EFFECTS OF SILO TYPE ON ENSILING ALFALFA

R. E. Muck, G. E. Brink, G. A. Broderick

ABSTRACT. Various silo types are used on dairy farms, but there is uncertainty as to how silo type affects silage losses
and quality. The objective of this study was to compare three silo types, filled with alfalfa from the same fields and
emptied simultaneously, relative to filling rates, dry matter (DM) losses, and silage quality. Similar trials were performed
in two consecutive years where second cutting alfalfa was harvested in late June and ensiled in three silos: bunker (4.9 ×
21.3 × 3.5 m), bag (2.4 m dia. × 52 m), and oxygen-limiting tower (4.3 m dia. × 15.2 m). Approximately half of the forage
from each field in each trial was ensiled in the bunker silo, and a quarter was allocated to the bag and tower silos. All
three silos were filled over approximately a 24-h period with target DM concentrations of 35% to 40% for the bag and
bunker silos and 45% to 50% for the tower. For each load, weight and times for filling and packing were recorded; a
sample was taken for DM and nutrient analysis. The following summer, all three silos were emptied over approximately
the same dates. Daily silage samples from each silo were composited weekly for analysis, and the weights of all silage
removed were recorded whether fed or not. Filling rates (Mg DM per h) were similar for all silo types using the
established management practices and equipment at the research farm. Over the two trials, average DM losses from the
bag, bunker, and oxygen-limiting silos were 11%, 17%, and 4%, respectively, for 14 to 15 months storage. There were few
effects of silo type on nutritive characteristics such as crude protein (CP) and fiber fractions of the alfalfa silages in the
first year when fermentation + respiration DM losses varied over a narrow range across silos. In the second year where
the bunker silo had the greatest fermentation + respiration losses, CP was reduced and fiber fractions were increased in
the bunker silage compared with those in the silages from the other two silos. Small effects in silage fermentation due to
silo type were observed in the first year where the DM concentrations were similar across the three silos. In the second
year, the best fermentation occurred in the oxygen-limited silo whereas the bunker silo with the greatest losses had
evidence of clostridial fermentation beginning.
Keywords. Loss, Fermentation, Fiber, Protein, Silage, Silo.

E
nsiling is a primary means of storing and
preserving forages for livestock use in many
places. Silage preservation relies on maintaining
an anaerobic environment that in turn permits
fermentation of crop sugars by lactic acid bacteria to lactic
acid and other products that lower crop pH. The
combination of the anaerobic environment, fermentation
products and low pH stabilize the crop, suppressing both
aerobic spoilage microorganisms and detrimental anaerobic
microorganisms (Muck et al., 2003).
Ensiling can be accomplished in a variety of silo types:
tower silos (bottom and top unloading), bunker silos, drive-
over piles, bag silos, and wrapped bales (Savoie and Jofriet,
Submitted for review in September 2014 as manuscript number 10994;
approved for publication by the Plant, Animal, & Facility Systems
Community of ASABE in February 2015.
Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is
solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not
imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
The authors are Richard E. Muck, ASABE Member, former
Supervisory Research Agricultural Engineer, Geoffrey E. Brink,
Research Agronomist, and Glen A. Broderick, former Research Dairy
Scientist, USDA, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Dairy Forage
Research Center, Madison, Wisconsin. Corresponding author: Richard
E. Muck, USDA, ARS, U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, 1925 Linden
Drive, Madison, WI 53706; phone: 608-345-5712; e-mail:
remuck@wisc.edu.
2003). Losses from ensiling are expected to vary by silo
type and management. Savoie and Jofriet (2003) reviewed
the types and rates of losses occurring in silos and
calculated typical losses under good management. They
reported that for six months storage the lowest total dry
matter (DM) losses were calculated to occur in bottom
unloading tower silos (6%) and the greatest from wrapped
bales (16%) with bunker silos being intermediate (13%).
Buckmaster et al. (1989) validated their silo model by
simulating the reported losses from four small bunkers and
nine tower silos. The DM losses from bunkers ranged from
6.0% to 9.8% whereas the range from tower silos was 4.6%
to 13.6%. Ruppel et al. (1995) measured losses by buried
bag technique in 30 alfalfa silages made in 15 commercial
bunker silos over 2 years. The range of DM losses was -3%
to 43% with an average of 8%. Muck and Holmes (2006)
measured density and losses in 47 bag silos. The range of
DM losses was 0 to 40%, and the average was 14.6%. Each
of these loss measurements represents a single observation
under separate conditions so that one cannot compare the
performance of one silo type to another.
The majority of losses during ensiling are due to aerobic
respiration (Muck et al., 2003). Aerobic respiration should
reduce the rapidly digestible portions of the silage relative
to the less digestible. Thus, compared to crops at ensiling,
silage should have greater levels of ash and fiber and
reduced nonstructural carbohydrates, and the magnitude of

