Submitted:
24 May 2023
Posted:
25 May 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Design
2.2. Chemical Analyses of Silages
2.3. Aerobic Stability Assay
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
| pH | DM | OM | CP | NDF | ADF | Hemicellulose | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corn forage | 5.50±0.08 | 30.6±0.48 | 95.7±0.24 | 8.7±0.65 | 52.2±2.46 | 28.4±1.62 | 23.9±0.85 |
| Wheat forage | 6.49±0.01 | 43.8±0.25 | 93.3±0.18 | 9.7±0.45 | 57.2±1.01 | 29.5±0.54 | 27.7±0.53 |
3.2. Temperature of Wheat and Corn Silage
3.3. In Vitro Digestibility of Wheat and Corn Silage
3.3.1. In Vitro DMD of Wheat and Corn Silage
3.3.2. In vitro NDFD of wheat and corn silage.
3.4. Volatile Fatty Acids Cocentration of Wheat and Corn Silage
3.5. Lactic Acid concentration of wheat and corn silage
3.6. Aerobic Stability of Wheat and Corn Silage
3.7. Chemical Composition of Wheat and Corn Silage
3.7.1. Crude Protein Content of Wheat and Corn Silage
3.7.2. Cell Wall Carbohydrates and Other Parameters of Wheat and Corn Silage
3.8. Amino Acids Profile of Wheat and Corn Silage
4. Discussion
4.1. Dry Matter of Forages and pH Value of Silages
4.2. Temperature Dynamics in Silages
4.3. In Vitro Digestibility of Silages
4.4. Cell Wall Carbohydrates Contents of Silages
4.5. Lactic and VFAs in Silages
4.6. Aerobic Stability of Silages
4.7. Crude Protein and AA Content in Silages
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bolsen, K.K.; Ashbell, G.; Weinberg, Z.G. Silage fermentation and silage additives - Review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 1996, 9, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schroeder, J.W. Silage Fermentation and Preservation; 2004; pp. 1–8.
- Seglar, B. Fermentation analysis and silage quality testing. In Proceedings of the Minnesota Dairy Health Conference; University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2003; pp. 119–136. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Pitt. Silage and Hay preservation, 1: Agriculture, and Engineering Service, 1990.
- Charmley, E. Towards improved silage quality – A review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2001, 81, 157–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinberg, Z.G.; Muck, R.E. New trends and opportunities in the development and use of inoculants for silage. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 1996, 19, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higa, T.; Parr, J.F. Beneficial and effective microorganisms for a sustainable agriculture and environment; International Nature Farming Research Center Atami: 1994; Volume 1.
- Higa, T.; Wididana, G. The concept and theories of effective microorganisms. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the first international conference on Kyusei nature farming.; pp. 1991118–124.
- Hardin, G. The Competitive Exclusion Principle: An idea that took a century to be born has implications in ecology, economics, and genetics. Science 1960, 131, 1292–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Higa, T. The technology of effective microorganisms–Concept and philosophy. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of a seminar on the application of effective microorganisms (EM) techniques in organic farming, organised by the International Society of the Royal Agricultural College; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Higa, T. Kyusei nature farming and environmental management through effective microorganisms–the past, present and future. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Kyusei Nature Farming, Christchurch, New Zealand; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Higa, T. Effective microorganisms–A holistic technology for humankind. In Proceedings of the Proceeding of Fix International Conference on Kyusei Nature Farming; 1999; pp. 19–28. [Google Scholar]
- Cherdthong, A.; Wanapat, M. Development of urea products as rumen slow-release feed for ruminant production: A review. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2010, 4, 2232–2241. [Google Scholar]
- Bentley, O.G.; Klosterman, E.W.; Engle, P. The use of urea to increase the crude protein content of corn silage for fattening steers. 1955.
