Add offer

Goffart in 1877: The History of Silage and Fodder Silos

Discover how ensiling changed winter cattle feeding: Goffart’s 1877 publication, earlier practices, farm silos and the science of fermentation.

1877: manual; experiments from the mid-nineteenth century · Burtin, near Nouan-le-Fuzelier, Sologne, France; international circulation · Food processing

Auguste Goffart’s manual, published in Paris in 1877, marked an important stage in the spread of modern forage ensiling. It did not announce the discovery of fermentation or the first fodder store. At Burtin in Sologne, Goffart developed a system linking maize cultivation, crop preparation, storage and livestock feeding. The attention his experiments attracted shows how farm practice could advance before the biology of preservation was fully understood.

Winter fodder as a production constraint

The starting problem was seasonal feeding. In summer, animals could graze or receive freshly cut forage; winter required stored supplies. Making hay was a familiar solution, but results depended on harvesting conditions and weather. Goffart’s manual described losses through rain, incomplete drying and the difficulty of conserving large, succulent crops. He wanted to carry some of the growing season’s abundance into months when fields could not supply fresh feed.

His comparisons of milk, butter and animal growth were arguments within a nineteenth-century debate, rather than modern controlled feeding trials. The underlying organizational problem nevertheless mattered: herd size and the length of time animals could be maintained depended on resources available throughout the year. A dependable forage reserve supported planning beyond the growing season. It did not eliminate the need to evaluate the stored material and the other components of the diet.

Goffart also connected preservation with the circulation of manure. Maintaining more animals meant collecting more dung for the fields. In his scheme, silage belonged within a transformation of the whole farm: forage cultivation, animal feeding and fertilization were expected to reinforce each other. Its appeal therefore extended beyond the contents of an individual storage pit.

Practices that preceded the 1877 manual

Preserving foods through fermentation has a much longer history than modern forage ensiling. Yet there is no simple, continuous line from every ancient storage pit to a maize silo. Underground storage alone does not establish that people used the same raw material or preservation mechanism. For the nineteenth-century story, specific accounts of farmers’ actions are more informative than assigning an extremely broad invention to one individual.

Writing in 1884, Manly Miles identified earlier European practices of preserving freshly cut grass in pits. He also described Adolf Reihlen, near Stuttgart, conserving frost-damaged fodder maize about thirty years before. Applying a familiar practice to an abundant new forage opened additional possibilities. According to Miles, Vilmorin drew French farmers’ attention to the method in 1870, and Morel’s experience was published in 1871.

Miles recalled his own Illinois trials in 1875, preceding the frequently cited work of Francis Morris in 1876. His article is therefore also evidence of an argument about priority. It reveals a network of trials and exchanges between Germany, France and America, within which Goffart became an especially influential advocate. Earlier work helps explain the setting of his achievement without making his contribution insignificant.

Burtin: experiments, adjustments and practical results

Goffart represented his achievements as the outcome of prolonged experimentation. In the text made available in English by J. B. Brown, he described equipment installed at Burtin as early as 1853: an English feed cutter, water power and cement-lined storage pits. Early outcomes disappointed him. The material settled, leaving a space beneath a rigid cover; the upper layers deteriorated, making rapid consumption necessary.

One developing solution was a weighted covering of boards that followed the settling material downwards. Goffart compared its action to a piston. He modified crop preparation and storage construction, and later letters revised earlier recommendations. His method cannot therefore be treated as a fixed set of instructions completed once and for all in 1877. Practical improvements continued after the publication that made his name familiar.

A high water table complicated construction at Burtin. Goffart explained why waterproofing and partially sinking the silos cost him more than they might cost another farmer elsewhere. These details are more revealing than a legend of sudden genius. They show a technique being adapted to soil conditions, buildings and the financial resources of a particular enterprise. Success required a workable combination, not merely an isolated container.

What preserves silage and what pioneers believed

Modern explanations emphasize restricted oxygen and lactic acid bacteria. These organisms consume soluble plant sugars and produce acids; acidification inhibits many spoilage organisms. The crop remains moist and undergoes biological change. It is neither sterilized nor turned into hay. Renewed exposure to air can initiate deterioration. The preservation mechanism therefore differs from removing water through drying.

Goffart did not possess this explanation. His manual declared an intention to prevent fermentation during storage and connected its successive forms with advancing decomposition. At the same time, he regarded some heating after removal as beneficial to the animals’ acceptance of the feed. His terminology and interpretations do not match modern microbiology. Recognizing his useful observations about air does not require crediting him with discovering the role of lactic acid bacteria.

Miles examined samples microscopically and observed bacteria in an experimental silo. He also recorded temperature and settling, acknowledging that he could not precisely establish the relationship among all the changes. The history demonstrates a gradual connection between practical results, measurement and explanation. A technique could work before its practitioners understood which biological processes should be encouraged and which represented deterioration.