Applied Engineering in Agriculture

Vol. 31(3): 479-486 2015 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers ISSN 0883-8542 DOI 10.13031/aea.31.10994 479
those changes should increase proportionally to losses. A
survey of alfalfa silages made in bunker silos (Ruppel et al.,
1995) indicates that this is the case because acid detergent
insoluble nitrogen, a poorly digested fraction, was reduced
by rapid filling, greater tire density holding plastic covers
in place, and smooth feed out faces, all factors associated
with reduced losses. No comparisons have been done to
verify that this occurs across silo types.
The objective of this study was to compare three silo
types (bunker, bag, and oxygen-limiting tower silos, filled
with alfalfa from the same fields and emptied simultane-
ously) relative to filling rates, DM losses, and silage
quality.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Trials were conducted in 2004 and 2005 using second-
cutting alfalfa harvested at the U.S. Dairy Forage Research
Center Farm, Prairie du Sac, Wisconsin. For both trials,
alfalfa was ensiled in one bunker silo (4.9 × 21.3 × 3.5 m),
one bag silo (2.4 m dia. × 52 m), and one oxygen-limiting
tower silo (4.3 m dia. × 15.2 m). In both years, first-cutting
alfalfa was harvested in May over a 2-day period to
produce regrowth of similar maturity across the total area
to be harvested for each trial. In 2004, second-cutting
alfalfa was mown 27-28 June and chopped 28-29 June with
a New Holland FX 58 forage harvester (CNH Global, New
Holland, Pa.) set to a 2.9 cm theoretical length of cut, a
value set high by the farm managers to maintain the
effective fiber value of the silages. In 2005, second-cutting
alfalfa was mown 26-27 June and chopped with the same
forage harvester 27-28 June. Each year all three silos were
filled with alfalfa from the same fields, with approximately
half of the alfalfa from each field allocated to the bunker
silo and one quarter to the bag and oxygen-limiting silos.
The target DM ranges were 35% to 40% DM for the bunker
and bag silos and 45% to 50% DM for the oxygen-limiting
silo. In 2004, all alfalfa was sprayed at the forage harvester
with a commercial silage inoculant (H/MF Inoculant,
Pharm Tech, Des Moines, Iowa) to provide 105 cfu lactic
acid bacteria/g crop. No additive was used in 2005. Each
load of alfalfa was weighed, and a sample was taken for
moisture and quality analysis. Alfalfa in the bunker silo
was covered with 0.20-mm white plastic weighted down
with a combination of tires and tire sidewalls abutting one
another.
Time spent filling each silo was documented. For the
bunker silo, the time for spreading and packing each load
was recorded plus the time to install the cover. The bag silo
was filled with an Ag-Bag model G6000 bagging machine
(St. Nazianz, Wis.), and the time for the bagging machine
to handle each load was recorded. The oxygen-limiting silo
was filled with the combination of a Case IH model 600
blower (Racine, Wis.) and Balzer model 1060 feed table
(Mountain Lake, Minn.). Truckloads were dumped onto the
feed table. The feed table was emptied of each load before
receiving the next load, and the time for the feed table and
blower to handle each load was recorded.
480
All three silos were opened and emptied over approxi-
mately the same time period, primarily the summer. This
was chosen to magnify differences between silos by a long
storage period and feed out under warm conditions. The
bunker was opened on 16 April 2005 and the bag and tower
21 April in the first trial. The last silage was removed on
9 September, 19 August, and 12 September for the bunker,
bag and tower, respectively. In the second year, the bunker
was opened on 30 May 2006 and the other two silos on
26 June. The last silage was removed on 6 October,
21 September, and 6 October for the bunker, bag and
tower, respectively. All silage removed from each structure
(both fed and spoiled) was weighed and recorded. Silage
fed from each structure was sampled daily, and daily
samples were composited weekly and stored at -18°C until
analyzed. As spoiled silage was encountered, it was
weighed, and samples were taken for analysis.
SAMPLE ANALYSES
Samples of the fresh and ensiled alfalfa were analyzed
for moisture (drying at 60°C for 72 h; ASABE Standards,
2008). The dried samples were ground through a 1-mm
screen using a Wiley Mill (Arthur H. Thomas, Philadelph-
ia, Pa.) and analyzed for ash (550°C for 16 h), neutral
detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), acid
detergent lignin (ADL), crude protein (CP), acid detergent
insoluble N (ADIN), and in vitro dry matter and NDF
digestibility. NDF was analyzed using heat-stable amylase
and sodium sulfite (Van Soest et al., 1991; Mertens et al.,
2002) in an Ankom Fiber Analyzer (Ankom Technology
Corp., Fairport, N.Y.); ADF and ADL were determined
sequentially from the NDF residue. CP and ADIN were
analyzed by combustion assay on dried, ground sample and
ADF residue, respectively, using a Leco FP-2000 N
analyzer (Leco Instruments, Inc., St. Joseph, Mich.). In
vitro DM and NDF digestibility were performed as per
Goering and Van Soest (1970) using rumen fluid collected
from two cows and an incubation time of 48 h. In addition,
silages were analyzed for pH and fermentation products by
HPLC (Muck and Dickerson, 1988).
Dry matter losses from each structure were calculated by
