Abstract
Enzyme and inoculant additives produced more efficiently preserved wheat and forage sorghum silages and improved their feeding value. In general, treated silages had lower pH, acetic acid, and ammonia-nitrogen values and higher lactic acid and lactic to acetic acid ratios than untreated silages. In two of the three trials, cell wall and acid detergent fiber fractions were lower in treated than untreated silages. In Trial 2, the treated sorghum silages were extremely unstable in air and cattle performance was similar for control and treated silages. In Trial 3, gains and feed conversions in steers were improved for those fed treated forage sorghum silages.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Enzyme and inoculant additives produced more efficiently preserved wheat and forage sorghum silages than untreated silages.
Verbatim
e0“Enzyme and inoculant additives produced more efficiently preserved wheat and forage sorghum silages and improved their feeding value”
e1“In general, treated silages had lower pH, acetic acid, and ammonia-nitrogen values and higher lactic acid and lactic to acetic acid ratios than untreated silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Enzyme and inoculant additives improved the feeding value of wheat and forage sorghum silages.
- Taxon
- wheat and forage sorghume0
- Treatment
- Enzyme and inoculant additivese0
- Outcome
- feeding valuee0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Enzyme and inoculant additives produced more efficiently preserved wheat and forage sorghum silages and improved their feeding value”
Claim · model-written summary
Treated wheat and forage sorghum silages had lower pH, acetic acid and ammonia-nitrogen values than untreated silages.
Verbatim
e0“Enzyme and inoculant additives produced more efficiently preserved wheat and forage sorghum silages and improved their feeding value”
e1“In general, treated silages had lower pH, acetic acid, and ammonia-nitrogen values and higher lactic acid and lactic to acetic acid ratios than untreated silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Treated wheat and forage sorghum silages had higher lactic acid and lactic to acetic acid ratios than untreated silages.
Verbatim
e0“Enzyme and inoculant additives produced more efficiently preserved wheat and forage sorghum silages and improved their feeding value”
e1“In general, treated silages had lower pH, acetic acid, and ammonia-nitrogen values and higher lactic acid and lactic to acetic acid ratios than untreated silages”
Claim · model-written summary
In two of three trials, cell wall and acid detergent fiber fractions were lower in treated than in untreated wheat and forage sorghum silages.
Verbatim
e0“Enzyme and inoculant additives produced more efficiently preserved wheat and forage sorghum silages and improved their feeding value”
e2“In two of the three trials, cell wall and acid detergent fiber fractions were lower in treated than untreated silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Treated forage sorghum silages in Trial 2 were extremely unstable in air.
- Outcome
- unstable in aire3
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“In Trial 2, the treated sorghum silages were extremely unstable in air and cattle performance was similar for control and treated silages”
Claim · model-written summary
In Trial 2, cattle performance was similar for control and treated sorghum silages (no change).
- Treatment
- Enzyme and inoculant additivese0
- Outcome
- cattle performancee3
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede3
- Comparator
- controle3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Enzyme and inoculant additives produced more efficiently preserved wheat and forage sorghum silages and improved their feeding value”
e3“In Trial 2, the treated sorghum silages were extremely unstable in air and cattle performance was similar for control and treated silages”
Claim · model-written summary
In Trial 3, steers fed treated forage sorghum silages had improved gains and feed conversions.
- Taxon
- forage sorghume4
- Treatment
- treated forage sorghum silagese4
- Outcome
- gains and feed conversionse4
- Direction
- improvede4
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e4“In Trial 3, gains and feed conversions in steers were improved for those fed treated forage sorghum silages”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · cytology · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →inoculation · pest · SorghumPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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 · pest · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →inoculation · soil: chemistry · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
43 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →inoculation · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
94 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
101 papers more in this group
See all 105 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.