Abstract
A silage additive containing lactic acid bacteria was tested for its effect upon preservation of corn silage, 35–40% dry matter (DM), in four pairs of upright silos (100-t capacity). The additive did not affect (P > 0.05) final pH, lactic or acetic acid concentration, crude protein or NPN-N and NH 4 + -N expressed as a percent of total N. Recovery of energy from treated silage was greater than control in the two pairs of silos where this was determined, but recoveries of dry matter and crude protein were not consistently affected. Two silage additives, containing hydrolytic enzymes and an antioxidant with or without lactic acid bacteria, were tested on alfalfa, 20, 30, 36.5 and 47.3% DM, in 250-mL laboratory silos. The experimental design used a4 (DM level) × 4 (added glucose — 0,4,8 and 12%, DM basis) × 3 (additive — control, a hydrolytic enzyme/antioxidant additive (E/AO), and E/AO plus lactic acid bacteria (E/AO +)) factorial arrangement of treatments. Alfalfa was harvested using farm equipment. For 60-day silage, the additives as either a primary factor in the design or in second-order interactions with either silage DM or glucose showed no effect (P > 0.05) upon pH, lactic acid, acetic acid, butyric acid, Fleig score, residual water-soluble carbohydrate and percent of total N as NPN-N or ammonia-N. Poor quality silage resulted from the fermentation of alfalfa at 20 and 30% DM, and although additional glucose resolved this problem the additives did not. Beneficial effects of additional water-soluble carbohydrate in alfalfa silage fermentation are evident in data presented. Thus an additive containing an antioxidant and hydrolytic enzymes was not very effective and numbers of lactic acid bacteria in untreated alfalfa harvested with farm equipment must already be sufficient for adequate fermentation.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 13
Claim · model-written summary
The lactic acid bacteria additive did not affect final pH, lactic or acetic acid concentration of corn silage.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse1 - Treatment
- silage additive containing lactic acid bacteriae1
- Outcome
- final pH, lactic or acetic acid concentratione2
- Direction
- did not affecte2
- Setting
- upright silose1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“A silage additive containing lactic acid bacteria was tested for its effect upon preservation of corn silage, 35–40% dry matter (DM), in four pairs of upright silos (100-t capacity)”
e2“The additive did not affect (P > 0.05) final pH, lactic or acetic acid concentration, crude protein or NPN-N and NH 4 + -N expressed as a percent of total N”
Claim · model-written summary
The lactic acid bacteria additive did not affect crude protein, NPN-N or NH4+-N of corn silage.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- silage additive containing lactic acid bacteriae1
- Outcome
- crude protein or NPN-N and NH 4 + -Ne2
- Direction
- did not affecte2
- Setting
- upright silose1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“A silage additive containing lactic acid bacteria was tested for its effect upon preservation of corn silage, 35–40% dry matter (DM), in four pairs of upright silos (100-t capacity)”
e2“The additive did not affect (P > 0.05) final pH, lactic or acetic acid concentration, crude protein or NPN-N and NH 4 + -N expressed as a percent of total N”
Claim · model-written summary
Recovery of energy from corn silage treated with the lactic acid bacteria additive was greater than control in two pairs of silos.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- silage additive containing lactic acid bacteriae1
- Outcome
- Recovery of energye3
- Direction
- greatere3
- Comparator
- controle3
- Setting
- two pairs of silose3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“A silage additive containing lactic acid bacteria was tested for its effect upon preservation of corn silage, 35–40% dry matter (DM), in four pairs of upright silos (100-t capacity)”
e3“Recovery of energy from treated silage was greater than control in the two pairs of silos where this was determined”
Claim · model-written summary
Recoveries of dry matter and crude protein in corn silage were not consistently affected by the lactic acid bacteria additive.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse1
- Treatment
- silage additive containing lactic acid bacteriae1
- Outcome
- recoveries of dry matter and crude proteine4
- Direction
- not consistently affectede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“A silage additive containing lactic acid bacteria was tested for its effect upon preservation of corn silage, 35–40% dry matter (DM), in four pairs of upright silos (100-t capacity)”
e4“but recoveries of dry matter and crude protein were not consistently affected”
Claim · model-written summary
The enzyme and antioxidant additive did not affect pH, lactic acid or acetic acid of 60-day alfalfa silage.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativae5 - Treatment
- a hydrolytic enzyme/antioxidant additive (E/AO)e6
- Outcome
- pH, lactic acid, acetic acide7
- Direction
- no effecte7
- Comparator
- controle6
- Setting
- 250-mL laboratory silose5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Two silage additives, containing hydrolytic enzymes and an antioxidant with or without lactic acid bacteria, were tested on alfalfa, 20, 30, 36.5 and 47.3% DM, in 250-mL laboratory silos”
e6“additive — control, a hydrolytic enzyme/antioxidant additive (E/AO)”
e7“For 60-day silage, the additives as either a primary factor in the design or in second-order interactions with either silage DM or glucose showed no effect (P > 0.05) upon pH, lactic acid, acetic acid, butyric acid, Fleig score, residual water-soluble carbohydrate and percent of total N as NPN-N or ammonia-N”