mass balance. Losses were divided into two groups:
fermentation + respiration losses (i.e., DM ensiled – all DM
removed) and spoilage losses (silage DM removed but not
fed).
STATISTICS
The nutritive characteristics (protein, fiber, etc.) of the
fresh and ensiled alfalfa within a year were compared by
analysis of variance using Proc GLM in SAS with silo type,
ensiling effects (i.e., fresh vs. silage), and their interaction
being the independent variables. Silage characteristics (pH,
fermentation products) were analyzed solely on the ensiled
alfalfa with silo type being the independent variable.
Significance was declared at P < 0.05, and mean separation
was done by least significant difference.
APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE
RESULTS
ENSILING 2004
All three silos were filled over approximately 24 h,
beginning in the early afternoon of 28 June with the bunker
and bag silos. The initial loads into the oxygen-limiting silo
began in late afternoon that day. The last loads into each
silo were packed or blown in by 1:00 p.m. on the 29th.
Excellent drying conditions were experienced that led to
the DM concentrations in the bag and bunker silos (table 1)
being drier than our target of 35% to 40%. Trucks supplied
alfalfa to the bunker and tower silos whereas front
unloading forage wagons were needed for filling the
bagging machine. Loads put into the bag were approxi-
mately half the weight of those put into the other silos
(table 1). The fill time per load was greatest for the oxygen-
limiting silo and least for the bag. Fill times per load with
the tower and bag silos were similar from beginning to end
of ensiling (fig. 1). In contrast fill time per load in the
bunker increased approximately 50% between the first and
last loads. Fill rates on a DM weight per h basis were
similar for the bag and oxygen-limiting silos whereas the
fill rate for the bunker was approximately 14% greater
(table 1). The bunker fill rate was affected by additional
packing of the last load (~2 h) to improve the density of the
top surface that was felt necessary by the experienced
packing tractor operator. Without the additional packing of
the last load, the fill rate for the bunker silo would have
been 16.9 Mg DM/h. Average densities based on silage
dimensions and weight ensiled in the bunker and bag silos
were 296 and 165 kg DM/m3, respectively. The tower silo
was filled to capacity on the day of filling, but it was not
possible to measure the settled density without compromis-
ing the anaerobic status of the silo.
Table 1. Fill metrics for the ensiling of second cutting alfalfa into three different silos in 2004.
DM Content at DM Ensiled
Silo Type Loads Ensiling (%) (Mg)
Bag 27 48.7 40.0
Bunker 37 48.8 106.2
Oxygen-limited 12 52.7 35.0
Figure 1. Variation in filling time per load as each silo was filled in the first trial, 2004. Regression lines: bunker (solid line), oxygen-limited
(dotted) and bag (dashed). The regression was significant for the bunker (P = 0.003) but not for the other two (P > 0.10).
31(3): 479-486
ENSILING 2005
The filling of the three silos took approximately 26 h to
complete, beginning in early afternoon of 27 June with the
bunker and bag silos. Filling of the oxygen-limited silo
began the next day. The bag was completely filled by mid-
morning on the 28th and the other two silos were full by
mid-afternoon. As in the previous year we had excellent
weather for harvesting, but the average DM concentrations
of the alfalfa entering the bag and bunker silos were closer
to our target DM concentrations (table 2). Again trucks
were used for bringing alfalfa to the bunker and tower silos
while forage wagons were used for the bags. However, the
wagon carried approximately similar weights of DM as the
trucks. The greater weight in the wagons increased the
unloading time, and fill times per load were similar across
silo type (table 2). Fill rates on a DM weight per h basis
were also similar across the three silo types. Only 28 min
additional packing occurred in the bunker silo after the
final load was spread and packed. Removing that time
increases the fill rate of the bunker to 16.7 Mg DM/h.
Average densities based on silage dimensions and weight
ensiled in the bunker and bag silos were 293 and 197 kg
DM/m3, respectively.
SILO EMPTYING
For the first year trial, the bunker silo was opened and
the first silage removed on 16 April 2005, and the last
silage was removed on 9 September. The average feed out
rate was 14 cm/d. The bag and tower silos were opened on
21 April, and silage was removed over 121 and 145 d,
respectively, resulting in average feed out rates of 43 and
10 cm/d. There was almost no spoiled silage (silage
removed but not fed) for the oxygen-limited silo whereas
the bunker silo had the greatest amount of spoilage
Average Load Weight Total Fill Time Fill Time per Load Fill Rate
(kg DM) for Silo (h:m) (m:s) (Mg DM/h)
1481 3:32 07:51 11.3
2870 8:07 13:10 13.1
2914 3:01 15:05 11.6
481
 Table 2. Fill metrics for the ensiling of second cutting alfalfa into three different silos in 2005.
Silo DM Content at DM Ensiled Average Load Total Fill Time Fill Time per Fill Rate
Type Loads Ensiling (%) (Mg) Weight (kg DM) for Silo (h:m) Load (m:s) (Mg DM/h)
Bag 15 42.3 46.4 3093 2:59 11:56 15.6
Bunker 36 42.7 113.8 3160 7:16 12:07 15.7
Oxygen-Limited 12 54.5 35.8 2987 2:19 11:35 15.5

