ArticleJournal of animal science2021
Effect of microbial and chemical additives on the fermentation and aerobic stability of alfalfa silage ensiled at 2 dry matters and subjected to air stress during storage.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We evaluated the effects of different types of additives on the fermentation and aerobic stability of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) ensiled at 2 dry matters (DM). Alfalfa was untreated (CTRL) or treated with sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, and sodium nitrite (SFE), or microbial inoculants (Lactobacillus plantarum MTD1 [LP] or L. buchneri 40788 and Pediococcus pentocaseus 12455 [LBPP]) at a moderate (38%) and high (46%) DM using a completely randomized design with a 2 × 4 factorial arrangement of treatments. High DM silage was higher (P < 0.01) in pH, had less lactic and acetic acid (P < 0.01) and had more yeasts (P < 0.05) and molds (P < 0.01) than moderate DM silage. Recovery of DM declined (P < 0.01) for CTRL and LP treated silages with increasing DM but was not different between LBPP and SFE treatments. Compared to CTRL, LBPP had a lower (P < 0.01) DM recovery at the moderate DM, but SFE had the greatest (P < 0.01) recovery of all treatments at the high DM. Treatment with LBPP increased (P < 0.05) the concentrations of acetic acid and 1,2 propanediol (PD) compared with other treatments (P < 0.01). Numerically, fewer yeasts were found in additive treated silages compared with CTRL, but they were statistically (P < 0.01) lower only when treated with SFE. Treatment with LP resulted in a small improvement in aerobic stability at the moderate but not high DM. In contrast, treatment with SFE and LBPP markedly improved (P < 0.01) the aerobic stability of alfalfa silage at both DM. Whereas SFE and LBPP were similar in their improvements in aerobic stability at the DM, LBPP was better (P < 0.01) than SFE at the high DM. A higher (P < 0.01) concentration of acetic acid in LBPP compared with other treatments was most likely responsible for better stability. This study showed that LBPP and SFE resulted in increases in the aerobic stability of alfalfa silage and it is the first study showing SFE, can markedly improve the aerobic stability of alfalfa silage.
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.