Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sweet sorghum is used mainly as an energy crop and feed crop in arid and semiarid regions, and ensiling is a satisfactory method for preserving high-quality sweet sorghum. The aim of this study was to reveal the dynamics of the fermentation quality, bacterial communities, and fermentation weight loss (FWL) of sweet sorghum silage during fermentation. METHODS: Sweet sorghum was harvested at the first inflorescence spikelet stage and ensiled without (CK) or with lactic acid bacterial (LAB) additives (L). After ensiling, samples were collected on days 0, 1, 3, 5, 15, 40, and 100 to assess the fermentation quality, bacterial communities, and FWL. RESULTS: For CK and L, on day 1, the pH was 5.77 and 5.57, respectively, and the lactic acid (LA) was 1.30 and 2.81 g/kg dry matter (DM), respectively. Compared with CK, L had a lower pH and higher LA from days 1 to 5 (P < 0.05), a lower FWL from days 5 to 100 (P < 0.05), and a greater abundance of Lactiplantibacillus from days 1 to 15 (P < 0.05). The main bacterial genera were Leuconostoc and Weissella in CK and Lactiplantibacillus, Leuconostoc, and Weissella in L on day 1; Lactiplantibacillus in all silages from days 3 to 40; and Lactiplantibacillus and Lentilactobacillus in all silages on day 100. CONCLUSIONS: Sweet sorghum silage fermented relatively slowly during the first day. Moreover, inoculation with LAB accelerated fermentation and optimized bacterial communities during the initial fermentation phase. Inoculation with LAB also reduced the silage FWL, and the LAB succession relay occurred in the silage throughout the fermentation process.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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
On day 1 the pH was 5.77 for CK and 5.57 for L in sweet sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e1“Sweet sorghum was harvested at the first inflorescence spikelet stage and ensiled without (CK) or with lactic acid bacterial (LAB) additives (L)”
e3“For CK and L, on day 1, the pH was 5.77 and 5.57, respectively, and the lactic acid (LA) was 1.30 and 2.81 g/kg dry matter (DM), respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
On day 1 lactic acid was 1.30 and 2.81 g/kg dry matter for CK and L in sweet sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e1“Sweet sorghum was harvested at the first inflorescence spikelet stage and ensiled without (CK) or with lactic acid bacterial (LAB) additives (L)”
e3“For CK and L, on day 1, the pH was 5.77 and 5.57, respectively, and the lactic acid (LA) was 1.30 and 2.81 g/kg dry matter (DM), respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Lactic acid bacterial additives lowered pH compared with CK in sweet sorghum silage from days 1 to 5.
Verbatim
e1“Sweet sorghum was harvested at the first inflorescence spikelet stage and ensiled without (CK) or with lactic acid bacterial (LAB) additives (L)”
e2“Compared with CK, L had a lower pH and higher LA from days 1 to 5 (P < 0.05), a lower FWL from days 5 to 100 (P < 0.05), and a greater abundance of Lactiplantibacillus from days 1 to 15 (P < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lactic acid bacterial additives raised lactic acid compared with CK in sweet sorghum silage from days 1 to 5.
Verbatim
e1“Sweet sorghum was harvested at the first inflorescence spikelet stage and ensiled without (CK) or with lactic acid bacterial (LAB) additives (L)”
e2“Compared with CK, L had a lower pH and higher LA from days 1 to 5 (P < 0.05), a lower FWL from days 5 to 100 (P < 0.05), and a greater abundance of Lactiplantibacillus from days 1 to 15 (P < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lactic acid bacterial additives lowered fermentation weight loss compared with CK from days 5 to 100 in sweet sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e1“Sweet sorghum was harvested at the first inflorescence spikelet stage and ensiled without (CK) or with lactic acid bacterial (LAB) additives (L)”
e2“Compared with CK, L had a lower pH and higher LA from days 1 to 5 (P < 0.05), a lower FWL from days 5 to 100 (P < 0.05), and a greater abundance of Lactiplantibacillus from days 1 to 15 (P < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lactic acid bacterial additives gave a greater abundance of Lactiplantibacillus compared with CK from days 1 to 15.