(table 3). The range of fermentation + respiration losses
was narrower than that of the spoilage losses. Total DM
losses from the bunker silo were approximately twice the
losses from the oxygen-limited silo. Total losses from the
bag silo were intermediate.
For the second trial, the silos were opened later: 30 May
for the bunker and 26 June for the other two silos. The bag,
bunker and tower silos were emptied over 88, 130, and
103 d, respectively, resulting in average feed out rates of
59, 16, and 15 cm/d. There was no silage in the oxygen-
limited silo deemed too spoiled to feed and only minor
spoilage losses in the bag (table 3). Spoilage loss in the
bunker was approximately half that from the previous year.
Fermentation + respiration losses were greater in the
bunker and lower in the oxygen-limited silo compared with
the first trial. Total DM losses for the bag and bunker silos
were similar to the previous year whereas losses from the
oxygen-limited silo were lower than the previous trial.
NUTRITITIVE CHARACTERISTICS PRE- AND POST-
ENSILING
The nutritive characteristics of the alfalfa in the first
trial, pre- and post-ensiling are presented in table 4. There
were only a few differences by silo type. Crude protein was
lower and ADF greater in the oxygen-limiting silo
compared with the other two silos. Ash content was greater
in the bag silo than the bunker or oxygen-limited silo.
Compared with the pre-ensiling alfalfa characteristics, the
final silages had lower DM concentration but greater ADL,
ash, and NDFD. Over the course of ensiling, the ADF
concentration decreased in the silage from the bag silo
whereas ADF concentration in the other two silos was
similar pre- and post-ensiling. The ADL concentration
increased from pre- to post-ensiling in the bag and bunker
silos but was unchanged in the oxygen-limiting silo.
Nutritive characteristics of the alfalfa ensiled and the
final silages in the second trial are shown in table 5. The
DM concentration in the oxygen-limited silo was greater
than in the other two silos as planned. The only other
significant effect by silo type was ADL, which was lowest
in the oxygen-limiting silo. There were significant
differences pre- and post-ensiling with the silages being
lower in DM content, CP, and NDFD and greater NDF,
ADF, and ADL. The interaction of silo type and ensiling
effects was significant for CP and the fiber fractions. For
CP, the CP concentration decreased from pre- to post-
ensiling in the bunker and oxygen-limited silos but not in
the bag silo. For NDF, ADF, and ADL, concentrations in
the alfalfa going into the bunker silo were the lowest (but
not always significantly); however, the alfalfa silages from
the bunker silo had the greatest concentrations.
FERMENTATION CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ALFALFA
SILAGE
In the first trial where all three silos had fairly similar
DM contents, there were relatively few differences in
fermentation characteristics among the three silos (table 6).
The silage from the bag had the greatest pH and that from
the bunker the lowest, but the difference was less than
0.10 units. The bunker silage had greater levels of acetic,
succinic and butyric acids than the silages from the other
two silos. However, the difference between the greatest and
lowest concentrations for any of the acids was less than
0.60% DM.
In the second trial, the fermentation profiles had greater
differences across the three silo types (table 7). The bunker
silage had the greatest pH; the oxygen-limited silage the
lowest. The bunker silage showed evidence of clostridial
fermentation with a butyric acid concentration above 0.5%
DM as well as reduced lactic acid and increased acetic acid
concentrations compared to the silages from the other two
silos. The only difference in fermentation products in the
silages from the bag and oxygen-limited silos was the
elevated acetic acid concentration in the bag silage, likely
the cause of the greater pH in the bag silage compared to
that in the silage from the oxygen-limited silo.
DISCUSSION
ENSILING METRICS
Labor, management, and equipment will affect the rate
at which a silo can be filled. In the trials presented here,
one of the smallest bunker silos at the research farm was
used so that there was sufficient alfalfa to fill all three silos.
The 2.4-m diameter bagging machine and the oxygen-
limiting silo were also smaller than most currently
commercially available. So the small sizes of these
structures likely influenced filling rates. However, the field

