Abstract
Each of four experiments compared a common source of forage prepared as unwilted silage with no treatment or 0.5% formic acid at ensiling. Two first growth alfalfas and two sudan-sorghum hybrids were used. In each experiment digestibility was determined in 4 4 Latin-square trials, and ad libitum feed intake and growth were measured concurrently in continuous trials with dairy heifers. Animals fed formic silage gained more (P < .025) than those fed untreated silage (588 versus 354 g/day). Mean digestible energy intake was greater (15.8 versus 14.3 Meal/day), and digestible energy intake above maintenance per unit gain was less (11.6 versus 13.9 Mcal/kg) on formic silage than untreated silage in all experiments although these differences were not significant. Energy digestibility was 61.8 for formic silages and 60.6 for untreated silages. Energy digestibility was statistically greater for formic silage in one of four experiments. Gain per metric ton of dry matter ensiled was 122 kg for formic silages and 80 kg for untreated silages. Recovery of energy from the silo was 91.9% for formic silages and 85.6% for untreated silages.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Heifers fed formic silage gained more than those fed untreated silage (588 vs 354 g/day).
- Taxon
- alfalfas
Medicago sativae1 - Treatment
- 0.5% formic acid at ensilinge0
- Outcome
- gaine2
- Direction
- gained moree2
- Value
- 588 versus 354 g/daye2
- Comparator
- untreated silagee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Each of four experiments compared a common source of forage prepared as unwilted silage with no treatment or 0.5% formic acid at ensiling”
e1“Two first growth alfalfas and two sudan-sorghum hybrids were used”
e2“Animals fed formic silage gained more (P < .025) than those fed untreated silage (588 versus 354 g/day)”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy digestibility was higher on formic silage (61.8%) than on untreated silage (60.6%).
- Taxon
- alfalfasMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- 0.5% formic acid at ensilinge0
- Outcome
- Energy digestibilitye4
- Direction
- higherinferrede4
- Value
- 61.8e4
- Qualifier
- 60.6 for untreated silagese4
- Comparator
- untreated silagese4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Each of four experiments compared a common source of forage prepared as unwilted silage with no treatment or 0.5% formic acid at ensiling”
e1“Two first growth alfalfas and two sudan-sorghum hybrids were used”
e4“Energy digestibility was 61.8 for formic silages and 60.6 for untreated silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Energy digestibility was statistically greater for formic silage in one of four experiments.
- Taxon
- alfalfasMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- formic silagee5
- Outcome
- Energy digestibilitye5
- Direction
- greatere5
- Qualifier
- in one of four experimentse5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Two first growth alfalfas and two sudan-sorghum hybrids were used”
e5“Energy digestibility was statistically greater for formic silage in one of four experiments”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean digestible energy intake was greater on formic silage (15.8 vs 14.3 Meal/day), though not significantly.
- Taxon
- alfalfasMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- formic silagee3
- Outcome
- Mean digestible energy intakee3
- Direction
- greatere3
- Value
- 15.8 versus 14.3 Meal/daye3
- Comparator
- untreated silagee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Two first growth alfalfas and two sudan-sorghum hybrids were used”
e3“Mean digestible energy intake was greater (15.8 versus 14.3 Meal/day), and digestible energy intake above maintenance per unit gain was less (11.6 versus 13.9 Mcal/kg) on formic silage than untreated silage in all experiments although these differences were not significant”
Claim · model-written summary
Digestible energy intake above maintenance per unit gain was less on formic silage (11.6 vs 13.9 Mcal/kg), though not significantly.
- Taxon
- alfalfasMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- formic silagee3
- Outcome
- digestible energy intake above maintenance per unit gaine3
- Direction
- lesse3
- Value
- 11.6 versus 13.9 Mcal/kge3
- Comparator
- untreated silagee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Two first growth alfalfas and two sudan-sorghum hybrids were used”
e3“Mean digestible energy intake was greater (15.8 versus 14.3 Meal/day), and digestible energy intake above maintenance per unit gain was less (11.6 versus 13.9 Mcal/kg) on formic silage than untreated silage in all experiments although these differences were not significant”
Claim · model-written summary
Gain per metric ton of dry matter ensiled was higher for formic silages (122 kg) than for untreated silages (80 kg).
- Taxon
- alfalfasMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- formic silagese6
- Outcome
- Gain per metric ton of dry matter ensilede6
- Direction
- higherinferrede6
- Value
- 122 kg for formic silages and 80 kg for untreated silagese6
- Comparator
- untreated silagese6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Two first growth alfalfas and two sudan-sorghum hybrids were used”
e6“Gain per metric ton of dry matter ensiled was 122 kg for formic silages and 80 kg for untreated silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Recovery of energy from the silo was higher for formic silages (91.9%) than for untreated silages (85.6%).
- Taxon
- alfalfasMedicago sativae1
- Treatment
- formic silagese7
- Outcome
- Recovery of energy from the siloe7
- Direction
- higherinferrede7
- Value
- 91.9% for formic silages and 85.6% for untreated silagese7
- Comparator
- untreated silagese7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Two first growth alfalfas and two sudan-sorghum hybrids were used”
e7“Recovery of energy from the silo was 91.9% for formic silages and 85.6% for untreated silages”
The same questions in other papers
formic acid · quality: grain · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
processing · quality: grain · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 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.