Abstract
This study was conducted to determine the effects of different silage additives on sunflower silage quality. The treatments were as follows: (1) control (C, no additive), (2) 5% molasses (M) (3) inoculation of lactic acid bacteria (LAB; 1.5 g/ton, a mixture of Lactobacillus plantarum and Enterococcus faecium applied at a rate of 6.00 log10 cfu LAB/g of fresh material) and (4) LAB+enzyme mixture 2 g/ton (LEN, Lactobacillus plantarum bacterium (6.00 log10 cfu/g) and cellulase (150000 CMCU/kg) and amylase (200000 SKB/kg) enzymes). Silage additives were mixed and stored in glass jars with 5 replicates for 90 days. There were no significant differences among the groups in terms of pH, ether extract (EE), acid detergent lignin (ADL) and hemicellulose (HEM). The water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) concentration was higher in the M group than those of other groups (P<0.01). Lactic and acetic acid concentration were lower in the LEN group than the other groups (P<0.05). In the LAB group, dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), crude ash (CA) and fleig point (FP) contents were lower than those of other groups (P<0.01). In the M group, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) contents were lower and the total digestibility nutrient (TDN) and non-fiber carbohydrate (NFC) contents were higher than those of other groups (P<0.01). The crude cellulose (CC) contents of M and LEN groups were lower than that of C and LAB groups. In conclusion, addition of the bacterial inoculants (LAB and LEN) and molasses to sunflower crop before ensiling positively affected some quality traits.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Silage additives did not significantly change pH, ether extract and acid detergent lignin of sunflower silage relative to the control.
- Taxon
- Sunflower
Helianthus annuust0 - Treatment
- different silage additivese0
- Outcome
- pH, ether extract (EE), acid detergent lignin (ADL)e4
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede4
- Comparator
- controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sunflower Silage”
e0“effects of different silage additives on sunflower silage quality”
e1“control (C, no additive)”
e4“There were no significant differences among the groups in terms of pH, ether extract (EE), acid detergent lignin (ADL) and hemicellulose (HEM)”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage additives did not significantly change hemicellulose of sunflower silage relative to the control.
- Taxon
- SunflowerHelianthus annuust0
- Treatment
- different silage additivese0
- Outcome
- hemicellulose (HEM)e4
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede4
- Comparator
- controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sunflower Silage”
e0“effects of different silage additives on sunflower silage quality”
e1“control (C, no additive)”
e4“There were no significant differences among the groups in terms of pH, ether extract (EE), acid detergent lignin (ADL) and hemicellulose (HEM)”
Claim · model-written summary
Molasses at 5% raised the water soluble carbohydrate concentration of sunflower silage above the other groups.
- Taxon
- SunflowerHelianthus annuust0
- Treatment
- 5% molasses (M)e2
- Outcome
- water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) concentratione5
- Direction
- highere5
- Comparator
- other groupse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sunflower Silage”
e2“5% molasses (M)”
e5“The water soluble carbohydrate (WSC) concentration was higher in the M group than those of other groups”
Claim · model-written summary
The LEN additive lowered lactic and acetic acid concentrations of sunflower silage relative to the other groups.
- Taxon
- SunflowerHelianthus annuust0
- Treatment
- LENe6
- Outcome
- Lactic and acetic acid concentratione6
- Direction
- lowere6
- Comparator
- other groupse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sunflower Silage”
e6“Lactic and acetic acid concentration were lower in the LEN group than the other groups”
Claim · model-written summary
The LAB additive lowered dry matter, crude protein and crude ash contents of sunflower silage relative to the other groups.
- Taxon
- SunflowerHelianthus annuust0
- Treatment
- LABe7
- Outcome
- dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), crude ash (CA)e7
- Direction
- lowere7
- Comparator
- other groupse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sunflower Silage”
e7“In the LAB group, dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), crude ash (CA) and fleig point (FP) contents were lower than those of other groups”
Claim · model-written summary
The LAB additive lowered fleig point contents of sunflower silage relative to the other groups.
- Taxon
- SunflowerHelianthus annuust0
- Treatment
- LABe7
- Outcome
- fleig point (FP) contentse7
- Direction
- lowere7
- Comparator
- other groupse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sunflower Silage”
e7“In the LAB group, dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), crude ash (CA) and fleig point (FP) contents were lower than those of other groups”
Claim · model-written summary
The M additive lowered neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber contents of sunflower silage relative to the other groups.
- Taxon
- SunflowerHelianthus annuust0
- Treatment
- Me1
- Outcome
- neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) contentse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Comparator
- other groupse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sunflower Silage”
e1“In the M group, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) contents were lower”
e2“the total digestibility nutrient (TDN) and non-fiber carbohydrate (NFC) contents were higher than those of other groups”
Claim · model-written summary
The M additive raised total digestible nutrients and non-fiber carbohydrate contents of sunflower silage relative to the other groups.
- Taxon
- SunflowerHelianthus annuust0
- Treatment
- Me1
- Outcome
- total digestibility nutrient (TDN) and non-fiber carbohydrate (NFC) contentse2
- Direction
- highere2
- Comparator
- other groupse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sunflower Silage”
e1“In the M group, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) contents were lower”
e2“the total digestibility nutrient (TDN) and non-fiber carbohydrate (NFC) contents were higher than those of other groups”
Claim · model-written summary
Crude cellulose contents of the M and LEN silage groups were lower than those of the C and LAB groups.
- Taxon
- SunflowerHelianthus annuust0
- Treatment
- M and LEN groupse1
- Outcome
- crude cellulose (CC) contentse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Comparator
- C and LAB groupse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sunflower Silage”
e1“The crude cellulose (CC) contents of M and LEN groups were lower than that of C and LAB groups”
The same questions in other papers
processing · molecular: metabolites · Helianthus annuus (common sunflower)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- 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.