Claim · model-written summary
The enzyme and antioxidant additive did not affect butyric acid, Fleig score or residual water-soluble carbohydrate of 60-day alfalfa silage.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae5
- Treatment
- a hydrolytic enzyme/antioxidant additive (E/AO)e6
- Outcome
- butyric acid, Fleig score, residual water-soluble carbohydratee7
- Direction
- no effecte7
- Comparator
- controle6
- Setting
- 250-mL laboratory silose5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Two silage additives, containing hydrolytic enzymes and an antioxidant with or without lactic acid bacteria, were tested on alfalfa, 20, 30, 36.5 and 47.3% DM, in 250-mL laboratory silos”
e6“additive — control, a hydrolytic enzyme/antioxidant additive (E/AO)”
e7“For 60-day silage, the additives as either a primary factor in the design or in second-order interactions with either silage DM or glucose showed no effect (P > 0.05) upon pH, lactic acid, acetic acid, butyric acid, Fleig score, residual water-soluble carbohydrate and percent of total N as NPN-N or ammonia-N”
Claim · model-written summary
The enzyme and antioxidant additive did not affect percent of total N as NPN-N or ammonia-N of 60-day alfalfa silage.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae5
- Treatment
- a hydrolytic enzyme/antioxidant additive (E/AO)e6
- Outcome
- percent of total N as NPN-N or ammonia-Ne7
- Direction
- no effecte7
- Comparator
- controle6
- Setting
- 250-mL laboratory silose5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Two silage additives, containing hydrolytic enzymes and an antioxidant with or without lactic acid bacteria, were tested on alfalfa, 20, 30, 36.5 and 47.3% DM, in 250-mL laboratory silos”
e6“additive — control, a hydrolytic enzyme/antioxidant additive (E/AO)”
e7“For 60-day silage, the additives as either a primary factor in the design or in second-order interactions with either silage DM or glucose showed no effect (P > 0.05) upon pH, lactic acid, acetic acid, butyric acid, Fleig score, residual water-soluble carbohydrate and percent of total N as NPN-N or ammonia-N”
Claim · model-written summary
Poor quality alfalfa silage resulted from fermentation at 20 and 30% dry matter.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Outcome
- Poor quality silagee0
- Qualifier
- at 20 and 30% DMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Poor quality silage resulted from the fermentation of alfalfa at 20 and 30% DM, and although additional glucose resolved this problem the additives did not”
Claim · model-written summary
Additional glucose resolved the poor quality of alfalfa silage made at 20 and 30% dry matter.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- additional glucosee0
- Outcome
- Poor quality silagee0
- Direction
- resolvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Poor quality silage resulted from the fermentation of alfalfa at 20 and 30% DM, and although additional glucose resolved this problem the additives did not”
Claim · model-written summary
The additives did not resolve the poor quality of alfalfa silage made at 20 and 30% dry matter.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- the additivese0
- Outcome
- Poor quality silagee0
- Direction
- did note0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Poor quality silage resulted from the fermentation of alfalfa at 20 and 30% DM, and although additional glucose resolved this problem the additives did not”
Claim · model-written summary
Additional water-soluble carbohydrate had beneficial effects on alfalfa silage fermentation.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- additional water-soluble carbohydratee0
- Outcome
- silage fermentatione0
- Direction
- Beneficial effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Beneficial effects of additional water-soluble carbohydrate in alfalfa silage fermentation are evident in data presented”
Claim · model-written summary
The enzyme and antioxidant additive with lactic acid bacteria was not very effective on alfalfa silage.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae5
- Treatment
- an additive containing an antioxidant and hydrolytic enzymese6
- Outcome
- effectivee6
- Direction
- not verye6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Two silage additives, containing hydrolytic enzymes and an antioxidant with or without lactic acid bacteria, were tested on alfalfa, 20, 30, 36.5 and 47.3% DM, in 250-mL laboratory silos”
e6“an additive containing an antioxidant and hydrolytic enzymes was not very effective”
Claim · model-written summary
Lactic acid bacteria already present in untreated alfalfa are sufficient for adequate fermentation.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae7
- Outcome
- adequate fermentatione7
- Qualifier
- numbers of lactic acid bacteria in untreated alfalfa harvested with farm equipment must already be sufficiente7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Two silage additives, containing hydrolytic enzymes and an antioxidant with or without lactic acid bacteria, were tested on alfalfa, 20, 30, 36.5 and 47.3% DM, in 250-mL laboratory silos”
e7“numbers of lactic acid bacteria in untreated alfalfa harvested with farm equipment must already be sufficient for adequate fermentation”
The same questions in other papers
glucose · quality: general · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
processing · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 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 →inoculation · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 42 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →inoculation · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 62 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
67 papers more in this group
See all 71 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.