Abstract
The effects of previously fermented juice (PFJ) prepared from alfalfa and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) inoculants on the dynamic changes of nutritive components in ensiled alfalfa after various ensiling periods were investigated by using the Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System. The third-cut alfalfa was harvested at the budding stage, exposed to sunlight, weighed occasionally to estimate the dry matter (DM) content until the actual DM finally obtained was 347.8 g/kg fresh weight, and then chopped to 1–2-cm lengths. Chopped forages were treated with (1) distilled water (control), (2) alfalfa PFJ or (3) LAB at 1 mL/50 g fresh weight. The application amounts of PFJ and LAB to the fresh forage were 8.73 log (colony-forming units/mL) and 7.32 log (colony-forming units/mL) respectively. All silages were prepared in mini-silos of 100-mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes and kept in an incubator at 30°C, and triplicate silos from each treatment were opened after 1, 3, 7, 14 and 35 days of ensiling. Results suggested that silage treated with LAB and PFJ was of better quality than was the control silage, as evidenced by lower volatile fatty acid concentrations, as well as higher lactic acid, sugar, starch, soluble fibre and digestible natural detergent fibre production at various ensiling periods (P < 0.05), and a lower protein degradation as suggested by the low non-protein nitrogen production (P < 0.05). The effect of PFJ on alfalfa fermentation quality and protein degradation was greater than that of LAB, as evidenced by the lower pH value and volatile fatty acid content and the higher concentrations of lactic acid (P < 0.05). In addition, the cost of PFJ for 1 tonne of alfalfa silage is ~1/7–1/5 of that of LAB. In conclusion, adding PFJ to alfalfa forages before preservation as silage is a cost-effective way to improve the silage formation quality; in addition, its effect as a fermentation stimulant may be comparable to, or even better than, that of LAB inoculants at various ensiling periods.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
LAB and PFJ lowered volatile fatty acid concentrations versus control silage.
- Taxon
- alfalfa
Medicago sativat0 - Treatment
- LAB and PFJe0
- Outcome
- volatile fatty acid concentrationse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- control silagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“silage treated with LAB and PFJ was of better quality than was the control silage, as evidenced by lower volatile fatty acid concentrations”
t0“ensiling of alfalfa treated”
Claim · model-written summary
LAB and PFJ raised lactic acid, sugar and starch production versus control.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- LAB and PFJe1
- Outcome
- lactic acid, sugar, starche0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- control silagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher lactic acid, sugar, starch, soluble fibre and digestible natural detergent fibre production at various ensiling periods (P < 0.05)”
e1“silage treated with LAB and PFJ was of better quality than was the control silage”
t0“ensiling of alfalfa treated”
Claim · model-written summary
LAB and PFJ raised soluble fibre and digestible natural detergent fibre production.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- LAB and PFJe1
- Outcome
- soluble fibre and digestible natural detergent fibre productione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- control silagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher lactic acid, sugar, starch, soluble fibre and digestible natural detergent fibre production at various ensiling periods (P < 0.05)”
e1“silage treated with LAB and PFJ was of better quality than was the control silage”
t0“ensiling of alfalfa treated”
Claim · model-written summary
LAB and PFJ reduced protein degradation indicated by low non-protein nitrogen.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativat0
- Treatment
- LAB and PFJe1
- Outcome
- protein degradatione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- control silagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a lower protein degradation as suggested by the low non-protein nitrogen production (P < 0.05)”
e1“silage treated with LAB and PFJ was of better quality than was the control silage”
t0“ensiling of alfalfa treated”
Claim · model-written summary
PFJ yielded lower pH and volatile fatty acid content than LAB.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- PFJe0
- Outcome
- pH value and volatile fatty acid contente0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- LABe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of PFJ on alfalfa fermentation quality and protein degradation was greater than that of LAB, as evidenced by the lower pH value and volatile fatty acid content”
Claim · model-written summary
PFJ yielded higher lactic acid concentrations than LAB.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Treatment
- PFJe0
- Outcome
- concentrations of lactic acide0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- LABe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of PFJ on alfalfa fermentation quality and protein degradation was greater than that of LAB, as evidenced by the lower pH value and volatile fatty acid content and the higher concentrations of lactic acid (P < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
PFJ cost per tonne of alfalfa silage was around one seventh to one fifth of LAB cost.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Outcome
- cost of PFJe0
- Value
- ~1/7–1/5e0
- Comparator
- LABe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the cost of PFJ for 1 tonne of alfalfa silage is ~1/7–1/5 of that of LAB”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend PFJ for cost-effective improvement of alfalfa silage quality.
- Taxon
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0
- Outcome
- adding PFJ to alfalfa forages before preservation as silagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“adding PFJ to alfalfa forages before preservation as silage is a cost-effective way to improve the silage formation quality”
The same questions in other papers
processing · quality: oil · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
processing · quality: sugar starch · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
inoculation · quality: oil · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- 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 →processing · quality: protein · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →processing · molecular: metabolites · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →inoculation · quality: protein · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →inoculation · quality: grain · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.