ArticleJDS communications2023
Effects of chemical additive and packing density on the fermentation profile and nutrient composition of ensiled cocktail forage mix.
Article in JDS communications, 2023. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, the use of cocktail forage mixes in dairy cattle rations has become more common because the mixtures are low-cost, fit well in rotation after a cereal grain forage, and can have similar yield and energy value compared with alfalfa silage. This experiment evaluated the effects of a chemical additive and packing density on the fermentation profile and nutrient composition of cocktail mix silage. The cocktail forage mix (brown-midrib sorghum-sudangrass, Italian ryegrass, red clover, berseem clover, and hairy vetch) was harvested, ensiled in laboratory silos (3.79-L plastic buckets), and allowed to ferment for 30 d. The experiment consisted of 6 treatments, 2 chemical additives [CON (30 mL of distilled water) or ADD (sodium sulfite, sodium metabisulfite, and fungal amylase)], and 3 packing densities [D100, D75, and D50 (100%, 75%, or 50% of the maximum material in laboratory silos, respectively)], for a total of 24 silos (4 replications per treatment combination). No interactions of additive by density were detected for any parameters evaluated. The addition of the chemical additive influenced fermentation profile, with reduced concentrations of total acids, lactic acid, acetic acid, and ethanol in ADD-treated silages. Moreover, D50 reduced concentrations of total acids, lactic acid, and acetic acid compared with D100, but had greater pH and yeast and mold counts. Minimal changes in nutrient composition were detected regardless of treatment. Overall, this study corroborates the importance of a well-packed silage during the ensiling process. Poorly packed cocktail mix silages may be more prone to spoilage based on yeast and mold counts.
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.