Table 3. Dry matter losses from alfalfa silage made in three different silos.
DM Content at Feed Out Spoilage Fermentation+ Total DM
Silo Ensiling Rate Loss% Respiration Loss Loss
Trial Type (%) (cm/d) ( DM) (% DM) (% DM)
2004-5 Bag 48.7 43 2.7 9.5 12.1
Bunker 48.8 14 6.5 9.1 15.6
Oxygen-limited 52.7 10 0.1 7.0 7.1
2005-6 Bag 42.3 59 0.2 10.2 10.5
Bunker 42.7 16 2.8 15.3 18.2
Oxygen-limited 54.5 15 0.0 1.5 1.5

482 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

 Table 4. Nutritive characteristics of second cutting alfalfa, pre- and post-ensiling from three different silos, 2004-2005.
Silo DM CP NDF ADF ADL Ash NDFD
Type (%) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% NDF)
Pre-ensiling
Bag 49.3 22.2 38.4 29.0b 7.4bc[a] 7.4 49.2
Bunker 49.9 22.8 36.8 27.5bc 7.1c 6.6 47.3
Oxygen-limited 51.7 21.3 40.2 30.4a 8.1ab 6.7 48.4
Post-ensiling
Bag 48.6 22.4 35.5 26.8c 8.3a 9.6 52.0
Bunker 46.4 22.9 37.7 28.9b 8.7a 8.8 49.6
Oxygen-limited 48.3 22.0 38.0 29.4a 8.5a 8.9 49.2
Silo Mean
Bag 49.0 22.3g 36.9 27.9h 7.8 8.5g 50.6
Bunker 48.1 22.8g 37.3 28.2h 7.9 7.7h 48.5
Oxygen-limited 50.0 21.6h 39.1 29.9g 8.3 7.8h 48.8
Ensiling effect means
Pre-ensiling 50.3 22.1 38.4 29.0 7.6 6.9 48.3
Post-ensiling 47.8 22.4 37.1 28.4 8.5 9.1 50.3
Ensiling effect (post – pre)
Bag -0.7 0.2 -2.9 -2.2 0.9 2.2 2.8
Bunker -3.5 0.1 -0.9 -0.7 1.6 2.2 2.3
Oxygen-limited -3.4 0.7 -2.2 -1.0 0.4 2.2 0.8
Significance
Silo Type NS[b] ** NS * NS * NS
Ensiling * NS NS NS *** *** *
Interaction NS NS NS * * NS NS
[a]
Values within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.
[b]
NS – not significant (P > 0.05); * – P < 0.05; ** – P < 0.01; *** – P < 0.001.

Table 5. Nutritive characteristics of second cutting alfalfa, pre- and post-ensiling from three different silos, 2005-2006.
Silo DM CP NDF ADF ADL Ash NDFD
Type (%) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% NDF)
Pre-ensiling
Bag 44.8 24.0bc[a] 35.5c 27.3c 7.3cd 8.7 47.0
Bunker 46.0 25.3a 33.3c 25.3d 6.6e 9.1 49.1
Oxygen-limited 54.4 25.0ab 34.3c 26.4cd 6.7de 8.7 48.1
Post-ensiling
Bag 41.5 23.0cd 39.8b 31.7ab 8.2b 9.2 43.7
Bunker 36.6 22.5d 42.0a 33.1a 8.9a 9.5 44.2
Oxygen-limited 49.4 23.1cd 38.5b 30.4b 7.6c 8.6 46.6
Silo mean
Bag 43.2h 23.5 37.6 29.3 7.8g 9.0 45.4
Bunker 41.3h 23.9 37.7 29.2 7.7g 9.3 46.6
Oxygen-limited 51.9g 24.1 36.4 28.4 7.2h 8.7 47.4
Ensiling effects means
Pre-ensiling 48.4 24.7 34.4 26.3 6.7 8.8 48.1
Post-ensiling 42.5 22.9 40.1 31.7 8.2 9.1 44.8
Ensiling effect (post – pre)
Bag -3.3 -1.0 4.3 4.3 0.9 0.5 -3.3
Bunker -9.4 -2.8 8.7 7.8 2.3 0.4 -4.9
Oxygen-limited -5.0 -1.9 4.2 4.0 0.9 -0.1 -1.5
Significance
[b]
Silo type *** NS NS NS * NS NS
Ensiling *** *** *** *** *** NS ***
Interaction NS * ** ** *** NS NS
[a]
Values within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.
[b]
NS – not significant (P > 0.05); * – P < 0.05; ** – P < 0.01; *** – P < 0.001

crew was experienced with filling all three silo types, and
filling more than one silo simultaneously was not a rare
occurrence for this crew. Given these circumstances, the
filling rates for the bag and oxygen-limited silo were
similar both years (tables 1, 2), and the rate for filling the
bunker silo was greater than the other two only during the
first year. With each silo, one could envision means of
improving the fill rate such as using a higher capacity
bagging machine for the bag silo or different blower for the
tower silo. Packing time per ton for the bunker silo could
have been reduced to permit a greater fill rate but at the
cost of reducing silage density (Muck and Holmes, 2000).
Thus, the fill rates for a particular silo could be manipulat-
ed. In the current study, no attempt was made to modify the
routine procedures used by the farm crew for filling each
silo, and under those conditions there was a surprising
similarity in rates across the silo types.
While fill rates were measured, labor for filling the three
silos was not. In these trials, various individuals in the farm
crew played multiple roles because of the simultaneous
filling of the three silos that would not have occurred if
only one silo had been filled at a given time. Typically at
this research farm the filling of a bunker silo uses a
dedicated person to spread and pack each load in the silo,

31(3): 479-486 483

 Table 6. Fermentation characteristics of second cutting alfalfa silages from three different silos during emptying in 2005.
Silo DM Lactic Acid Acetic Acid Succinic Acid Butyric Acid Ethanol
Type (%) (pH) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM)
Bag 48.6 4.59a[a] 4.74 0.93b 0.38b 0.00b 0.22
Bunker 46.4 4.50b 5.14 1.45a 0.45a 0.04a 0.18
Oxygen-limited 48.3 4.52ab 5.29 1.03b 0.37b 0.00b 0.21
[a]
Values within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.

