Intervention effectmodel-written summary

SA-treated silage had lower pH and ammonia evolution than the control silage.

A claim from A study on the effect of the bacterial inoculant on corn silage quality, digestibility and performance in dairy cattle · 2005

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

SA-treated silage had lower pH and ammonia evolution than the control silage.

Treatment
SA treated silagee1
Outcome
pH and evolution of ammoniae1
Direction
lowere1
Comparator
controle1

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“effect of the bacterial inoculant on corn silage quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 15–71
e1

“SA treated silage resulted in the higher level of retained protein and slightly higher level of residual sugars in that treatment, the better digestibility of the neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and the acid detergent fibre (ADF), the lower pH and evolution of ammonia compared to the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 142–432

Title

A study on the effect of the bacterial inoculant on corn silage quality, digestibility and performance in dairy cattle

Jianhua Wang; WuZilin; MichaelKWoolford; et al. 高技术通讯:英文版 2005

Other claims from this paper (13)

Record rev-243f27ade7e985d45915edef9a044123aa6e4f9bf2fd0da33437ef0149bd64ab · schema claims-v0.9 · position 4 in the model’s answer

salicylic acid · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this claim · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

processing · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 10 positive, 2 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this claim · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
  8. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.