Abstract
Silage is often aerobically stressed during storage due to improper management, weather, or mechanical issues, resulting in diminished silage quality. The effect of homolactic bacteria inoculation (HBI; supplying >9.1 × 1010 cfu/g containing Lactobacillus plantarum, Enterococcus faecium, Lactococcus lactis, Pediococcus pentosaceus, and Pediococcus acidilactici) and aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale (x Triticosecale spp.) was evaluated. Triticale was fermented for 120 d at a temperature of 20 to 23°C using 3-L capacity PVC mini-silos fitted with two-way mechanics to vent gas. Sixteen mini-silos were filled with about 2 kg of the crop at about 35% DM and 5.2% soluble carbohydrates (DM basis). Four treatments were A) no HBI with gas vent closed, B) HBI with gas vent closed, C) no HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period, and D) HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period. Upon opening, nutritional characteristics and fiber digestibility were determined at a commercial lab (Rock River Lab, Watertown, WI). Statistical analysis was performed using a completely randomized designs. Treatment had no effect (P > 0.05) on the content of the following characteristics, which averaged (%) CP (16.9), ADICP (0.61), fat (3.54), aNDF (55.9), lignin (2.04), starch (0.17), sugar (1.73), NFC (11), ash (14), total tract NDF digestibility (49.2), or NDF Kd (4.25%/h). Treatment C (31.4%) had a lower (P < 0.05) DM content compared with treatment D (33%) but did not differ (P > 0.05) from treatments A (31.3%) or B (31.8%). The digestibility of NDF was lower (P < 0.05) for treatments C (52.8%) and D (52.5%) compared with that of treatments A (54.1) and B (57.5%). The content of uNDF240 was higher (P < 0.05) for treatment D (13.2%) compared with treatment B (12%) but it was similar (P > 0.05) to treatments A (13%) and C (12.7%). Silage that was inoculated and kept in anaerobic storage conditions resulted in lower uNDF240 and may help explain the numerically higher NDF digestibility observed. Aerobic stress (treatments C and D) during the ensiling period decreased fiber digestibility. Inoculating silage that was aerobically stressed resulted in DM content higher compared with that of silage kept under aerobic conditions but not inoculated. Therefore, it is recommended to inoculate silage to prevent DM content and fiber digestibility losses in case of aerobic exposure during the storage period.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Homolactic bacteria inoculation had no effect on CP, ADICP and fat content of triticale silage.
- Taxon
- spring triticale
×Triticosecalee1 - Treatment
- homolactic bacteria inoculatione0
- Outcome
- CPe2
- Direction
- no effecte2
- Qualifier
- ADICP (0.61), fat (3.54)e2
- Comparator
- no HBI with gas vent closede3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of homolactic bacteria inoculation”
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“Treatment had no effect (P > 0.05) on the content of the following characteristics, which averaged (%) CP (16.9), ADICP (0.61), fat (3.54)”
e3“Four treatments were A) no HBI with gas vent closed, B) HBI with gas vent closed, C) no HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period, and D) HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period”
Claim · model-written summary
Homolactic bacteria inoculation had no effect on aNDF, lignin and starch content of triticale silage.
- Taxon
- spring triticale×Triticosecalee1
- Treatment
- homolactic bacteria inoculatione0
- Outcome
- aNDFe3
- Direction
- no effecte2
- Qualifier
- lignin (2.04), starch (0.17)e3
- Comparator
- no HBI with gas vent closede4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of homolactic bacteria inoculation”
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“Treatment had no effect (P > 0.05) on the content of the following characteristics, which averaged (%) CP (16.9), ADICP (0.61), fat (3.54)”
e3“aNDF (55.9), lignin (2.04), starch (0.17)”
e4“Four treatments were A) no HBI with gas vent closed, B) HBI with gas vent closed, C) no HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period, and D) HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period”
Claim · model-written summary
Homolactic bacteria inoculation had no effect on sugar, NFC and ash content of triticale silage.
- Taxon
- spring triticale×Triticosecalee1
- Treatment
- homolactic bacteria inoculatione0
- Outcome
- sugare3
- Direction
- no effecte2
- Qualifier
- NFC (11), ash (14)e3
- Comparator
- no HBI with gas vent closede4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of homolactic bacteria inoculation”
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“Treatment had no effect (P > 0.05) on the content of the following characteristics, which averaged (%) CP (16.9), ADICP (0.61), fat (3.54)”
e3“sugar (1.73), NFC (11), ash (14)”
e4“Four treatments were A) no HBI with gas vent closed, B) HBI with gas vent closed, C) no HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period, and D) HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period”
Claim · model-written summary
Homolactic bacteria inoculation had no effect on total tract NDF digestibility and NDF Kd of triticale silage.
- Taxon
- spring triticale×Triticosecalee1
- Treatment
- homolactic bacteria inoculatione0
- Outcome
- total tract NDF digestibilitye3
- Direction
- no effecte2
- Qualifier
- NDF Kd (4.25%/h)e3
- Comparator
- no HBI with gas vent closede4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of homolactic bacteria inoculation”
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“Treatment had no effect (P > 0.05) on the content of the following characteristics, which averaged (%) CP (16.9), ADICP (0.61), fat (3.54)”
e3“total tract NDF digestibility (49.2), or NDF Kd (4.25%/h)”
e4“Four treatments were A) no HBI with gas vent closed, B) HBI with gas vent closed, C) no HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period, and D) HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage with no HBI and vent open had lower DM content (31.4%) than silage with HBI and vent open (33%).
