ArticleAnimal bioscience2021
Effect of storage time and the level of formic acid on fermentation characteristics, epiphytic microflora, carbohydrate components and in vitro digestibility of rice straw silage.
Article in Animal bioscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ensiling characteristics and in vitro rumen fermentation of Sesbania grandiflora pods prepared with inhibitory and stimulatory additives.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Addition of Organic Acids andAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Substitution of raw lucerne with raw citrus lemon by-product in silage:Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe study aimed to evaluate the effect of storage time and formic acid (FA) on fermentation characteristics, epiphytic microflora, carbohydrate components and in vitro digestibility of rice straw silage.
methodsFresh rice straw was ensiled with four levels of FA (0%, 0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.6% of fresh weight) for 3, 6, 9, 15, 30, and 60 d. At each time point, the silos were opened and sampled for chemical and microbial analyses. Meanwhile, the fresh and 60-d ensiled rice straw were further subjected to in vitro analyses.
resultsThe results showed that 0.2% and 0.6% FA both produced well-preserved silages with low pH value and undetected butyric acid, whereas it was converse for 0.4% FA. The populations of enterobacteria, yeasts, moulds and aerobic bacteria were suppressed by 0.2% and 0.6% FA, resulting in lower dry matter loss, ammonia nitrogen and ethanol content (p<0.05). The increase of FA linearly (p<0.001) decreased neutral detergent fibre and hemicellulose, linearly (p<0.001) increased residual water soluble carbohydrate, glucose, fructose and xylose. The in vitro gas production of rice straw was decreased by ensilage but the initial gas production rate was increased, and further improved by FA application (p<0.05). No obvious difference of FA application on in vitro digestibility of dry matter, neutral detergent fibre, and acid detergent fibre was observed (p>0.05).
conclusionThe 0.2% FA application level promoted lactic acid fermentation while 0.6% FA restricted all microbial fermentation of rice straw silages. Rice straw ensiled with 0.2% FA or 0.6% FA improved its nutrient preservation without affecting digestion, with the 0.6% FA level best.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.