and packing is essentially continuous during the filling
process. With tower and bag silos, there may or may not be
a dedicated person at the blower or bagging machine,
depending upon how fast loads are arriving at the silos. If
rates are low, the load drivers may operate the feed table
and blower or the unloading wagon and bagging machine,
reducing by one the personnel needed for filling compared
to bunker filling.
Silage density is expected to be an important factor
influencing losses during silo storage (Muck et al., 2003).
The two bag silos had DM densities of 165 and 197 kg/m3.
These DM densities were within the range observed for
23 alfalfa silages bags, made on research farms with similar
baggers to the one used in the current study (160 to 260 kg
DM/m3; Muck and Holmes, 2006). However, the earlier
study suggests the bag density in the first year of the current
study was lower than expected for a DM content of 49%.
The density of the wetter alfalfa in the second trial was
similar to that expected based on Muck and Holmes (2006).
The bunker silo densities in both years of the current
study were greater than 290 kg DM/m3. These densities are
nearly one standard deviation above the average DM
density (237±61 kg DM/m3) found in a survey of 87 bunker
silos on commercial farms in the late 1990’s containing
alfalfa silage (Muck and Holmes, 2000). Consequently, the
bunker silo densities achieved represented above normal
packing practices. Densities in the oxygen-limiting silo
were not measured and would be a function of self-
compaction as is the case in most tower silos.
DRY MATTER LOSSES
Across both years, the DM losses from bag, bunker, and
oxygen-limiting silos averaged 11%, 17%, and 4%,
respectively, for silages that had been stored for
approximately one year or more. These were achieved with
good silo management, good to excellent densities, and at
recommended or greater feed out rates.
The DM losses were well within the range reported for
different silo types. Savoie and Jofriet (2003) reviewed and
summarized the different types of losses during ensiling
and provided typical losses by silo type. For 12 months of
storage, typical total losses for a bottom-unloaded tower
silo and a bunker silo were 9% and 19%, respectively,
greater than our results. The main reason for the difference
between the two silo types was aerobic loss during storage,
estimated at 0.5% and 1.0% per month for the bottom-
unloaded tower and bunker silo, respectively.
Buckmaster et al. (1989) modeled losses from bottom-
unloaded (i.e., oxygen-limiting) tower, top-unloading
tower, and bunker silos. When the model was used to
predict losses over a range of conditions, a bunker silo was
predicted to have greater losses than a bottom-unloaded
tower, ranging from 2% to 4% units dependent on size.
Rotz et al. (1991) used this model to predict losses from
alfalfa silage harvested and stored over a range of DM
concentrations. For identical farm conditions, alfalfa
ensiled in an oxygen-limiting silo at 50% DM and fed out
over a year was predicted to have DM losses of 7%
whereas alfalfa ensiled in a bunker silo at 40% DM was
predicted to have 11% losses. Thus, this model predicts a
narrower difference in losses than observed between the
bunker and oxygen-limiting silos in the current study.
Ruppel et al. (1995) measured losses by buried bag
technique in 30 alfalfa silages made in 15 commercial
bunker silos over 2 years. The range of DM losses was -3%
to 43% with an average of 8%. However, the mean burial
time for the bags was 96 days, and the mean rate of loss
was 3.5% per month. Projecting that rate to a one-year
storage time, one would expect bunker silo losses of
approximately 40%. With a short storage time in their
study, calculations of the rate of DM losses would have
been disproportionately affected by aerobic losses during
filling and fermentation losses in the first month. Assuming
1% per month after the first three months (based on Savoie
and Jofriet, 2003) results in a 17% loss, similar to that
observed here.
In a survey of 47 bag silos (Muck and Holmes, 2006)
dry matter losses ranged from 0 to 40% with a mean of
14.6%. Fermentation plus respiration losses averaged 9.2%
and spoilage loss was 5.4%. Fermentation + respiration
losses in the current study averaged 9.8%, close to the
larger study average, whereas the spoilage losses were
lower, 1.5%. The greater average spoilage losses in the
Muck and Holmes (2006) study were due to six outlier bags
with excessive spoilage, which in some cases was caused
by failure to see and repair damaged bags in a timely
manner. Removing those bags brought their average
spoilage losses down to 2.9% and total losses to 11.6%,
values very similar to ours.
Given the conditions of the current study (the densities
achieved, feed out rates at recommended or above levels,
the overall management of the three silos and that all three

Table 7. Fermentation characteristics of second cutting alfalfa silages from three different silos during emptying in 2006.
Silo DM Lactic Acid Acetic Acid Succinic Acid Butyric Acid Ethanol
Type (%) pH (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM) (% DM)
Bag 41.5 4.77b[a] 5.21a 2.49b 0.61 0.03b 0.02
Bunker 36.6 5.03a 3.33b 3.12a 0.54 0.63a 0.02
Oxygen-limited 49.4 4.50c 5.69a 1.50c 0.66 0.01b 0.05
[a]
Values within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05.

