ArticleJournal of animal science2022
Effect of chemical and biological preservatives and ensiling stage on the dry matter loss, nutritional value, microbial counts, and ruminal in vitro gas production kinetics of wet brewer's grain silage.
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Temporal dynamics of ruminal metabolome and fermentation in response to molasses-treated Guinea grass-cowpea silage.Veterinary and animal science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the effects of chemical and biological preservatives and ensiling stage on spoilage, ruminal in vitro fermentation, and methane production of wet brewer's grain (WBG) silage. Treatments (TRT) were sodium lignosulfonate at 10 g/kg fresh WBG (NaL1) and 20 g/kg (NaL2), propionic acid at 5 g/kg fresh WBG (PRP, 99%), a combination inoculant (INO; Lactococcus lactis and Lactobacillus buchneri each at 4.9 log cfu per fresh WBG g), and untreated WBG (CON). Fresh WBG was treated and then ensiled for 60 d, after which mini silos were opened and aerobically exposed (AES) for 10 d. Data were analyzed as an RCBD (five blocks) with a 5 TRT × 3 stages (STG; fresh, ensiled, and AES) factorial arrangement. Results showed that ensiled PRP-treated WBG markedly preserved more water-soluble carbohydrates and starch than all other ensiled TRT (P < 0.001). Dry matter losses of ensiled PRP-treated WBG were 48% lower than all other ensiled TRT (P = 0.009) but were not different than CON in AES (P = 0.350). Due to its greater concentration of digestible nutrients, PRP-treated AES was less aerobically stable than CON (P = 0.03). Preservation was not improved by INO, NaL1, or NaL2 but the latter prevented the increase of neutral detergent fiber across STG (P = 0.392). Apparent in vitro DM digestibility (IVDMD) decreased only in ensiled CON, INO, and NaL1 relative to fresh WBG and AES NaL2 had greater IVDMD than all other AES TRT (P ≤ 0.032). In vitro ruminal fermentation of fresh WBG resulted in a greater methane concentration and yield than the other STG (P < 0.033). In conclusion, PRP was the most effective at preserving WBG during ensiling but failed to improve aerobic stability under the conditions tested.
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.