Abstract
Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough (303±9 g kg -1 DM) stage of maturity. The sorghum was chopped into approximately 20 mm pieces and ensiled under laboratory conditions in 1.5 L Weck glass jars. At ensiling, it was treated with two commercial silage inoculants: Pioneer 1188 (Inoculant A) and Eco-corn (Inoculant B). The inoculant A and B was applied at ca 2×10 5 or 2×10 4 colony forming units g -1 DM., respectively. Silage with no additives served as a control. Three jars per treatment were opened on days 2, 4, 8, 15 and 60 post-ensiling to study fermentation dynamics. After 60 days of ensiling the silages were analyzed and subjected to an aerobic stability test lasting 5 days. Results showed that both inoculants caused a more rapid rate of pH decrease and a higher amount of lactic acid production. All the silages were well preserved and were stable upon exposure to air. Inoculants did not influence (p>0.05) the ash and total N contents, but tended to reduce acetic acid (p<0.05), butyric acid (p<0.01) and propionic acid (p<0.01) contents, and to increase the lactic acid content (p<0.01). The lower DM content of silages treated with Inoculant A agrees with the greater gas loss resulting from the DM loss, which was in good agreement with the higher yeast counts upon aerobic exposure. Silage treated with inoculant B had the highest DM (p<0.05) and lactic acid contents (p<0.01), and the lowest acetic acid content (p<0.05), which agrees with the rapid reduction of pH and smaller gas loss. Inoculant B reduced the ADF (p<0.01), ADL and NDF (p<0.05) contents, which also indicates smaller losses of organic soluble material. The control silages contained the highest levels of volatile fatty acids but no lactic acid, indicating secondary fermentation. It was concluded that both inoculants may improve the fermentation process, since silages from all treatments were stable upon aerobic exposure, noadvantage could be attributed to any of the inoculants used. (Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2002. Vol 15, No. 2 : 218-221)
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Both inoculants caused a more rapid rate of pH decrease in forage sorghum silage than no additives.
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e1“At ensiling, it was treated with two commercial silage inoculants: Pioneer 1188 (Inoculant A) and Eco-corn (Inoculant B)”
e2“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e3“Results showed that both inoculants caused a more rapid rate of pH decrease and a higher amount of lactic acid production”
Claim · model-written summary
Both inoculants caused a higher amount of lactic acid production in forage sorghum silage than no additives.
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e1“At ensiling, it was treated with two commercial silage inoculants: Pioneer 1188 (Inoculant A) and Eco-corn (Inoculant B)”
e2“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e3“Results showed that both inoculants caused a more rapid rate of pH decrease and a higher amount of lactic acid production”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculants did not change the ash and total N contents of forage sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e1“At ensiling, it was treated with two commercial silage inoculants: Pioneer 1188 (Inoculant A) and Eco-corn (Inoculant B)”
e2“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e3“Inoculants did not influence (p>0.05) the ash and total N contents, but tended to reduce acetic acid (p<0.05), butyric acid (p<0.01) and propionic acid (p<0.01) contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculants tended to reduce acetic acid content of forage sorghum silage (p<0.05).
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e1“At ensiling, it was treated with two commercial silage inoculants: Pioneer 1188 (Inoculant A) and Eco-corn (Inoculant B)”
e2“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e3“Inoculants did not influence (p>0.05) the ash and total N contents, but tended to reduce acetic acid (p<0.05), butyric acid (p<0.01) and propionic acid (p<0.01) contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculants tended to reduce butyric acid content of forage sorghum silage (p<0.01).
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e1“At ensiling, it was treated with two commercial silage inoculants: Pioneer 1188 (Inoculant A) and Eco-corn (Inoculant B)”
e2“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e3“Inoculants did not influence (p>0.05) the ash and total N contents, but tended to reduce acetic acid (p<0.05), butyric acid (p<0.01) and propionic acid (p<0.01) contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculants tended to reduce propionic acid content of forage sorghum silage (p<0.01).
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e1“At ensiling, it was treated with two commercial silage inoculants: Pioneer 1188 (Inoculant A) and Eco-corn (Inoculant B)”
e2“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e3“Inoculants did not influence (p>0.05) the ash and total N contents, but tended to reduce acetic acid (p<0.05), butyric acid (p<0.01) and propionic acid (p<0.01) contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant B silage had the highest DM content (p<0.05).
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e2“Silage treated with inoculant B had the highest DM (p<0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant B silage had the highest lactic acid content (p<0.01).
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e2“Silage treated with inoculant B had the highest DM (p<0.05) and lactic acid contents (p<0.01)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant B silage had the lowest acetic acid content (p<0.05).
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e2“Silage treated with inoculant B had the highest DM (p<0.05) and lactic acid contents (p<0.01), and the lowest acetic acid content (p<0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant B reduced ADF content of forage sorghum silage (p<0.01).
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e2“Inoculant B reduced the ADF (p<0.01)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant B reduced ADL and NDF contents of forage sorghum silage (p<0.05).
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e2“Inoculant B reduced the ADF (p<0.01), ADL and NDF (p<0.05) contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Control silages had the highest volatile fatty acid levels and no lactic acid, indicating secondary fermentation.
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e1“The control silages contained the highest levels of volatile fatty acids but no lactic acid, indicating secondary fermentation”
Claim · model-written summary
All silages were well preserved and stable upon exposure to air.
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e1“All the silages were well preserved and were stable upon exposure to air”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that both inoculants may improve the fermentation process of forage sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e1“It was concluded that both inoculants may improve the fermentation process”
Claim · model-written summary
No silage advantage could be attributed to any of the inoculants used.
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e1“noadvantage could be attributed to any of the inoculants used”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage treated with Inoculant A had lower DM content.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e1“The lower DM content of silages treated with Inoculant A”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage treated with Inoculant A had greater gas loss from DM loss.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e1“The lower DM content of silages treated with Inoculant A agrees with the greater gas loss resulting from the DM loss, which was in good agreement with the higher yeast counts upon aerobic exposure”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage treated with Inoculant A had higher yeast counts upon aerobic exposure.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole forage sorghum (saccharatum) cultivar FS5”
e1“The lower DM content of silages treated with Inoculant A agrees with the greater gas loss resulting from the DM loss, which was in good agreement with the higher yeast counts upon aerobic exposure”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · quality: grain · SorghumPositive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →processing · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →inoculation · soil: chemistry · SorghumPositive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →inoculation · molecular: metabolites · SorghumPositive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →inoculation · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
72 papers more in this group
See all 76 papers →processing · soil: chemistry · SorghumResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.