484 APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE

silos each year were filled and emptied simultaneously), the
differences between silo types reflect differences under
good management. Changes to management, particularly
with the bunker and bag silos, could increase or decrease
differences. Increasing density or feed out rate for any silo
type should reduce losses (Muck et al., 2003). Reducing the
DM concentration also may decrease losses by lowering the
porosity of the silage. This may be the reason for the
decreased spoilage losses in the bag and bunker silos in the
second year. Additionally, the modeling efforts of
Buckmaster et al. (1989) suggest lower losses as silo size
increases. Since the current experiments have been done,
the only substantial shifts in silo management have been in
bunker silo management with the availability of oxygen
barrier films and the use of plastic film on bunker walls to
minimize shoulder spoilage. Incorporation of these
practices should reduce the difference in losses between the
bunker and other silos.
SILAGE CHARACTERISTICS
The losses that occur during ensiling preferentially result
in the loss of sugars, fermentation products and other
soluble compounds, and the production of carbon dioxide
and water (Muck et al., 2003). This should lead to greater
concentrations of insoluble components such as fiber and
ash in silage compared to those in the crop entering the silo.
That was observed in part in the two trials, but not
consistently. In the first year, ADL and ash concentrations
were greater in the silages than the alfalfa that was ensiled,
but NDF and ADF were similar pre- and post-ensiling
(table 4). In the second year, NDF, ADF and ADL
concentrations all increased in the silages compared to
those in the fresh alfalfa, and the biggest increases were
observed in the bunker silo, which had the largest DM loss
(table 5). However, ash content was not significantly
affected by ensiling in the second year. Respiration losses
with the production of carbon dioxide and water should
lead to a reduced DM concentration in silages. In both
years, the silages had significantly lower DM concentra-
tions than the alfalfa ensiled.
The changes in NDFD concentration due to ensiling
were significant in both years, but ensiling increased
NDFD the first year (table 4) and decreased NDFD in the
second (table 5). There is no clear explanation for these
results. Ensiling of alfalfa has reduced cell wall-associated
arabinose, galactose, and uronics, components of the
hemicellulose fraction of the cell wall (e.g., Jones et al.,
1992). This could be viewed as having a negative effect on
fiber digestibility by removing potentially digestible fiber
during the ensiling process. Perhaps more occurred in the
second year where the bunker and bag silos had lower DM
concentrations than the first year. Another potential
explanation of the difference between the two years is the
use of a silage inoculant in the first year. Inoculants have
increased DM or fiber digestibility in some cases (Kung
et al., 2003; Weinberg and Muck, 1996).
The effects of silo type on nutritive characteristics
should be correlated with the fermentation + respiration
losses because the values in tables 4 and 5 were only from
samples of silage that were fed. In the first year,
31(3): 479-486
fermentation + respiration losses ranged from 7.0% to
9.5%, a narrow range. So, one would expect fewer effects
of silo type on nutritive characteristics. The significant
differences by silo type for CP and ash were reflective of
differences in the alfalfa entering the silo and a consistent
pattern by silo type remaining after ensiling. In other
words, the ensiling environment did not appear to affect CP
or ash. For ADF and ADL, the interaction of silo type and
ensiling suggested some effects due to silo type over the
course of silo storage. For ADL, there was a significant
increase comparing pre- to post-ensiling for the bag and
bunker silos but not for the oxygen-limited silo. This agrees
with the pattern of the fermentation + respiration losses.
For ADF, there was a reduction in ADF pre- to post-
ensiling for the bag silo but not in the other two silos. This
does not fit the pattern of fermentation + respiration losses.
Overall though, the relatively few effects of silo type on
nutritive characteristics in the first year agree with the
narrow range of fermentation + respiration DM losses.
In the second year, there was a wide range of fermenta-
tion + respiration losses from 1.5% for the oxygen-limited
silo to 15.3% for the bunker. The silo type by ensiling
interaction was significant for CP, NDF, ADF and ADL.
The bunker silo had the greatest reduction in CP and
greatest increase in the fiber fractions over the course of
ensiling, reflective of having the greatest fermentation +
respiration losses. So, the poorer quality of the silage
coming from the bunker silo appeared related to the greater
losses that were experienced.
In the first year, the alfalfa ensiled well in all three silos.
While there were significant differences in pH and some of
the acids between silos (table 6), none of these differences
would be expected to affect animal performance. In
contrast in the second year, there was some evidence of a
clostridial fermentation beginning in the bunker silo as
indicated by the greater butyric and acetic acid concentra-
tions and reduced lactic acid (table 7). The silage from the
oxygen-limiting silo had the lowest pH and the lowest
acetic acid concentration. This trend across the three silos is
the opposite of what one might expect in a well-sealed
situation where final pH increases as the DM concentration
increases (Muck, 1987). The poorer fermentations in the
bunker and bag silos suggest that these silos had more
oxygen exposure during storage, which tends to drive
fermentations to be more heterofermentative, i.e., lower
lactic to acetic acid ratio (Pahlow et al., 2003). If this is
true, it is not clear why such trends were not evident in the
first year. Perhaps inoculant use in the first year along with
the greater DM concentrations across all three silos reduced
differences by silo type.
SUMMARY