- Taxon
- spring triticale×Triticosecalee1
- Treatment
- no HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling periode0
- Outcome
- DM contente2
- Direction
- lowere2
- Value
- 31.4%e2
- Comparator
- treatment D (33%)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Four treatments were A) no HBI with gas vent closed, B) HBI with gas vent closed, C) no HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period, and D) HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period”
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“Treatment C (31.4%) had a lower (P < 0.05) DM content compared with treatment D (33%)”
Claim · model-written summary
DM content of silage with no HBI and vent open did not differ from treatments A or B.
- Taxon
- spring triticale×Triticosecalee1
- Treatment
- no HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling periode0
- Outcome
- DM contente2
- Direction
- did not differe3
- Comparator
- treatments A (31.3%) or B (31.8%)e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Four treatments were A) no HBI with gas vent closed, B) HBI with gas vent closed, C) no HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period, and D) HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period”
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“Treatment C (31.4%) had a lower (P < 0.05) DM content compared with treatment D (33%)”
e3“did not differ (P > 0.05) from treatments A (31.3%) or B (31.8%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage with no HBI and vent open had lower NDF digestibility (52.8%) than treatments A (54.1) and B (57.5%).
- Taxon
- spring triticale×Triticosecalee1
- Treatment
- no HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling periode0
- Outcome
- digestibility of NDFe2
- Direction
- lowere2
- Value
- 52.8%e2
- Comparator
- treatments A (54.1) and B (57.5%)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Four treatments were A) no HBI with gas vent closed, B) HBI with gas vent closed, C) no HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period, and D) HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period”
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“The digestibility of NDF was lower (P < 0.05) for treatments C (52.8%) and D (52.5%) compared with that of treatments A (54.1) and B (57.5%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage with HBI and vent open had lower NDF digestibility (52.5%) than treatments A (54.1) and B (57.5%).
- Taxon
- spring triticale×Triticosecalee1
- Treatment
- HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling periode0
- Outcome
- digestibility of NDFe2
- Direction
- lowere2
- Value
- 52.5%e2
- Comparator
- treatments A (54.1) and B (57.5%)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Four treatments were A) no HBI with gas vent closed, B) HBI with gas vent closed, C) no HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period, and D) HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period”
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“The digestibility of NDF was lower (P < 0.05) for treatments C (52.8%) and D (52.5%) compared with that of treatments A (54.1) and B (57.5%)”
Claim · model-written summary
uNDF240 was higher in silage with HBI and vent open (13.2%) than in treatment B (12%).
- Taxon
- spring triticale×Triticosecalee1
- Treatment
- HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling periode0
- Outcome
- uNDF240e2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 13.2%e2
- Comparator
- treatment B (12%)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Four treatments were A) no HBI with gas vent closed, B) HBI with gas vent closed, C) no HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period, and D) HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period”
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“The content of uNDF240 was higher (P < 0.05) for treatment D (13.2%) compared with treatment B (12%) but it was similar (P > 0.05) to treatments A (13%) and C (12.7%)”
Claim · model-written summary
uNDF240 in silage with HBI and vent open (13.2%) was similar to treatments A and C.
- Taxon
- spring triticale×Triticosecalee1
- Treatment
- HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling periode0
- Outcome
- uNDF240e2
- Direction
- similare2
- Comparator
- treatments A (13%) and C (12.7%)e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Four treatments were A) no HBI with gas vent closed, B) HBI with gas vent closed, C) no HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period, and D) HBI with gas vent open during the ensiling period”
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“The content of uNDF240 was higher (P < 0.05) for treatment D (13.2%) compared with treatment B (12%) but it was similar (P > 0.05) to treatments A (13%) and C (12.7%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculated silage kept in anaerobic storage had lower uNDF240.
- Taxon
- spring triticale×Triticosecalee1
- Treatment
- Silage that was inoculated and kept in anaerobic storage conditionse2
- Outcome
- uNDF240e2
- Direction
- lowere2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“Silage that was inoculated and kept in anaerobic storage conditions resulted in lower uNDF240 and may help explain the numerically higher NDF digestibility observed”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculated anaerobic silage may have numerically higher NDF digestibility, which may help explain its lower uNDF240.
- Taxon
- spring triticale×Triticosecalee1
- Treatment
- Silage that was inoculated and kept in anaerobic storage conditionse2
- Outcome
- NDF digestibilitye2
- Direction
- numerically highere2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“Silage that was inoculated and kept in anaerobic storage conditions resulted in lower uNDF240 and may help explain the numerically higher NDF digestibility observed”
Claim · model-written summary
Aerobic stress during ensiling decreased fiber digestibility of triticale silage.
- Taxon
- spring triticale×Triticosecalee1
- Treatment
- Aerobic stresse2
- Outcome
- fiber digestibilitye2
- Direction
- decreasede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“Aerobic stress (treatments C and D) during the ensiling period decreased fiber digestibility”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculating aerobically stressed silage resulted in higher DM content than aerobically stressed silage without inoculation.
- Taxon
- spring triticale×Triticosecalee1
- Treatment
- Inoculating silage that was aerobically stressede2
- Outcome
- DM contente2
- Direction
- highere2
- Comparator
- silage kept under aerobic conditions but not inoculatede2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“Inoculating silage that was aerobically stressed resulted in DM content higher compared with that of silage kept under aerobic conditions but not inoculated”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculating silage is recommended to prevent DM content and fiber digestibility losses under aerobic exposure during storage.
- Taxon
- spring triticale×Triticosecalee1
- Treatment
- inoculate silagee2
- Outcome
- DM content and fiber digestibility lossese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“aerobic stress during ensiling on fresh whole plant spring triticale”
e2“Therefore, it is recommended to inoculate silage to prevent DM content and fiber digestibility losses in case of aerobic exposure during the storage period”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · quality: grain · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
processing · quality: grain · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
processing · molecular: metabolites · x Triticosecale (triticale)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
inoculation · molecular: metabolites · x Triticosecale (triticale)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- 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.