Abstract
Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity. The sorghum was chopped to approximately 2 cm pieces and ensiled under laboratory conditions in 1.5 L Weck glass jars. At ensiling, it was treated with two commercial microbial inoculants: inoculant A and inoculant B. The inoculants were applied at 2 × 105 colony forming units g- 1 DM. 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 decline and a higher amount of lactic acid production. Silages treated with each inoculant produced a little more CO2 and resulted in more glucose loss as compared with the control. Addition of inoculants did not influence ( P ＞ 0.05) the ash and crude protein contents, but tended to decrease the concentration of acetic acid (P ＜ 0.05), butyric acid (P ＜ 0.01) and propionic acid ( P ＜ 0.01 ), and increase the lactic acid concentration ( P ＜ 0.01 ). Silages treated with inoculant A possess the more DM loss, and the higher yeast counts upon aerobic exposure. Silage treated with inoculant B had the most DM (P ＜ 0.05), lactic acid contents (P ＜ 0.01 ), the least acetic acid content (P ＜ 0.05). Inoculant B reduced the ADF (P ＜ 0.01), ADL and NDF ( P ＜ 0.05) contents. It was concluded that lactic bacteria inoculants may improve the fermentation but might impair the aerobic stability for sorghum ensilage.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Both inoculants caused a more rapid rate of pH decline than the control in sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e1“At ensiling, it was treated with two commercial microbial inoculants: inoculant A and inoculant B”
e2“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e3“Results showed that both inoculants caused a more rapid rate of pH decline and a higher amount of lactic acid production”
Claim · model-written summary
Both inoculants produced a higher amount of lactic acid than the control in sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e1“At ensiling, it was treated with two commercial microbial inoculants: inoculant A and inoculant B”
e2“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e3“Results showed that both inoculants caused a more rapid rate of pH decline and a higher amount of lactic acid production”
Claim · model-written summary
Both inoculants resulted in more glucose loss than the control.
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e1“At ensiling, it was treated with two commercial microbial inoculants: inoculant A and inoculant B”
e2“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e4“Silages treated with each inoculant produced a little more CO2 and resulted in more glucose loss as compared with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Both inoculants produced a little more CO2 than the control.
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e1“At ensiling, it was treated with two commercial microbial inoculants: inoculant A and inoculant B”
e2“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e4“Silages treated with each inoculant produced a little more CO2 and resulted in more glucose loss as compared with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant addition did not influence the ash and crude protein contents of the silage.
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e2“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e5“Addition of inoculants did not influence ( P ＞ 0.05) the ash and crude protein contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculants tended to decrease the concentration of acetic acid in sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e2“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e5“Addition of inoculants did not influence ( P ＞ 0.05) the ash and crude protein contents”
e6“tended to decrease the concentration of acetic acid (P ＜ 0.05), butyric acid (P ＜ 0.01) and propionic acid ( P ＜ 0.01 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculants tended to decrease the concentration of butyric acid in sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e2“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e5“Addition of inoculants did not influence ( P ＞ 0.05) the ash and crude protein contents”
e6“tended to decrease the concentration of acetic acid (P ＜ 0.05), butyric acid (P ＜ 0.01) and propionic acid ( P ＜ 0.01 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculants tended to decrease the concentration of propionic acid in sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e2“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e5“Addition of inoculants did not influence ( P ＞ 0.05) the ash and crude protein contents”
e6“tended to decrease the concentration of acetic acid (P ＜ 0.05), butyric acid (P ＜ 0.01) and propionic acid ( P ＜ 0.01 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant A caused more DM loss in the silage.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e7“Silages treated with inoculant A possess the more DM loss, and the higher yeast counts upon aerobic exposure”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant A gave higher yeast counts upon aerobic exposure.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e7“Silages treated with inoculant A possess the more DM loss, and the higher yeast counts upon aerobic exposure”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant B gave the most DM in the silage.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e4“Silage treated with inoculant B had the most DM (P ＜ 0.05), lactic acid contents (P ＜ 0.01 ), the least acetic acid content (P ＜ 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant B gave the highest lactic acid contents in the silage.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e4“Silage treated with inoculant B had the most DM (P ＜ 0.05), lactic acid contents (P ＜ 0.01 ), the least acetic acid content (P ＜ 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant B gave the least acetic acid content in the silage.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e4“Silage treated with inoculant B had the most DM (P ＜ 0.05), lactic acid contents (P ＜ 0.01 ), the least acetic acid content (P ＜ 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant B reduced ADF content in the silage.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e5“Inoculant B reduced the ADF (P ＜ 0.01), ADL and NDF ( P ＜ 0.05) contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant B reduced ADL and NDF contents in the silage.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Whole crop forage sorghum (Saccharatum) cultivar FS5 was harvested at the soft dough stage of maturity”
e5“Inoculant B reduced the ADF (P ＜ 0.01), ADL and NDF ( P ＜ 0.05) contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Lactic bacteria inoculants may improve sorghum silage fermentation but impair aerobic stability.
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“It was concluded that lactic bacteria inoculants may improve the fermentation but might impair the aerobic stability for sorghum ensilage”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · quality: protein · SorghumPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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 →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.