Abstract
Abstract This study investigated the effect of silage additives on a) silage composition and fermentation characteristics, and b) bacterial and fungal communities during ensiling and aerobic exposure. Whole plant corn was harvested at 33% DM and ensiled in vacuum-sealed laboratory silos following treatment with a) deionized water (control; CON), b) a bacterial inoculant, LB+ Supersile® (Strong Microbials Inc., Milwaukee WI; INOC), applied to supply 1 x 105 cfu/g of fresh forage, c) a propionic acid-based additive, Silage SAVOR® Plus (KEMIN Industries, Des Moines, Iowa; PRE), applied at 0.1% of fresh forage, and d) additive plus inoculant (PRE+INOC) applied at the same rates as INOC and PRE. Silage was sampled twice; at silo opening after 180 d of ensiling and 21 d after silo opening. Silage composition and fermentation characteristics were measured at silo opening. For bacterial and fungal communities, we considered the effect of silage additives on two sampling dates in a 4 x 2 factorial arrangement. Bacterial and fungal communities were characterized using 16S rRNA gene amplicon and ITS sequencing, respectively. Treatment of silage with PRE and PRE+INOC increased CP, WSC, and lignin concentration relative to INOC. Main differences in fermentation characteristics among treatments were a greater pH, greater ammonia-N concentration, and lower total acids concentration in PRE and PRE+INOC-treated silages. Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were predominant bacterial phyla during ensiling and aerobic exposure. Firmicutes abundance was not impacted by silage additives but Proteobacteria abundance was reduced (P = 0.057) by PRE and PRE+INOC treatment.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment with PRE and PRE+INOC increased CP, WSC and lignin concentration of corn silage relative to INOC.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- PRE and PRE+INOCe1
- Outcome
- CP, WSC, and lignin concentratione1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- INOCe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Whole plant corn was harvested at 33% DM”
e1“Treatment of silage with PRE and PRE+INOC increased CP, WSC, and lignin concentration relative to INOC”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage treated with PRE and PRE+INOC had a greater pH.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- PRE and PRE+INOC-treated silagese2
- Outcome
- pHe2
- Direction
- greatere2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Whole plant corn was harvested at 33% DM”
e2“Main differences in fermentation characteristics among treatments were a greater pH, greater ammonia-N concentration, and lower total acids concentration in PRE and PRE+INOC-treated silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage treated with PRE and PRE+INOC had greater ammonia-N concentration.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- PRE and PRE+INOC-treated silagese2
- Outcome
- ammonia-N concentratione2
- Direction
- greatere2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Whole plant corn was harvested at 33% DM”
e2“Main differences in fermentation characteristics among treatments were a greater pH, greater ammonia-N concentration, and lower total acids concentration in PRE and PRE+INOC-treated silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Silage treated with PRE and PRE+INOC had lower total acids concentration.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- PRE and PRE+INOC-treated silagese2
- Outcome
- total acids concentratione2
- Direction
- lowere2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Whole plant corn was harvested at 33% DM”
e2“Main differences in fermentation characteristics among treatments were a greater pH, greater ammonia-N concentration, and lower total acids concentration in PRE and PRE+INOC-treated silages”
Claim · model-written summary
Proteobacteria abundance was reduced by PRE and PRE+INOC treatment (P = 0.057).
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- PRE and PRE+INOC treatmente3
- Outcome
- Proteobacteria abundancee3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Value
- P = 0.057e3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Whole plant corn was harvested at 33% DM”
e3“Firmicutes abundance was not impacted by silage additives but Proteobacteria abundance was reduced (P = 0.057) by PRE and PRE+INOC treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Firmicutes abundance was not impacted by silage additives.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- silage additivese3
- Outcome
- Firmicutes abundancee3
- Direction
- not impactede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Whole plant corn was harvested at 33% DM”
e3“Firmicutes abundance was not impacted by silage additives but Proteobacteria abundance was reduced (P = 0.057) by PRE and PRE+INOC treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were the predominant bacterial phyla during ensiling and aerobic exposure.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Outcome
- predominant bacterial phylae4
- Qualifier
- Firmicutes and Proteobacteriae4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Whole plant corn was harvested at 33% DM”
e4“Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were predominant bacterial phyla during ensiling and aerobic exposure”
The same questions in other papers
processing · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 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.