Abstract
Whole plants fo forage sorghum cultivar FS5 was harvested at soft dough stage of maturity. The sorghum plants were 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 silage Inoculant A and Inoculant B. The inoculants were applied at 2×10 5 colony forming units·g -1 DM. Silage with no additives served as a control. Three jars per treatment were opened on day 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 any kind of inoculant produced a little more CO 2 and resulted in more glucose loss as compared with the control. Addition of inoculants did not influence (P0.05) the ash and crude protein contents, but tended to decrease acetic acid (P0.05), butyric acid (P0.01) and propionic acid (P0.01) contents, and increase the lactic acid content (P0.01). Silages treated with inoculant a possess the more DM loss, and the higher yeast count upon aerobic exposure. Silage treated with inoculant B had the most DM (P0.05), lactic acid contents (P0.01), the least acetic acid content (P0.05). Inoculant B reduced the ADF (P0.01), ADL and NDF (P0.05) contents. It was concluded that lactic bacteria inoculants may improve the fermentation process 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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Both inoculants caused a more rapid decline in silage pH than untreated silage.
Verbatim
e1“Whole plants fo forage sorghum cultivar FS5 was harvested at soft dough stage of maturity”
e2“ensiled under laboratory conditions in 1.5 L Weck glass jars”
e3“At ensiling, it was treated with two commercial silage Inoculant A and Inoculant B”
e4“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e5“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 in silage than untreated silage.
Verbatim
e1“Whole plants fo forage sorghum cultivar FS5 was harvested at soft dough stage of maturity”
e2“ensiled under laboratory conditions in 1.5 L Weck glass jars”
e3“At ensiling, it was treated with two commercial silage Inoculant A and Inoculant B”
e4“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e5“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
Silage treated with any inoculant produced a little more CO 2 than control silage.
Verbatim
e1“Whole plants fo forage sorghum cultivar FS5 was harvested at soft dough stage of maturity”
e6“Silages treated with any kind of inoculant produced a little more CO 2 and resulted in more glucose loss as compared with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage treated with any inoculant had more glucose loss than control silage.
Verbatim
e1“Whole plants fo forage sorghum cultivar FS5 was harvested at soft dough stage of maturity”
e6“Silages treated with any kind of inoculant produced a little more CO 2 and resulted in more glucose loss as compared with the control”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding inoculants did not influence the ash and crude protein contents of sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e1“Whole plants fo forage sorghum cultivar FS5 was harvested at soft dough stage of maturity”
e4“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e7“Addition of inoculants did not influence (P0.05) the ash and crude protein contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding inoculants tended to decrease acetic acid content of sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e1“Whole plants fo forage sorghum cultivar FS5 was harvested at soft dough stage of maturity”
e4“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e7“Addition of inoculants did not influence (P0.05) the ash and crude protein contents”
e2“tended to decrease acetic acid (P0.05), butyric acid (P0.01) and propionic acid (P0.01) contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding inoculants tended to decrease butyric acid content of sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e1“Whole plants fo forage sorghum cultivar FS5 was harvested at soft dough stage of maturity”
e4“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e7“Addition of inoculants did not influence (P0.05) the ash and crude protein contents”
e2“tended to decrease acetic acid (P0.05), butyric acid (P0.01) and propionic acid (P0.01) contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding inoculants tended to decrease propionic acid content of sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e1“Whole plants fo forage sorghum cultivar FS5 was harvested at soft dough stage of maturity”
e4“Silage with no additives served as a control”
e7“Addition of inoculants did not influence (P0.05) the ash and crude protein contents”
e2“tended to decrease acetic acid (P0.05), butyric acid (P0.01) and propionic acid (P0.01) contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage treated with inoculant B had the most dry matter of the silages.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“Whole plants fo forage sorghum cultivar FS5 was harvested at soft dough stage of maturity”
e2“Silage treated with inoculant B had the most DM (P0.05), lactic acid contents (P0.01), the least acetic acid content (P0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage treated with inoculant B had the most lactic acid of the silages.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“Whole plants fo forage sorghum cultivar FS5 was harvested at soft dough stage of maturity”
e2“Silage treated with inoculant B had the most DM (P0.05), lactic acid contents (P0.01), the least acetic acid content (P0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage treated with inoculant B had the least acetic acid content of the silages.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“Whole plants fo forage sorghum cultivar FS5 was harvested at soft dough stage of maturity”
e2“Silage treated with inoculant B had the most DM (P0.05), lactic acid contents (P0.01), the least acetic acid content (P0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant B reduced ADF content of sorghum silage.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“Whole plants fo forage sorghum cultivar FS5 was harvested at soft dough stage of maturity”
e2“Inoculant B reduced the ADF (P0.01), ADL and NDF (P0.05) contents”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant B reduced ADL and NDF contents of sorghum silage.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“Whole plants fo forage sorghum cultivar FS5 was harvested at soft dough stage of maturity”
e2“Inoculant B reduced the ADF (P0.01), ADL and NDF (P0.05) contents”
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.