Abstract
Trials conducted in Madera County with corn silage and oat and vetch silage indicated that treatment with a popular silage additive resulted in no discernable differences between treated and untreated silages. The silages were analyzed for pH (acidity) and percentage of dry matter, crude protein, crude fiber, ether extract and ash. In addition, observation of the treated and untreated silages revealed no differences in color, odor, amount of seepage, and cow acceptance.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 4
Claim · model-written summary
The silage additive produced no discernable difference in pH, dry matter and crude protein versus untreated silage.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- popular silage additivee0
- Outcome
- pH (acidity) and percentage of dry matter, crude proteine1
- Direction
- no discernable differencese0
- Comparator
- untreated silagese0
- Setting
- Madera Countye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trials conducted in Madera County with corn silage and oat and vetch silage indicated that treatment with a popular silage additive resulted in no discernable differences between treated and untreated silages”
e1“The silages were analyzed for pH (acidity) and percentage of dry matter, crude protein, crude fiber, ether extract and ash”
Claim · model-written summary
The silage additive produced no discernable difference in crude fiber, ether extract and ash versus untreated silage.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- popular silage additivee0
- Outcome
- crude fiber, ether extract and ashe1
- Direction
- no discernable differencese0
- Comparator
- untreated silagese0
- Setting
- Madera Countye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trials conducted in Madera County with corn silage and oat and vetch silage indicated that treatment with a popular silage additive resulted in no discernable differences between treated and untreated silages”
e1“The silages were analyzed for pH (acidity) and percentage of dry matter, crude protein, crude fiber, ether extract and ash”
Claim · model-written summary
The silage additive produced no difference in color, odor or seepage versus untreated silage.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- popular silage additivee0
- Outcome
- color, odor, amount of seepagee2
- Direction
- no differencese2
- Comparator
- untreated silagese0
- Setting
- Madera Countye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trials conducted in Madera County with corn silage and oat and vetch silage indicated that treatment with a popular silage additive resulted in no discernable differences between treated and untreated silages”
e2“observation of the treated and untreated silages revealed no differences in color, odor, amount of seepage, and cow acceptance”
Claim · model-written summary
The silage additive produced no difference in cow acceptance versus untreated silage.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- popular silage additivee0
- Outcome
- cow acceptancee2
- Direction
- no differencese2
- Comparator
- untreated silagese0
- Setting
- Madera Countye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trials conducted in Madera County with corn silage and oat and vetch silage indicated that treatment with a popular silage additive resulted in no discernable differences between treated and untreated silages”
e2“observation of the treated and untreated silages revealed no differences in color, odor, amount of seepage, and cow acceptance”
The same questions in other papers
processing · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →processing · quality: postharvest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →processing · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 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.