Silos, cutting machinery and work organization

The word silo does not identify one universal building. Here it concerns storage of moist forage, rather than dry grain in a commercial elevator. Goffart described masonry stores with rounded outlines, partly sunk into the ground. Miles traced developments from simple pits through masonry lining and above-ground structures to cheaper timber alternatives. Water conditions, construction costs and the exclusion of air influenced the choice.

Creating the reserve involved harvesting plants, transporting them, cutting them and placing them in storage. An account of the October 1878 demonstration at Burtin mentions a steam-driven cutter, equipment lifting the chopped crop and people spreading and compacting it. The description also records women’s work, which can disappear from narratives centred on the manual’s author. Machinery accelerated particular operations while still depending on an organized workforce.

Daily feeding mattered after the harvest was complete. Goffart described a small railway connecting the stores with passages in the cattle buildings, and baskets used to transport and monitor portions. Economic advantages consequently involved the layout of buildings and the distribution of work across the year. Preserving the plant was only one part of the relationship between an agricultural technique and a practical livestock enterprise.

How the method attracted an international audience

The French manual of 1877 organized observations and brought Burtin’s experience into wider discussion. An NCSU library catalogue records an English edition dated 1879; Miles referred to a New York translation as early as 1878. English-language editions were therefore already circulating in the late 1870s.

Brown’s 1880 publication combined Goffart’s text with letters, accounts of demonstrations and reports from other practitioners. The meeting at Burtin on 12 October 1878 brought together agricultural representatives from several countries, farming societies and machinery manufacturers. Seeing an installation operating offered information that prose alone could not fully convey: the scale of equipment, the organization of harvesting and cooperation among workers.

The publisher was the New York Plow Company, and advertisements for equipment occupied the closing pages. Agricultural knowledge therefore circulated alongside commercial offers. This does not invalidate the evidence, but it helps explain the enthusiasm of some testimonials and the attention paid to machinery. Readers encountered an account of practice, a case for investment and a connection to the equipment market within the same volume.

Arguments about feed value and extravagant promises

Silage did not spread through universal agreement. Miles recorded satisfied farmers alongside disappointment with exaggerated claims. He emphasized differences among farms and seasons, and concerns over acidity. He even mentioned condensed-milk factories refusing milk from farms using silage. This documents contemporary disputes and purchasing practices; it does not demonstrate that all silage harmed milk quality.

Brown’s collection compared fresh plant weight with dry matter and included analyses of separate parts of the maize plant. Such distinctions corrected an important misunderstanding: an impressive wet crop weight is not equivalent to its quantity of nutrients. Goffart himself recognized that comparisons needed to consider production cost and feeding value, rather than simply the weight of material harvested.

Nineteenth-century cost tables consequently cannot establish universal profitability. Local wages, existing equipment and the uses made of animals shaped their results. Modern descriptions likewise distinguish maize silage’s energy value from its relatively low protein content. Preservation does not manufacture missing nutrients or replace the evaluation of an animal’s complete diet. The historical debate concerned the usefulness of a stored resource, not a discovery that all other feeds had become unnecessary.

Livestock production and uneven adoption

Ensiling expanded the possibilities for preserving whole plants and separating harvest from feeding. This mattered especially where more intensive animal production required a reserve of succulent forage. Maize became an important raw material, but Goffart and his publisher also discussed rye, oats, grasses and legumes. The technique’s history is therefore broader than that of a single crop or a single type of silo.

Later expansion required further adaptations. In their report to FAO, Malaysian veterinary-service authors described activities beginning in the 1960s, involving different forage crops and stores ranging from trenches and containers to plastic packaging. Preservation could address a tropical dry season as well as a European winter. A tall tower was not necessary everywhere, and the form of storage changed with local circumstances.

Research presented in the same FAO volume by D. V. Rangnekar showed limited adoption among the small farms studied in western India. Farmers described insufficient surplus green forage, labour demands and inadequate returns. This helps explain why Goffart’s publicity did not initiate an identical worldwide transformation. Successful conservation was one condition of adoption; the method’s fit within the farm remained equally important. Local decisions about labour, land and livestock determined whether a technically possible store became a useful part of everyday agriculture.

Questions and answers

Did Goffart invent silage in 1877?

No. Earlier farmers had preserved green fodder in pits and conducted their own trials. The year marks an influential publication and an important stage in popularizing the practice.

Does a forage silo work like a dry-grain store?

No. The silos discussed here conserved moist plants as livestock forage. A commercial grain elevator handles a different material through a different process; the shared name does not imply identical use.

Can the old manual serve as a current practical guide?

No. It documents nineteenth-century experiments, disputes and limits to knowledge. Some of Goffart’s explanations of fermentation and his recommendations differ fundamentally from later understanding.

Sources

History of agriculture: all topics