SynthesisJournal of animal science2022
Meta-analysis of the effects of chemical and microbial preservatives on hay spoilage during storage.
Synthesis in Journal of animal science, 2022. 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.
- Effects of preservatives and drying methods on the nutrient composition and mould counts of hay and pellet processing of Oats.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Membrane-based continuous fermentation with cell recycling for propionic acid production from glycerol by Acidipropionibacterium acidipropionici.Microbial cell factories · 2023Article
- Hay preservatives: use and effectiveness.Journal of animal 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of chemical (50 articles) and microbial (21 articles) additives on hay preservation during storage. Multilevel linear mixed-effects models were fit with response variables calculated as predicted differences (Δ) between treated and untreated samples. Chemical preservatives were classified into five groups such as propionic acid (PropA), buffered organic acids (BOA), other organic acids (OOA), urea, and anhydrous ammonia (AA). Moderators of the models included preservative class (PC), forage type (FT; grass, legumes, and mixed hay), moisture concentration (MC), and application rate (AR). Dry matter (DM) loss during storage was affected by PC × FT (P = 0.045), PC × AR (P < 0.001), and PC × MC (P = 0.009), relative to the overall effect of preservatives (-0.37%). DM loss in PropA-treated hay was numerically reduced to a greater extent in grasses (-16.2), followed by mixed hay (-1.76), but it increased (+2.2%) in legume hay. Increasing AR of PropA resulted in decrease in DM loss (slope = -1.34). Application of BOA, OOA, PropA, and AA decreased visual relative moldiness by -22.1, -29.4, -45.5, and -12.2 percentage points, respectively (PC; P < 0.001). Sugars were higher in treated grass hay (+1.9) and lower in treated legume hay (-0.8% of DM) relative to their untreated counterparts (P < 0.001). The application of all preservatives resulted in higher crude protein (CP) than untreated hay, particularly urea (+7.92) and AA (+5.66% of DM), but PropA, OOA, and BOA also increased CP by 2.37, 2.04, and 0.73 percentage points, respectively. Additionally, preservative application overall resulted in higher in vitro DM digestibility (+1.9% of DM) relative to the untreated hay (x¯=58.3%), which increased with higher AR (slope = 1.64) and decreased with higher MC (slope = -0.27). Microbial inoculants had small effects on hay spoilage because the overall DM loss effect size was -0.21%. Relative to untreated (x¯=4.63% DM), grass hay preserved more sugars (+1.47) than legumes (+0.33) when an inoculant was applied. In conclusion, organic acid-based preservatives prevent spoilage of hay during storage, but their effectiveness is affected by FT, MC, and AR. Microbial inoculants had minor effects on preservation that were impaired by increased MC. Moreover, legume hay was less responsive to the effects of preservatives than grass hay.
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.