ArticleFrontiers in plant science2025
Ensiling characteristics,
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Variable Dietary Sorghum Proportions on the In Vitro Digestibility of Nutrients for Ruminants.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Dynamics of fermentation, bacterial community, and nutritional value in alfalfa-sunflower mixed silage with different additives.BMC microbiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the effects of cellulase, protease, and starch on the fermentation quality, Methods: Mulberry leaves (376 g/kg dry matter (DM)) were ensiled with four experimental treatments: i) CON, no additives; ii) CEL, added cellulase (120 U/g fresh matter [FM]); iii) CPR, added cellulase (120 U/g FM) and protease (50 U/g FM); and iv) CPS, added cellulase (120 U/g FM), protease (50 U/g FM), and starch (2% FM). Results: All treatments with additives improved fermentation quality, showing higher DM (353 ~ 378 vs. 341 g/kg DM), lactic acid (LA) content (51.6 ~ 64.6 vs. 40.2 g/kg DM), lactic acid bacteria (LAB) counts (7.63 ~ 7.73 vs. 7.49 log10 CFU /g of FM), along with lower pH values (4.29 ~ 4.60 vs. 5.09), and DM losses (124 ~ 130 vs. 134 g/kg DM) compared to the CON group. All the additive treated groups showed higher Conclusion: The combined application of cellulase, protease, and starch effectively improved the fermentation quality,
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.