- Elferink, S.; Driehuis, F.; Gottschal, J.C.; Spoelstra, S.F. Silage fermentation processes and their manipulation. FAO Plant Prod. Prot. Pap. 2000, 17–30. [Google Scholar]
- Rogosa, M.; Mitchell, J.A.; Wiseman, R.F. A selective medium for the isolation and enumeration of oral and fecal lactobacilli. J. Bacteriol. 1951, 62, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashbell, G.; Pahlow, G.; Dinter, B.; Weinberg, Z. Dynamics of orange peel fermentation during ensilage. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1987, 63, 275–279. [Google Scholar]
- Erwin, E.; Marco, G.J.; Emery, E. Volatile fatty acid analyses of blood and rumen fluid by gas chromatography. J. Dairy Sci. 1961, 44, 1768–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barker, S.; Summerson, W.H. The colorimetric determination of lactic acid in biological material. J. Biol. Chem. 1941, 138, 535–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Soest, P.v.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilley, J.; Terry, d.R. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Grass Forage Sci. 1963, 18, 104–111. [Google Scholar]
- 22. NRC. Nutrient requirements of small ruminants: Sheep, goats, cervids, and new world camelids.
- Tagari, H.; Bergman, E. Intestinal disappearance and portal blood appearance of amino acids in sheep. J. Nutr. 1978, 108, 790–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ashbell, G.; Weinberg, Z.; Azrieli, A.; Hen, Y.; Horev, B. A simple system to study the aerobic determination of silages. Can. Agric. Eng. 1991, 34, 171–175. [Google Scholar]
- Yitbarek, M.B.; Tamir, B. Silage Additives: Review. Open J. Appl. Sci. 2014, 04, 258–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinberg, Z.; Chen, Y. Effects of storage period on the composition of whole crop wheat and corn silages. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2013, 185, 196–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, N. Silage additives. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1993, 45, 35–56. [Google Scholar]
- Demirel, M.; Yilmaz, I.; Deniz, S.; Kaplan, O.; Akdeniz, H. Effect of addition of urea or urea plus molasses to different corn silages harvested at dough stage on silage quality and digestible dry matter yield. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2003, 24, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinberg, Z.; Chen, Y.; Solomon, R. The quality of commercial wheat silages in Israel. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92, 638–644. [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira, A.S.; Weinberg, Z.G.; Ogunade, I.M.; Cervantes, A.A.P.; Arriola, K.G.; Jiang, Y.; Kim, D.; Li, X.; Gonçalves, M.C.M.; Vyas, D.; et al. Meta-analysis of effects of inoculation with homofermentative and facultative heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria on silage fermentation, aerobic stability, and the performance of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2017, 100, 4587–4603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Z.; Tan, Z.; Wu, G.; Wang, L.; Qin, G.; Wang, Y.; Pang, H. Microbial community and fermentation characteristic of whole-crop wheat silage treated by lactic acid bacteria and Artemisia argyi during ensiling and aerobic exposure. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kleinschmit, D.H.; Schmidt, R.J.; Kung, L. The effects of various antifungal additives on the fermentation and aerobic stability of corn silage. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 2130–2139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanderson, M.A. Aerobic stability and in vitro fiber digestibility of microbially inoculated corn and sorghum silages. J. Anim. Sci. 1993, 71, 505–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pahlow, G.; Muck, R.E.; Driehuis, F.; Elferink, S.J.O.; Spoelstra, S.F. Microbiology of ensiling. Silage Sci. Technol. 2003, 42, 31–93. [Google Scholar]
- Kaiser, A.G.; Piltz, J.W.; Burns, H.M.; Griffiths, N.W. Top Fodder Successful Silage, 2nd. ed.; Dairy Australia and New South Wales Department of Primary Industries: 2004; pp. 1–33.
- Elferink, S.J.W.H.O.; Driehuis, F.; Gottschal, J.C.; Spoelstra, S.F. Silage fermentation processes and their manipulation. FAO Plant Prod. Prot. Pap. 2000, 17–30. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, M.; Lv, H.; Tan, Z.; Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Pang, H.; Li, Z.; Jiao, Z.; Jin, Q. Improving the fermentation quality of wheat straw silage stored at low temperature by psychrotrophic lactic acid bacteria. Anim. Sci. J. 2017, 88, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinberg, Z.G.; Shatz, O.; Chen, Y.; Yosef, E.; Nikbahat, M.; Ben-Ghedalia, D.; Miron, J. Effect of lactic acid bacteria inoculants on in vitro digestibility of wheat and corn silages. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 4754–4762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Griswold, K.E.; Hoover, W.H.; Miller, T.K.; Thayne, W.V. Effect of form of nitrogen on growth of ruminal microbes in continuous culture. J. Anim. Sci. 1996, 74, 483–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Niimi, M.; Kawamura, O. Fermentation and Cell Wall Degradation In Guineagrass And Italian Ryegrass Silages. In Proceedings of the International Grassland Congress Proceedings; 2021; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Bolsen, K.; Ashbell, G.; Weinberg, Z. Silage fermentation and silage additives-Review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 1996, 9, 483–494. [Google Scholar]
- Muck, R.E.; Nadeau, E.M.G.; McAllister, T.A.; Contreras-Govea, F.E.; Santos, M.C.; Kung, L. Silage review: Recent advances and future uses of silage additives. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 3980–4000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filya, I.; Ashbell, G.; Hen, Y.; Weinberg, Z.G. The effect of bacterial inoculants on the fermentation and aerobic stability of whole crop wheat silage. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2000, 88, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinberg, Z.G.; Ashbell, G.; Hen, Y.; Azrieli, A. The effect of applying lactic acid bacteria at ensiling on the aerobic stability of silages. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1993, 75, 512–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristensen, N.B.; Sloth, K.H.; Højberg, O.; Spliid, N.H.; Jensen, C.; Thøgersen, R. Effects of microbial inoculants on corn silage fermentation, microbial contents, aerobic stability, and milk production under field conditions. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 3764–3774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bentley, O.G.; Klosterman, E.W. The Use of Urea to Increase the Crude Protein Content of Corn Silage for Fattening Steers. 1955, 20.
- Schmutz, W.G.; Brown, L.D.; Thomas, J.W. Nutritive Value of Corn Silages Treated with Chemical Additives for Lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 1969, 52, 1408–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huber, J.; Bucholtz, H.; Boman, R. Ammonia versus urea-treated silages with varying urea in concentrate. J. Dairy Sci. 1980, 63, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Weinberg, Z.G.; Szakacs, G.; Ashbell, G.; Hen, Y. The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri and L. plantarum, applied at ensiling, on the ensiling fermentation and aerobic stability of wheat and sorghum silages. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1999, 23, 218–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kung, L.; Schmidt, R.J.; Ebling, T.E.; Hu, W. The effect of Lactobacillus buchneri 40788 on the fermentation and aerobic stability of ground and whole high-moisture corn. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 2309–2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Higa. Kyusei Nature Farming and Environmental Management Through Effective Microorganisms - The Past, Present and Future. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Kyusei Nature Farming, 2003; pp. 1–5.
- Ashbell, G.; Theune, H.; Sklan, D. Changes in amino acid compounds of wheat plants during ensiling and aerobic exposure: The influence of propionic acid and urea phosphate-calcium propionate. J. Agric. Sci. 1984, 102, 667–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winters, A.L.; Fychan, R.; Jones, R. Effect of formic acid and a bacterial inoculant on the amino acid composition of grass silage and on animal performance. Grass Forage Sci. 2001, 56, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, C.; Wang, D.; Lu, N.; Li, H.; Liu, G.; Cao, Z.; Yang, H.; Li, S.; Yu, X.; Shao, W. Analysis of chemical composition, amino acid content, and rumen degradation characteristics of six organic feeds. Animals 2022, 12, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]



| Wheat silage | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Days | Treatment | Main Effect (P -Value) | ||||||
| Control | MI | Urea | MI+Urea | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt×Day | |
| 1 | 6.64b | 6.52b | 6.97a** | 6.99a** | 0.078 | <.0001 | <.0001 | <.0001 |
| 7 | 4.33a | 4.16b* | 4.36a | 4.41a | 0.037 | |||
| 14 | 3.96ab | 3.81b | 4.00a | 4.02a | 0.033 | |||
| 28 | 3.84c | 3.73d*** | 3.93a*** | 3.90b** | 0.029 | |||
| Corn silage | ||||||||
| Days | Treatment | Main Effect (P -Value) | ||||||
| Control | MI | Urea | MI+Urea | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt×Day | |
| 1 | 3.75 | 3.86 | 3.90 | 3.86 | 0.031 | 0.0047 | 0.0008 | 0.0399 |
| 7 | 3.62 | 3.68 | 3.65 | 3.73 | 0.021 | |||
| 14 | 3.89 | 3.98 | 3.80 | 3.72 | 0.045 | |||
| 28 | 3.62b | 3.97a** | 3.74b | 3.68b | 0.053 | |||
| Wheat silage | ||||||||
| Treatment | Main Effect (P -Value) | |||||||
| Days | Control | MI | Urea | MI+Urea | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day |
| 1 | 57.2 | 60.2 | 54.0 | 55.7 | 1.001 | 0.0058 | 0.7763 | 0.0099 |
| 7 | 55.6 | 57.8 | 55.9 | 54.1 | 0.710 | |||
| 14 | 59.0 | 54.7 | 57.0 | 53.7* | 0.840 | |||
| 28 | 61.7a | 54.2ab | 52.6b* | 56.8ab | 1.436 | |||
| Corn silage | ||||||||
| Treatment | Main Effect (P -Value) | |||||||
| Days | Control | MI | Urea | MI+Urea | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day |
| 1 | 60.8a | 57.2ab | 52.2bc** | 48.6c** | 1.804 | <.0001 | 0.1549 | 0.1328 |
| 7 | 60.4 | 54.1 | 49.9* | 50.2* | 1.838 | |||
| 14 | 60.4a | 61.0a | 50.0b | 47.1b | 2.393 | |||
| 28 | 55.8ab | 56.7a | 45.9b* | 49.9ab | 1.793 | |||
| Wheat silage | ||||||||
| Treatment | Main Effect (P -Value) | |||||||
| Days | Control | MI | Urea | MI+Urea | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day |
| 1 | 39.5c | 48.1a*** | 43.2b* | 45.1ab*** | 0.771 | <.0001 | 0.0014 | <.0001 |
| 7 | 39.9b | 45.1a** | 41.9ab | 43.7b* | 0.575 | |||
| 14 | 40.6b | 43.0ab | 44.0a* | 41.9ab | 0.461 | |||
| 28 | 40.3b | 41.6b | 39.9b | 44.8a*** | 0.528 | |||
| Corn silage | ||||||||
| Treatment | Main Effect (P -Value) | |||||||
| Days | Control | MI | Urea | MI+Urea | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day |
| 1 | 42.6bc | 38.9c | 45.2ab | 47.5a* | 0.807 | <.0001 | 0.0368 | 0.0008 |
| 7 | 43.4ab | 43.2b | 45.3ab | 47.5a* | 0.607 | |||
| 14 | 40.0b | 36.5b | 48.3a*** | 45.2a* | 0.990 | |||
| 28 | 38.2b | 40.3b | 47.6a*** | 47.3a*** | 0.903 | |||
| Wheat silage | ||||||||
| Treatment | ||||||||
| Control | MI | Urea | MI+Urea | Main Effect (P -Value) | ||||
| Days | Acetic Acid (g/100g DM) | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day | |||
| 1 | 1.89 | 1.75 | 2.01 | 2.08 | 0.130 | 0.2098 | 0.6174 | 0.9963 |
| 7 | 1.98 | 1.84 | 2.18 | 2.27 | 0.084 | |||
| 14 | 1.89 | 1.93 | 1.91 | 2.15 | 0.051 | |||
| 28 | 1.89 | 2.07 | 2.24 | 2.31 | 0.118 | Main Effect (P -Value) | ||
| Days | Propionic Acid (g/100g DM) | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day | |||
| 1 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.012 | 0.2001 | 0.0256 | 0.4722 |
| 7 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.008 | |||
| 14 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.008 | |||
| 28 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.04* | 0.04* | 0.004 | Main Effect (P -Value) | ||
| Days | Butyric Acid (g/100g DM) | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day | |||
| 1 | 0.02 | 0.01 | N.D | N.D | 0.004 | 0.0513 | 0.0771 | 0.3841 |
| 7 | N.D | N.D | N.D | N.D | 0.000 | |||
| 14 | N.D | N.D | N.D | N.D | 0.000 | |||
| 28 | N.D | N.D | N.D | N.D | 0.000 | Main Effect (P -Value) | ||
| Days | Total Acid (g/100g DM) | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day | |||
| 1 | 2.08 | 1.91 | 2.07 | 2.15 | 0.130 | 0.4212 | 0.8159 | 0.9945 |
| 7 | 2.11 | 1.95 | 2.22 | 2.28 | 0.081 | |||
| 14 | 2.03 | 1.94 | 1.95 | 2.18 | 0.050 | |||
| 28 | 1.91 | 2.09 | 2.28 | 2.35 | 0.120 | |||
| Corn Silage | ||||||||
| Treatment | ||||||||
| Control | MI | Urea | MI+Urea | Main Effect (P -Value) | ||||
| Days | Acetic Acid (g/100g DM) | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day | |||
| 1 | 1.59b | 0.87b | 2.50a* | 2.86a* | 0.300 | <.0001 | <.0001 | 0.1581 |
| 7 | 1.68bc | 1.34c | 2.96ab | 3.45a* | 0.346 | |||
| 14 | 2.31bc | 1.73c | 3.00ab | 3.60a* | 0.274 | |||
| 28 | 3.42 | 2.27 | 3.57 | 3.60 | 0.227 | Main Effect (P -Value) | ||
| Days | Propionic Acid (g/100g DM) | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day | |||
| 1 | 0.02 | 0.16 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.027 | <.0001 | 0.0274 | 0.0328 |
| 7 | 0.01b | 0.08a* | 0.02ab | 0.02ab | 0.012 | |||
| 14 | 0.02b | 0.22a*** | 0.02b | 0.01b | 0.033 | |||
| 28 | 0.03b | 0.29a** | 0.03b | 0.02b | 0.044 | Main Effect (P -Value) | ||
| Days | Butyric Acid (g/100g DM) | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day | |||
| 1 | 0.08ab | 0.05b | 0.12a | 0.11a | 0.012 | <.0001 | 0.0122 | 0.3739 |
| 7 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.013 | |||
| 14 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.028 | |||
| 28 | 0.15ab | 0.07b | 0.18a | 0.16ab | 0.017 | Main Effect (P -Value) | ||
| Days | Total Acid (g/100g DM) | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day | |||
| 1 | 1.68bc | 1.09c | 2.65ab* | 3.12a* | 0.308 | <.0001 | <.0001 | 0.2612 |
| 7 | 1.77b | 1.47b | 3.11ab | 3.60a* | 0.354 | |||
| 14 | 2.44bc | 2.01c | 3.25ab | 4.05a** | 0.303 | |||
| 28 | 3.60ab | 2.63b | 3.79ab | 4.09a | 0.226 | |||
| Wheat silage | |||||||||
| Treatment | |||||||||
| Control | MI | Urea | MI+Urea | Main Effect (P -Value) | |||||
| Days | 1CO2 (g/kg DM) | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day | ||||
| 14 | 24.1a | 5.4b*** | 8.2b*** | 11.4b** | 2.166 | <.0001 | 0.0217 | 0.0011 | |
| 28 | 33.7a | 3.4b*** | 40.4a | 4.7b*** | 4.122 | ||||
| 2Sugar loss (g) | |||||||||
| 14 | 16.4a | 3.7b*** | 5.6b*** | 7.8b** | 1.473 | <.0001 | 0.0217 | 0.0011 | |
| 28 | 22.9a | 2.3b*** | 27.5a | 3.2b*** | 2.803 | ||||
| 3Moulds (Log CFU g/DM) | SEM | ||||||||
| 28 | 9.1 | 7.9*** | 8.2*** | 8.1*** | 0.112 | <.0001 | |||
| pH | SEM | ||||||||
| 28 | 7.1 | 3.9*** | 5.1*** | 4.1*** | 0.272 | <.0001 | |||
| Corn silage | |||||||||
| CO2 (g/kg DM) | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day | |||||
| 14 | 52.7c | 37.2d*** | 71.2a*** | 63.5b** | 3.273 | <.0001 | <.0001 | 0.3411 | |
| 28 | 38.8ab | 28.7b | 54.5a | 42.4ab | 3.007 | ||||
| Sugar loss (g) | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day | |||||
| 14 | 35.5c | 27.3d*** | 47.8a*** | 43.2b*** | 1.868 | <.0001 | <.0001 | 0.3208 | |
| 28 | 26.4ab | 20.4b | 34.7a | 35.5a | 1.927 | ||||
| Moulds (Log CFU g/DM) | SEM | ||||||||
| 28 | 9.2 | 9.1 | 9.3 | 9.1 | 0.059 | 0.3948 | |||
| pH | SEM | ||||||||
| 28 | 4.3 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 3.7 | 0.097 | 0.1882 | |||
| 1 The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the silage during a 5-day exposure to air, 2 Amount of sugar lost from the silages during the 5-day exposure to air and 3 Colony Forming Unit – CFU – a measure that expresses the number of mold populations that have developed in 1 gram of dry matter; LSmeans in rows with different superscripts differ, **0.01 and ***0.001: Statistical significance after LSMeans Dunnett test, SEM: Standard error of the mean. | |||||||||
| Wheat silage | ||||||||
| Days | Treatment | Main Effect (P -Value) | ||||||
| Control | MI | Urea | MI+Urea | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day | |
| 1 | 9.02bc | 8.81c | 9.83ab* | 9.89a* | 0.152 | 0.0005 | 0.3004 | 0.2427 |
| 7 | 8.53b | 9.25ab | 9.66a** | 9.60a** | 0.144 | |||
| 14 | 9.30 | 8.90 | 9.45 | 9.47 | 0.163 | |||
| 28 | 9.17 | 9.73 | 9.60 | 9.80 | 0.133 | |||
| Corn silage | ||||||||
| Days | Treatment | Main Effect (P -Value) | ||||||
| Control | MI | Urea | MI+Urea | SEM | Trt | Day | Trt*Day | |
| 1 | 8.33b | 8.35b | 10.8a*** | 10.5a*** | 0.318 | <.0001 | <.0001 | <.0001 |
| 7 | 8.28c | 9.81b*** | 10.9a*** | 10.5ab*** | 0.281 | |||
| 14 | 9.18b | 9.28b | 11.0a*** | 11.0ac*** | 0.255 | |||
| 28 | 7.99c | 10.5b*** | 11.1b*** | 12.5a*** | 0.420 | |||
| Additive | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amino acid | Control | MI | Urea | MI+Urea | SEM | Main Effect (P -Value) |
| Essential | ||||||
| Lysine | 1.78 | 1.94 | 2.01 | 1.91 | 0.107 | 0.9385 |
| Histidine | 1.15 | 1.17 | 1.26 | 1.03 | 0.066 | 0.7777 |
| Valine | 2.31 | 3.29 | 4.04 | 3.31 | 0.286 | 0.1883 |
| Phenylalanine | 3.13 | 3.06 | 3.51 | 2.84 | 0.171 | 0.6873 |
| Arginine | 1.84 | 1.50 | 2.04 | 1.49 | 0.112 | 0.2126 |
| Threonine | 2.83 | 2.85 | 3.09 | 2.64 | 0.107 | 0.6365 |
| Methionine | 0.64 | 0.67 | 0.76 | 0.37 | 0.064 | 0.1307 |
| Isoleucine | 10.10 | 11.80 | 12.14 | 11.51 | 0.753 | 0.8641 |
| Leucine | 3.42 | 3.39 | 4.18 | 3.34 | 0.221 | 0.5864 |
| Non-essential | ||||||
| Serine | 2.71 | 2.78 | 2.87 | 2.41 | 0.130 | 0.7342 |
| Glutamic acid | 9.95 | 8.84 | 10.71 | 9.34 | 0.405 | 0.4836 |
| Glycine | 3.66 | 3.95 | 4.09 | 4.04 | 0.106 | 0.6061 |
| Tyrosine | 1.77 | 1.93 | 2.20 | 2.00 | 0.121 | 0.7670 |
| -Aminobutyric acid | 1.38 | 1.48 | 1.25 | 1.61 | 0.073 | 0.4426 |
| Proline | 4.40 | 4.32 | 4.70 | 4.37 | 0.156 | 0.8209 |
| Alanine | 4.23 | 4.43 | 5.62 | 4.84 | 0.316 | 0.5081 |
| Hydroxyproline | 0.50 | 0.49 | 0.41 | 0.51 | 0.017 | 0.1235 |
| Lysine % EAA1 | 6.49a | 6.56a | 6.06b | 6.71a | 0.099 | 0.0480 |
| Methionine % EAA2 | 2.37a | 2.27a | 2.29a | 1.31b* | 0.172 | 0.0132 |
| TEAA % CP3 | 27.19 | 29.67 | 33.03 | 28.44 | 1.692 | 0.7537 |
| TAA % CP | 56.37 | 58.72 | 58.30 | 65.54 | 9.343 | 0.7815 |
| Lysine % EAA1: Lysine expressed as a percentage of Essential Amino Acids; Methionine % EAA2: Methionine expressed as a percentage of Essential Amino Acids; TEAA % CP3: Total Essential Amino Acids expressed as a percentage of Crude Protein; Means within the same row with different superscripts differ; *0.05: Statistical significance after LSMeans Dunnett test, SEM: Standard error of the mean. | ||||||
| Additive | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amino acid | Control | MI | Urea | MI+Urea | SEM | Main Effect (P -Value) |
| Essential | ||||||
| Lysine | 2.56a | 2.08b* | 2.04b* | 1.81b** | 0.107 | 0.0118 |
| Histidine | 1.46a | 1.38a | 1.21b* | 1.02c** | 0.065 | 0.0028 |
| Valine | 4.42a | 3.84a | 3.97a | 2.98b* | 0.213 | 0.0326 |
| Phenylalanine | 3.96a | 3.59ab | 3.22bc* | 2.72c** | 0.181 | 0.0125 |
| Arginine | 2.27a | 2.15a | 1.85ab | 1.64b | 0.104 | 0.0509 |
| Threonine | 3.58 | 3.16 | 2.76 | 2.64 | 0.154 | 0.0617 |
| Methionine | 0.90 | 0.82 | 0.54 | 0.65 | 0.061 | 0.0792 |
| Isoleucine | 9.54 | 10.92 | 11.35 | 8.59 | 0.698 | 0.5852 |
| Leucine | 6.44 | 5.42 | 4.76 | 4.23 | 0.350 | 0.0764 |
| Non-essential | ||||||
| Serine | 3.43a | 2.78b* | 2.90b* | 2.62b** | 0.020 | 0.0096 |
| Glutamic acid | 8.84a | 8.29a | 9.33a | 6.68b* | 0.407 | 0.0346 |
| Glycine | 4.66a | 3.91b | 4.05ab | 3.36b* | 0.188 | 0.0311 |
| Tyrosine | 2.17a | 1.94a | 1.90a | 1.58b* | 0.083 | 0.0217 |
| -Aminobutyric acid | 2.15a | 1.57b | 1.36b* | 1.51b* | 0.122 | 0.0309 |
| Proline | 4.82 | 4.39 | 4.25 | 3.75 | 0.162 | 0.0707 |
| Alanine | 7.65 | 6.67 | 5.90 | 5.70 | 0.319 | 0.0550 |
| Hydroxyproline | 0.63 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.033 | 0.0941 |
| Lysine % EAA1 | 7.32 | 6.27 | 6.45 | 6.88 | 0.205 | 0.2976 |
| Methionine % EAA2 | 2.58 | 2.47 | 1.69 | 2.49 | 0.160 | 0.1296 |
| TEAA % CP3 | 35.14 | 33.37 | 31.70 | 26.28 | 1.473 | 0.1288 |
| TAA % CP | 69.86 | 63.58 | 62.33 | 52.22* | 4.106 | 0.0533 |
| Lysine % EAA1: Lysine expressed as a percentage of Essential Amino Acids; Methionine % EAA2: Methionine expressed as a percentage of Essential Amino Acids; TEAA % CP3: Total Essential Amino Acids expressed as a percentage of Crude Protein; Means within the same row with different superscripts differ; *0.05 and **0.01: Statistical significance at p < 0.05 after LSMeans Dunnett test, SEM: Standard error of the mean. | ||||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).