S. D. A. 7. Morrison, F. B., Feeds and Feeding, 20th ed., Ithaca, N. Y, Morrison Pub. Co. (1946),1050/., illus. 8. Pacific Molasses Company, Lt ., Feeding for Profit, San Francisco, 1946. 9. U. S. Bureau of the Census; Table No. 717, Domestic Animals on Farms; number and value, 1880 to 1944. U. S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abs. 66:659 (1944-45). 10. U. S. Bureau of the Census; Table No. 768; Sugarcane, Cane Sugar, and Molasses; Production in Continental United States, 1915 to 1945. U. S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abs. 67 :685 (1946) . 11. U. S. Bureau of the Census; Table No. 773, Sugar, Beet and Cane: Stocks, Production, Trade, and Calculated Dis-appearance in Continental United States; 1866-1944. U. S. Bureau of the Census; Statistical Abs. 67:688 (1946). 12. U. S. Bureau of the Census; Table No. 860; Petroleum, Crude, Production, 1861 to 1944. U. S. Bureau of the Cen-sus; Statistical Abs. 67:755 (1946). 13. Weiser, Stephan, and Arthur Zartschels, "Futterings mit melasse," Landu'. Jahrb. 37 :138-149 (1908). 14. Winters,R. K, G. H. Chidester, and J. A. Hall, Wood Waste in the United States, Washington, U. S_ Forest Ser-vice (1947), 45 p., illus. (Report 4 from a reappraisal of the forest situation). 

Cane vs. wood molasses used as preservatives for grass silage.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Missouri: MOspace