• Filling rates (Mg DM per h) were similar across the
bag, bunker, and oxygen-limiting silos using the
established management practices and equipment at
the research farm.
• Over the two trials, average total DM losses from the
bag, bunker and oxygen-limiting silos were 11%,
485
 17%, and 4%, respectively, for 14 to 15 months
storage until empty.
• The variations in average DM losses by silo type
were similar to what were expected based on earlier
studies of individual silo types and on modeling of
silo losses.
• There were few significant effects of silo type on
nutritive characteristics such as CP and fiber fractions
of the alfalfa silages in the first year when fermenta-
tion + respiration DM losses varied over a narrow
range across silos.
• In the second year where the bunker silo had the
greatest fermentation + respiration losses, CP was
reduced and fiber fractions were increased in the
bunker silage compared with those in the silages
from the other two silos.
• Small effects in silage fermentation due to silo type
were observed in the first year where the DM concen-
trations were similar across the three silos. In the
second year, the best fermentation occurred in the
oxygen-limited silo whereas the bunker silo, which
had the greatest losses, showed evidence of the be-
ginnings of a clostridial fermentation.
• The management practices used in the study were at
or better than current recommendations. With im-
proved bunker or bag management, a reduction in
differences between silo types should be possible.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Richard Walgenbach and his farm
crew for harvesting and storing the feedstuffs used in these
trials and Jill Davidson and her barn crew for pulling daily
samples of the silages at the U.S. Dairy Forage Center
Research Farm; Ursula Hymes-Fecht, Mary Becker, and
Wendy Radloff for assisting with sampling and laboratory
analyses. Partial financial support for this research from
Engineered Stored Products Co. is also gratefully
acknowledged.
REFERENCES
ASABE Standards. (2008). S358.2: Moisture measurement—
Forages. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.
Buckmaster, D. R., Rotz, C. A., & Muck, R. E. (1989). A
comprehensive model of forage changes in the silo. Trans.
ASAE, 32(4), 1143-1152.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.31125.
Goering, H. K., & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage fiber analysis
(apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications).
Agricultural Handbook No. 379. Washington, D.C.: Agricultural
Research Service.
Jones, B. A., Hatfield, R. D., & Muck, R. E. (1992). Effect of
fermentation and bacterial inoculation on lucerne cell walls. J.
Sci. Food Agric, 60(2), 147-153.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740600203.
Kung, L., Stokes, M. R., & Lin, C. J. (2003). Silage additives. In D.
486
R. Buxton, R. E. Muck, & J. H. Harrison (Eds.), Silage Science
and Technology (pp. 305-360). Madison, Wis.: American
Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil
Science Society of America.
Mertens, D. R., Allen, M., Carmany, J., Clegg, J., Davidowicz, A.,
Drouches, M., Frank, K., Gambin, D., Garkie, M., Gildemeister,
B., Jeffress, D., Jeon, C-S., Jones, D., Kaplan, D. , Kim, G-N.,
Kobata, S., Main, D., Moua, X., Paul, B., Robertson, J., Taysom,
D., Thiex, N., Williams, J., & Wolf, M. (2002). Gravimetric
determination of amylase-treated neutral detergent fiber in feeds
with refluxing in beakers or crucibles: Collaborative study. J.
AOAC Intl., 85(6), 1217-1240.
Muck, R. E. (1987). Dry matter level effects on alfalfa silage
quality. I. Nitrogen transformations. Trans. ASAE, 30(1), 7-14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.30393.
Muck, R. E., & Dickerson, J. T. (1988). Storage temperature effects
on proteolysis in alfalfa silage. Trans. ASAE, 31(4), 1005-1009.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.30813.
Muck, R. E., & Holmes, B. J. (2000). Factors affecting bunker silo
densities. Appl. Eng. Agric., 16(6), 613-619.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.5374.
Muck, R. E., & Holmes, B. J. (2006). Bag silo densities and losses.
Trans. ASABE, 49(5), 1277-1284.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.22036.
Muck, R. E., Moser, L. E., & Pitt, R. E. (2003). Postharvest factors
affecting ensiling. In D. R. Buxton, R. E. Muck, & J. H.
Harrison (Eds.), Silage Science and Technology (pp. 251-304).
Madison, Wis.: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
Society of America, Soil Science Society of America.
Pahlow, G., Muck, R. E., Driehuis, F., Oude Elferink, S. J. W. H., &
Spoelstra, S. F. (2003). Microbiology of ensiling. In D. R.
Buxton, R. E. Muck, & J. H. Harrison (Eds.), Silage Science and
Technology (pp. 31-93). Madison, Wis.: American Society of
Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science
Society of America.
Rotz, C. A., Borton, L. R., & Black, J. R. (1991). Harvest and
storage losses with alternative forage harvesting methods. 1991
Forage and Grassland Conf. Proc. (pp. 210-213). Columbia,
Mo.: American Forage and Grassland Council.
Ruppel, K. A., Pitt, R. E., Chase, L. E., & Galton, D. M. (1995).
Bunker silo management and its relationship to forage
preservation on dairy farms. J. Dairy Sci., 78(1), 141-153.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(95)76624-3.
Savoie, P., & Jofriet, J. C. (2003). Silage storage. In D. R. Buxton,
R. E. Muck, & J. H. Harrison (Eds.), Silage Science and
Technology (pp. 405-467). Madison, Wisc.: American Society
of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science
Society of America.
Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Methods
for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch
polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci.,
74(10), 3583-3597. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-
0302(91)78551-2.
Weinberg, Z. G., & Muck, R. E. (1996). New trends and
opportunities in the development and use of inoculants for
silage. FEMS Microbiol. Rev., 19(1), 53-68.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.1996.tb00253.x.
APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE