Claim · model-written summary
Silage treated with Inoculant A had lower DM content.
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e1“The lower DM content of silages treated with Inoculant A”
Title
The Effects of Two Inoculants Applied to Forage Sorghum at Ensiling on Silage Characteristics
Guan Wu-tai; G. Ashbell; Y. Hen; et al. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2002. doi:10.5713/ajas.2002.218
Other claims from this paper (17)
- Intervention effect Both inoculants caused a more rapid rate of pH decrease in forage sorghum silage than no additives.
- Intervention effect Both inoculants caused a higher amount of lactic acid production in forage sorghum silage than no additives.
- Intervention effect Inoculants did not change the ash and total N contents of forage sorghum silage.
- Intervention effect Inoculants tended to reduce acetic acid content of forage sorghum silage (p<0.05).
- Intervention effect Inoculants tended to reduce butyric acid content of forage sorghum silage (p<0.01).
- Intervention effect Inoculants tended to reduce propionic acid content of forage sorghum silage (p<0.01).
- Intervention effect Inoculant B silage had the highest DM content (p<0.05).
- Intervention effect Inoculant B silage had the highest lactic acid content (p<0.01).
- Intervention effect Inoculant B silage had the lowest acetic acid content (p<0.05).
- Intervention effect Inoculant B reduced ADF content of forage sorghum silage (p<0.01).
- Intervention effect Inoculant B reduced ADL and NDF contents of forage sorghum silage (p<0.05).
- Observation Control silages had the highest volatile fatty acid levels and no lactic acid, indicating secondary fermentation.
- Observation All silages were well preserved and stable upon exposure to air.
- Recommendation The authors conclude that both inoculants may improve the fermentation process of forage sorghum silage.
- Observation No silage advantage could be attributed to any of the inoculants used.
- Intervention effect Silage treated with Inoculant A had greater gas loss from DM loss.
- Intervention effect Silage treated with Inoculant A had higher yeast counts upon aerobic exposure.