Mycotoxins are an increasingly discussed topic. Several scientific reports have been written which review the effects of these toxic substances on the health and productivity of animals. However, there is a lack of work regarding the incidence of mycotoxins in ensiled material and the consequences of this occurrence. In this review, practical and field information was converged with scientific data with the objective of clarifying the subject. Nevertheless, due to the complexity of this topic, a straight line was adopted, starting with a brief explanation about mycotoxins followed by some practical prevention methods used on the field and during the ensiling process and, very importantly some analyses’ results made to silage from various origins and the impact of these contaminated materials in the animals ingesting them. An overview about how to avoid the negative impact of these poisonous substances is given as, for example, on the field (crop rotation, use of resistant plants, use of fertilizers, biological and chemical control of fungi and adequate plant maturation); in the silo (compaction, sheeting, storage length) and a correct management of the open silo (speed of progression in the silo, discard of deficiently preserved silage, additional use of silage additives for stopping the undesirable fermentations). Manuscript profile

A silage inoculant [Biomin® BioStabil Plus, BSP, a blend of Enterococcus faecium (DSM 3530), Lactobacillus brevis (DSM 19456) and Lactobacillus plantarum (DSM 19457)], was used on legume-grass silage [32% of dry matter (DM)] vs. an untreated control silage (CT). The material had mean crude protein (CP) and water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) concentrations of 174 and 88 g/kg,respectively. BSP resulted in significantly higher CP (159 vs. 149 g/kg DM; P<0.05) and digestible protein concentrations (117.8 vs. 108.9 g/kg DM; P<0.01). Inoculant increased fermentation rates, resulting in a significant decrease in pH (P<0.05) and a significant increase of total fermentation acids concentration (P<0.05), as well as higher quantity of lactic acid (P<0.01) and higher content of acetic acid compared to CT. Butyric acid and Ammonia N concentrations were significantly decreased (P<0.01) through the use of BSP. Dry matter (DM) losses were significantly lower (P<0.01) usingBSP treated grass-legume silages. The digestible energy (P<0.01) and net energy lactation (P<0.05) were higher in the inoculated silage compared to the CT (2.1 and 1.25%, respectively). The inoculation of silage with BSP also improved stability. Twenty-four dairy cows were fed with both type of silages and their productivity response was evaluated over a 92-days feeding period. Animals were assigned to two treatments in a randomized-block design experiment. Silage was offered ad libitum to animals in both treatments and cows were supplemented with 4 kg DM of a commercial compound feed per day. The silage DM feed intake was higher in BSP (+6.5%), whereas the energy corrected milk (ECM) production for treated silages increased by 1.4 kg per cow per day. The milk fat and protein content were numerically higher in animals under the treatment with BSP and the efficiency of the conversion of feed-NEL into milk was significantly higher (P<0.05) in cows which were fed with the silage treated using BSP. Manuscript profile