Verbatim
e1“Sweet sorghum was harvested at the first inflorescence spikelet stage and ensiled without (CK) or with lactic acid bacterial (LAB) additives (L)”
e2“Compared with CK, L had a lower pH and higher LA from days 1 to 5 (P < 0.05), a lower FWL from days 5 to 100 (P < 0.05), and a greater abundance of Lactiplantibacillus from days 1 to 15 (P < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
The main bacterial genera on day 1 were Leuconostoc and Weissella in CK and Lactiplantibacillus, Leuconostoc and Weissella in L.
Verbatim
e1“Sweet sorghum was harvested at the first inflorescence spikelet stage and ensiled without (CK) or with lactic acid bacterial (LAB) additives (L)”
e4“The main bacterial genera were Leuconostoc and Weissella in CK and Lactiplantibacillus, Leuconostoc, and Weissella in L on day 1; Lactiplantibacillus in all silages from days 3 to 40; and Lactiplantibacillus and Lentilactobacillus in all silages on day 100”
Claim · model-written summary
Lactiplantibacillus was the main bacterial genus in all silages from days 3 to 40.
Verbatim
e1“Sweet sorghum was harvested at the first inflorescence spikelet stage and ensiled without (CK) or with lactic acid bacterial (LAB) additives (L)”
e4“The main bacterial genera were Leuconostoc and Weissella in CK and Lactiplantibacillus, Leuconostoc, and Weissella in L on day 1; Lactiplantibacillus in all silages from days 3 to 40; and Lactiplantibacillus and Lentilactobacillus in all silages on day 100”
Claim · model-written summary
Lactiplantibacillus and Lentilactobacillus were the main bacterial genera in all silages on day 100.
Verbatim
e1“Sweet sorghum was harvested at the first inflorescence spikelet stage and ensiled without (CK) or with lactic acid bacterial (LAB) additives (L)”
e4“The main bacterial genera were Leuconostoc and Weissella in CK and Lactiplantibacillus, Leuconostoc, and Weissella in L on day 1; Lactiplantibacillus in all silages from days 3 to 40; and Lactiplantibacillus and Lentilactobacillus in all silages on day 100”
Claim · model-written summary
Sweet sorghum silage fermented relatively slowly during the first day.
Verbatim
e5“Sweet sorghum silage fermented relatively slowly during the first day”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with lactic acid bacteria accelerated fermentation of sweet sorghum silage.
- Taxon
- Sweet sorghume1
- Treatment
- inoculation with LABe6
- Outcome
- accelerated fermentatione6
- Direction
- acceleratede6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“Sweet sorghum was harvested at the first inflorescence spikelet stage and ensiled without (CK) or with lactic acid bacterial (LAB) additives (L)”
e6“inoculation with LAB accelerated fermentation and optimized bacterial communities during the initial fermentation phase”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation with lactic acid bacteria optimized bacterial communities during the initial fermentation phase of sweet sorghum silage.
- Taxon
- Sweet sorghume1
- Treatment
- inoculation with LABe6
- Outcome
- optimized bacterial communitiese6
- Direction
- optimizede6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“Sweet sorghum was harvested at the first inflorescence spikelet stage and ensiled without (CK) or with lactic acid bacterial (LAB) additives (L)”
e6“inoculation with LAB accelerated fermentation and optimized bacterial communities during the initial fermentation phase”
Claim · model-written summary
A lactic acid bacteria succession relay occurred throughout the fermentation of sweet sorghum silage.
Verbatim
e1“Sweet sorghum was harvested at the first inflorescence spikelet stage and ensiled without (CK) or with lactic acid bacterial (LAB) additives (L)”
e7“the LAB succession relay occurred in the silage throughout the fermentation process”
The same questions in other papers
inoculation · soil: biology · SorghumPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.